Step 8What's next?
I owe ya all a schematic replacing the code to P-Box #1,
and the code to replace all the wires in P-Box #2,
and whatever P-Box #3 will look like.
And more bends, perhaps a drawing of a good bending panel.
Another bend: any available sound effect boxes added to the audio output.
Note:Delays or echoes are equivalent to the audiovisualized XOR2.MOV link on P-box #1.
P-Box #3 involves a number that excludes impossible sounds and requires less
"imaginary memory". Notice the imaginary memory in the schematic in step 7,
whereby gigabytes are pulled out of nothing. There is an intangible ROM (imagine it
as an invisible disc made of nothing) being played. The sound format is slightly
foreign to PC's, after all, if a text number can sing (calcul8.txt or pocket.wav),
but your OS doesn't recognize it as playable in spite of it's simplicity, well, this
is what challenges me. Calcul8.txt and Pocket.wav play better and equally well
on raw electronics or logic which is not programmed to reject ANY data!
Time to "take an aspirin" again. (Joke, not medical advice. HARD STUFF AHEAD.)
I want to show you something weird, related to artificial intelligence.
I say it's related to artificial intelligence because I've already pondered whether
such numbers can play tic-tac-toe, checkers, and chess. One number apparently
can play all three. It can play a perfect game if such perfect games exist, and
even without being aware of which game it's playing. This hasn't been done, but
sufficiently simulated that it's known to be cleverly cheatable... you can steal it's
game-pieces and it will not notice even though it still may win. Putting extra queens
on the board may or may not produce unpredictable results. I'd expect a "new game"
response or a "blank board response", not ambiguous ones. An example of an
ambiguous response to an impossible board would be all pieces changing to queens,
or the whole board being filled with them.
Perhaps the "gameboard number" has already been calculated, as THE Method for
electronic games. Again there are other numbers,
less recogniable than "zero point one two three" with similar (musical) or different uses.
It IS artificial Intelligence!
Once it was common to use binary to decimal converter chips, but there was an odd
possibility: The binary input could go up to 16 but the decimal output had no
sensible response to anything 10 and above. I call this AMBIGUITY. Look at
what happens on the readout when the binary input exceeds 9.
Similar anomalies result when an artificial intelligence (neural net) is taught
more than it can learn, and is quizzed on something... I've seen them make stuff up!
I don't know about you, but if I see a sign, and it's in a language I haven't learned,
and the letters don't look familiar, my mind is definitely not silent; it reads the
sign and I hear a strange noise in my thoughts! (Certainly not what's written.)
So, look what a certain binary to decimal converter chip (7447 or 7448) does
when it is given a number that it can not display! It tries anyway! This unexpected
info is a BAD example of how BAD info can come from no where!
It doesn't know or care that it can't produce the numbers 10 through 15.
The output was not designed, and definitely not explained in the manual.
In the musical number theory, we actually do expect USEFUL information
to come from no where, in ways never before designed. Imagine that your
computer came with 1 gigabyte of RAM but some was partly defective, so
you removed it, and are waiting for a replacement. But you have a program
that requires 1 gigabyte of RAM and doesn't check to see if it's there. That's
unlikely to happen nowadays but in the past AMBIGUOUS results have been
obtained from missing memory. Perhaps I'll demonstrate in my next video. But,
The nothing from which musical number theory pulls it's output is not this kind
of illogic. It is as I said, like a big giant imaginary multiplication table, full of answers,
but the answers are not written, until the question is asked; they just exist, made of nothing.
There is nothing that can be computed tomorrow that can't be computed today!
Am I beating the dead horse?
THE NUMBER already has in it what you will record tomorrow.
Again, look at the illogical output of the binary to decimal chip.
I'd have either made 11 look like 11 at least, or included hex AbCdEF.
But the chip was NOT designed to make what it makes, as if no one would
ever count higher than 9. This example is interestingly AMBIGUOUS, but useless!
Information from no where, but useless info. No, this is not what we do!
| « Previous Step | Download PDFView All Steps | Next Step » |
![]() |
Add Comment
|

















































