Is science being divided?

[QuantumT]

Have we really agreed that I exists? How come?
For me my existence is self-evident. It will be logically absurd if I were to deny my own existence. But that's just for me.
But now, how have you come to agree that I exist? What evidence/proof do you have of my existence for you to agree that I exist? Do you have empirical evidence/proof of my existence? Please explain this before we proceed to the other points in your post.

First Darwinism and now Cartesianism. Please, Averroes, make your own threads about those things! Please!

[Averroes]

You so completely and conveniently forget that evidence can be proof, in certain circumstances, when evidence is sufficient, and it can be short of being a proof, in other circumstances, when evidence is insufficient. Your dictionary examples take (rather arbitrarily) the case when evidence is sufficient to proof.

Avarro has found a dictionary definition that states "proof: evidence..." etc., and he never bothered to explore the entry further, in which it was explained that a certain type of evidence (sufficient evidence) provides proof, but there are evidence (insufficient evidence) which does not provide proof.

I have understood you already. For you sufficient evidence provides proof and insufficient evidence does not provide proof. I agree with that also but not only! What about the cases of sufficient proof and insufficient proof? Are these phrases allowed in your semantics?

In my appreciation of the beauty of the English language, there is no rule in the English language that restricts the application of the adjectives “sufficient” and “insufficient” solely to the noun “evidence”! Therefore, for me it equally makes sense to apply these adjectives to both the nouns “evidence” and “proof”! Moreover, from the definitions of the nouns “evidence” and “proof” themselves, nothing would prevent the application of the adjectives “sufficient” and “insufficient” to either of them! Additionally the common English language authorities (dictionaries and other references) have ALL found that the nouns “evidence” and “proof” are synonymous.

Based on all these linguistic considerations now, for me there is also the cases of sufficient proof and insufficient proof! In my semantics therefore, sufficient proof amounts to proof and insufficient proof does not amount to proof! Moreover, I also have the following relations in my semantics: sufficient evidence is sufficient proof; sufficient proof is proof just as sufficient evidence is evidence; sufficient proof is evidence just as sufficient evidence is proof; insufficient evidence is insufficient proof; insufficient evidence is not evidence just as insufficient proof is not proof; insufficient evidence is not proof just as insufficient proof is not evidence because evidence is synonymous with proof as the English language references propose, e.g.: http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/proof

These are my semantics from my, as you implied, “arbitrary” dictionaries. Well about the arbitrariness of the dictionaries, I had no choice in the matter but to comply with the authorities because the English language was already well established many centuries before I was even born! Moreover, I have never had legislative powers in the English language but I am merely a law abiding citizen in the city of the English language; and I don’t feel like looking for trouble either with the English language authorities! I am not into politics either, so they legislate and I abide.
_____________

Explain, if you so will, please, how come there are such things as

insufficient evidence of proof
sufficient evidence of proof

if the two are synonyms?

As far as I understand, “Proof of evidence” and the likes are technical legal terms which have a very specific meaning in a legal context. I also appreciate that “proof of evidence” is a noun. Which now means that the correct meaning of the technical legal noun “proof of evidence” cannot be deduced solely from the separate synonymous meaning of the common nouns “proof” and “evidence”, but it is given a specific definition in a legal context. Moreover, in my understanding, since the noun “proof of evidence” is a specific technical term, it does not have an effect on the synonymity of the common nouns “proof” and “evidence.” Besides if this were thought to be a problem, then how come in mathematics we have the concept of a function of function?! For example, (x-1)^2 is a quadratic function of a linear function! Now, the appropriateness of juxtaposition of the adjectives “sufficient” or “insufficient” to that legal noun can only be assessed in context when that noun is used in a sentence.

Proof of evidence (noun) : a written summary of what a witness will say in evidence during a hearing
In her proof of evidence to the inquiry, Ms Tibbets said: “Experts admit that such findings cannot be 100 per cent accurate."
Reference: https://www.translegal.com/legal-englis ... f-evidence
___________

Also, we can use your type of test of synonymy of "proof" and "evidence". It is dead easy to illustrate the wrongness of your view this way:
5. We found some proof on the murder scene: a footprint of Mike’s shoe.
6. But it’s not proof that Mike was the murderer. Someone else could have worn his shoes.

Now you see the error in your ways? Something can't both be proof and not proof at the same time and in the same respect.

There is no error in my way but there is a misunderstanding on your part. Let me explain.

Indeed something cannot be a proof and not a proof at the same time in the same respect. That is the law of non-contradiction. But something can be a proof on a murder scene and at the same time that same thing can also not be a proof that Mike was the murderer. It is not the same proof in the same respect in the latter case. You have to consider the whole noun phrase including the noun “proof” and not just the noun “proof” in isolation! For the noun “proof” is being qualified by what follows it! In the example you gave, one such noun phrase was “a proof on the murder scene” and the other was “a proof that Mike was the murderer”. Here the qualifying phrase “on the murder scene” and qualifying clause “that Mike was the murderer” distinguishes different concepts of proofs. And these different proof concepts might be equal or not equal. For example, in each of the statements below the law of non-contradiction is being upheld:

1. Either some proof on the murder scene is a proof that Mike is the murderer OR some proof on the murder scene is not a proof that Mike is the murderer.

Now, since evidence is synonymous with proof in my semantics I also understand the following sentences to be equivalent:

2. Either some evidence on the murder scene is an evidence that Mike is the murderer OR some evidence on the murder scene is not an evidence that Mike is the murderer.
3. Either some evidence on the murder scene is proof that Mike is the murderer OR some evidence on the murder scene is not a proof that Mike is the murderer.
4. Either some proof on the murder scene is an evidence that Mike is the murderer OR some proof on the murder scene is not an evidence that Mike is the murderer.

After this brief interesting linguistic and English grammar interlude, I propose that we get back to philosophy if you concur.

___________________________

I recall that previously you had made the following statements which you honorably declined to take back:

I agreed with you. Wholeheartedly. Darwinism is a question of belief.

We have also seen from the common English language dictionary that belief is an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/belief

From these considerations, we necessarily deduce that Darwinists are people who accept the theory of Darwin as true without proof. The latter follows logically and unequivocally from your own statements. So, so far so good then!

The point where we diverged is where it was said that Dawinism is without any evidence whatsoever.
I took note that you have insisted on a distinction between insufficient evidence which does not provide proof and sufficient evidence which provide proof. My semantics also include those distinctions as I already explained. So let us focus on this common ground between us.

Since your previous wholehearted statement implied unambiguously that Darwinism is without proof, and you distinguished that insufficient evidence does not provide proof and sufficient evidence provides proof, this now necessarily entails that in your own judgment, therefore, Darwinism rests on insufficient evidence! I can agree on that! In my semantics, furthermore, as already stated previously, insufficient evidence is not evidence. On the latter we can disagree of course.

Moreover, other members contributing positively on this interesting topic, has made matters worse for your conception of Darwinism by adding that proof is irrefutable (QuantumT) or proof is conclusive (vegetariantaxidermy) whereas evidence, according to them, merely points in all direction or is merely just circumstantial. And additionally now, if we qualify their concept of evidence with your qualifier "insufficient," your concept of Darwinism would be in a worse condition that I had expected initially! On my grounds at least evidence was on the same footing as proof! If that can make the case of Darwinism worse, then I am very much seduced by the idea of adopting your semantics of evidence and proof!

But certainly I take home that for you Darwinism rests on insufficient evidence which does not provide proof!

As usual it is really a great pleasure to philosophize in your company. And I mean that wholeheartedly.
___________

[Averroes]

Of course Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is science.

Not everyone shares that point of view though. For example, I know someone who professes to be an atheist but yet he wholeheartedly unequivocally asserted that Darwinism is a question of belief. I tend to agree that Darwinism is without proof/evidence, whereas science requires at least sufficient evidence to back its claims and Darwin theory has no evidence whatsoever to back its claims. And many biologists experts are agreeing with us by saying that the theory of evolution of Darwin is not scientific because there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back these claims.

There is a bunch of fossils lying around; 98% of our DNA is identical to chimpanzees; the beaks of Galapagos finches appear to have adapted to the conditions of particular islands. Either you explain all that by appealing to physical causes that we can understand, observe and to some degree manipulate, or you just give up and believe we will never understand how our environment works, because it was created by a being who is much cleverer than us.

Of course, I can comment on all your examples.

1. Fossil lying around.

I have already addressed this subject on this thread itself. There are many problems with these fossils, but the most immediate problem to be addressed with the fossil records is that they cannot be reliably dated by the method which is currently being used to date them. So we do not know the age of these fossils at all. If we do not know the age of these fossils then we cannot use them as proof/evidence for evolution because semantically evolution means a progress in time. So if one cannot accurately put these fossil records on an accurate time scale then they can never be used as proof/evidence of evolution. This is a very serious issue with the dating of the fossil records nowadays and many Darwinists when I inform them of such and they come to understand the issue, they suddenly stop talking to me! This has happened here itself on this thread with at least two members nearly simultaneously. On other forums I have stopped counting!

Any way, you seem to be different. Actually, as referred to by another member on this thread itself, the Potassium- Argon isotope radiometric dating is being used to date fossils beyond the alleged capacity of carbon-14 radiometric dating which is alleged to be between 50, 000 to 100,000 years. According to the experts, Carbon-14 is the most reliable of all radiometric carbon dating. All the others, including Potassium-Argon isotope, are not at all reliable. For example, on the website of New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resouces, we have the following information of the Potassium-Argon (K/Ar) dating method:

The K/Ar Dating technique

General assumptions for the Potassium-Argon dating system

Certain assumptions must be satisfied before the age of a rock or mineral can be calculated with the Potassium-Argon dating technique. These are:

• The material in question is a closed system. In other words, no radiogenic 40Ar has escaped from the rock/mineral since it formed. In the case of a volcanic mineral, this means rapid cooling. Likewise, potassium has not been gained or lost.

• A correction is made for atmospheric argon (40Ar from the 40Ar/36Ar ratio = 295.5 subtracted).

• No non-atmospheric 40Ar was incorporated into the rock/mineral during or after its formation.

• The isotopes of potassium in the rock/mineral have not fractionated, except by 40K decay.

• The decay constants of 40K are accurately known.

• The quantities of 40Ar and potassium in the rock/mineral are accurately determined.

Problems and Limitations of the K/Ar dating technique

Because the K/Ar dating technique relies on the determining the absolute abundances of both 40Ar and potassium, there is not a reliable way to determine if the assumptions are valid. Argon loss and excess argon are two common problems that may cause erroneous ages to be determined. Argon loss occurs when radiogenic 40Ar (40Ar*) produced within a rock/mineral escapes sometime after its formation. Alteration and high temperature can damage a rock/mineral lattice sufficiently to allow 40Ar* to be released. This can cause the calculated K/Ar age to be younger than the "true" age of the dated material. Conversely, excess argon (40ArE) can cause the calculated K/Ar age to be older than the "true" age of the dated material. Excess argon is simply 40Ar that is attributed to radiogenic 40Ar and/or atmospheric 40Ar. Excess argon may be derived from the mantle, as bubbles trapped in a melt, in the case of a magma. Or it could be a xenocryst/xenolith trapped in a magma/lava during emplacement.

As can be clearly understood from these authoritative geology references, the methods used to date fossils are not at all reliable. We do NOT know the age of these fossils at all. So these fossils cannot be used as evidence for evolution from a scientific point of view.
Site: https://geoinfo.nmt.edu/labs/argon/methods/home.html


2. 98% of our DNA is identical to chimpanzees

We also have 60% of our DNA similar to that of a banana and about 68% of our DNA is similar to a that of a cucumber! These are interesting correlations but such correlation does not imply evolution. The way genetic data is encoded in DNA is the same for all living things. From bacteria through plants to animals. The individual cell perform many of the same functions required for life irrespective of the living organism. The genes that are the same or similar in humans and in, for example, a banana or a cucumber are basic functions of any cell. For example, functions such as building a cell wall; replicating DNA and various methods of metabolizing energy. So this type of congruence among living organisms is not surprising at all.


3. The beaks of Galapagos finches appear to have adapted to the conditions of particular islands.

This is adaptation within the same species and in the present case the species subject are finches. I already said and I can say it again that I have no problem with adaptation within the same species. For example, if some people tend to have eating disorders and not exercise much then their shape and weight are accordingly affected. Someone who has healthy eating habits and exercises often will be a better shape and health.
But adaptation within the same species is not Darwinism. Darwinism goes further and says that one species can become another, but this has never been observed in any scientific experiment. The scientific experiments that has been conducted show that when conditions gets too harsh, there is no evolution but the species just die. There is a wealth of information to be gathered on experiments on fruit flies and bacteria on that subject.

[QuantumT]

Hi, I'm Averroes!

I'm a Creationist, and I love to derail and interfere in any debate about science, rather than making my own threads about metaphysics or religion. Staying in my own realm, what's the fun i that, when I can fuck up my opponents discussions?!

A mock quote! But so true!

[A_Seagull]

We have agreed that you exist and for the sake of argument let us also presume that the inanimate universe exists.

Have we really agreed that I exists? How come?
For me my existence is self-evident. It will be logically absurd if I were to deny my own existence. But that's just for me.
But now, how have you come to agree that I exist? What evidence/proof do you have of my existence for you to agree that I exist? Do you have empirical evidence/proof of my existence? Please explain this before we proceed to the other points in your post.

Its just a working hypothesis....
or if you like it is the best theory to fit the available data.

[uwot]

Of course Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is science.

Not everyone shares that point of view though.

That's because there is no agreed definition of science.

For example, I know someone who professes to be an atheist but yet he wholeheartedly unequivocally asserted that Darwinism is a question of belief.

Why shouldn't an atheist think that?

I tend to agree that Darwinism is without proof/evidence...

You really should listen to what every native English speaker is telling you and accept that we understand that there is a profound difference between evidence and proof.

...whereas science requires at least sufficient evidence to back its claims and Darwin theory has no evidence whatsoever to back its claims.

There is so much evidence to support the theory of evolution that only someone determined to believe an alternative explanation can reject it.

As can be clearly understood from these authoritative geology references, the methods used to date fossils are not at all reliable. We do NOT know the age of these fossils at all. So these fossils cannot be used as evidence for evolution from a scientific point of view.

Whether or not we know the exact time of death of each individual fossilised creature is irrelevant. We understand the process by which the sedimentary rocks that fossils are generally found in form. We know that process doesn't happen overnight. And we know that the rocks at the bottom contain the simplest organisms and that the closer to the surface, the more like modern animals the fossils become.

We also have 60% of our DNA similar to that of a banana and about 68% of our DNA is similar to a that of a cucumber! ...this type of congruence among living organisms is not surprising at all.

No, not if all living things have some common ancestry.

The scientific experiments that has been conducted show that when conditions gets too harsh, there is no evolution but the species just die.

The fossil record also shows that species die. What has never been observed is the spontaneous generation of an entirely new species.

[-1-]

But certainly I take home that for you Darwinism rests on insufficient evidence which does not provide proof!

As usual it is really a great pleasure to philosophize in your company. And I mean that wholeheartedly.
___________

Finally we are on the same page. Science can't prove anything, only disprove. You and I got to get you understand this much (maybe) after a grueling few days work of explaining things to you.

Unfortunately I can't share your sentiments. It was not at all any pleasure to philosophize in your company. Your arguments are childish, and your semantic objections are impossibly false, and it is not possible to show them to you. Your ineptitude, not mine. Sorry to say this, I wish it could be another way, but it is argumenting in the style that you do that brings a bad name to Islam.

You may wonder and want to know why I kept on with dialoguing with you. It was not due to pleasure, but to avoid even more displeasure. You kept saying "I got you now, -1-, you can't take this back, and your arguments are not valid". Not a verbatim quote, it is more like the essence of your egging me on. Yes, I was egged on, I admit. It was my ego that made me continue the dialogue. I wasn't at the beginning so very sure that I were going to be unsuccessful in getting anything through to you. It proved to be an impossible task, I see it now, and I shall now respectfully put you on my "foe" list, so I shall never have to see your posts again.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

You so completely and conveniently forget that evidence can be proof, in certain circumstances, when evidence is sufficient, and it can be short of being a proof, in other circumstances, when evidence is insufficient. Your dictionary examples take (rather arbitrarily) the case when evidence is sufficient to proof.

Avarro has found a dictionary definition that states "proof: evidence..." etc., and he never bothered to explore the entry further, in which it was explained that a certain type of evidence (sufficient evidence) provides proof, but there are evidence (insufficient evidence) which does not provide proof.

I have understood you already. For you sufficient evidence provides proof and insufficient evidence does not provide proof. I agree with that also but not only! What about the cases of sufficient proof and insufficient proof? Are these phrases allowed in your semantics?

In my appreciation of the beauty of the English language, there is no rule in the English language that restricts the application of the adjectives “sufficient” and “insufficient” solely to the noun “evidence”! Therefore, for me it equally makes sense to apply these adjectives to both the nouns “evidence” and “proof”! Moreover, from the definitions of the nouns “evidence” and “proof” themselves, nothing would prevent the application of the adjectives “sufficient” and “insufficient” to either of them! Additionally the common English language authorities (dictionaries and other references) have ALL found that the nouns “evidence” and “proof” are synonymous.

Based on all these linguistic considerations now, for me there is also the cases of sufficient proof and insufficient proof! In my semantics therefore, sufficient proof amounts to proof and insufficient proof does not amount to proof! Moreover, I also have the following relations in my semantics: sufficient evidence is sufficient proof; sufficient proof is proof just as sufficient evidence is evidence; sufficient proof is evidence just as sufficient evidence is proof; insufficient evidence is insufficient proof; insufficient evidence is not evidence just as insufficient proof is not proof; insufficient evidence is not proof just as insufficient proof is not evidence because evidence is synonymous with proof as the English language references propose, e.g.: http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/proof

These are my semantics from my, as you implied, “arbitrary” dictionaries. Well about the arbitrariness of the dictionaries, I had no choice in the matter but to comply with the authorities because the English language was already well established many centuries before I was even born! Moreover, I have never had legislative powers in the English language but I am merely a law abiding citizen in the city of the English language; and I don’t feel like looking for trouble either with the English language authorities! I am not into politics either, so they legislate and I abide.
_____________

Explain, if you so will, please, how come there are such things as

insufficient evidence of proof
sufficient evidence of proof

if the two are synonyms?

As far as I understand, “Proof of evidence” and the likes are technical legal terms which have a very specific meaning in a legal context. I also appreciate that “proof of evidence” is a noun. Which now means that the correct meaning of the technical legal noun “proof of evidence” cannot be deduced solely from the separate synonymous meaning of the common nouns “proof” and “evidence”, but it is given a specific definition in a legal context. Moreover, in my understanding, since the noun “proof of evidence” is a specific technical term, it does not have an effect on the synonymity of the common nouns “proof” and “evidence.” Besides if this were thought to be a problem, then how come in mathematics we have the concept of a function of function?! For example, (x-1)^2 is a quadratic function of a linear function! Now, the appropriateness of juxtaposition of the adjectives “sufficient” or “insufficient” to that legal noun can only be assessed in context when that noun is used in a sentence.

Proof of evidence (noun) : a written summary of what a witness will say in evidence during a hearing
In her proof of evidence to the inquiry, Ms Tibbets said: “Experts admit that such findings cannot be 100 per cent accurate."
Reference: https://www.translegal.com/legal-englis ... f-evidence
___________

Also, we can use your type of test of synonymy of "proof" and "evidence". It is dead easy to illustrate the wrongness of your view this way:
5. We found some proof on the murder scene: a footprint of Mike’s shoe.
6. But it’s not proof that Mike was the murderer. Someone else could have worn his shoes.

Now you see the error in your ways? Something can't both be proof and not proof at the same time and in the same respect.

There is no error in my way but there is a misunderstanding on your part. Let me explain.

Indeed something cannot be a proof and not a proof at the same time in the same respect. That is the law of non-contradiction. But something can be a proof on a murder scene and at the same time that same thing can also not be a proof that Mike was the murderer. It is not the same proof in the same respect in the latter case. You have to consider the whole noun phrase including the noun “proof” and not just the noun “proof” in isolation! For the noun “proof” is being qualified by what follows it! In the example you gave, one such noun phrase was “a proof on the murder scene” and the other was “a proof that Mike was the murderer”. Here the qualifying phrase “on the murder scene” and qualifying clause “that Mike was the murderer” distinguishes different concepts of proofs. And these different proof concepts might be equal or not equal. For example, in each of the statements below the law of non-contradiction is being upheld:

1. Either some proof on the murder scene is a proof that Mike is the murderer OR some proof on the murder scene is not a proof that Mike is the murderer.

Now, since evidence is synonymous with proof in my semantics I also understand the following sentences to be equivalent:

2. Either some evidence on the murder scene is an evidence that Mike is the murderer OR some evidence on the murder scene is not an evidence that Mike is the murderer.
3. Either some evidence on the murder scene is proof that Mike is the murderer OR some evidence on the murder scene is not a proof that Mike is the murderer.
4. Either some proof on the murder scene is an evidence that Mike is the murderer OR some proof on the murder scene is not an evidence that Mike is the murderer.

After this brief interesting linguistic and English grammar interlude, I propose that we get back to philosophy if you concur.

___________________________

I recall that previously you had made the following statements which you honorably declined to take back:

I agreed with you. Wholeheartedly. Darwinism is a question of belief.

We have also seen from the common English language dictionary that belief is an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/belief

From these considerations, we necessarily deduce that Darwinists are people who accept the theory of Darwin as true without proof. The latter follows logically and unequivocally from your own statements. So, so far so good then!

The point where we diverged is where it was said that Dawinism is without any evidence whatsoever.
I took note that you have insisted on a distinction between insufficient evidence which does not provide proof and sufficient evidence which provide proof. My semantics also include those distinctions as I already explained. So let us focus on this common ground between us.

Since your previous wholehearted statement implied unambiguously that Darwinism is without proof, and you distinguished that insufficient evidence does not provide proof and sufficient evidence provides proof, this now necessarily entails that in your own judgment, therefore, Darwinism rests on insufficient evidence! I can agree on that! In my semantics, furthermore, as already stated previously, insufficient evidence is not evidence. On the latter we can disagree of course.

Moreover, other members contributing positively on this interesting topic, has made matters worse for your conception of Darwinism by adding that proof is irrefutable (QuantumT) or proof is conclusive (vegetariantaxidermy) whereas evidence, according to them, merely points in all direction or is merely just circumstantial. And additionally now, if we qualify their concept of evidence with your qualifier "insufficient," your concept of Darwinism would be in a worse condition that I had expected initially! On my grounds at least evidence was on the same footing as proof! If that can make the case of Darwinism worse, then I am very much seduced by the idea of adopting your semantics of evidence and proof!

But certainly I take home that for you Darwinism rests on insufficient evidence which does not provide proof!

As usual it is really a great pleasure to philosophize in your company. And I mean that wholeheartedly.
___________

Stop arguing English. You are making a fool of yourself.

[-1-]

What has never been observed is the spontaneous generation of an entirely new species.

This may be suspect. The evolution of the horse from a small, forest-dwelling herbivorous mammal may be one. All we need to find is the first horse, and her or his DNA, and show that there have been no such DNAs in the past.

[uwot]

All we need to find is the first horse...

Tricky. How will we know it's the first horse?

[-1-]

All we need to find is the first horse...

Tricky. How will we know it's the first horse?

Silly question. How do we know Mrs. Trump is the first lady? How do we know God is the First Cause? How do we know the Big Bang was the First Burst?

These things are stamped for authenticity and come with a certificate.

[-1-]

All we need to find is the first horse...

Tricky. How will we know it's the first horse?

If you want to play that game... how do we know Tyrannosaurus and all other dinosaurs are extinct? According to Dilbert's creator, Scott Adams, they are alive and well, hiding behind furniture.

But seriously, there is no proof that these beasts are extinct. Maybe some of them are, but not all of them. And you can't tell which is extinct, which is not, if the proof you need is missing, because just simply not finding a live specimen does not mean they're all dead and gone.

I defy you to prove that any animal species is extinct.

[QuantumT]

There have always been these divisions. Scientists are both cooperative and competitive - and in a complex way, as expected when dealing with so many extremely bright people. There is a pecking order, as in all fields, though. Still, scientists themselves tend to be far more cooperative and appreciative of each other's abilities than neophytes on the web arguing in their stead.

It's the same as with musicians - the crappy ones tend to criticise famous musicians while the pros more appreciate others' virtues; they achieve in music exactly because they were in it for the love more than the ego strokes.

I'll say something on the subject too, because I helped derail the topic a little. The reason why I think it's hard to vote is that physicalism and a matter of "information" are both conceptualizations, but reality isn't really made of anything specific.

"Information" is a dimensionless concept invented in the 20th century. It can also be used as a super flexible catch-all description, abstraction of physical systems. Matter/energy/material/physical is a more diverse and less flexible and much older description, abstraction of reality.

It doesn't really matter which one scientists use as long as they don't mix the two like Susskind does with black holes. Percieving reality twice and then saying that it's really made of two realms is just magical thinking. But I think there is indeed a trend towards the information-conceptualization because it's so flexible. I too find that it's pretty much only possible to think about QM in terms of information.

You misunderstand the deal with wavefunction collapse. Certain interpretations say something like: quantum superpositions are pure information or information waves or there's some universal bookkeeping device or whatever. Other interpretations say different things, like those superpositions don't "exist" at all, or there are hidden variables like guiding waves (ewww), or it's all just "potential" all the way down, or that the wavefunction is physically real and so we see a slice of a reality that extends sideways multiversally (MWI-type).

There are dozens and dozens of interpretations, people have literally come up with everything they could think of to tackle the wavefunction collapse. But in an age where they can put objects big enough to be visible with the naked eye into two states at once, it's getting harder and harder to say that quantum behaviour is somehow "unreal", information-based interpretations aren't clearly favored.

Thank you Greta & Atla, for being the only ones to give a real on topic answer! Much much appreciated!

[Averroes]

We have agreed that you exist and for the sake of argument let us also presume that the inanimate universe exists.

Have we really agreed that I exists? How come?
For me my existence is self-evident. It will be logically absurd if I were to deny my own existence. But that's just for me.
But now, how have you come to agree that I exist? What evidence/proof do you have of my existence for you to agree that I exist? Do you have empirical evidence/proof of my existence? Please explain this before we proceed to the other points in your post.

Its just a working hypothesis....
or if you like it is the best theory to fit the available data.

I am very happy to read that it is the best theory. Please, I would like you to elaborate more on the following points:
1. What available data are being fitted?
2. Why is it the best theory to conclude that I exist from that available data?

[Averroes]

Have we really agreed that I exists? How come?
For me my existence is self-evident. It will be logically absurd if I were to deny my own existence. But that's just for me.
But now, how have you come to agree that I exist? What evidence/proof do you have of my existence for you to agree that I exist? Do you have empirical evidence/proof of my existence? Please explain this before we proceed to the other points in your post.

First Darwinism and now Cartesianism.

I remember some weeks ago you did not know about Descartes when I mentioned him to you and now you are able to recognize his argument! You ended up learning something worthwhile after all by exchanging with me!