Is the universe created from an "informationally-based" substance?

[Atla]

You should have just stopped at just saying you didn't read it. I still don't have a clue what the fuck you are talking about. Don't respond. I'll ignore you too for your choice to discriminate with undo prejudice. Thanks.

Just like you had no clue last time, and you won't have a clue next time.

And you? Did you somehow disprove something I said as logically unsound? If so, show me.

Consciousness to me is EASY to intepret but given the WAY many of you think in terms of a religious-like belief regarding your personal experience of consciousness is getting in the way, ....even for those I normally agree with who I know are not 'religious' per se.

When appropriately investigating these phenomena, you have to be DESCRIPTIVE of the sensation of 'consciousness'. My post above to uwot in which I attempted to edit is 7 times trying to relate this might be of interest. But your intention to dismiss whatever view you THINK you have of my opinion is YOURS to own if you do not understand. But....

...you didn't assert a 'misunderstanding' but clearly dismissed me with an insult that was not instigated against you as PERSON, as yours does against me. Your own choice to 'cancel' my input then suffices to justify my own choice to 'cancel' whatever value you might have had to contribute regardless of whatever potential wisdom you hold in showing me wrong.

Instead you could focus all this energy into learning how to think. You can't tell the difference between abstract and concrete, so you'll need to go back to square one and start over.

[seeds]

As far as the evidence goes, the idea we are currently within some type of Holographic Experiential Reality Simulation isn't so far fetched as to be off the table...

I like what you're saying there, VVilliam, however, I'm not a fan of the word "Simulation" when it comes to the workings of the universe.

"Illusion," yes. But "Simulation," not so much.

A "Simulation" of what?

I have seen this complaint before seeds, and it caused me to pause and reflect if that is the correct word to be using.

That is why I call it a 'reality simulation' as it is simulating a reality which can be experienced as real.

Okay, that's a pretty good explanation.

More to the point, whatever is experiencing it as real has to be conscious, so the only real thing in the whole HERS are the consciousnesses which are experiencing it.

Agreed (though it took me a while to figure out what "HERS" meant ).

If any illusion is going on regarding that, it is the idea that consciousness is the illusion and the universe is the real thing, which is the basic tenet of emergent theory and the overall message supporters of that theory, preach....

Again, I agree (I'm not used to meeting and conversing with a kindred spirit on this site).

Indeed, it's amazing how so many seeming intelligent humans place the primacy of matter over the primacy of life, mind, and consciousness, treating that trio as some sort of secondary (and accidental) by-product of matter,...

...when, in fact, without the existence of life, mind, and consciousness, then inanimate (lifeless/mindless) matter would have absolutely no reason or purpose for existing.
_______

[VVilliam]

Again, I agree (I'm not used to meeting and conversing with a kindred spirit on this site).

Maybe there is a future where it will be the norm rather than the exception...

Indeed, it's amazing how so many seeming intelligent humans place the primacy of matter over the primacy of life, mind, and consciousness, treating that trio as some sort of secondary (and accidental) by-product of matter,...

It surely is.
But they are indeed intelligent, make no mistake. What is at the heart of the issue is that they are not using their intelligence in relation to 'things of the mind' - a classic example of this is going on here...http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... 787&page=4 post #144 and down, in particular...
Hard-nosed skeptics who believe/make unsupported statements that science has a handle on 'The Mind"

...when, in fact, without the existence of life, mind, and consciousness, then inanimate (lifeless/mindless) matter would have absolutely no reason or purpose for existing.

Not only that, but for all intent and purpose, it would not exist at all, because there would be nothing in which to acknowledge its existence.

[Scott Mayers]

Just like you had no clue last time, and you won't have a clue next time.

And you? Did you somehow disprove something I said as logically unsound? If so, show me.

Consciousness to me is EASY to intepret but given the WAY many of you think in terms of a religious-like belief regarding your personal experience of consciousness is getting in the way, ....even for those I normally agree with who I know are not 'religious' per se.

When appropriately investigating these phenomena, you have to be DESCRIPTIVE of the sensation of 'consciousness'. My post above to uwot in which I attempted to edit is 7 times trying to relate this might be of interest. But your intention to dismiss whatever view you THINK you have of my opinion is YOURS to own if you do not understand. But....

...you didn't assert a 'misunderstanding' but clearly dismissed me with an insult that was not instigated against you as PERSON, as yours does against me. Your own choice to 'cancel' my input then suffices to justify my own choice to 'cancel' whatever value you might have had to contribute regardless of whatever potential wisdom you hold in showing me wrong.

Instead you could focus all this energy into learning how to think. You can't tell the difference between abstract and concrete, so you'll need to go back to square one and start over.

Instead, I'll stop wasting my time on idiots like you.

[Atla]

And you? Did you somehow disprove something I said as logically unsound? If so, show me.

Consciousness to me is EASY to intepret but given the WAY many of you think in terms of a religious-like belief regarding your personal experience of consciousness is getting in the way, ....even for those I normally agree with who I know are not 'religious' per se.

When appropriately investigating these phenomena, you have to be DESCRIPTIVE of the sensation of 'consciousness'. My post above to uwot in which I attempted to edit is 7 times trying to relate this might be of interest. But your intention to dismiss whatever view you THINK you have of my opinion is YOURS to own if you do not understand. But....

...you didn't assert a 'misunderstanding' but clearly dismissed me with an insult that was not instigated against you as PERSON, as yours does against me. Your own choice to 'cancel' my input then suffices to justify my own choice to 'cancel' whatever value you might have had to contribute regardless of whatever potential wisdom you hold in showing me wrong.

Instead you could focus all this energy into learning how to think. You can't tell the difference between abstract and concrete, so you'll need to go back to square one and start over.

Instead, I'll stop wasting my time on idiots like you.

Good, I don't want to spend time on you either

[seeds]

_______

(Note: This thread is an off-shoot from the "Christianity" thread in the "General Philosophical Discussion" forum.)

...More interesting, to me at any rate, is what exactly you mean by "an "informationally-based" substance". You don't like the duck pond analogy, how about an old 45? The information on a record is in the groove; when you first drop the needle, there is no sound, because the groove is smooth; it carries no information. And then: Wop bop a loo bop a lop bom bom! The way I see things is that the substance comes first; be that a duck pond, a record or the stuff the universe is made of.

What I mean by suggesting that the phenomenal features of the universe are created from an "informationally-based substance," is partially derived from Heisenberg referring to the unmeasured (superpositioned) quantum realm as existing as some kind of raw "potentia" whose (ghost-like) constituent properties evolve according to Schrödinger's equation, which is loosely represented by this Wiki gif...


...

The whole discussion so far seems meaningless to me, because the two concepts in question are never defined:

1. What does, "information," mean in this context?...

2. What does, "substance," mean in this context?...

Until those two concepts are made explicit the discussion can only go in circles as illustrated by this thread.

According to the implications of quantum mechanics, the reason why a three-dimensional phenomenon presents itself to our senses in the form of, for example, an apple...



...as opposed to a koala...



...as opposed to a French Horn...



...etc., etc., is because of the almost infinitely varying ways that the waveforms of subatomic particles...

(i.e,, the underlying "pixels" of matter)

...can manifest and combine with each other.

All of which can be expressed in the language of mathematics.

Therefore, it is not unreasonable or illogical to think of all of the phenomenal features of what we call "reality" (see the three examples above) as being founded upon an "informationally-based substance" that seems to be capable of becoming absolutely anything "imaginable" depending upon how the substance's manipulatable constituents (waveforms) are configured.
_______

[Atla]

According to the implications of quantum mechanics, the reason why a three-dimensional phenomenon presents itself to our senses in the form of, for example, an apple...



...as opposed to a koala...



...as opposed to a French Horn...



...etc., etc., is because of the almost infinitely varying ways that the waveforms of subatomic particles...

(i.e,, the underlying "pixels" of matter)

...can manifest and combine with each other.

All of which can be expressed in the language of mathematics.

Therefore, it is not unreasonable or illogical to think of all of the phenomenal features of what we call "reality" (see the three examples above) as being founded upon an "informationally-based substance" that seems to be capable of becoming absolutely anything "imaginable" depending upon how the substance's manipulatable constituents (waveforms) are configured.
_______

In QM, from an apple, we can maybe get that apple scattered/smeared across the universe in space and time in infinitely many ways, we get the sum of that, from which superposition we get one particular state of the apple when it's being measured back into a particular state. But we can't get a koala or a french horn from the wavefunction of an apple, that would be magic.

[RCSaunders]

... it is not unreasonable or illogical to think of all of the phenomenal features of what we call "reality" ... as being founded upon an "informationally-based substance" ...
_______

The problem is the made up concept, "informationally-based sustance," is totally meaningless. The word, "information," does not identify any kind of thing or substance. It can mean either, "knowledge," (as in epistemology) or, "data" (as stored or transmitted states in information theory). The only substances that exist are at the macro level of existence. Iron, sulfur, copper, oxygen, iodine and all other elements, water, salt, ammonia, and copper sulfate and all other compounds, milk, plastic, gun powder, martinis and all other mixtures are all the kinds of substances there are. Atoms and all the sub-atomic particles are only ways of picturing the nature of actual substances but are not substances themselves, except as metaphors. Yours is both an epistemological and scientific mistake--unfortunately a very common one.

[jayjacobus]

... it is not unreasonable or illogical to think of all of the phenomenal features of what we call "reality" ... as being founded upon an "informationally-based substance" ...
_______

The problem is the made up concept, "informationally-based sustance," is totally meaningless. The word, "information," does not identify any kind of thing or substance. It can mean either, "knowledge," (as in epistemology) or, "data" (as stored or transmitted states in information theory). The only substances that exist are at the macro level of existence. Iron, sulfur, copper, oxygen, iodine and all other elements, water, salt, ammonia, and copper sulfate and all other compounds, milk, plastic, gun powder, martinis and all other mixtures are all the kinds of substances there are. Atoms and all the sub-atomic particles are only ways of picturing the nature of actual substances but are not substances themselves, except as metaphors. Yours is both an epistemological and scientific mistake--unfortunately a very common one.

Atoms are not substances but they must have instructions (information) that creates substances.

[RCSaunders]

... it is not unreasonable or illogical to think of all of the phenomenal features of what we call "reality" ... as being founded upon an "informationally-based substance" ...
_______

The problem is the made up concept, "informationally-based sustance," is totally meaningless. The word, "information," does not identify any kind of thing or substance. It can mean either, "knowledge," (as in epistemology) or, "data" (as stored or transmitted states in information theory). The only substances that exist are at the macro level of existence. Iron, sulfur, copper, oxygen, iodine and all other elements, water, salt, ammonia, and copper sulfate and all other compounds, milk, plastic, gun powder, martinis and all other mixtures are all the kinds of substances there are. Atoms and all the sub-atomic particles are only ways of picturing the nature of actual substances but are not substances themselves, except as metaphors. Yours is both an epistemological and scientific mistake--unfortunately a very common one.

Atoms are not substances but they must have instructions (information) that creates substances.

"Instructions?" Atoms make choices? What do they do with these instructions. Are atoms born with little books, "how to be a good atom?" What are you talking about?

I think you are reifying a whole lot of metaphors.

I know that sounds like a criticism, but its not meant that way. I think you are just making a mistake, and understandable one, but still a mistake.

[jayjacobus]

The problem is the made up concept, "informationally-based sustance," is totally meaningless. The word, "information," does not identify any kind of thing or substance. It can mean either, "knowledge," (as in epistemology) or, "data" (as stored or transmitted states in information theory). The only substances that exist are at the macro level of existence. Iron, sulfur, copper, oxygen, iodine and all other elements, water, salt, ammonia, and copper sulfate and all other compounds, milk, plastic, gun powder, martinis and all other mixtures are all the kinds of substances there are. Atoms and all the sub-atomic particles are only ways of picturing the nature of actual substances but are not substances themselves, except as metaphors. Yours is both an epistemological and scientific mistake--unfortunately a very common one.

Atoms are not substances but they must have instructions (information) that creates substances.

"Instructions?" Atoms make choices? What do they do with these instructions. Are atoms born with little books, "how to be a good atom?" What are you talking about?

I think you are reifying a whole lot of metaphors.

I know that sounds like a criticism, but its not meant that way. I think you are just making a mistake, and understandable one, but still a mistake.

Atoms contain information that determines what substances are made of. They don't make choices,

Genes also contain information that determines what life forms are made of. They don't make choices either.

What reads and implements these natural instructions is not known.

[RCSaunders]

Atoms are not substances but they must have instructions (information) that creates substances.

"Instructions?" Atoms make choices? What do they do with these instructions. Are atoms born with little books, "how to be a good atom?" What are you talking about?

I think you are reifying a whole lot of metaphors.

I know that sounds like a criticism, but its not meant that way. I think you are just making a mistake, and understandable one, but still a mistake.

Atoms contain information ...

If that means something to you, fine. It does not mean anything to me and Chemistry is one of my major interests in life. There is not a single attribute of any chemical element that can be identified as, "information," in any normal sense of that word. Atoms, like all entities, have specific natures that determine what they do. The description of those natures, as provided in the periodic table of the elements, for example, is information to us, but atoms sure don't know it. It's absurd.

[Iwannaplato]

Atoms contain information that determines what substances are made of. They don't make choices,

Genes also contain information that determines what life forms are made of. They don't make choices either.

What reads and implements these natural instructions is not known.

Sounds like informational realism. Some links...
https://mindmatters.ai/2021/07/how-info ... terialism/
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ob ... y-to-mind/
and/or digital physics

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

[Flannel Jesus]

Genes also contain information that determines what life forms are made of. They don't make choices either.

What reads and implements these natural instructions is not known.

I think we actually have quite a bit of headway into understanding how genes are read and implemented. That's just a chemical procress.

[Walker]

Atoms contain information ...

If that means something to you, fine. It does not mean anything to me and Chemistry is one of my major interests in life. There is not a single attribute of any chemical element that can be identified as, "information," in any normal sense of that word. Atoms, like all entities, have specific natures that determine what they do. The description of those natures, as provided in the periodic table of the elements, for example, is information to us, but atoms sure don't know it. It's absurd.

Well, the need for an electron to go atom-hopping is caused by the inherent knowledge of energy processes contained within the electron and the atom, and their relationship causes a manifestation of that knowledge to exist. Just as a plant has inherent knowledge to reach towards light energy, and a body has inherent knowledge to turn towards heat energy, such knowledge of energy dynamics awaiting discovery precedes the supposition of “choice,” that is a subtle bias infiltrating cause and effect theories.

Choice is an illusion because the electron makes no choice. Neither does a galaxy. Neither does anything in between atom and galaxy, although human causation is likely the most complex of choiceless dynamics known to man. The atom's atomic knowledge that causes choiceless movement by the electrons further bypasses choice because it doesn't rely on learned memory.

However, I do understand your point. "Normal sense of the word," does help it along.


(edited to straighten out the quotes )