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

[Granite]

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.

 

[Stripe]

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:

Cool. That's a good explanation, Graph. :up:

I don't think an analog v digital argument would add anything.

 

[Jefferson]

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.

 

[The Graphite]

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? :think:

 

[chatmaggot]

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?

 

[patman]

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:

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.

 

[MrRadish]

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.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

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.

 

[patman]

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.

 

[elohiym]

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

Has anyone run this program yet?

 

[elohiym]

Bob,

Several people, including myself, have pointed out that display.exe does not run after it is installed using several operating systems. I got an error running Vista.

How can we assess if your software does what you say it can do if we cannot run the software? :idunno:

 

[kmoney]

Bob,

Several people, including myself, have pointed out that display.exe does not run after it is installed using several operating systems. I got an error running Vista.

How can we assess if your software does what you say it can do if we cannot run the software? :idunno:

This is just an exercise in faith, elo. Blessed are those who believe without seeing. lain:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Bob,

Several people, including myself, have pointed out that display.exe does not run after it is installed using several operating systems. I got an error running Vista.

How can we assess if your software does what you say it can do if we cannot run the software? :idunno:

I think that's been fairly well documented.

Bob told me he had only tried it on Windows 7, and he didn't know why it didn't run on other versions of Windows. I'm sure he is looking into it and will let us know when he releases an update.

Yet to more specifically answer your question.... you can't assess the software if you can't get it to run on your system. So... I guess, until a update has been released you will just have to enjoy our fellowship in discussing the possibilities of such a software or ignore this thread altogether.

 

[Flipper]

Proof of concept.

 

[Stripe]

Proof of concept.

:squint:

That was no sort of proof and a weird sort of concept.

 

[Mike C.]

There's a working example of the program now.

http://kgov.com/Display.exe (not a direct link to the program)

Not sure if anyone here noticed this yet. Does it affect anyone's thoughts on the issue?

 

[Stripe]

Not sure if anyone here noticed this yet. Does it affect anyone's thoughts on the issue?

Does exactly what it was claimed to do.

 

[gcthomas]

So we have a program whose functions are fantastical, poorly defined with misused terms and which we have to take on faith, from a guy who uses his position of power to promote, leveraging his reputation as a leader, even though it must be apparent to anyone who looks that it is a fraud.

Is this a metaphor for an atheist's view of religion? :cigar:

 

[Granite]

So we have a program whose functions are fantastical, poorly defined with misused terms and which we have to take on faith, from a guy who uses his position of power to promote, leveraging his reputation as a leader, even though it must be apparent to anyone who looks that it is a fraud.

Is this a metaphor for an atheist's view of religion? :cigar:

:idunno:

It's tired, one way or another.

 

[Stripe]

So we have a program whose functions are fantastical, poorly defined with misused terms and which we have to take on faith, from a guy who uses his position of power to promote, leveraging his reputation as a leader, even though it must be apparent to anyone who looks that it is a fraud.Is this a metaphor for an atheist's view of religion?

Bit hard of reading, aren't you?