Greetings. Ona clarification, consciousness, at least some aspects of it, can indeed be measured. There are scales like the Glasgow coma scale and others used in the clinic; and there are other more abstract, so to speak, measures of consciousness still too early to be applied in the clinic. We have to consider that consciousness is our term to describe a constellation of phenomena, from sensing and acting to emotions and self-awareness. Many of these aspects can in fact be very well measured, and the reasons as to why some of these phenomena occur are more or less well understood. I could advise you to read my book on the subject matter but I am afraid I am not allowed to disclose my identity.
As you mention in your essay, it is true that people are obsessed with measuring and quantifying, and some reasons for this I ventured in my essay. I prefer A. T. Winfree's perspective, as he said in his book 'The Geometry of Biological Time': "My deeper motivation is a feeling that numerical exactitude is alien to the diversity of organic evolution, and pretense of exactitude often obscures the qualitative essentials that I find more meaningful"
How could science be different?
- Edited
Jose Luis Perez Velazquez
To clarify, I DID in fact note in my essay that “unlike conscious experience, awareness and knowledge, the physical world, including any physical correlates of consciousness, is potentially measurable.”
Conscious experience, awareness and knowledge is never measured: only any physical correlates of consciousness are measurable. Measurable aspects of the world are (e.g.) categories like mass, relative position, voltage, charge etc. What you get from measurement are numerals (symbols) that apply to a measurement category (also represented by symbols).
So, if you tried to measure the physical correlates of very bad pain, you might say that the pain is 9.5 on a scale of 10, or something like that. But “pain= 9.5/10” tells you almost nothing about the living conscious experience of pain: you can’t reverse engineer or re-construct the pain experience out of “pain= 9.5/10”.
“numerical exactitude is alien to the diversity of organic evolution”
I don’t agree with A. T. Winfree's perspective, that you quote. As physics has shown, numerical exactitude and law of nature relationships are the firm foundation upon which the world is built. I think that “organic evolution” has shown that there are additional aspects of the world that are needed to explain the behaviour of living thing. This is because the survival of living things, even tiny primitive worms, relies on the logical analysis and collation of information coming from their environment.
But the logical analysis and collation of information (which applies to categories of information, and the numbers that apply to these categories) is an aspect of the world that can’t be derived from laws of nature (which are merely fixed mathematical relationships between these categories of information). So, this implies that an aspect of the world that can perform logical analysis and collation of information is as fundamental and necessary an aspect of the world as are the laws of nature.
Jose Luis Perez Velazquez
P.S.
Physics’ law of nature equations represent invisible relationships that exist between the measurable bits of the world (the measurable bits are categories like relative mass or position), where the mathematical operators and the equals signs in the equations represent the aspects of the world that can’t be measured.
Similarly, consciousness can probably only exist as logical connections between the measurable bits of the world, where the logical connective symbols (IF, AND, OR, THEN, IS TRUE) also represent aspects of the world that can’t be measured.
- Edited
Jose Luis Perez Velazquez
P.P.S.
"I prefer A. T. Winfree's perspective, as he said in his book 'The Geometry of Biological Time': "My deeper motivation is a feeling that numerical exactitude is alien to the diversity of organic evolution, and pretense of exactitude often obscures the qualitative essentials that I find more meaningful"
Here is my analysis of the situation: Looking at the work that physicists do, it is clear that the only types of information that they deal with are categories, relationships between these categories, and numbers that apply to these categories. The categories are measurable, and the result of measurement is a number, but the crucial relationships (represented via the use of mathematical operators including equals signs) are invisible, and can’t be measured. All information in the world seems to have this format whereby only these types of mathematical categories are measurable. And as opposed to an equation written on a piece of paper, these categories, relationships and numbers have real power in the world.
Importantly, the above 3 types of information that characterise the physical world can’t merely exist, because the mere existence of information implies nothing, unless there also exists a knowledge component to the world whereby this type of information is known to the world, or at least known by local parts of the world like particles or atoms or molecules.
But it is clear that life is using the above 3 types of information to build “higher-level” information via the use of logical connectives (represented as (e.g.) IF, AND, OR, THEN, IS TRUE) to collate and analyse the lower-level information, in order to build an accurate picture of its surrounding world, which is so important for survival in the world. But just like the abovementioned mathematical operators and equals signs represent aspects of the world that are powerful but not measurable, the logical connectives also represent aspects of the word that are powerful but not measurable. And the higher-level “logical categories” that can be built, using logical connectives, out of the lower-level mathematical categories, need to be precise and exact in order to build a reasonably accurate picture of the surrounding world. But these “logical categories” are not necessarily measurable in the same way that lower-level mathematical categories of information are measurable. Despite the physical architecture of the brain, including any special molecules and cells, these higher-level “logical categories” of information are seemingly not measurable because measuring instruments can’t account for the logical connectives.
So contrary to what you imply, I think that “numerical exactitude” is always there, and precise mathematical and/or logical categories and relationships exist, but seemingly only the type of mathematical categories that are found in the mathematical law of nature relationships are measurable.
Jose Luis Perez Velazquez
P.P.P.S.
Another way of looking at it is:
If living things, including human beings, are to form a reasonably accurate conscious picture of their surroundings, given the information coming via the senses, then the logical analysis has to be pretty spot on. Otherwise, the living things would not have a reasonable chance of survival.
But what is the “raw material” upon which the presumably-existing logical connectives (represented as e.g. IF, AND, OR, THEN, IS TRUE) can operate? The only “raw material” upon which this logic can operate are the types of information that actually exist in the real world, i.e., existing categories, existing lawful relationships, and existing numbers, and possibly also the above-hypothesised “logical categories”.
It is not enough for researchers to construct true-false behavioural truth tables, because the “raw material”, upon which the truth table logical connectives operate, necessarily has to be the types of information that actually exist in the world, from the point of view of the cells and other elements that together make up the living thing. The only way for living things to build the reasonably accurate picture of the surrounding world that they need to survive in the world, is to use: 1) genuinely existing and available information; and 2) genuine logical analysis of the categories and numbers that comprise this genuinely existing information. A reasonably accurate conscious picture of the surrounding world cannot be built any other way.
Lorraine Ford
But what is information?
Underlying all surface appearances, if you want to talk about the fundamental nature of the world, you need to use the tried and true language of physics. The underlying fundamental nature of the world can only be represented in terms of categories (like relative position, mass, momentum, energy), lawful relationships that exist between these categories, and the numbers that apply to these categories. Leaving aside the question of what matter itself is, the relevant types of information that apply to matter are expressed in the language of physics. E.g., the mass of an electron might be symbolically represented as: “m = 0.511 MeV”.
While this symbolic form might represent information from the point of view of physicists, how would one symbolically represent the type of on-the-spot information that is available from the point of view of a particle? The only possible way that symbols could be used to represent this on-the-spot point of view information is in the following type of form: “(m = 0.511 MeV) IS TRUE”, using the logical connective “IS TRUE”.
My point is that zeroes and ones DO NOT and CANNOT EVER represent real-world information: there is absolutely no real-world information content represented by a zero symbol or a one symbol, or any combination of zero and one symbols. The above type of form, which uses categories, numbers, equals signs and the logical connective “IS TRUE”, is the only valid way to represent real-world information.
Lorraine Ford
I might sarcastically add, in relation to the issue of “information”:
What a shame that poor old Shannon didn’t know the difference between real-world information, and the symbols that people use to represent information. Shannon’s misuse of the word “information” is yet another case of a blind, human-centred, anthropocentric view of the world.
Lorraine Ford
"consciousness
is the aspect of the world involved with the mathematical and logical connections, links,
and relationships between things"
What about the following deduction from the logical statement:
In 1911 Planck had deduced the following result:
"The integral of action of a resonator is exactly equal to his constant h and so the energy of the resonator is quatified"
In 2023 I had deduced the following result:
"The integral of action times K/L where K is the stiffness of the resonator and L its mass should have the dimension of a power. So the energy of the resonator have the form of Planck formulae OR it can have another form as a new universal constant having the dimension of a power times the inertial time of the resonator "
How much I can go from my deduction? Perhaps resolving the problem of disparency of vacuum energy between QM and GR, perhaps giving an entropy to vacuum, perhaps showing the limits of René Descartes of his assumption "I think so I am", perhaps extracting energy from vacuum...etc.
Alaya Kouki
I was suggesting that unmeasurable consciousness might be more about the unmeasurable links and relationships between the measurable aspects of the world. As opposed to the categories that are measurable or calculatable (like mass, energy, momentum, or position), consciousness is more about the unmeasurable mathematical operators, equals signs, and logical connectives. In particular, from the point of view of living things including human beings, consciousness is more about the unmeasurable logical IFs, ANDs, ORs, THENs and IS TRUEs, and similarly unmeasurable logical structures that can be built using these logical connectives.
- Edited
What is the difference between the logical connectives as used by philosophers, and the logical connectives as used by computer programmers in computer programs? As a former computer programmer and analyst myself, this is something I deeply understand, but I think that I didn’t explain this issue very clearly in my essay. And I think that many people without my deep hands-on experience in the industry would not be aware that there is a difference.
With physics’ equations that represent the laws of nature, only the categories that apply to matter (like mass or relative position) are potentially measurable. The very important linking bits that connect and hold the world together, represented by the mathematical operators and the equals signs, are aspects of the world that are assumed to exist, but these symbols represent aspects of the world that are not measurable.
Similarly, if these same categories that apply to matter, with their associated current on-the-spot numbers, were symbolically represented as a logical proposition in a logical statement, e.g.
“IF (P IS TRUE) AND (Q IS TRUE) THEN (R IS TRUE)”,
only the truth of the logical proposition aspect, e.g.
“(m = 0.511 MeV) IS TRUE”
would be potentially verifiable. The logical connectives themselves (like IF, THEN, AND, and IS TRUE) would represent aspects of the world that are not themselves measurable or verifiable.
And, seemingly, there is in fact a logical aspect to the world, just like there is a mathematical-lawful aspect to the world. But, at least one of the logical connective symbols used by philosophers has a different meaning to the same logical connective symbol used by computer programmers in computer programs. The THEN logical connective used by philosophers has a completely different meaning to the THEN connective used by computer programmers in computer programs.
In philosophy, the “THEN” means “logically implies”, but when a computer programmer writes a “THEN” as part of a statement in a computer program, the “THEN” part of the statement is NOT logically implied by the “IF” part of the statement: the “THEN” part of the statement is essentially a product of the creatively free imagination of the computer programmer. However, once written and uploaded to a computer setup, and the computer program is running, the THEN statement becomes a mathematically necessary instruction for the computer to follow, due to the laws of nature.
In computer programming, like in other aspects of real life in the real world, the “THEN” is not logically or mathematically implied by the "IF". In other words, in the real world, free will exists (at least for computer programmers!! ).
- Edited
here you want to explain / accentuate the confusion of the fact that , what happens in the programming of the computer is telling, inducing, creating, real true statements about the underlying voltage circuitry that are more or less , remotely related with other physical true statement/experienced phenomena .
this confusion leads to potentially cognitive behaviors language consequences
in philosophy / science the intent is to fix things, discern , clarify, simplify and in programing the intent is to give options
so how this confusion might works, ? if you type something and there are no compilation errors then this gives the impression that the statement is more true than actually is .
or apply after learning (compare and use ) ,the way of how a computer work , distorting to other situations that are not in the same scenario .
i use this statement if - (then) a lot, how do you Lorraine Ford evaluate my written presence ?
cristi marcovici
I will only respond to properly constructed sentences, and a properly constructed argument. I will not waste my time trying to divine what on earth you are talking about.
Lorraine Ford
As opposed to the computer programmer’s “THEN” which, as explained above, is about a logical-creative aspect of the world, philosophy’s “THEN” is actually about the mathematical-lawful aspect of the world. So, while the philosopher and the physicist can see only law, the computer programmer and the artist can see creativity, because the “THEN’” is not implied by the “IF”.
But, is there in fact a genuine creative aspect of the world, where the “THEN’” is not implied by the “IF”, or are the “IF”s and “THEN”s just the superficial appearance of an underlying purely mathematical-lawful world? Seemingly quantum events are showing that at the foundations of the world, the “THEN’” is in fact not implied by the “IF”.
However, hordes of people can’t believe that genuine creativity could exist, and they are furiously trying to find a mathematical-lawful basis for the abhorrent-to-them idea that a genuine logical-creative-knowledge aspect of the world (IF, THEN, AND, OR, IS TRUE) could exist, underlying both the physics of the world, and the appearance of living things. But in my essay I’m contending that a logical-creative aspect of the world is necessary for the world-system to work:
When analysed from a systems point of view, it is easy to see that physics does not have an adequate explanation for why the system (i.e. the world) is moving, i.e. why the numbers are moving and changing. Physics can only ever say: IF some numbers change, THEN other numbers will change (where the ratios between the categories are prescribed by laws of nature). The essential systems issue is that, despite any delta symbols, equations can only ever show relationships between categories, equations can’t ever explain number change in a system. Looking at the world as a system, an adequate explanation of the number change issue requires a completely different aspect of the world: a logical-creative aspect of the world that regularly jumps the numbers to keep the system moving.
- Edited
Lorraine Ford AmaranthLion
I will only respond to properly constructed sentences, and a properly constructed argument. I will not waste my time trying to divine what on earth you are talking about.
i could say the same about your words, i have no idea what your voice is like, if read i have a default voice that potentially sound like my own voice
i'm interested how ( much) this deviate ,or in what ways, compared to spoken language of a person 1400 years ago, before the printing was invented
, you might be even a literate deaf person that use sign language in the ordinary life , that's even more intriguing
are you a deaf ? since birth, or later in life
are you a man or a woman ?
- Edited
cristi marcovici
As you would know, a disordered jumble of mathematical symbols cannot communicate mathematical ideas to other people. Similarly, a disordered jumble of symbols does not make a computer program that will work; and even the incoming data has to be ordered, or at least in a form that the computer program is set up to processes. Similarly, a disordered jumble of word symbols cannot communicate specific ideas or thoughts to other people, if in fact the communicator has any specific ideas or thoughts that he/she wants to communicate to another person.
Given that every person or living thing has an entirely different world inside their heads to any other person or living thing, it is up to the communicator to strive to bridge the gap, by using a common ordered language, and also by trying to avoid non sequiturs. The essence of communication, the ideal, is that another person might have an understanding of the communicator’s ideas or thoughts. Communication is hard work, and requires the communicator to consider whether or not what he/she says would make any sense at all to the person being communicated to.
Lorraine Ford
Re Symbols:
How could science be different? Physicists need to notice the difference between the symbols that people use to represent information, and the real-world information itself.
The human use of symbols requires people to do a high-level analysis of low-level oncoming light and sound data – it’s the sort of thing that human beings specialise in. Speech symbols are not just sound waves, but ordered sound waves; written symbols are not just ink on paper, but ordered ink on paper. While the laws of nature apply to sound waves, ink, paper, and light waves coming from the ink on the paper, the laws of nature do not apply to the arrangements of ink on paper (i.e. man-made written symbols), and the laws of nature do not apply to the arrangements of sound waves (i.e. man-made spoken symbols). Logical analysis is required to decipher man-made symbols, which are special arrangements of matter.
Similarly in computers, people have arranged it so that special arrangements and arrays of voltages, within the context of the whole computer setup, can be used as symbols. People have arranged it so that the individual voltages themselves, which have a whole range of actual numeric values, can be used to symbolise just two values, zero and one, i.e. the man-made binary digit concept. And people have arranged it so that the higher voltages in the range can be used to symbolise the binary digit zero OR the lower voltages in the range can be used to symbolise the binary digit zero.
But the real world (the universe) is not founded on symbols, because the use of symbols requires high-level analysis: the sort of thing that human beings specialise in, and the sort of thing that people can get computers to do. The types of information that the underlying real world uses are: categories, that are inherently related to other such categories, and numbers that apply to these categories. Information in the real world is founded on inherent mathematical interrelationship, i.e. no high-level logical analysis is required.
- Edited
As I said in my essay, physics can’t explain why the world is moving and changing: the most that physics can say is that IF some numbers (for some categories like energy, position or momentum) change, THEN other numbers (for other categories) will change.
As an analyst, this is my further, more detailed, analysis of this issue:
The physics’ assumption is that some unknown thing provided the initial number change for some of the abovementioned categories at the start of the universe, and the numbers have been changing ever since, on the strength of that single, initial number change for some of the categories, and also on the strength of the laws of nature which mediate the “THEN”, i.e. the consequent number changes for the other categories.
But that assumption, that a single initial set of number changes is all that is required to drive all subsequent number change, is clearly a fallacy because, when the world is looked at as a system of mathematical relationships, every “THEN”/ consequent number change, arising from that initial number change, is instantaneous i.e. completely outside of time. This is because:
1) Time is just one of the categories (just like mass and relative position) that make up the mathematical relationships. A system of mathematical relationships does not exist inside one of its own categories. I.e. the mathematical relationships exist as part of the system, but they do not exist in time, which is just a category.
2) All the “THEN”/ consequent number changes are nothing but lawful mathematical relationships, i.e. they are instantaneous, they “occur” completely outside of time. The number change is instantaneous because the number change is nothing but a mathematical relationship.
So, the initial “IF” number changes, and all the “THEN”/ consequent number changes, comprise one single step. And then the system stops moving. The system stops moving unless there are more “IF” number changes input to the system. I.e. seen as a system, the world requires the continual input of new numbers if it is to keep moving.
P.S.
“Random” quantum events are, objectively, the input of new numbers to the system. So, rather than such quantum events being a problem for the system, as a result of the above analysis, I would conclude that such quantum events are necessary in order for the system to function, i.e. in order for the system to move.
Curated lists of wild ideas in the sciences which anyone can submit to. The ideas are condensed, associated, and duplicated submissions paraphrased and combined. The purpose is to accumulate ideas that are new or unexplored in a format that attempts to prevent novel ideas from becoming lost in the crowd of repetitive thoughts. Then provide recognition for persons who successfully disprove ideas in the lists. Recognition for proofs can be acquired elsewhere.
There are lists of ideas that people can currently post to, but they are not curated to reduce duplication. Another function of the curator would be to properly index the entries by subject areas. "If you cannot find it, you don't have it, and you cannot use it." Properly formatted, recorded, indexed, and retrievable ideas can be searched quickly by new thinkers. Reducing duplication of efforts and helping researchers to connect with others interested in exploring in similar directions are further benefits.
How much would this cost to establish and maintain? How could it be financed over the long term? How often would you be likely to check your ideas against a list like this?
- Edited
The human use of symbols requires people to do a high-level analysis of low-level oncoming light and sound data – it’s the sort of thing that human beings specialise in. Speech symbols are not just sound waves, but ordered sound waves; written symbols are not just ink on paper, but ordered ink on paper. While the laws of nature apply to sound waves, ink, paper, and light waves coming from the ink on the paper, the laws of nature do not apply to the arrangements of ink on paper (i.e. man-made written symbols), and the laws of nature do not apply to the arrangements of sound waves (i.e. man-made spoken symbols). Logical analysis is required to decipher man-made symbols, which are special arrangements of matter.
in some (math) books the page number ,is part of the meaning ,content.
or i just try to find more meaning than there actually is there
maybe there could be other patterns that for example people could make use and be (over) exposed. an other example that comes to mind is numbering the floors in elevator, in some places they choose letters no numerals like , 0123456789
an other issue is the the ability to jump skip that is not really a characteristic of speech conversations, that can be used differently not only just the so called the reading diagonally; a visual sign language for deaf packs differently not just speed (intonation etc,) also location or relative hands positions , that can be chunked, simultaneously ,abstraction is not the right word because has other roles , but it is a different mode to think that in the end could also potentially help new way to abstract
cristi marcovici
But, what are numbers? Your “page numbers” are not numbers: they are symbols, i.e. special arrangements of matter (in this case, ink) that human beings recognise only after their brains have processed the light waves coming from the page. These are symbols, “numbers” that only exist from the point of view of human minds: the laws of nature don’t know about these “numbers”.
The numbers that the laws of nature know about, the real-world numbers of physics, are a different thing. Real-world numbers are things that exist, but people only know about real-world numbers when people measure a real-word category like mass or relative position: real-world numbers can’t be measured, only categories can be measured. Real-world numbers can’t be measured, but they can be represented with number symbols. Also, the numbers that only exist in people’s minds can be represented with number symbols.
Computer programming and analysis is, firstly, all about being able to notice the difference between the real world “out there” of people and things, and the symbols that a computer programmer would use to represent and analyse the world. If you are going to program a human-computer interface, you would usually need to be the type of person who inherently appreciates the difference between man-made symbols on the one hand, and the real world on the other hand: most people don't really understand that there is a difference.
- Edited
https://sign2mint.de/entry/Zahl/5750242766511595:701
a friend that studies acting told me once , why i don't pay attention to people when i speak with them ,
maybe i do i may not be good at showing it back
firstly, numbers are how you react when you hear /use this word, by some chances(mainly due to interactions) many people happens to react the same way ,
after many hours at computer that use numbers (that means installing programs, tweaking,scripting, adjusting settings, ) doing a food receipt is like, a ! i have to move this distance make this action for that amount of time ,it is me doing this task ? this is real life ? am i in a movie?
the laws of nature don’t know about these “numbers”.
secondly imagine doing an experiment that ties / connect/ binds/ this number representations to some physical laws , it may happen only via a decoder , i'm not completely excluding the possibility that in fact have a physical meaning .
by studying handwriting( calligraphy / graphology), i was pondering a couple of days ago(the second/third time, firstly was a couple of years ago) about a device that intermediate (the normal handwriting
in to tiny small handwriting, in order to the make the most out of the surface paper, because we can read a much smaller font than we are capable of writing ourselves, quickly, with bare, pencil and paper, hands,( like a remote surgery haptic shrink interface for writing ) , i have small hands by default settings my handwriting tends to be ugly and not pleasing for reading.
in order for us to evolve to have hands that write with certain shapes and sizes , the evolution must obey physical laws , therefore,i believe it could have not been that much different in a different timeline ; so i'ts a given we live in an universe where there are people writing with letters of size from 3 mm up to 1 cm , not sure about others alphabets /writing but the height and volume of letters looks approximately similar
thirdly going back to the first point
what are numbers?
neuroscience, just reading the news,- graphs are better.
numbers are functions, in the case of book page , the function is to help the reader find the content ,if you explore other kinds of book bindings (or utilization modes like for example an accordion book) the book get handled differently ) if you read the paper online /computer device , the content presentation (/interaction experience)could be varied by much
or differently said, numbers are skewed / deformed/ stretched , graphs,
what is a graph than ? , a surface with multiple,high bandwidth simultaneously interacting points, in this comparison, a number is just a point.
cristi marcovici
Unlike the universe of nonsense that can exist inside people’s heads, physics seeks to establish a firm basis upon which to understand the world. Physics has in practice found that 3 distinct types of information are necessary in order to describe the world: categories (like energy, momentum, mass, position), relationships, and numbers. These are 3 distinct aspects, which can’t be collapsed down into 1 or 2 aspects: the numbers can’t be collapsed down into the relationships; the categories can’t be collapsed down into the numbers or the relationships. So, what you say about numbers (“numbers are functions”) is incorrect.
This is complicated by the fact that, in order to understand the world, physics needs to represent the world with man-made symbols. But unlike the genuine, powerful, real-world categories, real-world relationships and real-world numbers behind gravity and atomic energy, these mere symbols of categories, relationships, and numbers have no power at all.
- Edited
to be honest i don't know what numbers are i saw many definitions for example https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/ETCS
to misquote joel david hamkins (logician), why not going with all the definitions in parallel
if you consider counting aspect for distinguishing with relations , graphs can be infinite , imagine something like a finite graph blob that goes infinite in one of the edges like a line, in other edge makes a start like a line but ends up infinite like a surface , the important idea here is at once, simultaneously, concomitantly, if counting is dependent on the human voice trrrr: step step step step,
by the limits of the eye retina image gets to make its impression by taking pictures : image, image ,image, image
or graph graph graph graph
_Unlike the universe of nonsense that can exist inside people’s heads, _
!the danger of reading! is that by reading your comment in a way get to be a little bit like you , the act of deciphering a human(code) is an emphatic act more or less,
unfortunately, thats why is a danger , i believe is irreversible ,the human memory has difficulties at managing forgetting or the version control of the modification, so to say this is my steady fixed position ,i'm going to compare it with an other opinion, and not being influenced by it at all
the function is to help the reader... bla bla bla
plural versus singular
in this language english the, german der die das ,or french la, is like a handle , that accentuate the unicity, singularity ,the only thing , the area of linguistics studying this sort of things is called pragmatics
Lorraine Ford
(continued)
Moreover, regarding the symbols used in computers:
In the real world, these 3 necessary aspects of real physical world information (category, relationship and number) exist together in the one spot (so to speak). But in computers:
- The many different real-world categories, relationships and numbers are symbolised using just one real-world category i.e. voltage. (Voltage, in an appropriately arranged setup, is made to represent binary digits; and these binary digits in turn are arranged to represent categories, relationships and numbers);
- These symbols of the 3 necessary aspects of information are held physically separated in the computer, because a computer can only processes symbols of the information.
How could science be different? As I say in my essay, science could be different if physicists resisted the urge to be dazzled by the superficial appearances of man-made objects (AIs), and instead looked deeply into the nature of reality AND looked deeply into how people manipulate and arrange reality.
Lorraine Ford
Re information versus symbols of information:
When it comes to the physics of the world, the 3 necessary aspects of real-world information are categories (like mass, position, momentum, energy), relationships between the categories, and numbers that apply to the categories. These three aspects are seemingly necessary because a number cannot imply a relationship, and vice versa; a relationship cannot imply a category and vice versa; and a category cannot imply a number, and vice versa. In the real physical world, these three necessary aspects of real-world information are not held separately. And without these three necessary real-world aspects (category, relationship and number), any purportedly existing “information” is not actually information.
When it comes to how people represent the real world, people must use written, spoken or binary digit symbols to represent information, and the three necessary aspects of information must be separately symbolised. Obviously, computers/ AIs are not processing the real-world information (i.e. the categories, relationships and numbers) that the world is constructed out of. But computers/ AIs are not just processing mere symbols of real-world information: computers/ AIs are processing mere separate symbols of the separated-out aspects of real-world information.
In the real physical world, the 3 necessary aspects of information are not held separately. But the so-called “information” processed by computers/ AIs is not at all like real-world information; in fact, the purportedly existing “information” processed by computers/ AIs is not actually information at all.
- Edited
Lorraine Ford
The abovementioned three necessary aspects of information in the real world are: categories; context/ mathematical relationships between the categories; and numbers that apply to the categories. But, these three aspects of information are passive, so how do you make a real-world moving system out of real-world passive information?
In order to make a moving system, there is a fourth necessary aspect of passive information: logical connection/ knowledge, represented by the symbols AND, OR, IS TRUE. These four separate aspects of passive information are necessary because none of the four aspects implies any other aspect. So, the logical connection/ knowledge aspect of passive information might be represented as something like:
“category1 = number1 AND category2 = number2 IS TRUE”.
But to make a moving system, a fifth necessary aspect of a system is required in order to move the numbers, because no other aspect of the system is actually moving the numbers. It might be thought that the mathematical relationships are moving the numbers, but as explained in my essay, despite the delta symbols, these mathematical relationships between categories don’t come into effect unless and until one or more numbers are moved.
Number movement in a system is represented by the symbols: IF, THEN. Once again, these five separate aspects of a moving system are necessary because none of the five aspects implies any other aspect. So, number movement in a system might be represented as something like:
“IF category1 = number1 AND category2 = number2 IS TRUE, THEN category2 = number3”,
where the “IF” part represents the passive information situation, and the “THEN” part represents the number movement/ change.
But the idea that a single number change event at the beginning of the universe could power all subsequent number change in the universe can’t be supported. More realistically, when one or more numbers are changed, there might be a ripple in the pond effect where other numbers change due to the mathematical relationships between categories, but the ripple will die down, and the system will grind to a halt, needing further number input in order to keep the system moving.
So it seems clear that, when a whole SYSTEM is analysed, as opposed to just focussing on mathematical relationships between categories (i.e. laws of nature), a whole system requires a source of number change. I.e. new numbers need to be continually input in order for the system to keep moving. This is a different way of thinking about “quantum randomness”, which is essentially the input of new numbers to the system.
Lorraine Ford
Physicists have built up a complicated picture of how they think the world works, out of nothing but measurements (which consist of numbers, that apply to categories of information like momentum, mass, energy, charge etc.) and experimentally verified mathematical relationships that seem to exist between these categories of information.
With their delta symbols, the equations that represent these mathematical relationships say that IF some numbers that apply to some of the categories change, THEN other numbers that apply to other categories in a particular relationship will instantly change so that the correct ratios specified by the mathematical relationships are always maintained and never violated. In other words, despite the complicated picture of the world that physics has developed, physics can’t tell you why the numbers would ever change in first place, OR why the numbers would continue to change. Physics just assumes number change, without being able to give a proper detailed account of how and why the numbers change.
This is physics’ Achilles heel: as I say in my essay, physics can’t explain why the numbers are changing, i.e. why the world is moving and changing.
- Edited
This is physics’ Achilles heel: as I say in my essay, physics can’t explain why the numbers are changing, i.e. why the world is moving and changing.
heading towards a destination is giving a support sensation for counting ,
this action is the first major accomplishment for any human: to stand and to walk ,
unfortunately, (what we are given2
) (with1
), we are stuck ! 1
2
|| \ _
| \
|_ |_ ,,,,,,,,;,,,;,,,,,;,,,,;,,,,,;,;,,,,,;,
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
it may be that seeing the world(universe) with numbers ,
physicists accomplish rocky soil stabilization in slope engineering for mountain roads,
each number is like a metal rod needle that keep the soil fixed , there is an idea of what happens(what is) in between the fields of parallel rods , the actual content is only an hypothesis and cylindric tube of the material have to be /removed/ bored , to replace it with numbers spikes
the (numberlines) spikes are not sharp at the end, instead are like thread cones wider and wider and heavy the more distance they travel/ extend.
pointing towards the edges of the (knowledge )universe
,,;,,,,,;,;,,;,,,,,;,,,;,,,,,;,;
Lorraine Ford
How could science be different? Well, just like mathematicians tell themselves a fairy story that their equations and numbers represent a self-sufficient world which could exist without human beings moving and manipulating the equations and numbers, physicists tell themselves a fairy story that their equations and numbers could represent a self-sufficient, moving world. Physics could start by not telling themselves fairy stories.
Clearly, the world is not the purely mathematical world that physicists imagined and hoped and believed it to be, because number movement can’t be explained by any sort of equations or functions. Just like mathematicians are wilfully blind to their own presence which animates the mathematics, physicists are wilfully blind to their assumption that the numbers just move, and that no explanation is required.
All that physicists can say is that IF some numbers change, THEN other numbers will instantly change, so that there is no violation of the ratios/ mathematical relationships that physicists have experimentally found to exist. But physicists can’t explain the “IF” bit: why any number would ever change in the first place, and why the numbers would continue to change.
- Edited
letters and words are in the same category like the comment with numbers only here is a lot more complicated
so imagine a device that can take and print pictures that zoom in or out magnify or minimize and those can replace parts of the text fast in a special typewriter , than after that there can be made extra links connecting the surface with various colors.
firstly the human language does not need such complicated story telling
secondly the human language does not need such complicated story telling
human language has evolved in an environment with certain grammar based on voice and brain constraints
to solve certain problems
the environment is such that the actual language is more or less sufficient,
maybe the fantasies match the complexity of the environment and culture
why sci fi has not been written in the 15 century ?
fantasies , play a role in generating and using artificial models , activate.use the imagination
that is the first step in science for science new hypothesis generation
what is the pathway towards better imagination ,
computer programs externalize / multiply the imagination , the control is those who program them
that fixes certain imagination structures, by having programable hardware that uses letters is a huge impairmant
some care only about the result , some wants imagination options i'm in the second category
the units off measure used in physics are connected with the entire discussion
more fantasy might mean more complicated/ advanced science
All that physicists can say is that IF some numbers change, THEN other numbers will instantly change, so that there is no violation of the ratios/ mathematical relationships that physicists have experimentally found to exist. But physicists can’t explain the “IF” bit: why any number would ever change in the first place, and why the numbers would continue to change.
drop a rock in a water pond lots of changes happens without any number
Life is like one bad adventure. however the graphics is unmatched
what would be a physics engine based on physical hardware like mixing two solutions that do all the" number calculations"
.
so i look in to doing hyper graphics maybe related with language/ (inventing new interaction), what it would be the best for me given my actual experience and goals ?
will make a few days , maybe a week pause of verifying what is written here on this forum, i assume that among readers are people that can understand and help.
at the admission at a math bachelor in 2017 ive tried to solve/explain all the problems without any letters, only with sequence of drawings. if the admission hat one or two extra hours i would have completed all the tasks.
the problem i had was how i should explain with no letters that i'm solving with drawings, typically for example in a geometry problem there are names with letters for the sides of a figure so i used a type of naming with no letters , the problem that an admission like that assume (reading ability)( speech comprehension so the first step was to show how i understand the request than to actually show lots of transofrmations for drawings , than solving the equations with no algebra , because the request was in a way evident after the reading and the drawing showed all the answers to first part of the test , i had to make pathways of evident geometrical transformations that are typically called a proof , the result of that exam was under the necessarily minimum for passing the test .
confirming what is the expected result is a communication bias caused by react quickly language / behavior/ habits , there is no intent in developing a communication in itself, only the message matter.
abcdEfghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz Abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqRstuvwxyz
️
example1
- i'm going to say something with voice, tongue teeth, and face , look at the other person if he is listening , use the ear to listen to my own voice and to the response about 5 second with ten words after that i will wait about 2,3 second for a reply,
example2 - we have a video streaming platform where people can make videos sound and images and other can writte comments
example 3 - we are a respectable institution we evaluate prospective students at the highest standards using written tests
example 4 - we are a research lab with advanced terminology and technology
here i'm changing the subject
a problem is that once you understand this interfaces there could be an intent to fake ,
so in a one to one conversation a fake smile is detectable because m the wire circuitry is for smile is closer to emotional
center and a fake one could make a detour ,
the genuine association of the code(language) with the internal (emotional) states
, looked from outside how this appear and unveil and what roles plays the self awareness
is the message really meant or not (human problems)
in the visual abstract realm anything can be a meaning (for a species of extraterrestrials with high levels of imagination)
especially simple codes can be ambiguous (some simple codes might not because they spell emergency)
what enviroment would force et to have visual communication
if people in the 14 century had maps and made exchange to navigate territory, with the horse/ elephant or by sea or river
maybe the octopus ET live on a liquid planet like lava lamp soup that has always changing territory , with dangerous regions to be avoided while traveling, and the communications must include always changing maps to avoid and adapt
the fixed placement of resources for humans also fixes the communication of maps .
a human is not simply just a human is also the territory he comes from/ lives/ feed, and buildings like an invisible leash/ root . the same static attitude (imovable ) may be applicable to language of mathematics
doing math means to know how to use brain resources (because those are necessarily) , is an expensive activity
to develop special attention skills , rare and precious, not redundant and flexible.
Underlying everything in the world, physicists have found categories of information (like mass, momentum, position or energy), mathematical relationships between these categories, and numbers that apply to the categories. These three aspects of real-world information are seemingly the basic substance which, when logically aggregated, constitute the various varieties of fundamental matter: no “more substantial” substance has ever been found; no “more material” matter has ever been found. So, rather than these three aspects of information being a “property” of material substance, material substance is seemingly a logical aggregate of information.
But, as I ask in my essay: why are these numbers moving and changing? The categories don’t change; the relationships don’t change: only the numbers move and change. But the numbers don’t seem to be the type of self-sufficient entities which could change themselves, and the categories and relationships also don’t seem to be the type of self-sufficient entities which could change the numbers. So, I conclude that there is another aspect to the world, which can only be represented as logical connectives (like IF, AND, OR, THEN, and IS TRUE), which are responsible for the above-described logical aggregation of information, and responsible for number movement/ jumps.
Unfortunately, you do not give a definition of MATTER. And this is very important!
Vladimir, this is my answer to your 17th May challenge:
When fundamental-level matter is measured, or calculations about fundamental-level matter are made from other measurements, resulting in categories of information (like mass in MeV/c2, or charge) with their associated numbers, what is the material substance whose properties are being measured? My answer is that there is no material substance other than information which is logically connected (e.g. by logical ANDs) to other such information.
But what is information itself? The three necessary aspects of real-world information are: categories (like mass or charge); context (like mathematical relationships between the categories); and numbers that apply to the categories. Numbers, without category or context, are not information. Yes/no answers, without questions and other associated context, are not information.
Lorraine Ford
P.S.
Which, I might add, is EXACTLY why computers/ AIs are not processing real-world information, real-world information which has 3 inherent, inseparable aspects: category, context/ relationship, and number. Computers/ AIs are merely processing man-made symbols of information, where there are physically separate symbols for category, context/ relationship, and number.
Lorraine Ford
Has matter always had the capacity to, at least sometimes, behave logically, i.e. behaviour which can be represented by logical connectives (like IF, AND, OR, THEN, and IS TRUE)? This is as opposed to categories of information (like mass, momentum, position or charge), which seem to exist in relationships that are represented by mathematical operators.
But what is matter? Seemingly the most primitive matter is already assumed by physicists to be a hybrid type of thing in which these categories, with their associated numbers, are connected by logical ANDs (as opposed to these categories and numbers being seen as “properties” of matter).
Unacknowledged logical ANDs have seemingly always been a part of the picture that physicists have of primitive matter.
Lorraine Ford
So, in the absence of any other fundamental “material substance” being found by physicists, I’m concluding that the fundamental “material substance” of the most primitive particles would be information of the following type of form:
(mass = number1) AND (velocity = number2) AND (charge = number3) AND (spin = number4) IS TRUE,
where the logical connectives “AND” and “IS TRUE” are the things that can build a materially substantial “particle” of information.
Lorraine Ford
A load of numbers isn't material. I think you are muddling construct made from measurement outcomes from information receipt with material existence.
- Edited
What “load of numbers” are you talking about? Did you not notice that, as well as word symbols representing real-world numbers, I also used word symbols for real-world categories (“mass”, “charge”), symbols for “=”, symbols for brackets, and symbols for AND and IS TRUE? The numbers are only a part of the picture I was trying to portray.
I think you yourself are perhaps “muddling” symbols of the world with the actual world. Physicists and others have always used word and other symbols for real-world categories (like mass and charge), real-world relationships (“laws of nature”), and real-world numbers that apply to the categories, in order to represent theoretical, experimental and measured aspects of the real world. Are you suggesting that symbols with known meanings should NOT be used to represent aspects of the real world? I’m saying that in order to concisely represent known aspects of real-world primitive particles, one needs to use the above-mentioned AND and IS TRUE symbols, which have known meanings to people.
“…isn’t material … material existence”: In the absence of any actual evidence of any material substance, I’m concluding that the most primitive material substance can be represented in the above-mentioned way which includes the known aspects of the most primitive matter. Have you got a better way of representing primitive material substance, apart from the words “material existence”, words which pretty much say absolutely nothing about the known aspects of primitive material substance?
Define what you mean by "information".
Georgina Woodward
I’m saying that the most fundamental matter, the material substance of a fundamental particle, is actually just information which can be represented in the following type of way:
(mass = number1) AND (velocity = number2) AND (charge = number3) AND (spin = number4) IS TRUE,
where the numbers can be zero, and where the logical connectives “AND” and “IS TRUE” are the means whereby a “particle” of information can be built.
People know what the word “number” refers to; people know what the words “mass”, “velocity”, “charge” and “spin” refer to; people know what an equals sign is; and people know what the words “AND” and “IS TRUE” are supposed to mean.
So, can you provide a better, alternative way of describing fundamental matter?
- Edited
Lorraine Ford
The difference between information (like the above purportedly existing “particle” of information) and categories (a group term for things like mass, charge, and position) is that:
- Information is always represented in logical connection with other information, using logical connectives like IF, AND, OR, THEN and IS TRUE.
- Categories are always represented in mathematical relationship with other categories, using mathematical operators and equals signs.
The physics equations that represent the experimentally determined relationships between categories (“laws of nature”) essentially say that IF some numbers that apply to some of the categories change, THEN other numbers that apply to other categories will instantly change, so that the relationships between the categories are never violated. Then all further number movement stops, because these relationships between categories can’t explain why the numbers would ever change in the first place, or why the numbers would continue to change. In other words, the relationships between categories can’t explain why the world is continually moving and changing.
To explain why the world is continually moving and changing, one needs to represent the world in terms of information, using statements containing logical connectives like IF, AND, OR, THEN and IS TRUE to represent the necessary number jumps. But, relationships between categories are essentially rules, whereas logical connections between information are not rules. So, unlike relationships between categories, which can be experimentally verified, it would seemingly be difficult to experimentally verify any specific purportedly existing logical connections between information.
Lorraine Ford
But (who knew?!!*) that man-made symbols of the real world are not the same as the real world!! I suggested a way of representing a fundamental particle in the above posts, but the written symbols:
(mass = number1) AND (velocity = number2) AND (charge = number3) AND (spin = number4) IS TRUE,
or the same symbols read aloud, are not a particle. Who knew?!!
And the same symbols represented in a computer or an AI computer, are not a particle. Who knew? Who knew that symbols of the real world are not the same as the real world? I try to explain this in my essay, and in subsequent posts, but it seems to be a very, very, very difficult concept for many people to understand.
*who knew?:
Expressing ironic lack of surprise, upon learning something.