Universe can't be infinite.

[TimeSeeker]

You are saying:
- we need 1 bit
- we need way more than 1 bit

You said many times that contradictions don't exist, so I assume the above doesn't bother you.

The observer needs 1 bit to make a decision. Because you need the observer to ASK the yes/no question.
AND draw the distinction!

The universe doesn't need to ASK QUESTIONS or DRAW DISTINCTIONS. Categorization is a HUMAN NEED!

Now you are measuring the observer's composition in bits?

Well, look how quickly you have learned to use bits (that don't exist!) for measuring things when contrarianism calls!

To say I didn't predict this would be a lie. And I don't even have a degree in psychology

[attofishpi]

You said we need 1 bit for a decision.

Indeed. If you are to answer any yes/no question - you need 1 bit of information.

But now you say we also need a human (or some similar stuff like a computer I guess) for that decision, otherwise there's no way to make sense of that bit.

Hey Mr 'I understand contexts' can you give me an example of decision-making that does not involve an entity with some agency? You can't? I guess that's an omission in your world-view.

Can you think of anything other than humans which cares to ASK QUESTIONS? You can't? I guess your model of reality is fucked up, eh?

A human or computer etc. is made of many particles, and a part of that is used for the decision.

A human is a computer. The mind is a measuring apparatus.

So much for your theory

Hey Mr "I understand contexts", can you give me an example of any theories (MAN MADE NOTIONS!!!) that exist outside of the SOCIAL context of HUMANTT? You can't? SO I guess we have to factor in the HUMAN element then!

For a psychologist you are pretty dumb.

Maybe you have spent no time trying to factor yourself or how your mind works into your model of reality? What a shame!

If you want to do science you need a reference frame. You need an observer! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_of_reference

You are saying:
- we need 1 bit
- we need way more than 1 bit

You said many times that contradictions don't exist, so I assume the above doesn't bother you.

Also, young fella...when you break down the most finite piece of reality - you are left with a 'bit' either an event or not an event.

[attofishpi]

You are saying:
- we need 1 bit
- we need way more than 1 bit

You said many times that contradictions don't exist, so I assume the above doesn't bother you.

The observer needs 1 bit to make a decision. Because you need the observer to ASK the yes/no question.
AND draw the distinction!

The universe doesn't need to draw distinctions. Categorization is a human need.

Now you are measuring the observer's composition in bits?

FFS because we are humans - even when it deals in the most finite parts of reality.

Well, look how quickly you have learned to use bits (that don't exist!) for measuring things when contrarianism calls!

To say I didn't predict this would be a lie. And I don't even have a degree in psychology

You are picking on Atla like someone without a rational argument.

[TimeSeeker]

Also, young fella...when you break down the most finite piece of reality - you are left with a 'bit' either an event or not an event.

Does the universe exist?

Yes/no question

1 distinction. 1 bit.

[attofishpi]

Also, young fella...when you break down the most finite piece of reality - you are left with a 'bit' either an event or not an event.

Does the universe exist?

Yes/no question

1 distinction. 1 bit.

Only within my head I can categorically state I KNOW it exists.

! bit - 1 binary decision.

[Atla]

Also, young fella...when you break down the most finite piece of reality - you are left with a 'bit' either an event or not an event.

I don't know what you mean. There is a perverse idea where we assume that 0/1 abstractions are encoded at Planck-scale, but there is absolutely no reason to believe that.

[attofishpi]

Also, young fella...when you break down the most finite piece of reality - you are left with a 'bit' either an event or not an event.

I don't know what you mean. There is a perverse idea where we assume that 0/1 abstractions are encoded at Planck-scale, but there is absolutely no reason to believe that.

The planck scale will have a finite point - binary.

[TimeSeeker]

You are picking on Atla like someone without a rational argument.

My "rational argument" is that he's guilty of a performative contradiction!

Categorization requires choice (value-judgment!).
Choice requires an agent.

The most primitive categorization is bi-modal. Take the whole (the universe) and split it into two categories.
A and B.

That is one line. 1 line through the middle of the universe makes for 2 categories!

And you would be correct. "Rational arguments" is a bullshit notion, because it suffers from exactly the same flaw I am describing!

You have drawn a line. Rational vs irrational argument. Can you provide me the criteria for rationality?

I am pointing at rational action!

Rational thought is as unscientific an idea as it gets.

[TimeSeeker]

Also, young fella...when you break down the most finite piece of reality - you are left with a 'bit' either an event or not an event.

I don't know what you mean. There is a perverse idea where we assume that 0/1 abstractions are encoded at Planck-scale, but there is absolutely no reason to believe that.

Planck-scale vs not Planck-scale

Binary distinction!

[Atla]

You are saying:
- we need 1 bit
- we need way more than 1 bit

You said many times that contradictions don't exist, so I assume the above doesn't bother you.

The observer needs 1 bit to make a decision. Because you need the observer to ASK the yes/no question.
AND draw the distinction!

The universe doesn't need to ASK QUESTIONS or DRAW DISTINCTIONS. Categorization is a HUMAN NEED!

Now you are measuring the observer's composition in bits?

Well, look how quickly you have learned to use bits (that don't exist!) for measuring things when contrarianism calls!

To say I didn't predict this would be a lie. And I don't even have a degree in psychology

So you need an observer to make use of the bit. (The observer also needs to know btw that it's for a distinction, what kind of distinction it is, and it's strictly 0/1).
You said: 1 bit = 1 distinction, which is an universal claim. We can now see that this is complete bullshit.

Also, I'm only measuring the observer in bits because you are, idiot. It's your theory, I'm just showing that it doesn't work in the real world.

[TimeSeeker]

So you need an observer to make use of the bit. (The observer also needs to know btw that it's for a distinction, what kind of distinction it is, and it's strictly 0/1).
You said: 1 bit = 1 distinction, which is an universal claim. We can now see that this is complete bullshit.

Distinctions are IN THE CONTEXT of MINDS.

The universe makes no distinctions!

So it is universal in so far as anything we SPEAK or THINK ABOUT is "universal"!

There is no knowledge of reality separate from perception. To speak of "reality" separate from the human perception of reality is as harmful as idea as it gets!

I thought you are interested in psychology, yet you want to bypass it when doing science. What gives?

Also, I'm only measuring the observer in bits because you are, idiot. It's your theory, I'm just showing that it doesn't work in the real world.

So how are you using this internet thing then if it doesn't work?

[attofishpi]

You are picking on Atla like someone without a rational argument.

My "rational argument" is that he's guilty of a performative contradiction!

Categorization requires choice (value-judgment!).
Choice requires an agent.

The most primitive categorization is bi-modal. Take the whole (the universe) and split it into two categories.
A and B.

That is one line. 1 line through the middle of the universe makes for 2 categories!

And you would be correct. "Rational arguments" is a bullshit notion, because it suffers from exactly the same flaw I am describing!

You have drawn a line. Rational vs irrational argument. Can you provide me the criteria for rationality?

I am pointing at rational action!

Rational thought is as unscientific an idea as it gets.

Things are obviously subjective in any rational argument...to a degree, and within physics - which is what we comprehend rationality with, it comes down to binary...eventually, again, either there is an event or not - at THE most finite point of existence.

[TimeSeeker]

Things are obviously subjective in any rational argument...to a degree, and within physics - which is what we comprehend rationality with, it comes down to binary...eventually, again, either there is an event or not - at THE most finite point of existence.

Such is the nature of human experience. Whether it is the nature of "reality" - fuck knows.

This is the perception we are stuck with and the technological augmentation we have at our disposal to amplify SNR.

[attofishpi]

Things are obviously subjective in any rational argument...to a degree, and within physics - which is what we comprehend rationality with, it comes down to binary...eventually, again, either there is an event or not - at THE most finite point of existence.

Such is the nature of human experience. Whether it is the nature of "reality" - fuck knows.

This is the perception we are stuck with.

Holy shit, we agree on something rather ethereal.

[TimeSeeker]

Holy shit, we agree on something rather ethereal.

I find this intuition common amongst software engineers.

Because it's not something you learned through a "rational argument". You learned through rational action.

Doing, not talking.