Can you define information without referring to consciousness?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the definition of information and knowledge without reference to consciousness, particularly in the context of quantum mechanics (QM) and the double slit experiment. Participants explore the implications of information theory and the role of consciousness in understanding knowledge.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that any consciousness-based approach to quantum mechanics will be dismissed as unscientific, referencing the double slit experiment as a key example.
  • One participant suggests that information can be defined mathematically through information theory, but questions the ability to discuss knowledge or meaning without involving consciousness.
  • Another participant mentions quantum decoherence as a relevant topic that does not necessarily involve consciousness.
  • A participant expresses disappointment that the discussion did not align with their expectations, indicating a potential misunderstanding of the thread's focus.
  • A later reply emphasizes that the forum maintains a consistent stance against consciousness-related approaches in quantum mechanics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether information can be defined without reference to consciousness. Multiple competing views are presented, particularly regarding the relationship between information theory and consciousness in the context of quantum mechanics.

Contextual Notes

Some limitations include the dependence on definitions of knowledge and information, as well as unresolved questions about the implications of quantum mechanics on these concepts.

bcrelling
Messages
69
Reaction score
2
Any consciousness based approach to QM will be dismissed as woo in the main forum.

However it's admitted that (with refernece to the double slit experiment):

"To be clear, the rule for interference in these cases: if it is possible, in principle, to know which slit the particle goes through, there is NO interference and there will just be the 2 characteristic bands." -DrChinese

So my question is- can you define knowledge or information in a way which does not refer to consciousness?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Last edited:
Going strictly by the title of this thread, I expected it to be about the US Congress. This is disappointing.
 
bcrelling said:
Any consciousness based approach to QM will be dismissed as woo in the main forum.

However it's admitted that (with refernece to the double slit experiment):

"To be clear, the rule for interference in these cases: if it is possible, in principle, to know which slit the particle goes through, there is NO interference and there will just be the 2 characteristic bands." -DrChinese

So my question is- can you define knowledge or information in a way which does not refer to consciousness?


Yes. Information theory is completely mathematical. But they aren't talking about meaning. I don't see any way to talk about knowledge or meaning without consciousness.

However I must say I never thought consciousness had anything to do with QM. Though I guess Neils Bohr thought so, and he is much smarter than I.
 
bcrelling said:
Any consciousness based approach to QM will be dismissed as woo in the main forum.
It's woo here too, the same rules apply throughout the forum.

Thread closed.
 

Similar threads

Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 135 ·
5
Replies
135
Views
24K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 128 ·
5
Replies
128
Views
21K