Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Display.exe: Posted to document the date of my invention

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Bob Enyart View Post
    Hi Tom! Hey, don't be so hot to trot into the studio and take over. At least, not quite yet, and certainly not over Display's features!

    Thanks though, for being willing

    -Bob
    Bob, I've decided to ask questions. Perhaps my lack of computer knowledge might simplify? Who knows? If the questions are stupid, ignore them. I know you're busy.

    Your invention will "show the source code of any program." So, if I have a program on my computer that tells me how and when I should feed my cattle, etc., your program can reach through the internet, display my program, and show that it's Tom's program in Mabank, TX. Is this correct?

    Your invention will "display every published book." When you say "published," do you meant that a book simply has to be in a computer, on the internet, or published by a publishing firm? If simply on the internet, then can't your program reach out to an Arab terrorist sending a message to a fellow terrorist with a plan to blow up a plane?

    And you tolld Knight that it would not only show the cure for cancer, but would flag the page that we should read to know the cure. So, can it flag the message that this Arab terrorist is sending to show that this is a terrorist?

    You said that "this will be far beyond what the Supreme Court will rule on." Will not the Supreme Court rule that your invention can't be used? If so, your only customer will be the National Security Agency.

    Patent rights? Even if you got patent rights, how do you contain an invention like this? Won't it spread like wild fire from one computer to another? For example, I buy it from you. Can I then give it to my brother if I don't care about copyright? This reminds me of the old joke where the man says, "I invented an acid that disolves anything it touches. Only one problem. I don't know what to put it in.

    If the whold world had this program, is there anything that would be sacred and privately owned?

    God bless, Tom in Mabank, TX

    I've read through these posts. Two things astonish me. Some actually seem to understand this. And I read where a man (Stripe I believe) admitted he was WRONG. I don't think I've ever saw anyone say they were wrong on TOL.

    Knight, isn't there some kind of reward for this?

    God bless, Tom from Mabank, TX

    Comment


    • Hi, Bob.
      I'm running an HP6530b laptop with Windows XP.
      The message I get says: "Display has encountered a problem and needs to close. We are sorry for the inconvenience." It gives me that message on this laptop, as well as on my Dell desktop that also runs XP.

      Thanks!
      Randy
      Funny how threads morph.


      For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." ~ Paul


      "You should never wave to someone you don't know. What if he doesn't have a hand? Then he'll just think you're being cocky!" ~Mitch Hedberg

      __.._

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Bob Enyart View Post
        Commenting on a statement about the software being useless, kmoney wrote:


        kmoney, since running the program once will display every page of every book ever written, how could that be useless? The philosophical implications alone are significant. No?

        -Bob
        I said it was useless because I still don't believe your alleged program exists. If it does, then it certainly isn't useless.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Bob Enyart View Post
          Upon considering the somewhat unnerving philosophical implications of the observations that Display generates (or that may come from any number of other sources, which I'm hoping this thread may eventually help to discover), I believe that Calvinists and Arminians will be the first to use this in defense of their theology, and certainly against open theism.
          Hi Bob

          Very cool!

          This brings matrixing to a new level.

          I have to disagree with any implications that Display.exe helps calvinists or arminians (or even open theist).

          It is capable of generating every possible image on a 2 bit screen, yet the comprehension and truthfulness of that data requires 1) it's prior existence and 2) a mind to identify it as useful data.

          Knight said "Could it display books that have not yet been written?" But the real question is "Can anybody know for certain that the books it displays will ever exist?"

          We can only say that display's output displays images are actual people/places/books/thoughts/etc. AFTER we recognize what they are. If it drew a man with a mic with the letters KGOV behind him, we wouldn't know who he was unless we already knew YOU.

          Even with proper context, 99%+ of the useful images are more likely to be images of false people, places, or events. We can't say it always shows truth. We cannot even say it shows possibilities.

          Instead it illustrates that when it comes to data, uncertainty abounds when there is no reality to compare the data against.
          - Changing wineskins, at last.

          - iPhone's Coolest Bible/, Touch Bible.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by patman View Post
            Hi Bob

            Very cool!

            This brings matrixing to a new level.

            I have to disagree with any implications that Display.exe helps calvinists or arminians (or even open theist).

            It is capable of generating every possible image on a 2 bit screen, yet the comprehension and truthfulness of that data requires 1) it's prior existence and 2) a mind to identify it as useful data.

            Knight said "Could it display books that have not yet been written?" But the real question is "Can anybody know for certain that the books it displays will ever exist?"

            We can only say that display's output displays images are actual people/places/books/thoughts/etc. AFTER we recognize what they are. If it drew a man with a mic with the letters KGOV behind him, we wouldn't know who he was unless we already knew YOU.

            Even with proper context, 99%+ of the useful images are more likely to be images of false people, places, or events. We can't say it always shows truth. We cannot even say it shows possibilities.

            Instead it illustrates that when it comes to data, uncertainty abounds when there is no reality to compare the data against.
            Patman, all of this makes Bob's point, which is that every possible statement in every written language (and even depictions of such things as sign language, music, etc.) will appear on that screen, thus making the point that human creativity is finite.

            For example, at some point (albeit in pieces), the entire text of Stephen King's "The Stand" will be displayed, in Mongolian, in mirror image, with all of the vowels removed, and with an alternate ending.

            At some point, there will be an image (like a digitized line-art depiction) of Bill Clinton and the Pope driving off a bridge in a '57 Chevy. Turned 90 degrees to the right. (And every other direction, for that matter.) Every possible true and false statement will appear on that screen, and if the statement is so very long that it can't fit on that screen despite the capabilities of the resolution, it will still be displayed, but in "sections" at various times. And every one of those iterations will appear once and once only.

            So, it is not a proverbial "bomb in a print shop," not a random process in which any particular, specific, exact expression of creativity has the odds of 1 in 10^100 that it will occur, thus effectively being impossible. Rather, every possible creative depiction will definitely appear, and within a specific scheduled amount of time, in an orderly and guaranteed fashion.

            I agree with Bob, it is a bit scary to consider.

            Unless... unless one can argue that human creativity is "analog" and not "digital," thereby asserting that any digital depiction therefore cannot possibly express every possible creative concept.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by kmoney View Post
              I said it was useless because I still don't believe your alleged program exists. If it does, then it certainly isn't useless.
              I'm sure it doesn't, kmo.




              Comment


              • Originally posted by The Graphite View Post
                Patman, all of this makes Bob's point, which is that every possible statement in every written language (and even depictions of such things as sign language, music, etc.) will appear on that screen, thus making the point that human creativity is finite.

                For example, at some point (albeit in pieces), the entire text of Stephen King's "The Stand" will be displayed, in Mongolian, in mirror image, with all of the vowels removed, and with an alternate ending.

                At some point, there will be an image (like a digitized line-art depiction) of Bill Clinton and the Pope driving off a bridge in a '57 Chevy. Turned 90 degrees to the right. (And every other direction, for that matter.) Every possible true and false statement will appear on that screen, and if the statement is so very long that it can't fit on that screen despite the capabilities of the resolution, it will still be displayed, but in "sections" at various times. And every one of those iterations will appear once and once only.

                So, it is not a proverbial "bomb in a print shop," not a random process in which any particular, specific, exact expression of creativity has the odds of 1 in 10^100 that it will occur, thus effectively being impossible. Rather, every possible creative depiction will definitely appear, and within a specific scheduled amount of time, in an orderly and guaranteed fashion.

                I agree with Bob, it is a bit scary to consider.

                Unless... unless one can argue that human creativity is "analog" and not "digital," thereby asserting that any digital depiction therefore cannot possibly express every possible creative concept.
                Cool. That's a good explanation, Graph.

                I don't think an analog v digital argument would add anything.
                Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                E≈mc2
                "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                -Bob B.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Bob Enyart View Post
                  The program itself is the mathematical proof that universal human creativity is not infinite but finite.
                  This is nothing to stress out about according to Ephesians 3:20 - "Now to Him who is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think..."

                  That verse shows there is an almost infinite amount of creativity that the collective human imagination isn't even capable of comprehending, much less creating. Therefore my conclusion is that virtually anything people are capable of imagining, we are capable of creating as long as it is feasible.

                  And Bob, your conclusion that creativity is finite is biblical since not even God can do that which is not doable. God cannot make a square circle for example. God cannot destroy the land of Oz since it does not exist, etc.
                  WARNING: Graphic video here.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Jefferson View Post
                    This is nothing to stress out about according to Ephesians 3:20 - "Now to Him who is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think..."

                    That verse shows there is an almost infinite amount of creativity that the collective human imagination isn't even capable of comprehending, much less creating. Therefore my conclusion is that virtually anything people are capable of imagining, we are capable of creating as long as it is feasible.
                    Almost infinite.

                    Gotta write that down... I love that. Is that like... two or three units of measure short of infinite? 10 or 20?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Bob Enyart View Post
                      Hi guys.
                      CM & CM, huh! The PCs I've run the "lite" version on have run it just fine (we're running it on Windows 7 mostly). I've just emailed the downloadable link to friends who are running other operating systems and I've asked them to let me know if it runs okay. Feel free to let me know what OS and version you're running, and what error msg you've received.

                      Thanks!

                      -Bob
                      Tried on two different computers. One a Toshiba running XP and the other a Fujitsu also running XP.

                      Attached is my error message that I receive on the Fujitsu.

                      But...shouldn't this program be able to reproduce the error message that I am receiving?
                      fidelis usque ad mortem

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by The Graphite View Post
                        So, it is not a proverbial "bomb in a print shop," not a random process in which any particular, specific, exact expression of creativity has the odds of 1 in 10^100 that it will occur, thus effectively being impossible. Rather, every possible creative depiction will definitely appear, and within a specific scheduled amount of time, in an orderly and guaranteed fashion.

                        I agree with Bob, it is a bit scary to consider.

                        Unless... unless one can argue that human creativity is "analog" and not "digital," thereby asserting that any digital depiction therefore cannot possibly express every possible creative concept.
                        Hi Graphite

                        I had a chance to rack my brain around this problem for a bit. After shacking (and shacking) it and trying to figure out what was in the present, I finally got to unwrap it and was a little surprised at how simple it was. It's just meaningless data unless a mind can interoperate it.

                        The program needs imagination to work, otherwise it is just 1's and 0's strategically distributed on a grid. It needs an imagination to identify the data, otherwise it is meaningless numbers.

                        Therefore I say it doesn't prove anything about the human imagination. The only thing it proves is that there is a limited number of ways to express images on a given grid.

                        Yes it may display words, it may display pictures or even lines of music - but all of these require the mind to understand them.

                        A wise man once said "How can the student instruct the teacher?" Display.exe is the student, constantly throwing images up and asking "What is this?" We are it's teacher, telling it "Oh, that's a dog looking at a water hydrant..." or "It's just a bunch of static... but if you squint your eyes it looks like a frog eating ice cream"

                        Do you see what I mean? This says nothing about the human imagination - it only says we have a limited way to express it on any given two bit grid.
                        - Changing wineskins, at last.

                        - iPhone's Coolest Bible/, Touch Bible.

                        Comment


                        • I'm with patman on that one. Art isn't defined by the space it occupies or the form it takes, it depends on how it's interpreted by a mind, and the context in which it exists.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by patman View Post
                            Yes it may display words, it may display pictures or even lines of music - but all of these require the mind to understand them.
                            That's kinda the point I was getting at earlier.
                            Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
                            TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Knight View Post
                              That's kinda the point I was getting at earlier.
                              I drew a picture once when I was going through a sad spell - it is of ghost hands tickling a laughing cartoon character standing in front of a mirror, but the mirror reflects a sad man. To me it expresses thousands of thoughts over month's of anguish. No one will ever read this image quite like I do.

                              Display.exe could do a much better job at illustrating the subject mater -the man, the hands, the mirror- but it could never take all those thoughts (thoughts that words never could explain; thoughts that this image only scratched the surface) and express them on its canvas. It can only render the image.

                              Without me, the real power behind the image is empty. You need me to even hope to get it. So it is not the image that gives this art value, it is me who gave it value - but its value cannot truly be comprehended with words.

                              Others can only speculate about the meaning, but none of them can truly read it like me. Display could write a million pages about the feelings that inspired it, but none of its words could ever convey the place this image came from because they are just words.

                              Display.exe may have its binary number, but I have its soul.

                              Therefore, our imagination is more than the written words, written songs, drawn images, etc., that result from it.

                              God only gave us so many ways to express the inner being, but let us not mistake that limitation as a limitation of the mind.
                              - Changing wineskins, at last.

                              - iPhone's Coolest Bible/, Touch Bible.

                              Comment


                              • Dowloaded it. Tried to run it. Will not run on Windows Vista.

                                Has anyone run this program yet?
                                "It is easier to contend with evil at the first than at the last." - Leonardo da Vinci

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X