Steve Dufourny
Let me clarify my position, because there seems to be a misunderstanding.
I have never claimed that developing large industrial computer systems is trivial. Of course it is complex in practice, involving engineering constraints, reliability, scale, software architecture, and human organization. No serious person would deny that. But that does not impress me, Bob Coecke or Penrose impress me.
What I said is something different,the fundamental principles of computers are conceptually simple. At the physical and logical level, computers are based on voltage thresholds, switching elements, logic gates, and hierarchical abstraction. So what you told about voltages is for what in fact, to prove what.This does not trivialize engineering work, it distinguishes conceptual foundations from practical complexity.
Regarding voltages: of course you are correct that there are no universal values such as “0 and 4 volts”. Voltage levels depend on technology, design, and era. My point was not about fixed numerical values, but about relative voltage thresholds representing binary states, which is standard and well understood. Whether logic is active-high or active-low does not change the conceptual structure.
As for my background, I have practical experience with early microcomputers (16K, 32K, 64K systems) and continued studying science throughout my life, including mathematics, physics, and computing at a conceptual level.I am maybe not an expert in computing like you . My interest is not professional software engineering, but understanding foundations, limits, and general principles,especially when discussions move toward physics, ontology, or consciousness.
So this is not a competition .We simply focus on different levels of description but we must be logic, and general and explore possibilities, a thing that you seem to not be able to do.
You emphasize real-world system development,I emphasize conceptual clarity and foundational understanding.
Both perspectives are valid and necessary, but they should not be conflated.
I respect practical expertise. At the same time, discussions about physics, computation, and consciousness require care not to confuse engineering difficulty with conceptual depth. That distinction was the point I was making.
I hope this clarifies my intent. To you, with respect and without competition of course in searching things not necessary. You have never answered me about what is for you the origin of the universe, the ontology, and this and that, what are the fundamental objects, the fundamental informations, this and that, show us that you know.
