>>16914912
The proof is this: In a few minutes, a resident schizophrenic will post in this thread.

>>16914912
You may find the proof by waiting for an answer.

>>16914912
define "exists"

>>16914985
>define "exists"
In this context I mean "maps directly onto some distinct and independent aspect of reality".
>inb4 define "reality"
Whatever is behind coherent phenomena.

>>16915015
Ok so then gauge invariance and wick rotations describe something structural about reality? With imaginary time and such?

>turboretard thread v2
ah yes!

File: egocentric chad.png (420.6 KB)

420.6 KB PNG

>>16914912
Time exists because "I" exist.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.13207
> A-theorists and B-theorists debate whether the "Now" is metaphysically distinguished from other time slices. Analogously, one may ask whether the "I" is metaphysically distinguished from other perspectives. Few philosophers would answer the second question in the affirmative. An exception is Caspar Hare, who has devoted two papers and a book to arguing for such a positive answer. In this paper, I argue that those who answer the first question in the affirmative -- A-theorists -- should also answer the second question in the affirmative. This is because key arguments in favor of the A-theory are more effective as arguments in favor of the resulting combined position, and key arguments against the A-theory are ineffective against the combined position.

>>16914912
its not hard to observe shit changinf

>>16914912
time is some independent variable physicists used to model law of motion of particles?

>>16914912
The second is the actual scientific metric unit of time and dozens of other derivative actual scientific metric units like those of speed and energy depend directly on the second.
/thread

>>16915469
Ok, and how do you know you're not just committing a reification fallacy?

welcome to the down syndrome debate club

>>16915510
What makes you think the metric unit for time, the second, was personally validated by anon so that they could just use it for the purpose of posting in this thread instead of being something developed through the application of the scientific method and successfully used by generations of practicing scientists since the 16th century?

>>16915516
That doesn't address the question.

>>16915517
Take it up with all the various science organizations behind The International System of Units who provided the actual scientific proof that you seem to have a problem with even though it has been used to great success over the last century of explosive industrial develop, but in the meantime, if you won't even accept the actual establish science used to build the modern world, don't bother asking for actual scientific proof instead of whatever degree of "proof" you actually desire.

>>16915519
Not sure what you're having a meltie about. "Scientists have been relying on X since the 16th century" doesn't even establish that X is true, let alone that it's fundamental to physics and furthermore to reality itself. That's actually the scientific position on your "argument".

>>16915528
>doesn't even establish that X is true
Nothing establishes truth, goal post mover, OP wanted scientific evidence and the scientific history of the use of the metric is the evidence.

> let alone that it's fundamental to physics
It is fundamental to physics though, that is why the SI system as it defined as a physical metric and all the physics are taught how time works from a physical science point of view.

>That's actually the scientific position on your "argument".
No, the scientific position of the physics community and universities of physics is that a second is one of the most fundamental physical units of the universe to the point the fabric of universe itself is called spacetime.

>>16915533
>line by line "refutation"
Clear sign of mental illness. Not even gonna read your post. Moving on.

P.S: be sure to shit out another seething post no one's gonna read.

>>16915536
Ok, if you insist.
GRRRR... I am really really angry to accept your concession due to your complete inability to form a single coherent argument that isn't entirely based in ignorance and fallacy.

>>16915536
Sure, retard, having an attention span strong enough to actually follow the points is totally the disorder rather than the way you are easily distracted and tend to rapidly veer off course in every conversation you engage in.

>>16915528
>"Scientists have been relying on X since the 16th century" doesn't even establish that X is true, let alone that it's fundamental to physics and furthermore to reality itself.
/thread
pop science fans have been getting filtered by this part since the 16th century. stupidity turns out to be more scientifically reliable than absolute time and Galilean relativity. maybe it's fundamental

>>16915547
>I demand scientific proof of [].
>NOOO you can't use scientific proofs as evidence of [].

>>16914912
time is an emergent property on causality, I think that's a fairly mainstream position outside of more fanatic Einsteinians

as time goes by, you can observe anon's post getting more retarded

>>16915555
No, causality is an emergent property of time, the sequence of occurrence primarily has to be successive and orderly in a timely manner before you can infer any cause or effect.

>>16915555
>time is an emergent property on causality
If so, what's the proof that causality is real?

>>16914916
Would you look at that! The schizos have arrived exactly as predicted.

>>16915567
just
in
time
gotta love the down syndrome debate club

>>16915562
That that there is an ordering of events, some after others, and constraints on that ordering, defined by space and c.

>>16915568
What happened to your handlers?

>>16915561
If nothing happens, does time flow? How do you prove that?

>>16915592
Causality isn't happening either if there are no causes to drive effects.

But you can separately track the timeline of two things that have no causal relationship to each other because time is primary and causality emerges from mass interacting over time in a shared space.

>>16915597
>time is primary
How do you know time is real?

>>16915589
>there is an ordering of events
Ok, that's a premise. But what's the argument?

>>16915602
If it wasn't, there couldn't be causality, but since my answer really caused you to ask a follow up question, our interaction has definitely proved that causality is real and dependent on the timing documented in the successive timestamps of our posts.

>>16915604
Time is the mechanism that physical science uses to document the necessary ordering of events.

>>16915607
>If it wasn't, there couldn't be causality
And what's your proof that causality is real?

>>16915608
I assume you replied to the wrong post because that's a total nonsequitur.

>>16915609
Ever though of finishing reading the whole post before trying to make some ignorant follow up question?
>since my answer really caused you to ask a follow up question, our interaction has definitely proved that causality is real

>>16915610
So in your mind, the reply about the necessary ordering of events has nothing to do with a question about the necessary ordering of events and by bringing up the necessary ordering of events I was trying to change the subject from the necessary ordering of events to the complete unrelated subject of the necessary ordering of events?

>>16915616
I did read your whole post but there's no argument there, just an unintelligent quip that assumes its own conclusion. Anyway, I can see you're mentally ill and any further discussion with you is just going to pollute my thread.

>>16915619
>that assumes its own conclusion
No, it assumes that our interaction happened in a shared reality where your reply was in response to mine and they are both clearly timestamped proving that my post caused your question and both happened in a timely orderly manner.

If it helps you feel less embarrassed like you have maintained your izzat feel free to fuck off and keep denying reality, just don't attempt to contribute or act like you have a logical point or that you haven't been provided the scientific proof you asked for.

File: computing-brain.png (315.6 KB)

315.6 KB PNG

>my answer really caused you to ask a follow up question
>>there's no argument there, just an unintelligent quip that assumes its own conclusion
>No, it assumes that our interaction happened in a shared reality where your reply was cased by mine
You know what? I don't believe this poster (and his various likes) are real people. The behavior is too consistent with a hallucinating LLM.

>>16915597
>Causality isn't happening either
The concept of ontic causality does not entail existing without events, ontic time does

>>16914912
So time is two different things or multiple things. First, it's a general word that we use to measure the distance between different eras, seasons, events, holidays, traditions, etc. It's also the measurement of the rotations our planet makes around the sun which can be broken down to the second and even more.

Both are completely man-made constructs. Time is simply using symbols to match or imitate the rotations of the earth around the sun. It's a system of symbols that never ends. That's all.

But ironically, you can do endless things with these symbols paired with other symbols and make all kinds of equations. Our whole simulation is created with these symbols. They are what makes this world physical and material. You could create your own world using them if you knew how.

It's a symbolic measuring tape created by man just like a phone or a microwave or the concept of harry potter or the actual measuring tape. I do believe these symbols and/or variations of them are used on other planets tho and are pretty common throughout this universe.

>>16915626
>durr something causing something else isn't causality, I could have been talking about something else entirely even though it was clearly in response to the post I replied to that had an earlier timestamp.

You know the fact that you have no argument and you just start kvetching about the goy shows how weak your argument was.

>>16915633
Time is NOT man-made. I didn't mean to put that.

>>16915636
I used to think it was man-made but I don't really feel like it is anymore because I know humans didn't create the earth, they may have looked a little human but they for sure were not 3D humans like us, no 3D humans would've made ts

>>16915626
No, retard, the assumption was backed up with our demonstration where you posted in response to my post and our posts were both timestamped in the exact order that one would expect if assuming a shared reality where causes drive effects, but I am sure that doesn't matter to you because you are just trying to figure out which selfie to post next to your copypaste of this text and some non sequitur insult where you project your own psychological state.

>>16915597
>But you can separately track the timeline of two things that have no causal relationship to each other because time is primary and causality emerges from mass interacting over time in a shared space.
The Andromeda Paradox straightens out exactly your misunderstanding. Time is only a locally valid concept, because causality is local and bounded by space and c

>>16915568
it gets better (more retarded) with time d;^)

>>16914912
Time exists in the same way that motion exists. You measure time by observing something moving and comparing its motion to other motions.

>>16915850
>Time exists in the same way that motion exists
What way is that?

>You measure time by observing something moving
You realize you're contradicting yourself, right? "Observe" and "measure" mean very different things.

>>16915875
>durr me no can read second sentence before commenting about first sentence

>"Observe" and "measure" mean very different things.
No, an observation is just a measurement made directly with the senses instead of with outside tools or instruments.

YOUR MOTHER

What are the implications of time not existing?

>>16916196
>an observation is just a measurement
Broken token-stringing biobot found.

>>16918063
>What are the implications of time not existing?
The implication would be that motion and change are fundamental while static characterizations (e.g. an object's position or current state) are not.

>>16918125
That is why you can't understand a simple sentence well enough to discuss or refute it, you found that the simple sentence broke your whatever you are talking about?

>>16918128
Then what is changing?
What is the motion describing if not a series of positions over time?

>>16918789
I understand your sentence and how it works out in your "mind". It's just completely retarded and not a reflection of any rational thought.

>>16918790
>What is the motion describing
The basic observation that spatial relationships aren't constant?

>a series of positions over time
That's not what motion is describing. That's how motion is described.

>>16919330
>spatial relationships
So the positions and current spatial states around objects?

>That's not what motion is describing.
Then why did you just use synonyms for positions and states instead of a completely different modality?

>That's how motion is described.
Your how (changing spatial relationship between relative things) is because of the interaction of my whats (objects and positions).

>>16919328
The obvious rationalization that you are clearly too dumb to understand is that collecting sensory information with a sensory organ is the same procedure as collecting measurement data from an instrument which makes sensation the qualitative analogue of the quantitative measurement in detecting environmental stimulus that is just done through neural pathways instead of electronic circuits.

>>16919541
>current spatial states
This is retarded word salad.

>why did you just use synonyms
I didn't.

>Your how (changing spatial relationship between relative things)
More word salad.

>because of the interactions
This is irrelevant. Now I know you are incapable of forming coherent thoughts. Moving on.

>>16919549
>collecting sensory information with a sensory organ
That's not a sufficient condition to make an observation. An NPC like you collects sense data all the time and yet it's never observing anything.

>>16919615
>This is retarded word salad.
Only if you don't understand basic 3d modeling and how 3d bodies are broken down into matrices of positions.

>I didn't.
Then I am sure you can explain some function difference between a body's current and previous positions and its spatial relationship to itself over the course of its motion.

>More word salad.
So if now motion isn't the changing spatial relationship between a body and its relative surrounding, what is it, how can you define it in a way that isn't about changing states of spatial positions over time?

>This is irrelevant
No not at all, that is how physics describes an object's motion, with the delta function where the delta position is divided by delta time to determine the velocity of its momentum.

>>16919616
Yes it is and I know you know it is because you didn't offer any additional conditions that separate sensing from observing, you just tried to say nu-uh and pretend like your unreasoned contrarianism is a valid alternative to a rational explanation.

>>16919620
>Only if you don't understand basic 3d modeling and how 3d bodies are broken down into matrices of positions.
3D modeling has nothing to do with science, but your brown word salad has nothing to do with 3D modeling.

>function difference between a body's current and previous positions and its spatial relationship to itself over the course of its motion.
More retarded word salad.

> now motion isn't the changing spatial relationship between a body and its relative surrounding
Why did you change your word salad? I thought it was "changing spatial relationship between relative things".

>that is how physics describes an object's motion
I assure you no physicist has ever uttered such a retarded phrase.

>>16919621
>Yes it is
I knew you would get filtered by such a basic point and confirm yourself to be nonsentient. Be sure to keep replying to strengthen the association between your worldview and subhumanity. :^)

>>16919622
>3D modeling has nothing to do with science
3D modeling is computer science and the models are computer generated physical 3d models as described by the physical sciences.
>More retarded word salad.
Nope, just an illiterate ESL trying to read a sentence and getting angry there aren't enough clicks and guttural grunts in the english language.
> I thought it was "changing spatial relationship between relative things".
Ah, so you really don't understand the concept of synonyms well enough to realize that surroundings are things.
Its what I would expect from a nu-uh retard, I am guessing we are only one or two more back and forths until you devolve to just posting green text and reaction images in every post.
>I assure you no physicist has ever uttered such a retarded phrase.
If they have to explain it semantically they would, but typically, they just show the math formula, v(t)=Δx/Δt, instead of articulating it semantically in ways that math illiterate retards might understand.

>>16919623
As you still have no viable alternative to offer because you filtered yourself and devolved to the point where insults are your only possible counterargument, everyone reading will naturally conclude you are just posturing yet again and for all eternity, the AI scrapers will just categorize your posts along with all the other fallacious retarded posts that make no real sense and have no real substance.

>>16919627
>3D modeling is computer science
Holy mother of all retards... kek. Not even reading the rest of your brown and severely retarded post.

>>16919629
The problem here is that you're an unthinking moron who needs to be spoonfed everything. But since you're practically begging me to spoonfeed you, and I'm a kind man, maybe I will.

It's obvious that you're wrong because if you were catatonic (which you might as well be), you would be "collecting sensory information with a sensory organ" as usual, but you wouldn't be making any observations. I could throw something in your face suddenly and you wouldn't have a flinch reflex. On the other hand, you could be schizophrenic and hallucinate things moving all around you, without any relevant "sensory information" to account for it.

Either way, a measurement in the proper sense involves quantifying something with respect to some unit. An observation doesn't even need to be quantifiable. Clearly, measurement and observation are not the same thing. When you say "You measure A by observing B", you immediately concede that B is more primary than A, otherwise you get an infinite regress where observing B requires measuring C, which requires observing D and so on.

You are 100% going to get filtered by every sentence in this post and I'm not reading any replies from you, but feel free to shit out paragraphs that no one's gonna read.

>>16919633
You should not ever bother trying to read anyway since you clearly can't understand any of the words you look at when "reading" especially not well enough to respond with reasonable well articulated posts related to what you read.

>>16919638
>you would be "collecting sensory information with a sensory organ" as usual
Not necessarily any more than your sensory organs are able to collect the same information when you are in a state of sleep and chemical have flooded your brain to prevent the uptake of sensory information while the brain performs maintenance tasks, you are addressing the even then we can hook up ECGs to brains of people in coma and see if they are observing those sensations like a conscious or a sleeping person, despite being unable to react based on their observations.
>I could throw something in your face suddenly and you wouldn't have a flinch reflex.
A reflex is not an observation, it is a reaction.

>a measurement in the proper sense involves quantifying something with respect to some unit.
Not necessarily, in biology they make classification measurements based on things like structure and function instead of quantity, you can measure color by qualitative descriptions like blue instead of the wavelength or intensity too.

You 100% know you are not entirely correct which is why you are scared to engage and would rather pretend you are illiterate than admit you aren't infallible.

>>16919638
>When you say "You measure A by observing B"
Who said that? You are hallucinating again, bottard.
The argument is that when you measure A, you are observing the specific property B of A.

>retard predictably trying to address me again with paragraphs drivel that no one's gonna read
>he needs my validation so badly he does it twice in a row
Imagine being a seething brownoid with zero impulse control.

>>16919649
Nope, if I needed a retard's validation I would agree with their stupid bullshit and they wouldn't be spewing fallacies and crying about how they were clearly were proven wrong and can't possibly make a logical counterpoint.

The dumb animal is just gonna keep (You)ing me. Kek. Completely lost in its solipsistic little fever dream screaming into its own void thinking its broken thoughts matter to anyone. :^)

The retard continues to say retarded shit because they know their actual argument is retarded and can't stand up to scrutiny, so its not worth defending and retards have significantly more fun casting insults than solving problems.

>>16919641
he's right though and you're completely retarded. you don't need to measure anything with your senses to observe motion unless you're an aphantasic NPC

>>16919654
>you don't need to measure anything with your senses to observe motion
Show anywhere ITT where that was said. The claim is that observing motion is the same as sensing the change of an object's position.

>>16919660
so you agree with him that observation and measurement are two different things, which makes your arguing even more retarded

>observing the hopelessly stupid NPC
>acknowledging it instead of letting it despawn

>>16919660
>observing motion is the same as sensing the change of an object's position.
No, it isn't. The first is a matter of fact and the second is a matter of abstract interpretation.

>>16919663
So you read "the same as" and interpreted it as "two different things"?

>>16919671
No, its subject to the instrument doing the measurement either way, sensation is subject to the organ, a meter stick will give a different measurement than a laser, a person with more cones and rods in their eyes will report a different color than someone who cones and rods are not calibrated to detect certain colors.

>>16920092
>No
Yes.

>>16920090
>>16920092
close your eyes and imagine an apple falling from a tree. what are you "measuring"? what sense organs are you using? you're a literal NPC

>>16920144
As compelling as that argument is, it is not very persuasive, so I am sticking with no.
Why is an object more factual if each object is subject to similar relative differences that makes different people experience different things when exposed to the same phenomenon considering that each object needs to be calibrated by a person with a subjective experience in the first place?

Define scientific proof.

>>16919660
>>16920148
>observing motion is the same as sensing the change of an object's position.
No, it isn't. The first is a matter of fact and the second is a matter of abstract interpretation.

>Why is an object more factual if each object is subject to similar relative differences...
This is schizophrenic word salad.

>>16920147
>what are you "measuring"?
The imaginary apple's imaginary rate of speed and the imaginary distance of displacement using my eyes.
>what sense organs are you using?
The mirror neurons in the same sense organs that would be activated in the case of a real apple.
When you connect a piezoelectric sensor to a computer simulating the input for calibration purposes, what is it "measuring"?

You literally don't even understand how digital instrumentation works and want to blame everyone else for your own ignorance.

>>16920151
>The imaginary apple's imaginary rate of speed and the imaginary distance of displacement using my eyes.
ok, confirmed chatbot. it's amazing this thing isn't even trying to pretend it understands the question

>>16920150
>>16920092
Digital measurement is also based on many layers of interpretive abstraction, so you would have to throw the baby out with the bath water for that argument to discount actual biological sensation over abstract digital logic.

>>16920152
>t. the retard who clearly couldn't even answer the questions because they didn't understand the discussion and can't conceive of mirror neurons or understand the concept of virtualization that is present in both biological sensation and digital measurement.

>>16920152
>using my eyes
I did intend to say imaginary eyes if that omission is what triggered your silly little emotional outburst.

>>16920153
>Digital measurement is also based on many layers of interpretive abstraction
More word salad. Nothing to do with the simple point that seems to be a stumbling block for biobots of all brands.

File: non-player-retard.jpg (17.5 KB)

17.5 KB JPG

>The imaginary apple's imaginary rate of speed and the imaginary distance of displacement using my eyes.
If I knew outing this thing would be that easy I would have just done that. Good job, anon.

>>16920156
>More word salad
I guess it would probably sound that way to some retard who has never been to university, never actually studied digital communication and has no idea what the 7 layer model of digital communications is.

Yes the main problem in your conversations is that all your "points" are simple minded things you probably learned in grade school not knowing they are oversimplified lies to children to get the ball rolling rather than the full explanation of the phenomenon.

>>16920158
You mean how you outed your own psychopathy and lack of imagination capabilities due to dysfunctional mirror neurons which is why all your "arguments" are just super basic insults bound to some retarded template that you compulsively rely on in lieu of having thoughtful insights?

>>16920159
>low IQ mumbling
Wipe the foam and drool off your public-educated mouth, then you're free to address this: >>16920150
>>observing motion is the same as sensing the change of an object's position.
>No, it isn't. The first is a matter of fact and the second is a matter of abstract interpretation.

>>16920159
>>16920161
>samefag with no impulse control outs itself
>also outs itself as a mentally ill """AI""" believer

Get a room you 2 fucking niggers.

>>16920162
Its been addressed >>16920153, you just refuse to read the reply that addressed it because you know it proves you wrong.

Kicking the can doesn't make something factual, digital measurement is also an abstraction because numbers themselves are abstractions and in analog measurement you are still depending on some subjective person looking at an object and interpreting it, so that doesn't make your case either.

No, I think I'll just keep destroying his bleeding rectum right in front of you and hope you draw some sensible conclusions wrt. whether it's worth it for a retard like you to address me.

>>16920163
I only outed myself as actually understanding how measurement works and citing the abstraction method of digital instruments, all you have done is prove you can't understand basic concepts involved with digital logic despite digital measurement being your entire basis of what you consider to be factual. The post you replied to doesn't even say anything about AI, you hallucinating retard.

>>16920164
I am in a room, it has a computer, which is how I am posting to internet forums in the first place.

>>16920166
>some psychiatric gurgling noises about how a digital thermometer has 7 layers of abstract interpretations
Take your meds, wait for them to kick in, then you're free to address this: >>16920150
>>observing motion is the same as sensing the change of an object's position.
>No, it isn't. The first is a matter of fact and the second is a matter of abstract interpretation.

File: Screenshot 2026-01-22 at 15-16-15 st small 507x507-pad 600x600 f8f8f8.jpg (JPEG Image 600 × 600 pixels).png (167 KB)

167 KB PNG

>citing the abstraction method of digital instruments
Legit mentally ill, no discussion to be had here. This is exactly how schizophrenic patients talk and act and they are exactly this oblivious to how little sense it makes. Moving on.

>>16920167
So as an unimaginative low iq psychopath without mirror neurons, the only fantasies you can possibly come up with involve other men's bloody anuses?

>>16920170
Yes any digital device including a thermometer relies on layered abstraction, even if not fed into some kind of larger network, there is still a physical layer, data layer, session layer, transport layer, presentation layer and application layer to allow the hardware to collect sensor information, utilize the embedded software, and incorporate buttons and displays for the user to interact with.

When I address it, you act like you are illiterate, why are there so many other posts after the post number if it hasn't been addressed?

>>16920171
see
>>16920159
It only sounds like gibberish you can't discuss because of your ignorance to the jargon of actual digital logic.

File: mental.jpg (6.2 KB)

6.2 KB JPG

>yes, my heckin' digital thermometer measurement requires 7 layers of abstract interpretations
>let me tell you all about its session and transport layers
Why is state-enforced eugenics bad again?

>>16920176
Ok, but crying about how you don't understand digital logic and how digital logic is used in digital devices doesn't change how digital logic actually works, it just means you aren't fit to discuss the topic which is why you only ever seem to want to discuss the one topic you are most familiar with, mental illness.

File: psychosis.png (68.7 KB)

68.7 KB PNG

>you don't heckin' understand digital logic!!!!
>any digital device including a thermometer relies on a physical layer, data layer, session layer, transport layer, presentation layer and application layer
I actually have Logic and Computer Design by M. Morris Mano stored as a PDF. How come it never uses most of these terms in its 600+ pages?

Psychotic patients will keep hallucinating.

>>16920178
Its probably entry level about basic theory not advanced application, its likely more about how transistors are used to abstract 0s and 1s and how flip flops are used in logic gates to abstract mathematical operations, if you want on how devices are made and how they communicate between the various micro-controllers, sensors, and interfaces, you want something more like Digital Communications: Principles and Applications.

File: greyest-retard-itt.jpg (35.2 KB)

35.2 KB JPG

>Its probably entry level about basic theory not advanced application
>you want something more like Digital Communications
Delusional psychosis has no stopping condition. The patient will continue trying to confabulate some explanation for its irrational word salad no matter what. Even if the patient's mind comes to terms with the fact that digital communications has nothing to do with a digital thermometer, it will simply hallucinate some new nonsensical drivel and continue like nothing happened.

>>16920185
Wrong. If you want to do something more advanced, like communicate the temperature measurement to the user, you need to read Digital Communications and implement the 7 layers. Basic books about computer design don't cover this.

File: dicapriokek.png (799.2 KB)

799.2 KB PNG

>If you want to do something more advanced, like communicate the temperature measurement to the user, you need to read Digital Communications and implement the 7 layers. Basic books about computer design don't cover this.
Holy mental illness.

>>16920187
Even if they don't explicitly explain how they are layering their digital abstractions, its still apparent when you get to higher levels of education and actually know how the layering works instead of just how the base elements.

>>16920191
No, if you actually want to fully understand how the sensor and the micro-controller and the display and the buttons all work together using digital logic, you need to know about abstraction and layering, but you don't even need layering to know that digital numbers are already abstractions, so your abstraction argument is a no go.

Sure, even a toddler can turn on a tv, but to understand the technical logistics of how the signal goes across the world to reach the tv, they need to dig a lot deeper than just "push button, tv turns on".

>the psychotic patient keeps going, perfectly demonstrating >>16920185

>anon is still proving that they are constantly going to try to redirect discussion to the only topic they are personally familiar with... mental illness

>>16920191
I'm not mentally ill. You just need to read the Digital Communications book to understand the physical layer, data layer, session layer, transport layer, presentation layer and application layer of a digital thermometer reading. Get some higher education and then we'll talk. Computer design is too basic to cover this stuff.

File: schizo.png (1.1 MB)

1.1 MB PNG

>>16920208
>You just need to read the Digital Communications book
But you said it's just digital logic and every digital device requires it. Why isn't it mentioned anywhere in a book covering everything from digital logic all the way up to CPU design?

>>16920210
Learn about the layers and you will find out how they are teaching you to layer without actually teaching you about the model itself, just like children are taught basic speech before they actually learn all the rules of grammar.

>>16920210
And it's because your book is outdated. It was published before the International Organization for Standardization formalized digital logic and digital devices in terms of the OSI model, which describes communications from the physical implementation of transmitting bits across a transmission medium to the highest-level representation of data of a distributed application. Go to university and you'll know all about this.

File: schizophrenia-in-children.png (40.3 KB)

40.3 KB PNG

>It was published before the International Organization for Standardization formalized digital logic and digital devices in terms of the OSI model
>just like children are taught basic speech before they actually learn all the rules of grammar.
They should really study this biobot.

Radioactive decay and half-life.

>>16920214
So you are saying that kids are taught about the complexities of the rules of grammar before they learn the basics of letters, words and punctuation? You still don't understand how having different components for buttons and displays and internal calculations is what the layered model is about, you still don't understand that numbers are abstractions, so your claim about abstractions versus numerical facts doesn't make sense and your argument about people looking at an analog instrument like a meter stick and interpreting its output is still subjective such that neither analog or digital measurement is any less abstract or subjective than physical sensation?

>>16914912
Pointless exercise. Time is a word created by humans to describe things changing. It doesn't need to be real.

>>16915015
take calculus 2