Idehn:

It is hard to find meaning in word salad and clumsily defined concepts. I just am not able to do it I am afraid. But I too am a die hard optimist, and one day you may actually produce cogent definitions. At least Mr. Anony has extended the courtesy of not expecting me to read his mind.



I will, but I doubt that you will read all of this.

In modern computing the device fundamental to computing is the electrical transistor. It is electromagnetism,the interactions charged particle with each other via photons, that is used to manipulate the device. Electrical transistors are made from a specific organization of atoms known as semiconductorshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiconductors. Due to energy quantization and the wave nature of all matter and energy(photons for example) the position of electrons is limited to discrete positions relative to the nucleus. Or at least they would be discrete in the electron were not perturbed (by other electrons for example) which is born from its particle nature which as you would expect particles exhibit. In stead what occurs is an bands of available for each electron to occupyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_band. The electrons need to either loose or gain energy in order to pass between these bands which as you can guess represent a range. The primary form of this energy is the photon whose energy as I explained earlier, can be known through wavelength or frequency. For an individual particle the highest energy state an electron can occupy before it is no longer bound to the atom is known as the valence band. Anymore energy and the electron will be ejected(ionized).

When you have close system of particles however, there exist yet another energy state that emerges from the organization of these atoms. Going back to semiconductors, for certain systems of atoms(such as Silicon or Germanium), you can impart enough energy so that electrons are not bound to an individual atom and instead can flow(i.e electric current), between atoms. These electrons occupy bands known as conduction bands. For for a group of atoms with neutral charges like Silicon, there exist an energy barrier between the conduction band and the valence band. So electrons do not ordinarily flow between atoms. For metals, that is not the case. For insulators, it requires a great deal of energy to get electrons into the conduction band. When an electron is free however, the atom still wants an electron to be electrically neutral. Physicist describe this using the quasi particle known as a hole. Please note that no such particle actually exists and is only a conceptual abstraction/short hand for what is actually happening. The hole is described as flowing in the same way as the electron and is given an opposite charge as the electron. As such it takes energy to separate an electron from its hole and it requires energy(or lack there of) to to keep them apart. These two particles are known as carriers.

Doping neutral silicon with atoms that have excess electrons or will readily take excess electrons is the basis of semiconductor devices. By combining regions doped with one of these types of dopants, it ensure that when energy is applied it takes far more to flow in one direction than it does in the other(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diode). By generating a net positive charge on the side with the excess charge you essentially keep current from flowing between the two regions. This effect can be generated electrochemically(batteries).

I believe this should be sufficient background so that you know what the wiki-page on bits(bytes=8bits) is talking abouthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit#Storage. The paths(presence of carriers that can flow across differently doped regions) is what a bit is on programmable semiconducting computer processing units(CPUs). The presence or absence of these paths are definitely describable in term of energy/mass and subsequently using concepts of time/space. This assumes that you agree that the bit IS the unit of information.

Hmm, lengthy article and a bit complex for me to follow but I'll go ahead and give it a look through so I can answer properly. You may have to give me some time or perhaps you could simplify it for all of us (if you can) by expressing it in this form:

1Byte = "X"mass(kg) by "X"distance(m) by "X"time(s).

This would be satisfactory proof that information is entirely physical. Don't you agree?

.

Deep Sight:


No amount of ad hominems will add an inch to the validity or invalidity of your claims.

I quite agree. Like for like.

Just by the way, your ancient aliens might play banjos but I suspect they would use intergalactic scales and thus, I'm not interested.
If you made them play chess, I just might raise an eyebrow. Afterall, Viktor Korchnoi 'played' chess with the ghost of Geza Maroczy.

[size=16pt]CHESS AFTER DEATH ? (MAROCZY VS KORCHNOI)[/size]

The Experiment
In 1985 Victor Korchnoi played one chess game with Geza Maroczy that took 7 years to finish.
What unique about this game is Geza Maroczy, Hungarian chess player, died in 1951! Korchnoi played with ghost of Maroczy.
The game is a psychic experiment and was reported by Dr. Wolfgang Eisenbeiss and Dieter Hassler in the April 2006 issue of the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research.
Maroczy moves were written by Robert Rollans, an automatic-writing trance medium who was living in Germany. Rollans was chosen as he did not know how to play chess and was willing to participate without remuneration.
After 47 moves, Maroczy resigned and according to Korchnoi ‘During the opening phase Maróczy showed weakness,’ ‘His play is old-fashioned.'

The Believers
During game, 92 questions have been posed to Maroczy, he managed to answer all. 85 of his answers manage to be verified as correct while other 7 could not be verified.
Maroczy plays is old fashioned. Weak in opening theory but strong in endgame, rook ending. Marozcy’s trademark.
Rollans, a Romanian, do not know Hungarian language but communicate throughout the game in Hungarian language.

The Sceptics
During 7 years time, Rollans might get help from books, computers or any strong players.
Korchnoi is a known believer to paranormal science. He is not a neutral person in this experiment.
Nobody knows what are the 92 questions being asked to ‘Maroczy’.
The whole experiment is not done in controlled environment.


Full article here http://2010chessodyssey..com/2011/03/chess-after-death-maroczy-vs-korchnoi.html

I do suspect that the mind that endows the ancient aliens with existence will endow them with skill surpassing my mortal ability. In which case, I should lose the game but gain a lesson.
Or maybe the ancient aliens would find chess too banal.
As Edward Lasker said (a strong master at the time) "While the Baroque rules of Chess could only have been created by humans, the rules of Go are so elegant, organic, and rigorously logical that if intelligent life forms exist elsewhere in the universe, they almost certainly play Go.

Cheers.

Mr_Anony:

Hmm, lengthy article and a bit complex for me to follow but I'll go ahead and give it a look through so I can answer properly. You may have to give me some time or perhaps you could simplify it for all of us (if you can) by expressing it in this form:

1Byte = "X"mass(kg) by "X"distance(m) by "X"time(s).

This would be satisfactory proof that information is entirely physical. Don't you agree?

Well simply put the measure of a bit would be if the current across a loaded circuit. The unit of current is Ampere(coulomb/meter). The current below a threshold current is labeled 0 bit and the current above the threshold is a 1 bit. Machines are labeled with the number of bits(paths) the CPU is able to use at a given time. So an 8bit machine can use a maximum of 8. 8bits being 1 byte. The amount of energy the flowing electrons consume per unit of time(SI units Joules/second) is the power. The power is given by multiplying the current by the electro-potential difference across the load(Volts). Joules can be given by the SI units kg*(m/s)^2.

Deep Sight:

You cannot honestly insist that that a definition for the purpose of discussion, which says - " being said to have created the universe ex deo* - is a "clumsy word salad" - even as you should remember that the latin end to the sentence was added at your insistence.

Is that really a clumsy word salad. Honestly, if you say it is, we can just quietly leave the matter and siddon look. Cos it doesn't get simpler than that. You know I already told you that you and I both know you are intent on rejecting any definition that is presented,and that has emerged the truth. I ask you to allow us to use the dictionary, you refuse. How on earth are we to discuss? what on earth am I to do. Even if I reduce it toa singleword such as "creator" or "cause" of the universe, you and I know you will reject that. So my dear I have tried all I can and you cannot sincerely claim that the difficulty is with me here. The difficulty is with you; you do not wish to proceed to the meat of the matter, and its as simple as that.

Ex deo dictated that what was "created"(the Universe) was the same substance(at some point) as the thing you called God. I concluded that the substance of the Universe is matter/energy and ergo the substance of God was also matter/energy. You returned that this is not necessarily the case.So now it seems that you are claiming knowledge of a substance that is NOT material. Stop me if I am not reading your mind correctly, but it seems that you are saying that something immaterial is transforming into something material. But of course this would illicit a bevy of more questions than it was meant to answer, which you would rather groan about being asked than actually answer.

But let us just "move on" to the existence of God if it makes you happy. After all I can bring up the problems with your definition at any point in a discussion. If you want we can even relabel the discussion "existence of God". All the ontological/epistemological problems of your definition will still remain.

The question of what "creating a material Universe" actually entails will still remain.
The question of how a material objects can/did interacts with something that is NOT material will still remain.
The question of how how material beings(humans), can perceive/understand/access/whatever anything that is NOT material will still remain.
The question of how any of these interaction integrates with our understanding of the physical Universe(science) will still remain.
The question of how beings/minds,things that in all known instances are decidedly material, can exist without being composed of matter/energy will still remain.
The question of how the thing you define as God can be distinguished from nothing will yet still remain.

You can flee from these questions for now if you like. However in a discussion, I will never allow you to ignore or forget them. Ultimately all your work is still ahead of you.

jayriginal:

I quite agree. Like for like.

Just by the way, your ancient aliens might play banjos but I suspect they would use intergalactic scales and thus, I'm not interested.
If you made them play chess, I just might raise an eyebrow. Afterall, Viktor Korchnoi 'played' chess with the ghost of Geza Maroczy.



I do suspect that the mind that endows the ancient aliens with existence will endow them with skill surpassing my mortal ability. In which case, I should lose the game but gain a lesson.
Or maybe the ancient aliens would find chess too banal.
As Edward Lasker said (a strong master at the time) "While the Baroque rules of Chess could only have been created by humans, the rules of Go are so elegant, organic, and rigorously logical that if intelligent life forms exist elsewhere in the universe, they almost certainly play Go.

Cheers.

To be sincere i have only taken a cursory look at the above and not read it and I am not sure whether I am intelligent enough to decipher if it is further mockery or suggestions of possibilities. Not that either matters, because if you will go back to the chain of the discussion, you will see that some one raised the issue of cause and effect; you responded saying that it is of no use and referred him to our discussion re: cosmological argument; i pointed out that in that discussion you did not show any uncaused material things: and VOILA! You responded with ancient aliens.

Its not hard to see the irrelevance of such a response.

Moreover, the response suggests that I have said anywhere that ancient aliens existed. I simply opened a thread to discuss teh subject. I wonder if you believe that discussing the subject at all or being open to the possibility is idiotic.

Like I said, enjoy you stay. Someday, hopefully, you will address arguments with srguments and not with ancient aliens.

Idehn:

Ex deo dictated that what was "created"(the Universe) was the same substance(at some point) as the thing you called God. I concluded that the substance of the Universe is matter/energy and ergo the substance of God was also matter/energy. You returned that this is not necessarily the case.So now it seems that you are claiming knowledge of a substance that is NOT material. Stop me if I am not reading your mind correctly, but it seems that you are saying that something immaterial is transforming into something material. But of course this would illicit a bevy of more questions than it was meant to answer, which you would rather groan about being asked than actually answer.

But let us just "move on" to the existence of God if it makes you happy. After all I can bring up the problems with your definition at any point in a discussion. If you want we can even relabel the discussion "existence of God". All the ontological/epistemological problems of your definition will still remain.

The question of what "creating a material Universe" actually entails will still remain.
The question of how a material objects can/did interacts with something that is NOT material will still remain.
The question of how how material beings(humans), can perceive/understand/access/whatever anything that is NOT material will still remain.
The question of how any of these interaction integrates with our understanding of the physical Universe(science) will still remain.
The question of how beings/minds,things that in all known instances are decidedly material, can exist without being composed of matter/energy will still remain.
The question of how the thing you define as God can be distinguished from nothing will yet still remain.

You can flee from these questions for now if you like. However in a discussion, I will never allow you to ignore or forget them. Ultimately all your work is still ahead of you.

I am happy to even grant you that God is physical - if only to progress the discussion. It matters little to me: what I seek to prove is the existence of a creative element preceding this universe. Whether it is physical or not is not particularly important here.

If you are happy with that, I will proceed to open a thread where we discuss the existence of God, based on the definition "A being said to have created the universe ex deo." I will happily, for the purpose of that thread, allow it to be presumed physical, as nothing else will do for you. If you are game, I am game.

However I must insist on one condition, which I hope you will accept. Given the long rigmarole it has taken us to arrive at any semblance of definition, there is one strict rule that I will request we adopt in that thread. The rule is the Dictionary Rule. It simply means that whenever we encounter difficulty defining any term, we will have recourse to the bare dictionary definition of the said term for the purpose of the discussion and such dictionary definition will govern the discussion.

This is only reasonable please.

I will give you an analogy that supports this. My brothers and I are strong football enthusiasts. After every game we often argue about which side turned in the better performance. After years of disagreeing, we have concluded that once there is a disagreement on such, we resolve it with recourse to the cold bones of the game statistics - i.e: shots on target, ball posession, etc. And that settles it. Of course we know that this is not all there is to football, but it is the most objective way to resolve our eternal disagreements in that regard. As such I propose to you that we do something similar: when any definition is contentious (as many will certainly be, in any discussion with you), then let our rule be that we will have recourse to the dictionary definition and discuss based on that. Before starting, we will mutually agree on an acceptable dictionary to use. Where there are multiple meanings given for a word, we will agree on which meaning is applicable to our discussion.

One more thing we will have to resolve before proceeding is the distinction between things that exist and our perception of them. Because it seems to me that you conflate these and it will be impossible to advance the discussion if you contend for example, that space exists only in our mind. This is because I intend to use the Big Ban.g as the premise for my contentions, and it will be impossible so to do if you hold that the space in which this occurred, or the space that this event expands, is simply a figment of our imagination.

If you agree, we proceed.

... let the games begin

Deep Sight:

. . . if you will go back to the chain of the discussion, you will see that some one raised the issue of cause and effect; you responded saying that it is of no use and referred him to our discussion re: cosmological argument; i pointed out that in that discussion you did not show any uncaused material things: and VOILA! You responded with ancient aliens.

Its not hard to see the irrelevance of such a response.

Is this real amnesia or perhaps its only selective ?
Stop pretending and read our interactions on this thread again. You cannot feign ignorance as to where and in what context your ancient aliens came to play on this thread.

You did not need to point anything out, particularly when I dealt with the same issue you are pointing out on that thread. I simply posted the link. I'm sure Uyi can read and decide for himself.

Like I said, enjoy you stay. Someday, hopefully, you will address arguments with srguments and not with ancient aliens.

Coming from you the chief host, patron, life president and founder, I appreciate your kind welcome and I hope you continue to provide us with the entertainment you have been dishing out since.

jayriginal:

Is this real amnesia or perhaps its only selective ?
Stop pretending and read our interactions on this thread again. You cannot feign ignorance as to where and in what context your ancient aliens came to play on this thread.

You did not need to point anything out, particularly when I dealt with the same issue you are pointing out on that thread. I simply posted the link. I'm sure Uyi can read and decide for himself.


Coming from you the chief host, patron, life president and founder, I appreciate your kind welcome and I hope you continue to provide us with the entertainment you have been dishing out since.

OKKAAAAAAAY! E don do!

Deep Sight:

OKKAAAAAAAY! E don do!

Cheers

Idehn:

Well simply put the measure of a bit would be if the current across a loaded circuit. The unit of current is Ampere(coulomb/meter). The current below a threshold current is labeled 0 bit and the current above the threshold is a 1 bit. Machines are labeled with the number of bits(paths) the CPU is able to use at a given time. So an 8bit machine can use a maximum of 8. 8bits being 1 byte. The amount of energy the flowing electrons consume per unit of time(SI units Joules/second) is the power. The power is given by multiplying the current by the electro-potential difference across the load(Volts). Joules can be given by the SI units kg*(m/s)^2.

Hmm Idehn, I have tried to follow you (I understand that what you gave isn't necessarily a well worked out derived formula, I wasn't expecting you to do so. however from a bit of what I understand as what you are trying to say, I will try to visualize this as a wave where each crest is represented as 1 and each trough is 0. The middle line will be the threshold the current has to be above or below of (we shall call this threshold Q).

Now here's the problem with this is that it does not take into account the actual current. All it does at best is represent the number of cycles.
The wavelength is not accounted for, The mass of the electron is not represented, the velocity of the electron is not represented. it is just a label and not an accurate physical measurement. if we were to derive this, we would end up with something like this:

1byte = 8bits= (>Q)+(<Q)+(>Q)+(<Q)+(>Q)+(<Q)+(>Q)+(<Q) ..........let us call this 8(>or<Q) even though this is not really true as >or<Q can turn out to be many different actual values. In fact an infinite number of actual values can be 8(>or<Q)

therefore information if expressed in physics = infinite mass by infinite velocity (this doesn't make physical sense)

What we do when we measure bits is like measuring time by counting sunrises. We know it isn't physically accurate but we apply it so as to make some sense of the information we have. It is much like how we know something is long so we decide to mark intervals to signify length so we can make sense of it.
I still hold that Information is another dimension much like time, length, breadth and depth and hence cannot be physically derived objectively in terms within space and time.

I hope I understood you, I hope you can understand what I'm trying to say.

. . . .

Deep Sight:

I am happy to even grant you that God is physical - if only to progress the discussion. It matters little to me: what I seek to prove is the existence of a creative element preceding this universe. Whether it is physical or not is not particularly important here.

If you are happy with that, I will proceed to open a thread where we discuss the existence of God, based on the definition "A being said to have created the universe ex deo." I will happily, for the purpose of that thread, allow it to be presumed physical, as nothing else will do for you. If you are game, I am game.

I hope you actually mean this and not simply as a means to avoid the epistemological/ontological problems that arise from positing a non-physical being. But if you agree then I agree. Still not sure what creating a Universe actually entails nor how a being goes about doing it, but I am sure you can hash that out in the thread.

Deep Sight:
However I must insist on one condition, which I hope you will accept. Given the long rigmarole it has taken us to arrive at any semblance of definition, there is one strict rule that I will request we adopt in that thread. The rule is the Dictionary Rule. It simply means that whenever we encounter difficulty defining any term, we will have recourse to the bare dictionary definition of the said term for the purpose of the discussion and such dictionary definition will govern the discussion.

I will give you an analogy that supports this. My brothers and I are strong football enthusiasts. After every game we often argue about which side turned in the better performance. After years of disagreeing, we have concluded that once there is a disagreement on such, we resolve it with recourse to the cold bones of the game statistics - i.e: shots on target, ball posession, etc. And that settles it. Of course we know that this is not all there is to football, but it is the most objective way to resolve our eternal disagreements in that regard. As such I propose to you that we do something similar: when any definition is contentious (as many will certainly be, in any discussion with you), then let our rule be that we will have recourse to the dictionary definition and discuss based on that. Before starting, we will mutually agree on an acceptable dictionary to use. Where there are multiple meanings given for a word, we will agree on which meaning is applicable to our discussion.

Not sure about this one. This rule would apply a certain level fetishism to the dictionary. The dictionary can be vague,ambiguous, incoherent, contradictory, subject to interpretation and even incorrect too. It would be very much like Christians who settle there disputes using the bible. It may be an independent source, but I for one would rather they reasoned through the dispute rather than simply consulting the bible for example on matters of ethics, history, or science.

We could use the dictionary as a guide, but to make it the absolute final arbiter I think would be a mistake. The dictionary can be no more objective than language itself, which of course is subjective. If either of us contest a definition should be able to state our case for why a word should be understood a certain way.

Deep Sight:
One more thing we will have to resolve before proceeding is the distinction between things that exist and our perception of them. Because it seems to me that you conflate these and it will be impossible to advance the discussion if you contend for example, that space exists only in our mind. This is because I intend to use the Big Ban.g as the premise for my contentions, and it will be impossible so to do if you hold that the space in which this occurred, or the space that this event expands, is simply a figment of our imagination.

The problem is It is like my vector examples. While the concepts are meaningful and useful , "vectors", "numbers", "time", and "space" cannot be said to exist in and of themselves. It is like adjectives in language. They are used to describe nouns(the Universe) but are not meaningful by themselves. For example saying "the really big rolled down the hill." is not a meaningful sentence". You are naturally still left asking what is it? While "really big" is used/useful for describing things, "really big" is not a thing in and of itself. Or if I say

I have four.
The four meter long was cut in in half.
Took four hours.

Even though those statements make use of numbers/space/time you are still left asking what? Naturally, this is because "four", "four meters", and "four hours" does not mean anything/exist in and of themselves. They are used to describe physical things. I do not believe this takes away from their utility/meaningfulness.

Mr_Anony:

Hmm Idehn, I have tried to follow you (I understand that what you gave isn't necessarily a well worked out derived formula, I wasn't expecting you to do so. however from a bit of what I understand as what you are trying to say, I will try to visualize this as a wave where each crest is represented as 1 and each trough is 0. The middle line will be the threshold the current has to be above or below of (we shall call this threshold Q).

Now here's the problem with this is that it does not take into account the actual current. All it does at best is represent the number of cycles.
The wavelength is not accounted for, The mass of the electron is not represented, the velocity of the electron is not represented. it is just a label and not an accurate physical measurement. if we were to derive this, we would end up with something like this:

At the scale of circuits it is easiest to think about transistors like a water faucet. For example, you are washing dishes. there is a minimum amount of water you want flowing before you proceed to wash dishes. After all you do not want to use a tiny trickle of water to clean a big pot. You could turn it all the way to max, but you are frugal and do not want to waste water either. So you set the threshold at half the flow. So anything below the threshold is a false/no/0bit and anything above is a true/yes/1bit. Of course you expend energy turning the faucet, and the water company through various means expends energy pumping the water to your house.

Velocity, wavelength, and mass are still there. It is just that at this level it is more convenient to talk about them in terms of current, potential differences, and energy.

Mr_Anony:
1byte = 8bits= (>Q)+(<Q)+(>Q)+(<Q)+(>Q)+(<Q)+(>Q)+(<Q) ..........let us call this 8(>or<Q) even though this is not really true as >or<Q can turn out to be many different actual values. In fact an infinite number of actual values can be 8(>or<Q)

therefore information if expressed in physics = infinite mass by infinite velocity (this doesn't make physical sense)

What we do when we measure bits is like measuring time by counting sunrises. We know it isn't physically accurate but we apply it so as to make some sense of the information we have. It is much like how we know something is long so we decide to mark intervals to signify length so we can make sense of it.
I still hold that Information is another dimension much like time, length, breadth and depth and hence cannot be physically derived objectively in terms within space and time.

I hope I understood you, I hope you can understand what I'm trying to say.

Like with our sink example there are an infinite number of possible flow rates. But only one can occur for a given sink at a given moment. The water cannot simultaneously be at 0 flow and full flow.Nor can it be at 0 flow and any combination or permutation of all the other possible flow rates. No infinite values are encountered.

Idehn:

At the scale of circuits it is easiest to think about transistors like a water faucet. For example, you are washing dishes. there is a minimum amount of water you want flowing before you proceed to wash dishes. After all you do not want to use a tiny trickle of water to clean a big pot. You could turn it all the way to max, but you are frugal and do not want to waste water either. So you set the threshold at half the flow. So anything below the threshold is a false/no/0bit and anything above is a true/yes/1bit. Of course you expend energy turning the faucet, and the water company through various means expends energy pumping the water to your house.

Velocity, wavelength, and mass are still there. It is just that at this level it is more convenient to talk about them in terms of current, potential differences, and energy.

Like with our sink example there are an infinite number of possible flow rates. But only one can occur for a given sink at a given moment. The water cannot simultaneously be at 0 flow and full flow.Nor can it be at 0 flow and any combination or permutation of all the other possible flow rates. No infinite values are encountered.

Using your flow analogy, to add up to 8bit = 1byte. you must flow at above half-flow and below half-flow alternatively four times. Now since above and below half flow are not specific values but values with an unlimited upper and lower limit respectively, how then do you accurately account for the amount of water and the average speed of flow using this method?

Mr_Anony:

Using your flow analogy, to add up to 8bit = 1byte. you must flow at above half-flow and below half-flow alternatively four times.

No. To have a byte(eight 1bits), you would need to have eight sinks above half flow.

Mr_Anony:
Now since above and below half flow are not specific values but values with an unlimited upper and lower limit respectively, how then do you accurately account for the amount of water and the average speed of flow using this method?

Very easily otherwise water redistribution would not be a viable business. If you really wanted I suppose you could use a stop watch and a measuring cup. Turn the faucet all the way up and skillfully place the cup under the faucet. Then measure the amount of time it takes for the cup to be filled. Weigh the cup and divide the weight by the time it took to fill the cup and you will have your max flow rate. Repeat this until you get the desired flow rate. Also, I do not know of any faucets capable of producing unlimited amounts of water at a given moment nor water companies capable of pumping unlimited amounts of water at any given moment.

Idehn:

No. To have a byte(eight 1bits), you would need to have eight sinks above half flow.

Actually no you are wrong, the binary value of 8 is 1000. the zero is not discarded at all, it is just a label. to have 8 1s,you must have 8 zeroes to balance the wave.

Very easily otherwise water redistribution would not be a viable business. If you really wanted I suppose you could use a stop watch and a measuring cup. Turn the faucet all the way up and skillfully place the cup under the faucet. Then measure the amount of time it takes for the cup to be filled. Weigh the cup and divide the weight by the time it took to fill the cup and you will have your max flow rate. Repeat this until you get the desired flow rate. Also, I do not know of any faucets capable of producing unlimited amounts of water at a given moment nor water companies capable of pumping unlimited amounts of water at any given moment.

The point I am making is that above and below half-flow is very vague. how do you get an accurate measure using this labeling system? once you introduce a cup, you are no longer using your labeling system to measure. If for instance, half flow has a value 10 above half-flow ranges from 10 to infinity i.e. 11,12,13,14,15,16......will all be labeled as 1. Question is how does "1" mean anything when trying to find out the actual value of the flow.

let me follow you blindly a bit. Even if you had 8 sinks as you say and half flow is 10 the sinks could be flowing at 11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18 respectively but they will all read as 1bit. when you put your cup under the faucet, you will get varying values for 1bit.

Unless this 1bit has a specific value, your formula does not make any physical sense I'm afraid

Mr_Anony:

Actually no you are wrong, the binary value of 8 is 1000. the zero is not discarded at all, it is just a label. to have 8 1s,you must have 8 zeroes to balance the wave.

My mistake. You are correct a 0bit still counts as a bit as much as a 1bit.

Mr_Anony:
The point I am making is that above and below half-flow is very vague.

Of course it is vague, I am not actually trying to build a computer from faucets.

Mr_Anony:
The point I am making is that above and below half-flow is very vague. how do you get an accurate measure using this labeling system? once you introduce a cup, you are no longer using your labeling system to measure. If for instance, half flow has a value 10 above half-flow ranges from 10 to infinity i.e. 11,12,13,14,15,16......will all be labeled as 1. Question is how does "1" mean anything when trying to find out the actual value of the flow.

Yes, it would be labeled 1[b]bit[/b]. 1bit is when the value of the actual flow is above a certain amount. 0bit is when the value of the flow is below a certain amount. I am not seeing the problem here.

Mr_Anony:
Unless this 1bit has a specific value, your formula does not make any physical sense I'm afraid

It can have any specific value you want it to. I just choose "half flow", for the example. Of course, there are reasons from a stochastic standpoint for why it would be a terrible idea to have a specific value instead of a threshold/range. But you will have to look that up for yourself. Needless to say I fail to see how it looses its physical meaning simply because I chose a range of physically possible values.

Idehn:

My mistake. You are correct a 0bit still counts as a bit as much as a 1bit.



Of course it is vague, I am not actually trying to build a computer from faucets.


Yes, it would be labeled 1[b]bit[/b]. 1bit is when the value of the actual flow is above a certain amount. 0bit is when the value of the flow is below a certain amount. I am not seeing the problem here.



It can have any specific value you want it to. I just choose "half flow", for the example. Of course, there are reasons from a stochastic standpoint for why it would be a terrible idea to have a specific value instead of a threshold/range. But you will have to look that up for yourself. Needless to say I fail to see how it looses its physical meaning simply because I chose a range of physically possible values.

At least we are understanding each other a little and we are making progress. By physical sense (or material sense if you prefer) I mean an accurate measure in terms of mass and velocity. The more we talk about this the more I want to draw a diagram.

http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/8268/idehn1.jpg

Take a look at that diagram. All 4 of them are possible wave representations of a byte. How are they the same if you were going to accurately measure a byte in terms of mass by velocity? Do you see what I'm getting at?

Mr_Anony:

At least we are understanding each other a little and we are making progress. By physical sense (or material sense if you prefer) I mean an accurate measure in terms of mass and velocity. The more we talk about this the more I want to draw a diagram.

http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/8268/idehn1.jpg

Take a look at that diagram. All 4 of them are possible wave representations of a byte. How are they the same if you were going to accurately measure a byte in terms of mass by velocity? Do you see what I'm getting at?

To be physically meaningful the charts you gave should have time as its abscissa. Then they would represent the value of the flow at a given moment. At any given moment, the measured value will follow one of the curves you drew. As I said already, mass and velocity are already accounted for using current, voltage, and energy.

Idehn:

To be physically meaningful the charts you gave should have time as its abscissa. Then they would represent the value of the flow at a given moment. At any given moment, the measured value will follow one of the curves you drew. As I said already, mass and velocity are already accounted for using current, voltage, and energy.

Yes but the problem is that they will all be 8bit even though their masses and velocities may differ greatly. 8bit here can represent an infinite number of currents, voltages, energies, masses, velocities, times, spaces e.t.c.

Mr_Anony:
Yes but the problem is that they will all be 8bit even though their masses and velocities may differ greatly. 8bit here can represent an infinite number of currents, voltages, energies, masses, velocities, times, spaces e.t.c.

They will all be 8bit yes,but what we care about most is whether it is a 1bit or a 0bit as well as the permutations of the 1bit and 0bit. The fact that a 1bit or a 0bit can be represented by a continuum is not really problematic. Especially if at any given moment it will/can occupy only one value along the continuum.

Idehn:

They will all be 8bit yes,but what we care about most is whether it is a 1bit or a 0bit as well as the permutations of the 1bit and 0bit. The fact that a 1bit or a 0bit can be represented by a continuum is not really problematic. Especially if at any given moment it will/can occupy only one value along the continuum.

This is getting tedious again........... If I say to you that the capacity of my diskette is 4mb, you know exactly what it can carry and what it cannot carry virtually. i.e. you know a movie won't fit in it but a word document can. If I ask you to show me the physical equivalent of 4mb, it can vary from a truck driving from Lagos to Abuja to a football kicked from goal post to goal post. You cannot specifically show the material equivalent of 4mb.

Asking you to convert bytes to mass by velocity is as absurd as asking you to express length in terms of seconds. They are completely different dimensions. They interrelate yes but they are totally different. length for instance cannot be derived. we just have to take marked intervals and name them as meters. Time too cannot be derived. we just take marked intervals and label them as seconds. The same goes for information. We just take marked intervals and label them as bits (1s and 0s).

So I hope you understand what I mean when I say that since the universe could not have started from nothing, therefore whatever caused it (insert first cause) must be uncaused and must be spaceless (not explained in meters), timeless (not explained in seconds), and immaterial (not physical matter in terms of mass in kilograms and space occupied in meters).

We must include the dimension of knowledge* and the only two things we know that fit this bill are abstracts such as numbers and an intelligent mind.

We know that abstracts cannot create anything but intelligence can.

Therefore I say that the universe was caused by a person of immense intelligence and unfathomable power. Who transcends space and time.

This is what I have been saying all along. so far you cannot give me the exact material value of 1byte. (I'll allow that the dimension of knowledge/information* is physical) yet you insist that everything must be limited within the bounds of space and time.

Mr_Anony:

This is getting tedious again........... If I say to you that the capacity of my diskette is 4mb, you know exactly what it can carry and what it cannot carry virtually. i.e. you know a movie won't fit in it but a word document can. If I ask you to show me the physical equivalent of 4mb, it can vary from a truck driving from Lagos to Abuja to a football kicked from goal post to goal post. You cannot specifically show the material equivalent of 4mb.

What a bit physically is depends upon you computation system. For a system that uses semiconductors, a bit is specifically a path where current either flows or does not flow.

Mr_Anony:
Asking you to convert bytes to mass by velocity is as absurd as asking you to express length in terms of seconds. They are completely different dimensions. They interrelate yes but they are totally different. length for instance cannot be derived. we just have to take marked intervals and name them as meters. Time too cannot be derived. we just take marked intervals and label them as seconds. The same goes for information. We just take marked intervals and label them as bits (1s and 0s).

Expressing byte in terms of mass and energy is not absurd. For a specific type of computer system a bit will take a specific physical form(electrons flowing or not flowing). But you bring up an interesting point about time and length. If we just take marked intervals and name them as meters, then that is in fact what a meter physically is. If we take another marked intervals and name them as seconds, then that is in fact what second physically is? The same goes with bits. That is just how meters/seconds/bits have been defined. Those definitions of meters/seconds/bits are physically meaningful because the things we label meters/seconds/bits physically exist.

But like before, you are just appealing to this mercurial "other aspect" of time/space/information without actually accounting for what it IS and what it has to do with the physical Universe. You have been doing so since our conversion began, and I have been saying so in almost every response.

Mr_Anony:
So I hope you understand what I mean when I say that since the universe could not have started from nothing, therefore whatever caused it (insert first cause) must be uncaused and must be spaceless (not explained in meters), timeless (not explained in seconds), and immaterial (not physical matter in terms of mass in kilograms and space occupied in meters).

No, I do not. We are back square one. Except that you have already told me that this "first cause" cannot be explained physically even though by claiming it "caused" the Universe you are precisely doing that. Furthermore, you have yet to account for how we can relate,much less know of/about, something that cannot be discussed using the concepts of space, time and physical matter/energy with something that can be described with those things.

Mr_Anony:
We must include the dimension of knowledge* and the only two things we know that fit this bill are abstracts such as numbers and an intelligent mind.

We know that abstracts cannot create anything but intelligence can.

Therefore I say that the universe was caused by a person of immense intelligence and unfathomable power. Who transcends space and time.

This is what I have been saying all along. so far you cannot give me the exact material value of 1byte. (I'll allow that the dimension of knowledge/information* is physical)

Like I said before, all your work is still ahead and you. In fact you are doing exactly what I said you would do. You just want me to agree that things like information are not physical so you can turn around and claim that this "first cause" is the same "kind" of not physical. You are trying to avoid having to actually explain/account for what you are saying/claiming.

Your objection is what is absurd. Your objection is to bits being defined by a continuum of values, but it is not at all clear why this is problematic other than the fact that you have it in your head that bits can only take one discrete value. But that is like saying that humans can only take one discrete form in spite of the fact that humans vary widely in a great number of ways. In which case we are not working with the same definition of bits.

Idehn:

What a bit physically is depends upon you computation system. For a system that uses semiconductors, a bit is specifically a path where current either flows or does not flow.



Expressing byte in terms of mass and energy is not absurd. For a specific type of computer system a bit will take a specific physical form(electrons flowing or not flowing). But you bring up an interesting point about time and length. If we just take marked intervals and name them as meters, then that is in fact what a meter physically is. If we take another marked intervals and name them as seconds, then that is in fact what second physically is? The same goes with bits. That is just how meters/seconds/bits have been defined. Those definitions of meters/seconds/bits are physically meaningful because the things we label meters/seconds/bits physically exist.

But like before, you are just appealing to this mercurial "other aspect" of time/space/information without actually accounting for what it IS and what it has to do with the physical Universe. You have been doing so since our conversion began, and I have been saying so in almost every response.



No, I do not. We are back square one. Except that you have already told me that this "first cause" cannot be explained physically even though by claiming it "caused" the Universe you are precisely doing that. Furthermore, you have yet to account for how we can relate,much less know of/about, something that cannot be discussed using the concepts of space, time and physical matter/energy with something that can be described with those things.




Like I said before, all your work is still ahead and you. In fact you are doing exactly what I said you would do. You just want me to agree that things like information are not physical so you can turn around and claim that this "first cause" is the same "kind" of not physical. You are trying to avoid having to actually explain/account for what you are saying/claiming.

Your objection is what is absurd. Your objection is to bits being defined by a continuum of values, but it is not at all clear why this is problematic other than the fact that you have it in your head that bits can only take one discrete value. But that is like saying that humans can only take one discrete form in spite of the fact that humans vary widely in a great number of ways. In which case we are not working with the same definition of bits.

I have tried to use the definition of information as bits to show you how another dimension may transcend space and time (i.e. space and time cannot explain a mind you can only assign units to it for it to make sense). Thankfully, I believe you have understood this.
I have allowed everything to be physical according to you because in your world for anything to exist, it must be physical (even though you can't accurately define it by any laws of physics other than just giving it it's own custom definition)
All I have said is simply that since first cause of all matter and energy has to be uncaused by matter and energy, we must look to a dimension that is immaterial and transcends space and time. Hence the first cause must be of unfathomable intelligence.
I believe we have come to a point where you understand what I am saying however, you will obstinately stick to your "everything is physical" mantra. That's fine. I am weary of running round in circles.

For the record:We both agree that nothing comes from nothing

I claim the universe must have been caused by a transcendent mind (being) of immense intelligence and cannot be explained in terms of space and time.

You claim that everything is limited by time and space and matter can explain mind yet you haven't and cannot explain a mind with any objective accuracy in terms of space and time.

We have gone round in circles, and no one will budge so let us agree to disagree on this one

It makes no sense debating with someone who is deliberately trying to misunderstand you.

Thanks for your time so far. (At least if anything it was a good time and made me read a little bit )

Mr_Anony:

I have tried to use the definition of information as bits to show you how another dimension may transcend space and time (i.e. space and time cannot explain a mind you can only assign units to it for it to make sense). Thankfully, I believe you have understood this.

I do not agree in the least.

Mr_Anony:
I have allowed everything to be physical according to you because in your world for anything to exist, it must be physical (even though you can't accurately define it by any laws of physics other than just giving it it's own custom definition)

I have not said this. I have repeatedly stated that if you are claiming there is something other than the physical you account for it. You clearly cannot, but refuse to admit it. When I claim that bits are physical I gave you run down primer of solid state physics. What have you presented that is even close to that level of descriptiveness. It is not me "trying to misunderstand you". It is not my error, if you refuse actually explain/account for what you are saying.

Mr_Anony:
All I have said is simply that since first cause of all matter and energy has to be uncaused by matter and energy, we must look to a dimension that is immaterial and transcends space and time. Hence the first cause must be of unfathomable intelligence.

You assume that there is such a thing as a first cause even though you have yet to prove this. Heck, you have yet to explain what it even means to "cause" an entire Universe.

Mr_Anony:
You claim that everything is limited by time and space and matter can explain mind yet you haven't and cannot explain a mind with any objective accuracy in terms of space and time.

No I have not. This is just a straw man you keep throwing up. I will say it again. If you are claiming there is something other than the physical, you must account for it and how it relates to the physical. We both agree the physical exist. You are claiming that there is something not physical that exist and it is related in someway(creation) to the physical. Yet every time I ask you to account for it you try to pass your burden of proof onto me. Why can you not just admit you cannot actually do this, instead of pretending like it is just "people trying to misunderstand you".

Mr_Anony:
Thanks for your time so far. (At least if anything it was a good time and made me read a little bit smiley)

Even though I am a bit peeved, I too agree that this conversation was well worth having.

Idehn:

I hope you actually mean this and not simply as a means to avoid the epistemological/ontological problems that arise from positing a non-physical being. But if you agree then I agree.

I mean it as a working definition that we can agree on for the purpose of deciphering if a pre-existent being/ intelligence caused the universe to be.

Not sure about this one. This rule would apply a certain level fetishism to the dictionary. The dictionary can be vague,ambiguous, incoherent, contradictory, subject to interpretation and even incorrect too. It would be very much like Christians who settle there disputes using the bible. It may be an independent source, but I for one would rather they reasoned through the dispute rather than simply consulting the bible for example on matters of ethics, history, or science.

Fair enough, but let us agree that if there is extended dispute on the meanings of words, recourse will be had to the dictionary.

The problem is It is like my vector examples. While the concepts are meaningful and useful , "vectors", "numbers", "time", and "space" cannot be said to exist in and of themselves. It is like adjectives in language. They are used to describe nouns(the Universe) but are not meaningful by themselves. For example saying "the really big rolled down the hill." is not a meaningful sentence". You are naturally still left asking what is it? While "really big" is used/useful for describing things, "really big" is not a thing in and of itself. Or if I say

I have four.
The four meter long was cut in in half.
Took four hours.

Even though those statements make use of numbers/space/time you are still left asking what? Naturally, this is because "four", "four meters", and "four hours" does not mean anything/exist in and of themselves. They are used to describe physical things. I do not believe this takes away from their utility/meaningfulness.

I see your problem. As regards time and space, we will take it up within the new thread I will create. It will be the first issue.

I am off to create the thread.

@ Idehn,

Here is the new thread -

https://www.nairaland.com/970734/contentions-idehn-existence-god-time#11185834

My, that was a very long read. But I enjoyed practically every bit of it. Thanks to Frosbel, Deep Sight, Idehn and Mr Anony, the thread was a very educating read. Martian, thanks for causing the laughs :-D Can't name all of u who did make this thread work, but I can't ignore Logicboy, y'all did real good laying out yo points and arguments. I really wish I'd seen it earlier
Regardless, I agree very much with, or maybe appreciate greatly, Idehn's viewpoint. No less though than I agree with Mr Anony's though. This is possible because as far as logic goes, Idehn's argument was gracious and quite accommodating. At least he wasn't flinging insults. And he kept laying out his handicap: he does not know and does not know how to know anything in addition to the material world and if he must know, he must be shown how to know. Mr Anony, that is the meaning of having an honest debater to contend with. Perhaps he might have seemed obstinate about the things he does know but by the time I'd read his last comment, I was certain of one thing, he can only understand all of your arguments in one perspective and it is only in that perspective that he claims ability: the material. If you demand that he know or understand your arguments in any other perspective, you must enable him to, you must equip him to. That is only reasonable.
It is possible also for me to agree with both sides because Mr Anony did have a valid point even if he could not substantively prove it. This point was not refuted by Idehn (which is why I said he was very gracious in his argument), it was only tasked for proof. If it failed in proving itself, it is only right and reasonable that Idehn discount it. Should it provide proof, it is such proof that Idehn would correctly refute with new arguments.
I have a stand on the issue but I refuse to argue it out particularly because that stand is not proved by argument (I think the thread bears it out). It is right for the atheist to demand proof of God but it is wrong for him to dictate what the proof will be except he knows correctly what to expect of the thing which must be proved. What I mean is if u did not know what a concrete wall was and someone told u of one, if u must have its existence proved to u, the proof must be consistent with its own character (such as that it is hard, cold with cold weather etc) not what u demand of it prior to knowing what can be rightly expected of it. Also it is right for the deist to attempt to prove God's existence to the atheist but utterly wrong for him to be frustrated with the inability of the atheist to receive proof that mean nothing to him, that is, proof that he cannot relate to or make sense of.
Therefore, I insist that there is no sense in insisting on trying to prove the existence of God for the believer and truly none in demanding proof of such by the atheist (obviously, having said it is right to do both, I'm not saying here that it is wrong now to do either, I'm only saying that it is nonsense to do so). The reason would be that the very definition of God would make it an impossible debate. To prove God's existence to the atheist, the deist would have to make God comprehensible to him, to do that would have to take hold of things that are comprehensible to the atheist, but these things taken hold of would be found wanting since in their essence, the atheist would find them not-like-God-or-else-God-wouldn't-make-sense where the deist would find them otherwise.
I think that if a thing is a reality then it must exist independent of our concept of it. That would mean that our believing or not believing in its reality would be meaningless as to whether or not it exists. It matters not whether I believe that Idehn is half-caste because there is a reality there. If he is not, my believing he is will not make him so. If there is a God, we perhaps lack by nature what it takes to discern him/her/it. Further study will probably. If we will know this God, we must have some new faculty that enables us so to do.
If the question one is stumbling all over though is whether God exists, the simplest thing I see to do is to challenge his/her/its reality. Not by argument though. The job of the atheist would be to learn from the deist what the attributes and characteristics of God is so that he may challenge God along those lines. It makes no sense to say water does not exist because I've never seen or known it and then demand that it must be hard and cause a concussion when I bang my head against it before I can believe in it. It's only correct to find out how to prove a thing's existence to myself from those who say it exists. I believe that statement has also described the deist's job.
To end my typing torture, I'll add that any argument with a view to persuading another of a line of reasoning such that in their basic, fundamental character the other changes is a foolish expedition and an exercise in futility. Thank you all for a great time

Cool post... I didn't know you've already posted this so I posted it again.

Atheism IS nothing to reckon with... it's just a loud mouthed, unprovable, Rebellious and Ostrich belief.