Does QF collide with physicalism?

[QuantumT]

We know for a fact that Quantum Fluctuation creates matter from nothing.

Proof from 2011: https://phys.org/news/2011-11-scientists-vacuum.html

And that matter is energy/information.

So, doesn't that conflict with physicalism? Isn't materialism dead? How can anyone still hold on to that?

Are their brains slow?

[Eodnhoj7]

We know for a fact that Quantum Fluctuation creates matter from nothing.

Proof from 2011: https://phys.org/news/2011-11-scientists-vacuum.html

And that matter is energy/information.

So, doesn't that conflict with physicalism? Isn't materialism dead? How can anyone still hold on to that?

Are their brains slow?

Yeah, void cancels itself into "being" and being is constantly unfolding from nothingness...I have been arguing this the whole time...pure reason saves millions of dollars in experimental equipment.

[Atla]

Vacuum isn't "nothing" ffs. Materialism is pretty dead but not for this reason. Energy/information is the same as matter.

[Logik]

We know for a fact that Quantum Fluctuation creates matter from nothing.

Proof from 2011: https://phys.org/news/2011-11-scientists-vacuum.html

And that matter is energy/information.

So, doesn't that conflict with physicalism? Isn't materialism dead? How can anyone still hold on to that?

Are their brains slow?

The way to rescue physicalism is to shift the goalposts of the paradigm and say that information is physical.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_information

This will also give philosophers something new to argue about: whether information is physical or abstract.

The irony is that if anybody established any empirical difference between physical and abstract information, that's evidence for physical information to a physicist; and evidence for abstract information to a philosopher. So everybody's religion remains in tact. Win-win I think.

[Eodnhoj7]

We know for a fact that Quantum Fluctuation creates matter from nothing.

Proof from 2011: https://phys.org/news/2011-11-scientists-vacuum.html

And that matter is energy/information.

So, doesn't that conflict with physicalism? Isn't materialism dead? How can anyone still hold on to that?

Are their brains slow?

The way to rescue physicalism is to shift the goalposts of the paradigm and say that information is physical.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_information

This will also give philosophers something new to argue about: whether information is physical or abstract.

The irony is that if anybody established any empirical difference between physical and abstract information, that's evidence for physical information to a physicist; and evidence for abstract information to a philosopher. So everybody's religion remains in tact. Win-win I think.

Abstract and Physical can be viewed as relativistic gradations of the other and we go back to the dualism of Plato and Aristotle.

[Logik]

Abstract and Physical can be viewed as relativistic gradations of the other and we go back to the dualism of Plato and Aristotle.

Same dualism. Different context.

Our languages have evolved significantly since then...

We learn/communicate faster and more precisely. We move faster.

The body of knowledge is larger and more accessible.

[Eodnhoj7]

Abstract and Physical can be viewed as relativistic gradations of the other and we go back to the dualism of Plato and Aristotle.

Same dualism. Different context.

Our languages have evolved significantly since then...

We learn/communicate faster and more precisely. We move faster.

The body of knowledge is larger and more accessible.

Different context just observes a connection through context alone.

Move faster to where exactly when the same John is stuck with the same John no matter where he goes? People travel around because they are afraid of themselves.

With the increase in precision in one respect comes an increase separation in another. Precision in one phenomenon results in the ambiguity of another.

Measurement results in it's own formation of the enemy it seeks to avoid...chaos.


A million pieces of knowledge or "One"...which is simpler?