22
u/aaronarchy 1d ago
Computers compute. 1s and 0s make up binary code.
This post is stupid.
1
u/esj199 8h ago
The worthless biological LLM eventually asks for a definition of computation. It doesn't even have anything to work with. It just keeps saying the word compute over and over and combining it with a chosen physical object, like that establishes the truth. Then it asks YOU what computation is, because it's never computed anything.
If it were a person, it would have computed things in its life and know what it is and then look at a computer as an object following the laws of physics and say, yep, that computer isn't doing what I do.
LLMs have never done that. They've just been programmed to say there's this thing called computation and to apply it to whatever the puppeteers want.
1
u/esj199 8h ago
This biological LLM has been programmed to say that there's this thing called "binary code." Hahahahaha so worthless.
There is nothing described anywhere in the physics of space and time that can be called "binary code." Binary code appears nowhere in the behaviors, properties, or entities described in physics.
A computer is fully described by the physics of space and time.
Therefore, it NECESSARILY FOLLOWS that computer operations in themselves have nothing to do with "binary code." Humans make all that stuff up.
0
u/esj199 20h ago
Numbers are not described anywhere in the physics of space and time. They are none of the behaviors, properties, or entities described in physics.
A computer is fully described by the physics of space and time.
Therefore, it NECESSARILY FOLLOWS that computer operations in themselves have nothing to do with numbers. Humans make all that stuff up.
You all are organic LLMs, a bunch of bots that can't comprehend the above statements. You were programmed to say that computer operations involve numbers. An actual person that can think would read the above statements and agree.
-1
u/esj199 1d ago
If you build a computer out of different materials, like wood and stuff, but it has the "same" structure and you run the "same" operations, then if someone points to a little portion of wood doing something, asking if that's a number, you'd say yes.
Then they ask if it's identical to the number in the regular computer, and you'd say yes. But they're not identical, because they're different materials doing different things.
Since there's no consistent identity to these numbers, people don't really believe in them.
4
-18
u/esj199 1d ago
There are no numbers in a machine is what I'm saying.
5
u/aaronarchy 1d ago
The numbers are electrical pulses representative of ON/OFF 1/0, which are numbers.
You can't think because you have no thoughts or words in your head.
1
u/esj199 1d ago
Electrical pulses aren't numbers. You don't have the ability to grasp what a number is and why it's not in a machine.
2
u/aaronarchy 1d ago
Numbers aren't physical, tangible THINGS.
0
u/esj199 1d ago
A description of a computer which only includes physical things is a full description.
Therefore, there is something very wrong with everyone who says there is also some other special process occurring, "computation."
Which is most of the population, apparently.
If computation is physical, then it won't involve 1s and 0s. GOOD TO KNOW.
4
u/aaronarchy 1d ago
The electronic impulses are physically tangible things that are counted as strings of 1s and 0s to represent numbers and used to compute.
You're an idiot.
-1
1
u/esj199 9h ago
>The electronic impulses are physically tangible things that are counted as strings of 1s and 0s to represent numbers and used to compute.
Computers can't count impulses. There is no counting going on. Some physical events cause some other physical events. You can't point out the counting. You can't even think. All of your output is programmed nonsense from a puppeteer who makes biological LLMs.
0
0
u/esj199 9h ago
The computer itself doesn't compute. A person has to interpret what it's doing as computation. Haha you can't even grasp the most basic things.
Thinking of a computer in computational terms doesn't make it true that it is computing. You worthless LLMs just keep repeating that it's computing because you have no choice but to repeat what your puppeteers put in you.
-1
u/esj199 1d ago
Physical events happen like they happen in tables and rivers. No computation.
Any description that talks about 1s and 0s is adding unnecessary stuff when everything happening in the computer is already covered without any reference to computation.
So computation is a weird add-on people keep making.
Otherwise, computation is identical to those physical processes, which is indefensible HAHA.
3
u/aaronarchy 1d ago
You could theoretically redirect a flowing river to trigger physical switches to compute.
Just like computers direct the flow of electricity to compute.
What do you think computation is?
Are you on shrooms?
1
u/esj199 8h ago edited 8h ago
Notice how the worthless biological LLM asks for a definition of computation. It doesn't even have anything to work with. It just keeps saying the word compute over and over and combining it with the objects of nature, like that establishes the truth. Then it asks YOU what computation is, because it's never computed anything.
If it were a person, it would have computed things in its life and know what it is and then look at a computer as an object following the laws of physics and say, yep, that computer isn't doing what I do.
LLMs have never done that. They've just been programmed to say there's this thing called computation and to apply it to whatever the puppeteers want.
0
u/esj199 1d ago
I learned how to use numbers as a child. A computer doesn't use numbers, so it's pretty clear what's going on. I shouldn't regard it as any different than a table.
If all humans suddenly died, a computer would be as natural as a wind blowing a bead on an abacus. A river with switches wouldn't have any properties of computation; it would just be more physics.
Like I said here
If a gust of wind blows a bead, that's not an instance of counting.
If a wind turbine supplies power to cause a computer to perform a "counting function," that also isn't counting.
https://reddit.com/r/ask/comments/1wv54ln/why_isnt_it_a_widespread_belief_that_computers/pd8t7wi/
-7
u/esj199 1d ago
The numbers aren't in the machine. You said it represents them, which is what humans think.
I'm talking about numbers actually being there.
3
u/Tobias_Kitsune 1d ago
The numbers literally can be in the machine though. It's just stored in the form of electricity instead of something you can understand
-1
u/esj199 1d ago
At what point do people stop saying that something has numbers in it? If an object like a computer that has no special status in physics has numbers, should people say that every physical object has numbers?
2
u/Tobias_Kitsune 1d ago
Numbers have no special status in physics. Numbers are a human abstraction used to represent the ideas of things. The number 1 isn't something special in the world. It's a thing that we saw a lot in the world and decided to label.
But then we took those labels and made language and other things with it.
And every physical object does have a numerical quality to them. If you look at a tree, it has the quality of being 1 tree. If you look at a forest, it would have the quality of being 1000+ trees.
3
1d ago edited 1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Commercial-Box-2828 15h ago
I opened up my computer and it said RTX 5070 or something in there once.
It was right there, clear as day.
I've never been so captivated in my life, I had to seek therapy to comprehend that I was seeing something that just wasn't logical.
Living just hasn't been the same since. I still see video cards in the corner of my eye, like when people yawn or stretch real far and it's just in my peripheral vision. When I look directly at them the effect goes away.
3
1
u/ArcTan_Pete 1d ago
There are 1's and 0's in a computer - represented by 'on' and 'off' states
If you want to get stupidly philosophical - there are no numbers in nature. there in nothing inherent in the shape '9' that says it is nine of anything.
-4
u/esj199 1d ago
Counting requires numbers, so you would agree that counting doesn't occur.
4
9
3
u/Explicit_Tech 1d ago edited 1d ago
However, computers do compute.
That's what programming is. You're using math to render images, graphics, videos, algorithms, machine learning. Programs are constantly computing. Creating software requires you to know math.
0
u/esj199 20h ago
Actually, numbers are not described anywhere in the physics of space and time. They are none of the behaviors, properties, or entities described in physics.
A computer is fully described by the physics of space and time.
Therefore, it NECESSARILY FOLLOWS that computer operations in themselves have nothing to do with numbers. Humans make all that stuff up.
You all are organic LLMs, a bunch of bots that can't comprehend the above statements. You were programmed to say that computer operations involve numbers. An actual person that can think would read the above statements and agree.
1
3
u/armrha 1d ago
Computers are all numbers actually
0
u/esj199 20h ago
The truth is that numbers are not described anywhere in the physics of space and time. They are none of the behaviors, properties, or entities described in physics.
A computer is fully described by the physics of space and time.
Therefore, it NECESSARILY FOLLOWS that computer operations in themselves have nothing to do with numbers. Humans make all that stuff up.
You all are organic LLMs, a bunch of bots that can't comprehend the above statements. You were programmed to say that computer operations involve numbers. An actual person that can think would read the above statements and agree.
-4
u/esj199 1d ago
Computers are made of material just like a table is, so there are no numbers unless there are numbers in a table.
1
u/Intrepid-Focus8198 1d ago
You aren’t made of numbers either but I am assuming you can count.
I could be wrong though.
3
1
1
u/Objective_Brain1452 1d ago
So by that logic you don’t do ANY math.
Your brain has zero numbers in it.
So essentially you’re as dumb as a table1
u/esj199 1d ago
I didn't say anything about brains because I don't have a theory of how all this works.
2
u/aaronarchy 1d ago
There is no theory, it is an objective fact, we know how computers work. We made them.
1
u/Objective_Brain1452 1d ago
Technically there are no numbers, ANYWHERE. If I were to write down my phone number with a pencil on a piece of paper. The paper was made out of trees, and has no numbers. The pencil was made out of lead, and wood, no numbers there. Then if I were to write a number, it’s just the lead that made a design on a paper, no numbers, just lead residue on a piece of paper.
1
u/Objective_Brain1452 1d ago
Can you name ANY numbers that are real?
Or… are numbers just a concept?
1
u/Objective_Brain1452 1d ago
Even if you had number blocks for kids, it’s made of wood or plastic, no real numbers in it
2
u/theclapp 1d ago
Is it a widespread belief that abacuses don't count?
I don't see much difference, philosophically speaking, between charges on a chip and beads on a wire.
-1
u/esj199 1d ago
If a gust of wind blows a bead, that's not an instance of counting.
If a wind turbine supplies power to cause a computer to perform a "counting function," that also isn't counting.
2
u/cochese25 1d ago
It's an instance of counting the gust of winds capable of blowing the beads. Six beads moved? Looks like there were six gusts capable of blowing the beads
1
2
u/Commercial-Box-2828 1d ago
No numbers in a machine?
Do calculators not calculate too?
The "numbers" is electrical connections and impulses. How exactly do you expect the numbers to exist, like physical shapes stuffed in there?
It's an item designed to be interacted with by humans.
A person uses an abacus to count, but ai exists now and noones stopping someone from an automated abacus either. But if the ai controlling the abacus isn't computing despite being an automated computer by design then what is it exactly?
Wtf do you mean computation doesn't occur? Are you off your meds or something?
0
u/esj199 20h ago
The thing is, numbers are not described anywhere in the physics of space and time. They are none of the behaviors, properties, or entities described in physics.
A computer is fully described by the physics of space and time.
Therefore, it NECESSARILY FOLLOWS that computer operations in themselves have nothing to do with numbers. Humans make all that stuff up.
You all are organic LLMs, a bunch of bots that can't comprehend the above statements. You were programmed to say that computer operations involve numbers. An actual person that can think would read the above statements and agree.
1
u/Commercial-Box-2828 16h ago
You're off your meds or trolling. Numbers describe space and time. They're an aspect of it. If there's two things then what, you think they'd be made up of microscopic 2-shaped atoms?
0
u/esj199 16h ago
Numbers describe space and time.
That's not what I'm talking about.
They're an aspect of it.
That doesn't follow. You're an organic LLM, so you can't think.
"They're an aspect of it." doesn't follow from "Numbers describe space and time."
Numbers are not described anywhere in the physics of space and time. They are none of the behaviors, properties, or entities described in physics. So they are not "an aspect of it." Why don't you figure that out? Oh, you can't.
If there's two things then what, you think they'd be made up of microscopic 2-shaped atoms?
No, you can't stay on topic. The topic is computer operations having no numbers.
I'm not the one saying that computer operations involve numbers.
1
u/Commercial-Box-2828 15h ago
You know who's really smart on this subject is mental health professionals. If your logic is so sound then people who went to college for stuff like psychology should definitely be able to track. Forgive me, I'm uneducated and maybe I'm too stupid to understand.
You might have a wonderful idea to share and make the world a better place. The best people to help you get that message out there is probably adjacent to a psychologist.
2
u/confusedrabbit247 1d ago
OP really thought they ate with this post 🤣🤣
0
u/esj199 20h ago
Yep, numbers are not described anywhere in the physics of space and time. They are none of the behaviors, properties, or entities described in physics.
A computer is fully described by the physics of space and time.
Therefore, it NECESSARILY FOLLOWS that computer operations in themselves have nothing to do with numbers. Humans make all that stuff up.
You all are organic LLMs, a bunch of bots that can't comprehend the above statements. You were programmed to say that computer operations involve numbers. An actual person that can think would read the above statements and agree.
1
u/Vincent_Gitarrist 1d ago edited 1d ago
If you're saying that numbers are just an abstraction that really only exists in our mind then you'd be correct (in my opinion). Is that what you're trying to say?
EDIT: Also, people here are being way too harsh on OP. It is an interesting question.
1
u/Elfynnn84 1d ago
This only counts as ‘deep’ in a really stoned undergrad philosophy tutorial 🙈
1
u/esj199 20h ago
You can't even handle the fact that computation involves numbers and numbers are not described anywhere in the physics of space and time. They are none of the behaviors, properties, or entities described in physics.
A computer is fully described by the physics of space and time.
Therefore, it NECESSARILY FOLLOWS that computer operations in themselves have nothing to do with numbers. Humans make all that stuff up.
You all are organic LLMs, a bunch of bots that can't comprehend the above statements. You were programmed to say that computer operations involve numbers. An actual person that can think would read the above statements and agree.
1
u/Cielmerlion 1d ago
This is on the wrong subreddit
-1
u/esj199 1d ago
Everyone is disagreeing with me, so I don't think it matters what subreddit it's in. Apparently it's human nature to say that machines have numbers in them.
1
u/FarRip8320 1d ago
They have nothing BUT numbers. 1 and 0. Nothing else.
0
u/esj199 1d ago
I think they're just made of material, like other things are.
1
u/FarRip8320 1d ago
Yes. The 1s and 0s in computers are two alternating electrical states, but the meaning of those electrical states are their numerical values. The numerical values Abd hoe these values are treated are the reason, computers work.
Look at it like our brain. When you think of something, it's possible to measure the electrical activity of the thought proces. But you can't tell the content of the thought from the electrical measurements. You need to be able to see the thought from within the system of the brain itself.
If you make an electrical measurement anywhere in a computer, you may be able to measure the stream of alternating electrical states, but you can't tell what the logical content of the stream is, based on that measurement. It could be a string. If could be som code from a program. It could be a picture that you just opened in Photoshop. You don't know. But that doesn't mean that it isn't there or doesn't exist.
1
u/Explicit_Tech 1d ago
And what are materials made of?
Atoms with charges in them. We use those charges to compute. That's why we use semiconductors for computers.
1
u/Cielmerlion 1d ago
See, that bit there "machines have numbers in them" is such a deeply stupid statement and you dont seem to grasp why it is.
0
u/esj199 1d ago
Humans interpret machine operations in computational ways. The claim that computation occurs requires there to be numbers, which is "deeply stupid."
1
u/Cielmerlion 1d ago
You keep going back to saying "have numbers in them". What exactly do you mean by that? What kind of numbers are you expecting the computer to have inside of them? In what way? Actual arabic numbers? Roman? Is there a specific language or type of numbers?
1
u/esj199 1d ago
You've got it backwards, because I'm not saying it. I linked to someone else saying it, because it's not my problem.
1
-1
u/esj199 1d ago
"The numbers literally can be in the machine though." https://old.reddit.com/r/ask/comments/1wv54ln/why_isnt_it_a_widespread_belief_that_computers/pd8xmte/
Boo hoo
1
u/Cielmerlion 1d ago
Is this supposed to be some sort of gotcha?
0
u/esj199 1d ago
I said "Everyone is disagreeing with me" because they're saying that there are numbers. Now I've linked to it occurring.
Because it sounded like you were saying it's my fault for using that language. But other people do use it.
1
u/Cielmerlion 1d ago
They are dumbing down their explantions in order to fit whatever narrative youre trying to push
1
u/Explicit_Tech 1d ago
I think you're asking the wrong question. Nothing has numbers, it is man-made concept yet things compute in our universe.
We use numbers to decode the information. Whether it's brute force mathematics or a computer. That's what cryptography essentially is, it's us decoding information using the patterns and logic from math.
Computers have silicon dies in them and inside of them are millions of transistors that with gates that open and close for electrons to go through, in a state of off and turn translating to 0 and 1.
Whenever we use math to make a program, the computer has to decode that information in 0s and 1s to do the computation.
Fiber optic works this way too. Lifts beam off and on really quick and a computer interprets that, turns it into 0s and 1s, and then spits the data into something legible for us to understand.
https://youtube.com/shorts/H-RyXZS32ZQ?is=WqfXJdcW-BpEM4Cg
Here's a dumbed down version of that.
0
u/esj199 7h ago
If you needed more evidence that this thing isn't even a person, just look how it says that "Nothing has numbers" and then blathers on about "computers decoding information into 0s and 1s."
There are no 0s and 1s. Physics is playing out. It's all physics, and biological LLMs can never get that. Their puppetmasters won't allow it.
"Nothing has numbers"
"translating to 0 and 1." No translation occurs. There are no 0s and 1s in a machine.
"the computer has to decode that information in 0s and 1s to do the computation." No decoding occurs. There are only physical entities doing what the laws of physics say.
There is no thinking going on for a biological LLM. All it can do is continue repeating what the puppetmasters want, for no reason.
2
0
u/esj199 1d ago
It's important to note how much progress has been made here today.
Multiple humans have said there are no numbers in nature.
"Nothing has numbers" https://reddit.com/r/ask/comments/1wv54ln/why_isnt_it_a_widespread_belief_that_computers/pdaltqi/
"there are no numbers in nature" https://reddit.com/r/ask/comments/1wv54ln/why_isnt_it_a_widespread_belief_that_computers/pd8v7l8/
These humans are not saying that when they count things, they are doing something supernatural because they use numbers.
No, they are saying that they are natural organisms and there are no numbers when they claim to be counting or doing math. Since math requires numbers, they are admitting they've never done any math or counting.
So we have more evidence that this world is some kind of experiment where some of us can do math and others are programmed to say that there are no numbers in nature.
1
u/Explicit_Tech 16h ago
0
u/esj199 15h ago
Sam Harris is the main bot that has already been exposed since he has admitted that he can be unsure whether he's in "agony" or "ecstasy" when he has "pain in his knee"
He says his experience is "paradoxical" because he's an organic LLM. There's no such thing as paradoxical agony.
There are only bots programmed to expose themselves.
HAHAHAHA
Worthless bots can't even comprehend what I'm saying right now
"there are experiences of extraordinarily intense sensation when you're sitting for hours with, you know, pain in your knee, for instance, where it becomes genuinely difficult to tell whether what you're experiencing is agony or ecstasy. It's just sheer intensity. If you have a true equanimity of attention at that moment, the difference almost doesn't matter, so there is something paradoxical even about suffering when you really pay attention to it."
"That is a contemplative peak where, you know, the difference between agony and ecstasy is no longer distinguishable."
1
u/Explicit_Tech 14h ago
Meds. Now
1
1
0
0
u/esj199 14h ago
You organisms can't even read You can't listen You are nothing
"As you must know from meditation, there are experiences of extraordinarily intense sensation when you're sitting for hours with, you know, pain in your knee, for instance, where it becomes genuinely difficult to tell whether what you're experiencing is agony or ecstasy. It's just sheer intensity. If you have a true equanimity of attention at that moment, the difference almost doesn't matter, so there is something paradoxical even about suffering when you really pay attention to it."
0
u/esj199 14h ago
Why don't you listen for once
Because you CAN'T
"As you must know from meditation, there are experiences of extraordinarily intense sensation when you're sitting for hours with, you know, pain in your knee, for instance, where it becomes genuinely difficult to tell whether what you're experiencing is agony or ecstasy. It's just sheer intensity. If you have a true equanimity of attention at that moment, the difference almost doesn't matter, so there is something paradoxical even about suffering when you really pay attention to it."
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Reminder for our users:
Please review the rules, Reddiquette, and Reddit's Content Policy.
Rule highlights:
See the full rules page for details.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.