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

[Nathon Detroit]

Actually, yes, when displaying such a page, the program will say across the top of the screen:
"hey you should take note of this page"

That might sound weird, or impossible, but yes, it will display that page that way.

Wouldn't it also display pages that shouldn't be noted (i.e., invalid content) with... "hey you should take note of this page"?

If so, this brings us back to my point that nothing helpful could be invented/discovered with the software without a person reviewing and testing each page to determine its value.

This isn't to distract from the software of course, I'm not even sure how I got on this "side" issue.

 

[Lighthouse]

Now if he has to get off his radio show, I will take over. I've been studying under him for so long that I can ape him perfectly. So those who don't like Bob will still have to listen to him through me.

God bless, Tom from Mabank, TX

They might need someone a bit younger.

 

[The Graphite]

I'd be willing to bet that Bob's software invention would display a statement to the effect that this software does NOT do what Bob says it will do. And that it will display that statement... upside down.

 

[Bob Enyart]

Commenting on a statement about the software being useless, kmoney wrote:

Based on what has been discussed, I think it is [useless].

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

 

[Bob Enyart]

I don't buy any of this. I'm an adisplayist.

Newman, you crack me up

-Bob Enyart

 

[Bob Enyart]

If I'm not mistaken, Display.exe will actually display its own source code.

Yes. To bad I didn't have that output prior to writing the program. Could have saved a lot of time Jamie!

-Bob

 

[Bob Enyart]

Good questions Brother Vinny

Good questions Brother Vinny

Bob...
1. Can this program separate provable mathematical statements from non-provable ones? (I would assume so based on #4)

No Brother Vinny, but thanks for asking. The program itself is the mathematical proof that universal human creativity is not infinite but finite.

3. Will it run on Ubuntu Linux?

Sure. It might need to be recompiled though. (The CMs problems notwithstanding )

And BV, you can be the one to answer your second question.

This sounds fascinating, although I would think the computing power needed would be far more than not only what we have available today, but anything short of quantum computers (maybe not even then)...

Huh. I can see why you'd think that Vinny. But no, my Dell XPS M1710 runs it just fine. It takes a while to run through though.

The yawners here are spoilsports. I enjoy a good mystery.

Thanks Brother Vinny. Yes, it was a good mystery that led to Display being written!

-Bob Enyart
KGOV.com

 

[Bob Enyart]

Some posts back, Stripe had guessed that the program was based on a lot of monkeys, that is, on an infinite number of monkeys. Of course it's not, and they couldn't hold a banana to the output of Display.exe. At that time, Stripe wrote:

If that's the case then I can show him wrong. Prepare to hang your broadcasting career on the capriciousness of my whim, Pastor Enyart!​

He typed with a smile on his fingers

Now, after looking at the code (apparently a couple of times), Stripe wrote:

If the output is produced systematically (as it looks it is...) rather than randomly generated then I guess I was wrong. It will do what you say.

Wow. Stripe. Thanks. Now that I've posted the source code, and a downloadable "lite" version of the program, I'd like to post two more things when I get the chance: an example output from the full version (per your request also kmoney), and a full explanation of the program. And I hope to post that stuff in the Opening Post.

If output is dependent on random assignment somehow then [Display.exe] will not.

Yes. And it's not.

Thanks!
-Bob

 

[The Graphite]

Bob, I have a question.

On your own computer, how long would the program have to run to its completion?

 

[Bob Enyart]

To the two CMs...

To the two CMs...

Hi guys.

I downloaded the "lite" version, tried to run it, and it gave me an error.

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

 

[Bob Enyart]

Graphite, yes, and with death certificates...

Graphite, yes, and with death certificates...

I predict that Bob's program would display the name of every as-yet unborn child, grandchild, great-grandchild and every other descendant of yours, Tom, through however many generations of descendants you will have.

Yes. And with birth dates and dates of death presented accurately beside each descendant's name and photo.

Thanks TG.

-Bob

 

[Bob Enyart]

Knight, I'm a good friend of Bob, live in Texas... Now if he has to get off his radio show [because he was not being truthful about his claims for Display.exe, then], I will take over. I've been studying under him for so long that I can ape him perfectly. So those who don't like Bob will still have to listen to him through me.

God bless, Tom from Mabank, TX

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

 

[Granite]

Right, so, if this is a metaphor how long will it go on, and if "not," then when does Bob sell this miraculous product off and retire?

 

[Bob Enyart]

Granite, your question about whether this is a metaphor is answered (in the negative) in the OP and here:

Regarding MR's comment about Display.exe being perhaps a metaphor for open theism, the program is not a metaphor but a mathematical proof. But to the extent that philosophers or theologians could use it as an argument, aa has a point:

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.

An open theist, wondering about my motives, asked me: "If by appearances, Display.exe will be more readily used as an argument for those who promote a settled future (as opposed to an open future), then why promote it?" I answered, because it is true. And acknowledging truth, regardless of how it cuts, brings us closer to the one who is Truth.

-Bob

 

[Granite]

Whatever you say. So when's this puppy going to change the world as we know it? Expected release date? Expected date for bidding war to begin? And are you concerned at all about the implications this technology poses, assuming it exists and works as described?

 

[TeeJay]

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

 

[chickenman]

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

 

[kmoney]

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.

 

[patman]

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.

 

[The Graphite]

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. :think: