₦airaland Forum

budaatum:
You left out time!

There is 'energy' (information) in your words (string of letter that are not random and have meaning).

The energy in your words is what I am responding to.

Your words are in a dimension of here.

Your words are being read at time now.

If you had not imbued your words with dimension and energy and time so I can read them, your words would be intangible to me.

The only reason I am not stating that your words have mass is because you would likely ask how many grams your words weigh.

Think Einstein's Relativity. It might help you comprehend the information that I am conveying to you tangibly.

Your cup is too full and therefore knowledge is meaningless.

How can INFORMATION be energy?
How can LOGIC be energy?
How can MATHEMATICS be Energy?
How can SOFTWARE be Energy?

They are all in the same class of Real but NOT Tangible things

jaephoenix:
I as an atheist don't insist on physical quantification
Again I ask, what is the aim of all these questions

The question was not about you as an atheist.
Check

jaephoenix:
1. The output ie the display, is an evident of the software. It may not be the software itself but the fact that it emanates from the software, is in indication the software exists.
2. So what is the name of the entity that is measured in kb and stored in the flash drive?
3. Softwares can be made, stored and destroyed. They even have partitions in the storage media where they reside, so yes, they can be located. Even though we can't touch or hear them, we can interface with them via the visual output
4. We can see the visual output of the software. I can store it on a flash, copy and paste it in any media. So yes, I don't need anybody to convince me it exists. Its right in my flash drive, which is in my pocket
5. AI machines have interfaces their devs give instructions via the codes. These codes constitute the programs, I believe.
Like I said I'm not a computer scientist. But every endeavor of human existence works on logic
6. You are the ignorant and foolish one here who thinks we atheists would ask if softwares are real.
So why are these questions. I don't have the strength or time to start reading from page 1

I can understand how ignorance is the fuel behind your stance.

Have a nice day

LordReed:
Because I already answered them.

You did NOT answer them sir!

Questions:
4. Is it wisdom to insist on a physical quantification of a software within a machine to conclude that it exist?
5. Tell me, how can one prove the existence of a software WITHIN an AI machine's CPU or MEMORY without the use of another software?

SIRTee15:
This is brutal. They couldn't reply to the breastfeeding adult rebuttal.
So Muhammed actually approved women to breast feed adult men. Wonderful.

But TenQ do U actually think goat came in and ate the paper of the adult breastfeeding and stoning of women.
Remember it was Aisha who said a goat came in and ate the paper. Nobody to corroborate her story.
Do U actually believe that story from Aisha. Remember Aisha was already being accused of adultery and she didn't like the idea of men coming upon her for breastfeeding.
So I'm not surprised those Quranic verses were 'eaten by goat' while in her custody.

Ohyoudidn't, Explore2xmore, expanse something to ponder on....
What actually happened to the paper of adult breastfeeding and stoning of women in the custody of Aisha?

It could be a conspiracy between Aisha and her father Abubakar to tear off pages of the written Quran to wipe off evidence.

This was probably why Abubakar had to do a new Quran while pretending that the Quran of Mohammed was lost.

At least the five times breastfeeding was recited but somehow it did not make it into the Quran edited by Zaid.

LordReed:
It is you who doesn't understand the implications of this answer:



to those questions. Think some more.

Why then is it difficult to answer these two questions


Questions:
4. Is it wisdom to insist on a physical quantification of a software within a machine to conclude that it exist?
5. Tell me, how can one prove the existence of a software WITHIN an AI machine's CPU or MEMORY without the use of another software?

KnownUnknown:
This is amazing. I admit that you are very skilled at obfuscation. You should take up the preacher profession.

Comprehend this:

INFORMATION is REAL but not TANGIBLE
MATHEMATICS is REAL but not TANGIBLE
LOGIC is REAL but not TANGIBLE

jaephoenix:
Just seeing this. I'm not a computer scientist but a physician, so I'm slightly incapacitated in this but I'll attempt
1. Yes, it doesn't exist

Wrong.
A software in a computer or Washing Machine exist but it cannot be seen nor touched

jaephoenix:
2. Softwares can be seen with the eyes. So yes, its real

Softwares cannot be seen. What you see is the HDD or the flashdrive or the CD (the medium by which software is stored) but the software itself is invisible.

jaephoenix:
3. Since they can be seen, their existence can be appraised

They cannot be seen by any physical method sir. Thus they annot be physically qunatified in terms of mass, dimension or energy

jaephoenix:
4. I don't know about quantifying softwares but as long as it can be seen, manipulated, stored(as kb/mb etc) they can be termed to exist

The Question was: 4. Is it wisdom to insist on a physical quantification of a software within a machine to conclude that it exist?


It is actually IGNORANCE that will make a person insist on physical quantification of a software to believe it exist

jaephoenix:
5. My above depositions have answered these inane questions.
Got any more stupid queries?

The Question was: 5. Tell me, how can one prove the existence of a software WITHIN an AI machine's CPU or MEMORY without the use of another software?

There is no known method in the universe to prove the existence of a software within a machine except with another software.



You got your answers wrong because you did not know that the software of a computer is simply DATA and INSTRUCTIONS


Let me help you out


INFORMATION is REAL but not TANGIBLE
MATHEMATICS is REAL but not TANGIBLE
LOGIC is REAL but not TANGIBLE

I hope you can understand this

budaatum:
The image in a mirror is tangible because it can be perceived with the senses.

Does an image have a mass?
Does and image have a size or apparent size?
Does an image have energy?

budaatum:
I'm afraid the correction is wrong.

Touch is not the only sense.

I have defined "tangibles" as precisely as possible: anything that has either mass or dimension or energy is tangible!

budaatum:
TenQ, please read me carefully.

A string of text is not information. Your response to me is not just a string of text, but text that has meaning, and the fact that it has meaning is what makes your post informative.

You will note that others are quoting me here but I am ignoring them. The reason is that their posts lack the depth of meaning and information that yours have, which is why I enjoy conversing with you.

Good. At least we agree that a string of text is NOT information until there is a shared formular to make sense of the string of characters.

budaatum:
The first sentence is not true. I may be stupid or unwilling to decode (understand) your string of text and it can still be information.

One may not know how to decode the information conveyed by a fire alarm in a burning building but the fire alarm is still conveying information, and those who call it gibberish are likely to end up dead!

Let me rephrase:
To the Receiver, "The string of text is NO information if it cannot be decoded. Before the String of text becomes meaningful, there has to be first a Pre-agreed formula for decoding it"
Do you agree now with this?

This has nothing to do with whether the information is Ignored or rejected or misinterpreted.

budaatum:
I agree. But you may still write Thy rein gn spbin fulls maily ig thn plune! without giving me the code and still be conveying information. The only difference is that the information you would be conveying would not be decodable by me, and I might conclude that it is gibberish to me, but it is not necessarily gibberish to you who wrote it.

Basically, the lack of understanding does not mean a data is gibberish. One might just be stupid or ignorant or just not have the code.

I think it makes sense only to speak ONLY from the point of view of the Receiver in this case, a Computer.

I do not determine HOW information or instruction should be conveyed to the Computer: the hardware capability and the inherent program of the computer determines how information or instruction should be passed to the computer.

For instance:
Unless my computer through Microsoft WORD is configured to understand sign language, whatever I Instruct the computer in sign Language is meaningless except I type my Information through the Keyboard of the computer.

Thus my information is Gibberish to the computer UNLESS I can put it in the form the Computer can take!

budaatum:
Not true Tenq, that a "string of text is NOTHING without an agreed Code for decoding it". It just means that that string of text means nothing to the individual who does not have the code to decode it.

Neither of us went to school to learn Hindi, but I hope we would not claim a Hindi speaker is saying nothing because we can not decode it.

From the framework of the Computer or the point of view of the computer, whatever you say that is NOT in conformity with the syntax of the computer is Gibberish.

Can you run Microsoft Word on a Macintosh Computer ?
No!
Why?
Microsoft Word Software is Gibberish to the Mac Computer!

budaatum:
And I answered you. A Hindi speaker is not speaking gibberish just because we can not decode Hindi.

But from the point of view of the Receiver, he has no way to distinguish between Gibberish Hindi and Real Hindi
The information is USELESS to the Receiver without Interpretation.

budaatum:
Yes, "software for a Mac is meaningless for Android and is meaningless for a PC because the decoding the code is not standard between them", just as speaking Hindi to either of us would be meaningless to us. But that does not mean what the Hindi speaker is saying is meaningless, just as the software for a Mac is not meaningless. It just doesn't mean anything to the Android or the PC.

I may want to use Sign-Language to pass instruction to my Computer rather than the keyboard. Whatever is my informations is MEANINGLESS to the Computer.
My objective is NOT to claim that Informations is meaningless from the point of view of the speaker, but we have to look from the perspective of the Receiver. After all, it is the Receiver that is supposed to carry out the instruction.

Like I said before:
From the point of view of the Receiver, he has no way to distinguish between Gibberish Hindi and Real Hindi if he does not UNDERSTAND Hindi

budaatum:
But it must be tangible for it to be perceived by the machine!

The machine doesn't perceive anything sir!
The computer is a dummy!
The computer is NOT aware of anything!

budaatum:
Read what you wrote above please. The Mac software is meaningless to the PC and the Android because Mac software is not tangible to the Android and the PC.

Basically, the Android and the PC do not have the right 'senses' for the Mac software to be perceived by them.

True!

budaatum:
This question arose in the very early posts in this thread where it was assumed that ones must perceive with the naked eye. I suggest you go back and read it because I do fail to understand the importance of only perceiving with the naked eye or only physical means when one can enhance ones perception and then perceive.

You can very clearly perceive the effect of the software in the machine, just as you can clearly see the effect of electricity in the machine too. And you can take the software out of the machine and decompile it so you can perceive it, which is exactly what is done if one wants to debug the software.

A matter is tangible if it can be defined either by its Mass, Dimension (length, area, volume) and Energy all will respect to time.

This definition takes care of even electrons (which is invisible to the naked eyes. It takes care of phonons which doesn't even have mass but has energy.
The problem is that you don't understand how data is stored in a computer or even processed.
There is NO difference between noise and data on the memory of a computer when viewed from the outside.

budaatum:
This is a senseless question since there are much better ways to prove the existence of software in a machine than the physical quantification of a software within a machine. But if you do want to physically quantify a software in a machine to see if it exists, you can very easily check if the software is on the harddrive.

My question was specific and it was designed to prove a point.
The Question was: 4. Is it wisdom to insist on a physical quantification of a software within a machine to conclude that it exist?


I didn't say you intend to quantify a software by physical means.

budaatum:
I agree. And that is the reason why I have not insisted anywhere that anyone should "INSIST on physical quantification of a software within a machine to conclude that it exist"!

That said, if you check for the software on the harddrive of the machine, albeit with other software as opposed to with the naked eye, you might be able to see if the software is in the machine or not.

Yes, it can only be done with other softwares.

budaatum:
This part, however, is not true.

If the software does what the software is written to do, one may conclude the software is in the machine. Also, one can check the harddrive of the machine to see if the software is installed on it. And both are valid "physical" means of verification.

A software exist in the machine BUT there is no known physical means by which it can be verified. If you know of a procedure, please tell me now.

budaatum:
Just as it is impossible to see a virus with the naked eye, I suppose, but as said, why would I limit myself to perceiving with the naked eye when I can enhance my perception with aids (software) so I can see better?

A Virus has a mass, it has a dimension, thus it is TANGIBLE!

budaatum:
I think it is time for me to tell you that I will tell you no such thing since I do not intend to "prove the existence of a software WITHIN an AI machine's CPU or MEMORY without the use of another software".

If there is no software in the machine, the machine itself will tell you there is no software in it as soon as you switch it on and ask the software that is not in it to do what you wrote the software to do in the machine.

If you don't have Microsoft Word in your machine, any attempt to open and run and use Microsoft Word on that machine will fail, and that should be sufficient evidence that Microsoft Word might not be on that particular machine. Of course it might be that you did put Microsoft Word on the machine, in which case I'd expect you'd check the hard drive to see whether it is installed properly or not, but asking to do that "without the use of another software" is like asking to do so without electricity or a battery and just by looking at the hardware, which is stupid if nothing else.

I guess you don't understand what is meant by physical means. It means with equipment that will determine either its mass or dimension or energy with respect to time.

What is matter?
Because matter is tangible!

budaatum:
And why is it a problem whether I perceive a software code with another software or not?

I equally can not perceive a virus unless I use a device to perceive it, but you would not claim the virus does not exist because I can not perceive it with my naked eye. Or would you?

But you admit that it takes another software to be able to view or interact with a software within the hardware of an AI machine.
This is sufficient!

budaatum:
Please just listen to the gibberish you wrote there!

You call it "INFORMATION, DATA and INSTRUCTIONS", and yet claim it does not produce an action! Did you write the software so badly that it produced no action?

An action is produced if information instructs!

Your machine will return an error code If your instruction were gibberish.

Your problem is that as a lay man, you are splashing about thinking you know something while you know nothing.

Softwares in a machine do NOT do anything: it is the Hardware in the Machine that does things. It is the hardware that switches, turns on, varies signal. it doesn't even UNDERSTAND the signal it is receiving. It is a dumb slave.

The fact that you have never programed a computer is glaring!

budaatum:
Interesting. Does the fact that Bobrisky is released following Tinubu's given instruction not in effect mean that Tinubu's instruction has been handled?

If the information was not tangible, it would not have been perceived at all, and would be the equivalent of Tinubu just thinking the instruction in his head without making it tangible for anyone to hear it and be instructed by it so they can handle it.

Tinubu's instruction can only be handled if he makes his instruction perceivable to the senses Otherwise, you would need software to read Tinubu's mind.

Tell me then how you can quantify the instruction of Tiunubui in terms of Mass, Energy or Dimension with time. ANYTHING that is tangible can be characterised with this.

Over to you?

budaatum:
I agree. The information is the message conveyed by the ink and the language and the style, all of which are what make the information tangible. If you were just thinking it in your head, your message would be intangible to me, but it could still be argued that it is tangible to only you.

This, by the way, would be the logical argument of a person who claims they perceive spirits. The spirit is real and tangible to those who perceive spirits, but intangible and unreal to an atheist who doesn't.

Leave out spirits from this. We are talking for now on things we should both scientifically agree on as facts.
Unfortunately, your lack of understanding is slowing everything down

If it is true that:
The information it NOT the paper on which it is written,
The information it NOT the ink by which it is written,
The information it NOT the language by which it is written,
The information it NOT the style which it is written,

What then is the TANGIBLE instruction given by Tinubu on Paper?

budaatum:
Not necessarily. The fire alarm in a burning building is conveying information regardless of your ability to decode the information and receive the message conveyed or not.

I could write this information you are currently readind in Hindu, which I doubt you can read. But your inability to decode it does not mean it is not information. It would just mean that you are not informed by it since you can not decode it.

Do you concur that sa long as an information is NOT decodable by a person, to him, it is just gibberish!

Do you agree that if you do not understand English language, then there is no difference between
1. The Rain in Spain falls mainly in the Plain
and
2. Thy rein gn spbin fulls maily ig thn plune!

budaatum:
And this just proves the point, which is that you have conveyed information in your post, whether I understand it or not.
What makes it information is the fact that you have made it tangible so you can transmit it to me so I can read it and be informed by it.
You inform with it by placing it in a dimension and infuse it with Energy so it can be observed in Time, which is your definition of tangible.

I would not have this particular information in this post to handle if you you had not made it tangible for me to handle it with my senses, as I have very clearly done.

Your lack of experience with programming and understanding how a computer work is a limitation to this discussion.


INFORMATION is REAL but not TANGIBLE
MATHEMATICS is REAL but not TANGIBLE
LOGIC is REAL but not TANGIBLE

Can you bring yourself to understand this?

budaatum:
Do you not think it is rude not to answer questions you are asked and expect answers to your questions?

pardon me. It is no intentional, you may repost the questions. i thought your main question was for me to define what was meant by "tangible" and I defined it; please check

budaatum:
The information is obviously the words you have written which I have obviously read and now respond to.

The information is NOT the PC or Phone or hardware

budaatum:
The information is carried by the string of text.

The information is not the string of text, otherwise,
Thy rein gn spbin fulls maily ig thn plune! is a string of text, but is it information?

budaatum:
No.
The information is the string of text. Decoding it with my brain allows me to be informed by it.

The string of text is NO information if it cannot be decoded. Before the String of text becomes meaningful, there has to be first a Pre-agreed formula for decoding it

budaatum:
Whether I can read English or not does not make the information you have conveyed less of the information that it is. It would only be gibberish to me if I don't understand English. In itself it is not necessarily gibberish.

For instance, if you wrote it in Chinese which I can not read, it still is not gibberish.

Before a string of text make any meaning, there must first be an AGREEMENT of the use of code. For instance, if I give you a PRIOR sequence of code for the string of text
Thy rein gn spbin fulls maily ig thn plune!
as
spbin=spain, rein=rain, Thy=The, fulls=falls, maily=mainly, ig= in, thn=the, plune=plane

The string of text THEN will have a meaning.

Conclusion: The string of text is NOTHING without and agreed Code for decoding it. This was why we went ot school to learn the alphabets and words ans sentences etc

budaatum:
No, I do not concur any such nonsense!
Whether you decode the information conveyed by a fire alarm in a burning building or not does not make the information gibberish. It just means you don't understand the information because you are stupid!

Now, this is where you confuse yourself. You think tangible and existence are the same thing.
A thing can be intangible and still exist. An example is a companies intangible assets like its goodwill.
Tangible or intangible does not prove or disprove existence.

The Question was: Do you concur that Until a data or signal is decoded, it remains gibberish?
The software for a Mac is meaningless for Android and is meaningless for a PC because the decoding the code is not standard between them.
Meaning that it is not the Software code that is important BUT the pre-agreed code of understanding.

budaatum:
Software in a machine is real.

True BUT not Tangible!

budaatum:
Yes it can. It can be taken out of the machine and can be measured and quantified. It can also be measured by its effect (as in the energy it produces).

Thge Question was:
3. Can the software within a machine be "measured" or "quantified" by any physical means?

The Answer is NO!
The HDD or Flash Drive is NOT the information . It is just the Hardware medium

budaatum:
You tell me, since you are the one insisting "on a physical quantification of a software within a machine to conclude that it exists".

Personally, I would just switch on the machine to see if it does what the software I put in the machine does what I wrote the software to do, and if it doesn't I will check first if the software is actually in the machine or not, and if the software actually works.

The Question was: 4. Is it wisdom to insist on a physical quantification of a software within a machine to conclude that it exist?

It is actually stupidity to INSIST on physical quantification of a software within a machine to conclude that it exist because, truely a software exist in the machine BUT there is no known physical means by which it can be verified.

budaatum:
Please tell me why I should prove the existence of a software WITHIN an AI machine's CPU or MEMORY without the use of another software, if that is what I want to do?

Because it is an IMPOSSIBILITY!

budaatum:
Regardless, I don't think I would need to prove the existence of Microsoft Windows in a machine with another software or not. After we boot up the machine we would know if Microsoft Windows was in the machine or not. We can also just check the computers hard drive to see if Microsoft Windows is installed on it. If you however want to insist we have used MsDos to do that, I have no problem at all.

[b]The Question was: [/b]5. Tell me, how can one prove the existence of a software WITHIN an AI machine's CPU or MEMORY without the use of another software?

There is NO way to prove the existence of a software WITHIN an AI machine's CPU or MEMORY without the use of another software: it doesn't exist

triplechoice:
Maybe the person who brought you up is donkey and that's why you're quick to insult others who haven't insulted you first

We're discussing "A" here but you came to talk "Z" and without any provocation from me you starting insulting me and think you're sane? Something really must be wrong with you.


Go and Google "the five whys of insanity" to understand yourself better. Your behaviour is symptomatic of something really bad you need to know and get cured before it becomes to late.

There's absolutely nothing in computer sciences that informs anyone that the prerequisite for understanding what's spirits is a knowledge computer of softwares , or is it
in your Bible you read that nonsense from ?

You're just lieing to yourself and believing that with the brain dead JW member hailing you from the sidelines and you're feeling funky. Yeye.

Go take care of yourself!

budaatum:
I don't need to just "touch" any information! You must hear information or see it or read it or feel it for it to inform you.

I can't just sit in my house thinking up intangible thoughts of what I am tangibly informing you in this thread without making it tangible so you can read it!

If the instruction of a fire alarm in a burning house was not tangible for you to hear it, you will remain in the house and burn!

Tell me:
As you are reading this post,
1. Is the information your Device (Phone, Laptop etc)
2. Is the information the strings of text Characters you see?
3. Is the information the electromagnetic wave that carried the message to your electronic device?
4. Is the information the Decoded message in your brain of the things you see?

If you don't understand English nor read English, will this post be gibberish or information?

Do you concur that Until a data or signal is decoded, it remains gibberish


The Question had been very easy:
1. If an existence is not tangible i.e. cannot be measured in terms of Mass, Dimension, Energy and Time, does it prove it doesn't exist?
2. Is a software within a machine REAL or not?
3. Can the software within a machine be "measured" or "quantified" by any physical means?
4. Is it wisdom to insist on a physical quantification of a software within a machine to conclude that it exist?
5. Tell me, how can one prove the existence of a software WITHIN an AI machine's CPU or MEMORY without the use of another software?

LordReed:
No my dear buda it only refers to touch.

budaatum refuses to learn even with correction.

And of course you know this and that is why you refuse to answer my question 4 and 5

Anything that is tangible will have at least one of these properties: mass, spatial dimension (length), Energy. This is what make it perceivable which physical senses hence which can be shown and touched and experienced.
There is not one single equipment other than with another software with which one can even perceive a software code.



Tell me you don't understand the implications of these two questions below?
Questions:
4. Is it wisdom to insist on a physical quantification of a software within a machine to conclude that it exist?
5. Tell me, how can one prove the existence of a software WITHIN an AI machine's CPU or MEMORY without the use of another software?

budaatum:
Then I think you should provide your definition of tangible, since I have provided mine which does suggest they are.

The software in an AI machine is tangible and real since it can be shown and touched and experienced if you don't limit yourself to your naked eyes.

Air one breathes is definitely tangible, as you will find if you hold your nose and cover your mouth for 5 minutes.


Don't you think it is rude to not answer questions you are asked and expect answers to your questions?

Machine code in an AI machine is tangible despite not having mass or dimension, though I'd argue it has energy, since it can produce an action.

Thoughts in my head are tangible to me despite not having mass or dimension, though those thoughts are intangible to others. I'd also argue that my thought have energy since I think before I act.

Now, would you kindly answer my questions to you?

This is where you get it completely wrong AGAIN

By Definition:
Anything that is tangible will have at least one of these properties: mass, spatial dimension (length), Energy. This is what make it perceivable which physical senses hence which can be shown and touched and experienced.
There is not one single equipment other than with another software with which one can even perceive a software code.

It seems all I ve been telling you about software did not meet with any understanding!

My dear:
Software in a Machine do not produce any Action because they are INFORMATION, DATA and INSTRUCTIONS.

Its just like if Tinubu gives an Instruction that Bobrisky be released from prison tomorrow and he is released, you now conclude that the information is tangible. Information is REAL (it exists) but never TANGIBLE (can be handled).
The information it NOT the paper on which it is written,
The information it NOT the ink by which it is written,
The information it NOT the language by which it is written,
The information it NOT the style which it is written,

Information is about Decoding intended meaning of Actions or Signals made by someone or something

If you cannot understand this, too bad!

budaatum:
Are you admitting that the "human readable instructions" is tangible?

And can the machine have anything to read if the tangible human readable instructions is not compiled into machine readable code?


Yes, Tenq. Every instruction must be tangible for it to be an instruction. I must make an instruction tangible for it to instruct you or anyone or anything.

If I want to instruct you to stick your finger in your eyes, I can't just think it intangibly in my head, but must state it in tangible words for you to hear the instruction! Same as I must write tangible human instructions that are compiled into ones and zeros for the machine to read!

Real and Tangible do not mean the same thing!

Show me anything you know that is tangible but does not have any of mass or dimension or energy?

budaatum:
This is where you lose yourself. It's like saying the instruction I give you to stick your finger in your eyes, is not tangible after you have received it because you can't touch or feel the instruction you've received.

If the instruction I gave you is not tangible, how the heck did I convey it to you in the first place I wonder.

Why do you not include 'hear' in your "touch and feel"? Are your senses limited to your eyes and your hands alone?

Can you touch an information?

budaatum:
Are you admitting that the "human readable instructions" is tangible?

And can the machine have anything to read if the tangible human readable instructions is not compiled into machine readable code?


Yes, Tenq. Every instruction must be tangible for it to be an instruction. I must make an instruction tangible for it to instruct you or anyone or anything.

If I want to instruct you to stick your finger in your eyes, I can't just think it intangibly in my head, but must state it in tangible words for you to hear the instruction! Same as I must write tangible human instructions that are compiled into ones and zeros for the machine to read!

Is it Untrue that An item is tangible if it can be defined in terms of its mass or dimension or energy?

What is your definition of tangible?

LordReed:
No you are! Just think about it some more with those 2 brain cells that are still working in your head. LoLz.

Since you do not have an answer, go sleep

budaatum:
Is the "human readable instructions" tangible or not?

This is not what is useful to the machine.


Is any instruction tangible?

LordReed:
LoLz. Keep wait for me to spoon feed you understanding.

Questions:
4. Is it wisdom to insist on a physical quantification of a software within a machine to conclude that it exist?
5. Tell me, how can one prove the existence of a software WITHIN an AI machine's CPU or MEMORY without the use of another software?

You like making simple things difficult!

budaatum:
Slowly, we are getting there.

Is the "High Level language or the Assembly language" that is "Compiled by an appropriate Software program called a Compiler or Interpreter into a machine readable or machine executable code which are sequences of logical zeros and ones" tangible or not?

The Compiler or Interpreter is another software whose job is to transform the human readable instructions to sequences of logical zeros and ones.

They are not tangible!

budaatum:
How are those "Ones and Zeros" created please?

They are symbols for TRUE or FALSE, YES or NO!
Any physical state can be assigned values of Zeros or ones like
Zero (voltages between 0 and 0.5V)
One (voltages between 2 and 3.3V)

Or Magnetism states
Zero ( Magnetic North pole up)
One (Magnetic North pole down)

Or Optical states
Zero (Light Absorbance)
One (Light Reflected)

etc.


These are LOGICAL Zeros and ones, thus they are meaningless UNLESS the programmer assigned meanings to the sequences of the logical Zeros and ones AND the hardware is Designed to decode the assigned meanings of the sequence of Zeros and ones.

For Instance
1100111010 may be an instruction to the Register of the machine
the next sequence of 010110010 is an instruction that the register must perform on the next sequence of 100001101
etc etc


The sequences of Zeros and Ones are meaningless if the hardware does not recognise the instructions packets in the sequence.

budaatum:
Is software code not tangible?

No it isn't.

The medium on which it is carried is tangible but the software it contains is NOT.
The software code is a sequence of machine readable sequences of logical Ones and Zeros acting on data which also is stored as logical sequence of Zeros and Ones

budaatum:
Tell me. What is the relationship between the "human readable instructions on paper", and "instructions in appropriate hardware of the computer"?

The human readable instruction on paper is meant only for the human being (it is useless to the target machine)

It may be
1. An algorithm (logical sequence of instruction)
2. A High level Programming Language Eg Python, C/C++, Java, etc
3. Assembly Language (Low level human readable language)


The High Level language or the Assembly language is Interpreted or Compiled by an appropriate Software program called a Compiler or Interpreter into a machine readable or machine executable code which are sequences of logical zeros and ones

The sequences of the logical zeros and ones written in any appropriate hardware medium is the software.

Aemmyjah:
Budaatum desperados is making him stagger like someone that has drunk much alcohol...

U can't blame him
During his time in school, it was a local typist they used to teach them computer science
Maybe he thought all they punched and typed is software
Forgive his arrogance ignorance

I will be gentle on him. His lack of knowledge is sincere unlike others who wouldn't even attempt to apply sense to what they say

budaatum:
The software is the code it is written from and in! It can be typed out on a piece of paper and put it in front of your naked eyes so you can see it for yourself and touch it too!

That said, please explain what you use to detect spirits.

I can tell you don't know anything about programming.

What you write as human readable instructions on paper is not the software.

Hardware is the physical medium of the computer
Software is the non-physical instructions in appropriate hardware of the computer.

It is called software because it is not tangible. You load the software unto the hardware from an appropriate memory device.

This is why when you load a machine with a software from an appropriate storage device, the software doesn't dissappear from the storage device as it is just copied unto the machine.

budaatum:
Software itself is tangible, since you can very easily observe it's physically existing code.

I thought you read books: where did you learn this?

A Software in a machine is NOT tangible (you can't measure its mass or energy or dimension with/without time) but is REAL

The software program is NOT the HDD, or CPU or Flash Drive or CD etc. Those are mediums on which the software codes are written (media where the program can exist)

budaatum:
It's damn hard discussing with language challenged individuals who don't know what the words they use mean!

Tangible, means real and not imaginary; able to be shown, touched, or experienced.

Software in any machine is real and not imaginary. It is able to be shown, touched, or experienced! But I don't think you can say the same about spirits, or can you?

Everytime you open your mouth, you reveal how ignorant you are.
A Software is not the hard disk drive nor the CPU nor the Ram but the information written on them. The software in a Machine is REAL but not tangible. You can't touch it nor feel it by any mechanical means.
Only with another software will you be able to detect or interact with the information (software program)!

SMH!

triplechoice:
My friend shut up with your very low IQ.

You're derailing the thread by bringing in what's irrelevant nonsense.
if you won't define spirit or talk about God which is the main reason this thread was created then take your software explanations to the right section

Examples or analogies are meant for making definitions or explanations more clearer. If you won't define anything but continue to use something as an analogy for what you refuse to define , then you're engaged in self deception .And that's very unbecoming of someone who claims to be a Christian.


You want to go through the backdoor ,using a computer software ,to prove your God and you think everyone is as dumb as you not to notice. Nonsense!

See the Ignorant donkey opening mouth like basket spewing rubbish he knows NOTHING about.
He never programmed once in his life and he wouldn't ask questions or keep his mouth shut!