Information does not exist as such
Re: Information does not exist as such
I mean you can also "store information" using the position of matter, so "information" can also be "stored" using holes. But of course holes are by definition surrounded by matter.
Re: Information does not exist as such
You have asserted it many times. That is not the same as explaining it.
What you are saying is that Western thinking has been refuted by Western thinking.
Which is why many physicists don't bother with philosophy.
Been outside and crawled all over.
Really? Why is any instrumentalist interpretation dualist?
Indeed. And any good physicist that wishes to support a particular interpretation will try and devise an experiment that can test that interpretation.
And as I have explained, western thinkers are perfectly aware that there is no logical connection between phenomena and noumena. Once again:
uwot wrote: ↑Mon Feb 12, 2018 9:25 amThe dominant western philosophy is empiricism, the defining feature of which is that it doesn't particularly care about ontology. Rather than treat reality as a "thing", the basic premise is that 'the truth' is hidden behind a 'veil of appearance' and that any knowledge claims are restricted to those referring to phenomena.
You clearly haven't heard of henosis. Non-dualism has been part of western thinking since the Ancient Greeks at least.
Yup. Covered that here:
Re: Information does not exist as such
Could you summerize in a few sentences what you are actually arguing against? Because I think I explained myself several times already (and, no I don't think that henosis is widespread, and it's usually misunderstood for monism anyway).
The point of this topic is that we shouldn't treat information like some sort of new kind of substance or a new kind of matter or whatever. Because it can be shown using empirical evidence that information is just an abstraction.
Re: Information does not exist as such
The thing you asserted:
Really? Who by?
Doh! You cannot use empirical evidence to show what words mean.
Re: Information does not exist as such
Re: Information does not exist as such
Really? So what is, or is not if you prefer, information and what empirical evidence can you provide that supports your claim?
Re: Information does not exist as such
Well you could read the opening post of this topic, and then point out where you disagree?
If you want to show that information exists independently, then the burden of proof is on you, by the way. But you can give knowledgeable lectures on empiricism, so you already know this.
Re: Information does not exist as such
You appear to have forgotten that we started here:
And finished here:uwot wrote: ↑Mon Feb 12, 2018 11:42 amMost physicists, since Einstein, accept the equivalence of matter and energy. According to quantum field theories, both are simply fluctuations/shapes/patterns/whatever, in some underlying 'field'. In other words, the working hypothesis is that there is some sort of stuff and there are some things which are true about it.
Well no, I think the burden is on you to prove that there can be lumps and eddies in nothing.
But apparently I can't make you listen.
Re: Information does not exist as such
Why can't you, just once, not write a complete strawman?uwot wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2018 9:08 amYou appear to have forgotten that we started here:And finished here:uwot wrote: ↑Mon Feb 12, 2018 11:42 amMost physicists, since Einstein, accept the equivalence of matter and energy. According to quantum field theories, both are simply fluctuations/shapes/patterns/whatever, in some underlying 'field'. In other words, the working hypothesis is that there is some sort of stuff and there are some things which are true about it.Well no, I think the burden is on you to prove that there can be lumps and eddies in nothing.But apparently I can't make you listen.
Of course matter and energy can be seen as fluctuations/shapes/patterns/whatever, in some underlying field.
But the burden of proof is on you to show that these fluctuations/shapes/patterns/whatever are not simply a part, an abstraction of that field, but genuinely independent from it. That matter/energy are "distinct" form that field, and interacting with it.
Why do you refer to the field as "nothing"?
Why do you keep claiming that there is no evidence for non-separateness when such a field is continuous? It's the other way around, there is no evidence for separateness.
Re: Information does not exist as such
This is what you said:
If it is not your view that there can be lumps and eddies in nothing, you should make that clear.
There is no such burden of proof on me, because I have never made any such claim. On the contrary, I have said this:
uwot wrote: ↑Mon Feb 12, 2018 11:42 amMost physicists, since Einstein, accept the equivalence of matter and energy. According to quantum field theories, both are simply fluctuations/shapes/patterns/whatever, in some underlying 'field'. In other words, the working hypothesis is that there is some sort of stuff and there are some things which are true about it.
Actually, that was you:
There is no direct evidence that any such field exists. The only fields that demonstrably exist are fields of force: gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear forces, dark matter and dark energy. We only know they exist because suitably charged, or massive, objects behave in a particular way under their influence. There is no known mechanism that explains any of those forces. In other words, there is no evidence than apparently separate objects are mechanically linked.
Some physicists believe that quantum fields have mechanical properties i.e. they can have lumps and eddies in them. In such a view, which I think is quite compelling, it is not the case "That matter/energy are "distinct" form that field, and interacting with it." Rather the fluctuations, shapes, patterns, whatever, all of which can be termed information, are in the field. If that is your view, then I am sympathetic enough to have written a book, with that as its central premise. Where you and I definitely differ, is that you insist that western thinkers are oblivious to this model and are all therefore dualists.
Re: Information does not exist as such
Yes, I can go along with that definition. Dualism taken to a level where it means something other than two units or two types of units, without any further attributes, and viewing information defined as something... yes, I can see how the combination of these two can lead to confusion.
One of the two alone leads to confusion. The two together leads to confusion and nonsense.
I wholly agree with this.
=======================
What is the topic of contention in the discussion between you, Atla, and uwot?
Re: Information does not exist as such
What is the topic of contention in the discussion between you, uwot, and Atla?
In a few words that I could understand. I have been following this thread, and all I could tell of note in it, is you refute (somewhat successfully) everything Atla says. But there is a painful lack of stance of what either of you proposes.
What is your point, that you want to convince Atla of, and what is Atla's point, that he wants you to accept?
These are honest questions. No trick involved, or traps, only want to see what the point of the contention is.
You see, my aunt Eva and her husband Andor would go into infinitely escalating arguments, and at the crescendo he would scream at the top of his lungs, and get a heart attack, and she would feign to faint, and the astute observer would know that their skirmish started off with opposing views on whether it was Donald Duck of Duffy Duck who first said "Quack quack" to the Lone Ranger, or some similarly trifling matter.
Re: Information does not exist as such
That is my view, as already expressed in the first comment. What we shouldn't do is treat the field as a combination of stuff and information, that are interacting. It's either all stuff or all information, or information is understood as an abstraction of some/all of the stuff. But they are not literally two things.
So do you agree with that? So you agree with the premise of this topic?
I said no such thing in the context of information. Some thinkers, scientists, laymen misunderstand information, others don't. The majority of physicists treat information as abstraction, which is the premise of this topic.Where you and I definitely differ, is that you insist that western thinkers are oblivious to this model and are all therefore dualists.