Why the bias against materialism?

[Another God]

Originally posted by Fliption

"A ribosome in a cell in your body is supplied with amino acid building blocks and is powered by energy released by the conversion of ATP to ADP, but it can synthesize no proteins without the information brought to it from the DNA in the cell's nucleus."

This is the first paragraph of the cover story of the most recent Scientific American. I'm not posting it because it necessarily contradicts anything you have said. I am posting it because by using the same language as this article, you claimed I was confused in terminology. I recommend you read the entire article.

Hmm, well, it seems I may disagree with the author of this article, and the editors who deemed this article good enough to post in New Scientist.

I don't mind that.

It basically comes down to the assertion that DNA carries information with it. I mean, yes, the structure of the RNA can be said to interact with the ribosome in a way so as to translate to 'information' into proteins...But this is only a consequence of the structure of that particular RNA molecule.

Either the author of this article realizes that he is using the word information, as a human created concept, imposed upon simply characteristics of our universe, or he is claiming that characteristics of our universe exists, and information may be 'held' by those things, or he is confusing language in his attempt to objectively analyse nature, and so making a fool of himself.

I will agree with the first one, the second one is a big conjecture for which I will need some sort of proof (ie: Seperate the information from the matter that carries it), and then the third one is simply a result of...well, let's call it miseducation.

Thats my belief anyway.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Another God
Hmm, well, it seems I may disagree with the author of this article, and the editors who deemed this article good enough to post in New Scientist.

I don't mind that.

It basically comes down to the assertion that DNA carries information with it. I mean, yes, the structure of the RNA can be said to interact with the ribosome in a way so as to translate to 'information' into proteins...But this is only a consequence of the structure of that particular RNA molecule.

Either the author of this article realizes that he is using the word information, as a human created concept, imposed upon simply characteristics of our universe, or he is claiming that characteristics of our universe exists, and information may be 'held' by those things, or he is confusing language in his attempt to objectively analyse nature, and so making a fool of himself.

I will agree with the first one, the second one is a big conjecture for which I will need some sort of proof (ie: Seperate the information from the matter that carries it), and then the third one is simply a result of...well, let's call it miseducation.

Thats my belief anyway.

That's what I was thinking...or that ;information' is being used as a desciptive term different in the context from what it is in normal usage.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Another God
I will agree with the first one, the second one is a big conjecture for which I will need some sort of proof (ie: Seperate the information from the matter that carries it), and then the third one is simply a result of...well, let's call it miseducation.

Thats my belief anyway.

Then I would recommend that you do a lot more reading on it. This is certainly not the only place where this is discussed. I'm positive you will have to cast aside the credibility of more than just one scientists in order to keep your world view.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Fliption
Then I would recommend that you do a lot more reading on it. This is certainly not the only place where this is discussed. I'm positive you will have to cast aside the credibility of more than just one scientists in order to keep your world view.

I don't see why...this hypothesis is going to have to be backed by empirical data...which is the main point of our philosophy.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
I don't see why...this hypothesis is going to have to be backed by empirical data...which is the main point of our philosophy.

So you're claiming that other scientists are claiming things without evidence? Anyway, this has less to do with evidence as it does the usage and definition of the term "information" by scientists. Let me note again that they make a distinction between information and it's medium. And this is definitional. Semantics doesn't require evidence.


"BTW, love the use of the word "our" in "our philosophy".

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Fliption
So you're claiming that other scientists are claiming things without evidence? Anyway, this has less to do with evidence as it does the usage and definition of the term "information" by scientists. Let me note again that they make a distinction between information and it's medium. And this is definitional. Semantics doesn't require evidence.


"BTW, love the use of the word "our" in "our philosophy".

Yeah, as a matter of fact, semanitics should actually require evidence, or shall I start calling you a 'toad', because I can make up meanings of words to suit me?

 

[Zero]

And, in addition, are these scientists claiming that the 'information' carried by DNA is subjective?

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
And, in addition, are these scientists claiming that the 'information' carried by DNA is subjective?

I'm not sure they address that topic. Are you suggesting that subjectivity doesn't exists?

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
Yeah, as a matter of fact, semanitics should actually require evidence, or shall I start calling you a 'toad', because I can make up meanings of words to suit me?

So you're saying that if serveral scientists are using a different definition from you than they are making it up? lol

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Fliption
So you're saying that if serveral scientists are using a different definition from you than they are making it up? lol

No, I am saying they need to make sure to clarify terms, if'n you get my point?

You know, like when the creationists call 'Intelligent Design' a theory, they don't use the word the way a scientist would, confusing some people into believing that ID is science, when it is not. You know, that sort of thing.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
No, I am saying they need to make sure to clarify terms, if'n you get my point?

You know, like when the creationists call 'Intelligent Design' a theory, they don't use the word the way a scientist would, confusing some people into believing that ID is science, when it is not. You know, that sort of thing.

Yeah I know what you mean. In this case, these are scientists and I know there is a lot you can read about this if you actually wanted to get a clear understanding.

I think we should hold the same standards of explanation to people of all views.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Fliption
Yeah I know what you mean. In this case, these are scientists and I know there is a lot you can read about this if you actually wanted to get a clear understanding.

I think we should hold the same standards of explanation to people of all views.

I do hold them to the same general standards, which is why I am dismissive of the ID supporters, while I respect the research into this whole 'information is the fundamental building block of reality' idea. I don't think that they are right, but I also think they might be onto something, as far as a useful way of describing things. And, if they are right, it doesn't make me 'wrong' in a practical sense.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
I do hold them to the same general standards, which is why I am dismissive of the ID supporters, while I respect the research into this whole 'information is the fundamental building block of reality' idea. I don't think that they are right, but I also think they might be onto something, as far as a useful way of describing things. And, if they are right, it doesn't make me 'wrong' in a practical sense.

The way I think of information, it can exists objectively. Whether or not this understanding of mine is consistent with what these scientists think, I can't be sure right now. But it certainly seems as if they are talking about the same thing I have in mind.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Fliption
The way I think of information, it can exists objectively. Whether or not this understanding of mine is consistent with what these scientists think, I can't be sure right now. But it certainly seems as if they are talking about the same thing I have in mind.

I think I know why I am resistant to the idea. I believe when they say 'information', they mean something very specific. I am afraid that some people will take that to mean that information in the broadest sense is objective, and then make wild claims that those scientists never intended and wouldn't support.

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by Fliption
Then I would recommend that you do a lot more reading on it. This is certainly not the only place where this is discussed. I'm positive you will have to cast aside the credibility of more than just one scientists in order to keep your world view.

So which one do you think it is, and which one do you think they think it is?

1 Information is a human created concept, imposed upon characteristics of our universe

2 Characteristics of our universe exists, and information may be 'held' by those things

3 "DNA contains information...now we just have to find where that information that it contains..." (ie: Semantic confusion. Category Error)

 

[Zero]

AG, you forget that he doesn't have opinions...except that any position I support must be wrong, axiomatically.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Another God
So which one do you think it is, and which one do you think they think it is?

1 Information is a human created concept, imposed upon characteristics of our universe

2 Characteristics of our universe exists, and information may be 'held' by those things

3 "DNA contains information...now we just have to find where that information that it contains..." (ie: Semantic confusion. Category Error)

Number 1 is true but it is true for everything. All words are "human created concepts imposed on characteristics of our universe." This goes for material things as well.

In number 2 I don't like the word "held".

And I don't understand number 3.

Do you believe there are laws of nature? Do you think they exists? Or do you believe they are just a byproduct description of the behavior of matter and energy? It's sort of like "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" So which came first in your mind?

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
AG, you forget that he doesn't have opinions...except that any position I support must be wrong, axiomatically.

Very mature. I have no clue whether you're wrong or right Zero. Couldn't care less either. I just dislike your disrespectful, insulting, condescending attitude and blatant disregard for any effort to defend your position other than to state "I'm right because I know I'm right".

I have given you my opinion on this topic and it differs from yours. So this is what that turns into? While I disagree with you I am open to being wrong. But I'm not waiting on someone to prove it to me. I have actually read through many websites and picked up several books since this thread started trying to more thoroughly understand the definitions being used by scientists studying this. I supposed you've done the same? Of course you have.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Fliption
Very mature. I have no clue whether you're wrong or right Zero. Couldn't care less either. I just hate your disrespectful, insulting, condescending attitude and blatant disregard for any effort to defend your position other than to state "I'm right because I know I'm right".

You just hate me because I'm beautiful...and probably because I gave you hell over that 'Intelligent Design' nonsense last year.

I still think you have a crush on me, too.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
You just hate me because I'm beautiful...and probably because I gave you hell over that 'Intelligent Design' nonsense last year.

I still think you have a crush on me, too.

That's hilarious because in my view you've done nothing in any thread discussion with me that "gives me hell". If anything you make yourself look like a hardheaded jackass who can't defend his position. LOL

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Fliption
That's hilarious because in my view you've done nothing in any thread discussion with me that "gives me hell". If anything you make yourself look like a hardheaded jackass who can't defend his position. LOL

What have you presented that I need to defend myself against? Let's get this back on topic, now that you have resorted to name-calling. Hopefully you have gotten it out of your system. Good?

Let's get on with the show!

 

[Zero]

Actually, I think part of teh problem is that people seem to think that I have a dogma, or some list of facts that I approve of. That is an incorrect assumption. I have a bias towards a way of looking at the world, which is different altogether. There aren't any facts that dispute my worldview, because for them to actually be a fact, they fit right in. I know it seems circular, but it is no more so than peole claiming that the Bible is true because it says so in the Bible. And, unlike a religious dogma, the facts which I accept(provisionaly, always provisionally accept)can change as new evidence is discovered.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
What have you presented that I need to defend myself against? Let's get this back on topic, now that you have resorted to name-calling. Hopefully you have gotten it out of your system. Good?

Let's get on with the show!

I have given some examples of things that do not fit into your worldview. I then provided an article from a reputable science magazine that expands on the very same concept as a real, existing thing. The very existence of this article contradicts your view. From this article it would be easy to then get additional information on this topic. So there is no lack of information here.

And your response was "They will agree with my view once they figure out what they're talking about". Ridiculous, Zero. Absolutely ridiculous. And now you want me to provide you more? LOL. Sure, I love wasting my time.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Fliption
I have given some examples of things that do not fit into your worldview. I then provided an article from a reputable science magazine that expands on the very same concept as a real, existing thing. The very existence of this article contradicts your view. From this article it would be easy to then get additional information on this topic. So there is no lack of information here.

And your response was "They will agree with my view once they figure out what they're talking about". Ridiculous, Zero. Absolutely ridiculous. And now you want me to provide you more? LOL. Sure, I love wasting my time.

No, I said that I will likely agree with them, once they work it all out, there's a distinction.

Crybaby.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
No, I said that I will likely agree with them, once they work it all out, there's a distinction.

Crybaby.

Crybaby? Lol. Nice. What's next "My daddy can beat your daddy up?"

This is what you said. It is on page 20 of this thread for anyone who wants to see it first hand...


"...patience, Flip, I'm sure when THEY figure out what they are talking about, it will fit perfectly fine in my outlook."


Keep digging.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Fliption
Crybaby? Lol. Nice. What's next "My daddy can beat your daddy up?"

This is what you said. It is on page 20 of this thread for anyone who wants to see it first hand...


"...patience, Flip, I'm sure when THEY figure out what they are talking about, it will fit perfectly fine in my outlook."


Keep digging.

Well, if tehy have evidence, as accepted by the majority of scientists, it will fit into my philosophy. I don't see the contradiction. After all, if you look back, I stated that I would have no problem with the existence of something like ESP, if there was a scientific study that showed it to work.

 

[sascha]

Lately I've been reading through the whole of this thread. I am astonished that somehow the dialogue partners never get really to the crucial point. To my sense the question of the thread being "Why a bias against Materialism?" is misleading insofar as it does not address the more primal fact that Materialism itself introduces a bias in its world view, which must thus be justified and can legitimately be doubted. Its bias is in believeing the world is somewhere "out there", in the "things" believed to be real because they are perceivable. As has been hinted at several times on this thread, in this view reality does not consist also of the laws and forces that constitute the things, because these are not perceivable. As much Fliption as Zero made this point several times, from opposing sides. In Materialism, reality is being thought from the parts to the whole -- which can be fulfilled only in approximations, never in a strict way. On a materialist path, one can never know the overall order, because one has excluded an access to that from the outset, by imposing the basic split into the existent and the nonexistent -- even though, for actual intelligibility, the nonexistent part (eg. laws and forces) is decisive. The grasp of Materialism is self-limited by its very principle. But I get the impression that the opponents do not clarify the very basis and therefore do not talk about the same problem. In such situations it is not astonishing that they cannot agree.

On August 5, Fliption posted a need to define what one is talking about. Quite some time later, FZ+ did some nice summing up between Materialism and Idealism. As yet no one has mentioned the third one of the possible positions (Hylozoism / Panpsychism), in spite of the fact that it is implicitly quite widespread now because Materialism leads there when wanting to deal with the principle of life (eg. Prigogine tends to think this way). This is the position that attributes some alive quality to the allegedly fundamental material entities, since everything is assumed to consist of these. It is thus a scientific form of animism. Genetics is being nudged there, even if it does not like the idea. Saying information can exist on its own tends in this direction too, because information is always about something, while information about itself is a difficult thing in today's ways of thinking: none of the scientific systems can handle complete self-reference (the more formalized, the more they are self-limited).

Zero says he believs in science "as accepted by the majority of scientists". But this attitude does not offer the required certainty. The materialist position offers no secure criterion for securing fully against collective error. Not long ago, a majority believed eg. in the Ptolemaian system, or in phlogiston, or in atomism. Limited thinking is fine as long as people are tinkering around at a miniature scale. But now, by our "knowing" and doing, we are producing ozone holes and other global changes. Nothing to experiment with, because on the global scale we need totally secure knowledge. As a consequence of its primal bias, especially the materialist stance cannot develop any conceptual (categoreal) means with which to think securely and in a strictly complete way from the whole to the parts. As a consequence of this fact, the materialist stance must shift its question onto ever new levels. In this way, the atomistically imagined 'fundamental pieces' of matter dissolved into ever smaller entities. In the standard model one my say there are fundamental fermions, but there are problems which even the GUTs and SUSY do not fully solve. The inevitable trend still is to be pushed into ever more little pieces, compelled to add ever more epicyles to the basic system. This is the fate of wanting to think from pieces towards the whole.

Postulating a need for evidence can only reveal parts of what is relevant, because it remains in the incomplete idea stated above. The conceptual / categoreal problems are not solved by this postulate. Some people sense the weakness in this stance, and they oppose it. Is this really not legitimate, Zero? I don't think there is much hate in the opponents; to my sense, the situation is rather like two types of language encountering each other. This can exasperate some temperaments.

 

[Zero]

Wow. That was a hell of a post!

I know we got a bit off track with this one. I know earlier, I was trying to explore the notion that a materialist worldview is very practical, in that it is an approach which has the advantage of giving concrete answers most of the time. Does that sound reasonable? If it does, then why would anyone want to reject materialism? I would agree that it is a rough tool, that can always be sharpened further, but I see a situation where people abandon it completely, which seems counterproductive to me.

As far as the two sides 'speaking over each others' heads', I would have to agree. There seems to be a communication barrier, and I think that the position that Fliption has presented most recently is closer to agreeing with my position than he realizes. Oh well, back to running in circles on it!

As far as a weakness in the materialist's viewpoint, I would appreciate you clarifying a bit more? Actually, if you could just zoom in on this single issue, I think we can narrow this thread back to something approaching its initial intent.

 

[Zero]

Oh, and use layman's terms, if you would? You are a philosopher, while I am simply the smartest himan being alive...

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by Fliption
Number 1 is true but it is true for everything. All words are "human created concepts imposed on characteristics of our universe." This goes for material things as well.

True, but it is important to see a distinction between words for things which are supposed to actually exist as tangible items, and then words which exist just to express ideas, or concepts.

As such, the point I am making with my option is that information is a human created 'concept' applied to a thing (the thing having its own name: Matter). The concept does not actually exist, only the matter does.

In number 2 I don't like the word "held".

OK. So change it. I am curious to know what you think, and what you think they think... I am not sure that I understand their position yet.

And I don't understand number 3.

A category error, is a mistake where you basically miss the forest for the trees (in the most literal sense.) "Where's the forest? I only see a whole bunch of trees..." When obviously, the forest IS the collection of trees

And so: Are they, because of a language confusion, looking at matter, and wondering where the Information is, how the information exists, what information really is etc? When in reality, the matter right in front of them IS the information.

Do you believe there are laws of nature? Do you think they exists? Or do you believe they are just a byproduct description of the behavior of matter and energy? It's sort of like "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" So which came first in your mind?

Well, my personal belief, as entirely unfounded and uneducated as it is (I am the first to admit that) is that the Universe is most likely a mathematical function in action...and matter is just some sort of perverse consequence of that.

But that isn't really important. Look back at my explanation of Option 3 and you will hopefully understand better how I think it works. Information and the medium that holds that information is not a matter of cause and effect. They are the one thing.

Oh wait, OK, it is true, my view is important to it. The 'laws' came first in my mind, and matter is a consequence. And it is because of the laws that matter = information, because matter is just a manifestation of the laws...

that makes some sort of sense to me.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by sascha
Postulating a need for evidence can only reveal parts of what is relevant, because it remains in the incomplete idea stated above. The conceptual / categoreal problems are not solved by this postulate. Some people sense the weakness in this stance, and they oppose it. Is this really not legitimate, Zero?

Yes, I agree.

And just as sure as day follows night, we are all part of the "overall design."

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Another God
Oh wait, OK, it is true, my view is important to it. The 'laws' came first in my mind, and matter is a consequence. And it is because of the laws that matter = information, because matter is just a manifestation of the laws...

that makes some sort of sense to me. [/B]

OK I'm glad you answered that wya because it will be easier for me to explain what I'm thinking. Assuming what you've said is true, then the laws are the instructions by which all matter operates. The laws are information. Where are they? The laws aren't "held" by any matter are they? Hopefully you can see why I struggled with the word "held".

Also, let me go ahead and clarify before someone goes ballistic. I use the word "instructions" not to mean anything about intent or design. I use it to draw the analogy to software which is also just a set of instructions that directs the hardwares behavior.

 

[Zero]

Well, Fliption, if you thing about it, there is a lot of information 'held' by even the simplest matter, that 'instructs' it on how to behave. Say you have an atom of carbon. The mass of the nucleus 'instructs' the atom on how to 'react' to gravity. The number of electrons 'instruct' the atom on how to form chemical bonds, react to a magnetic field, etc. I'm sure there's lots more 'information' in a single atom when you get into quantum stuff.

Some people would ask: how does DNA 'know' what to do? I would counter that it doesn't know any more than a single carbon atom knows about bonding to other atoms...but it does it the same way every time in the same situation.

 

[sascha]

Zero, I agree fully that a materialist worldview is practical (and I will try to use only laymen's words in my posts -- thanks for the hint). Insofar it is quite reasonable.

Did the fight not start when some tried to think everything in materialist terms, i.e. not just specific aspects -- eg. tools, gadgets -- for which this perspective is adequate? For finding laws, the presently fashionable form of science operates by 'generalization'; so some feel that something successful in one realm should be applicable in other, and -- swoosh -- they generalize eg, the materialist approach. The trouble with the principle of generalization is that it can secure laws in a limited realm only, it can't secure strictly universal laws (eg. even the law of entropy is subject to entropy -- while there are universal laws: eg. the principle of truth is subject to truth).

So I don't think the problem is that people would not admit practical solutions to real problems, but that some refuse to accept the materialist position as the solution for everything. It is no coincidence, for example, that since the upsurge of materialism a new wave of ethics arose -- because knowing how to manipulate things does not warrant knowing about the context as a whole, into which all manipulations must fit.

The weakness in the materialist's viewpoint is in its wanting to handle material things while choosing a way of setting out that limits understanding the ultimate nature of material things. On this path, one can caclulate bits and pieces to an amazing degree, but not know what they are in their own right. On this path, one can't know what it is to be an electron, or a quark. Or mass / energy and information. We can depict such structures in many systems, and they make sense depending on the system. The crux shows fully with the aliveness of living beings. And while we can't say we have really understood the nature of the things -- not even of inert matter, for that matter -- the principle itself of approaching things in looking at them from outside limits the potential as such of this attempt. This approach seems to offer objectivity, but it is limited already because no empirical data can cover everything. Insofar, the idea that one day one will eg. be able to understand even difficult things such consciousness is not a secure idea. One can depict aspects of awareness to some extent, eg. in real time on a tomograph, but that is not the actual nature of awareness, it is only a picture of it. One may know what somebody is thinking about, but that does not improve human understanding. For getting along with each other, we don't need such gadgets. This does not exclude that some will believe what such gadgets show is the reality of their awareness, just as there are always some who robotize themselves, or believe they are in reality Napoleon. One can produce even collective beliefs (look at what the media are doing).

Some time ago there was debate on this thread about cultural dangers of the materialist viewpoint. You did not seem convinced that there is one, but I think if a culture were to rely only on this viewpoint, it would incur severe dangers, up to a moral decay. Look at how already small kids learn to kill off their emotional responsiveness by seeing everything only in terms of a manipulative control over things, up to cold killing that can be learned in video games. For sanity to be possible, there must be an overview. It is important that all this is the effect of conditioning. The interesting challenge is thus to find a world view that does not foster forms of disintegration, or impose a fundamentalist ideology, but allows to integrate properly all the -isms, letting all things 'fall into place'. That's my sort of work. I am trying to develop an approach that is not self-limited by assumptions. That's not just academic daydreaming, but also quite practical (even though it is not limited to the materialist stance). IMO this approach would allow also a better understanding even of the nature of material matter, and finally a better integration of the diverse physical theories (while not necessarily treading eg. the GUT path, which is still based on a 'look from outside'). To my sense, a physics is possible that integrates life fully.

But maybe I have not yet hit on the head the nail that you had in mind?

 

[Zero]

[rant]This is nonsense, you are all mad, I give UP![/rant]

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
Well, Fliption, if you thing about it, there is a lot of information 'held' by even the simplest matter, that 'instructs' it on how to behave. Say you have an atom of carbon. The mass of the nucleus 'instructs' the atom on how to 'react' to gravity. The number of electrons 'instruct' the atom on how to form chemical bonds, react to a magnetic field, etc. I'm sure there's lots more 'information' in a single atom when you get into quantum stuff.

Some people would ask: how does DNA 'know' what to do? I would counter that it doesn't know any more than a single carbon atom knows about bonding to other atoms...but it does it the same way every time in the same situation.

Oh I don't think I would necessarily disagree with the idea that some information is held by matter. I just don't think that being "held" by matter is a necessary condition for information. As I am trying to illustrate with AG and the laws of nature.

Also, I wouldn't go so far as to claim that the mass of a nucleus is information. That is just a physical attribute. That is simply a variable in the equations of nature to help determine the result. The variables or inputs into the equations are part of matter but the underlying equation itself is the information.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Fliption
Oh I don't think I would necessarily disagree with the idea that some information is held by matter. I just don't think that being "held" by matter is a necessary condition for information. As I am trying to illustrate with AG and the laws of nature.

Also, I wouldn't go so far as to claim that the mass of a nucleus is information. That is just a physical attribute. That is simply a variable in the equations of nature to help determine the result. The variables or inputs into the equations are part of matter but the underlying equation itself is the information.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point, don't you? I don't think either of our views is wrong, based on the evidence. I think it is more of an interpretation difference.

 

[Royce]

Hey, Zero, I thought you gave up (days after declaring yourself the winner). If a law or formula is information then the variabes that are plugged into the formula are information too. Mass therefore would be information as well as an attribute or it could not be plugged into an informational formula. Is it all math and information then like whatshisface said or is math and information the means and rules of behavior for matter/energy. What form does this information take? Is it carried with or part of a photon or electron or quark?
This is really getting too deep for me. I'll have to think about this for a while. It would make a great new thread rather than hiding it 20 page deep in another entirely unrelated thread. Just a thought.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Royce
Hey, Zero, I thought you gave up (days after declaring yourself the winner). If a law or formula is information then the variabes that are plugged into the formula are information too. Mass therefore would be information as well as an attribute or it could not be plugged into an informational formula. Is it all math and information then like whatshisface said or is math and information the means and rules of behavior for matter/energy. What form does this information take? Is it carried with or part of a photon or electron or quark?
This is really getting too deep for me. I'll have to think about this for a while. It would make a great new thread rather than hiding it 20 page deep in another entirely unrelated thread. Just a thought.

Yes, Royce you could make the argument that it is information. But I've been trying to isolate the existence of a certain type that is not material since that's what a few people have been denying and is the topic of the thread.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Fliption
Yes, Royce you could make the argument that it is information. But I've been trying to isolate the existence of a certain type that is not material since that's what a few people have been denying and is the topic of the thread.

Sorry to say, but I am almost 100% sure that you can't find evidence for information in the absence of matter...which may be a limitation of our perception as much as a statement about the universe.

 

[sascha]

Is madness something relative or absolute? Against what is it 'measured'? Should we not be careful in applying such judgments? It is amusing, for example, that those in the loony bin believing that in reality they are Napoleon believe that the wardens are mad because they do not recognize this 'fact'... In our debate, which are the ultimate facts that determine what is a wider rationality than previously adopted, and what is real madness? (To my sense, as long as a madness is only transitory, it can be useful for transcending previous thought barriers. Trouble arises when a madness becomes rigid and is institutionalized, as eg. in an ideology).

With a clarification of the interrelation between laws of nature and information we will advance more securely. In this domain, I distinguish strictly between the partial forms of order (as manifest in any given law of nature, which never covers the whole) and the overall order (the totality of all laws, which regulates that things arise and vanish just as it regulates that in certain query perspectives there is a need for ideas about laws of nature, forces, etc.).

In a first approach, the relevant point between laws of nature, information, matter, and energy, is not so much whether they exist separately -- eg. information in the absence of matter -- but rather that for a complete understanding we must distinguish conceptually the aspects (in this case of information versus matter; by the way, the originators of information theory -- people like Shannon and Weaver -- made this distinction very clearly; only lately there has been a certain sloppiness about it). In this sense, the overall order of all laws may be present in the universe as a whole. But a non-contradictory 'thinkability' of the whole requires the said distinction.

Beyond that, it is of little use to believe that information necessarily requires matter for existing. After all no phenomenon can show directly the overall law it obeys, since its appearing and disappearing is part of that law. This is why the postulate of palpable evidence is simultaneously a self-limitation in the laws that it allows to discover. The overall order of any process, phenomenon, 'thing', and especially of the universe as a whole, is occulted by applying this postulate. It allows to know aspects, but not the ultimate rule of the game.

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by Zero
Sorry to say, but I am almost 100% sure that you can't find evidence for information in the absence of matter...which may be a limitation of our perception as much as a statement about the universe.

Photon?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Another God
Photon?

No thanks, I've already had lunch.

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by sascha
Is madness something relative or absolute? Against what is it 'measured'? Should we not be careful in applying such judgments? It is amusing, for example, that those in the loony bin believing that in reality they are Napoleon believe that the wardens are mad because they do not recognize this 'fact'... In our debate, which are the ultimate facts that determine what is a wider rationality than previously adopted, and what is real madness?

A little off-topic perhaps, but I'd like to mention it:

There's a mistaken notion that crazy people are crazy because they can't think straight. A little chat with a madman is enough to reveal the misconception. Crazy people are as rational as anyone else, quite often far more so. They have explanations for everything, including the fact that no one agrees with their explanations. Everything in a madman's mind makes perfect sense - which happens to be exactly the problem.

The really striking thing about insane people is not that they are poor at thinking, but rather that they are too good at it for their own sake. No one is as certain of his own ideas, as self-assured as a lunatic. Ordinary people always think they might be wrong about anything; insane people do not consider that a possibility.

Many people are bothered by the idea that, if they go mad, they won't be able to realize it. Which is true, but only because mad people are the only ones who don't worry about their mental health. So long as you think you might be mad, you're probably sane. As soon as you become certain you're not mad, you've already got one foot in the asylum. From then on, rational thinking does the rest.

 

[sascha]

Thanks, Amadeus, that's a neat insight. Not really off topic, since having or not having it determines much of what we say, also here.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
Sorry to say, but I am almost 100% sure that you can't find evidence for information in the absence of matter...which may be a limitation of our perception as much as a statement about the universe.

Another option could be just poor semantics. No one has directly responded to why their definition is absolutely correct. I've heard that "it is not possible" and that we have to "agree to disagree" but yet I've seen no explanation for why instructions of nature aren't a nonmaterial existence.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Fliption
Another option could be just poor semantics.

Uh huh...

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by amadeus
Ordinary people always think they might be wrong about anything; insane people do not consider that a possibility.

Hmmm... seems we have a few lunatics participating in this thread then. But I could be wrong

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Fliption
Hmmm... seems we have a few lunatics participating in this thread then. But I could be wrong

You very well could be wrong...I've seen it before!

 

[sascha]

For clarifying some more this issue of information and its role in matter, I would like to draw the attention to a conceptual problem. Here we have heard the opinion that information actively does something. As eg. Zero put it lately: "The mass of the nucleus 'instructs' the atom on how to 'react' to gravity. The number of electrons 'instruct' the atom on how to form chemical bonds, react to a magnetic field, etc." Adopting this idea implies attributing to information some kind of agency, a force aspect. This is not what information is generally meant to be (at least the link between regularity and agency should be clarified more exactly). What is going on in the minds here? A clear insight? (I don't think so, but what do the others say?) A conceptual conflation, by non-distinction? (This is what I feel is the case; such conflations are what usually pushes into having to pursue the problem -- here of information versus energy, in my jargon law versus force -- into ever smaller entities, which however does not solve the problems, as long as the conceptual conflation remains). Note that the empirical evidence is the same; only the interpretations vary -- according to the differences in the chosen concepts / categories at the outset.