The Good Place

Respect must be earned not whimsically given.

Definitely something to keep in mind.

There's an entire forum of skeptics known as the International Skeptics Forum. Go ask them to evaluate the experiments you deem worthy perhaps starting with your own.

No, I'll wait until I've produced the results I want. Then they can evaluate those, there's no point submitting anything right now. But that's the difference, I'm actually trying to produce results, not just sitting back in an armchair critiquing others.

No, I'll wait until I've produced the results I want. Then they can evaluate those, there's no point submitting anything right now. But that's the difference, I'm actually trying to produce results, not just sitting back in an armchair critiquing others.

First, good luck, second invite any skeptics here you might know.

Should we move this thread since the topic of the show's take on spirituality doesn't apply anymore, this thread is more about philosophy of science than anything else so maybe Philosophy?

[Laird]

Should we move this thread since the topic of the show's take on spirituality doesn't apply anymore, this thread is more about philosophy of science than anything else so maybe Philosophy?

Done.

I'm sorry, but I still don't understand. A physical description of two identical blocks doesn't consist of just their "inside", but also their environment, unless they are isolated. Yes, two non-identical physical states will evolve differently. How is that relevant to what I asked? And you didn't answer the second (and most important) part of my question.

What would Information say about how those two non-identical states evolve, or how two identical isolated states evolve, which is different from what Physicalism would say (given that Physicalism also has something to say about random influences (e.g. Brownian motion)). 

Linda

The identical blocks and their environment are at the system level.  There is no reason to assume there is potential interaction in the future, except as information.  Systems are measured, other than as aggregate physical objects, by information science.  There are no units SI units to address systems. 

In the real world, there are no isolated objects.  Isolation of objects in the thought-experiments of physics is a very useful tool in understanding things strictly physical or things where there is a combined analysis using both physical measurements and informational analysis. * 

Isolation - as in a physical state where the range of nearby forces have an insignificant effect - doesn't apply when measured in an informational context.  Structures are real in the "here and now" and embodied in the physical, but have reality in the past and future.  There is no real world object, event or process that didn't evolve to now, from some prior condition, in a conserved overall fashion.  In probabilistic settings such as informational entropy, the MTC (mathematical theory of communication) or logical analysis - "isolation" makes no sense what so ever.

Physicalism, as metaphysical view, says lots of speculative things about randomness.  However, using the SI units of Materials Science - there are no units to address unrealized potentials, except by abstract logical connections.  The units to address randomness are separate and informational and not on the SI list.  The Material Sciences address material structures and forces only!

This viewpoint I am expressing is not standard.  Here are the primary assumptions:

• Methodological materialism holds for a wide range of empirically backed facts.  These facts are generated from real-time testing and recorded data.  We cannot physically test in the past or in the future.  The test data is comprised of units of measure that are found on the SI list.
  
• Methodological informationalism holds for a range of logic-based facts about levels of order and organization.  These facts are generated from detected and recorded observations about evolving informational objects that leverage real-world meanings into possible events in the past, present and future.  The observational data are measured in units that are not on the SI list, such as nats, bytes and binary designations such as true/false or on/off.
  

* two circuits identical of physical construction - each is measured as to channel capacity.  The difference is the signal coding and decoding.  The channel capacity for each circuit can be different, as the formula for channel capacity includes logical relations between source and receiver independent of the physical specs of the circuit.

https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/units.html

 Here C is the maximum capacity of the channel in bits/second otherwise calledShannon's capacity limit for the given channel, B is the bandwidth of the channel in Hertz, S is the signal power in Watts and N is the noise power, also in Watts.

In the real world, there are no isolated objects.  Isolation of objects in the thought-experiments of physics is a very useful tool in understanding things strictly physical or things where there is a combined analysis using both physical measurements and informational analysis.

If I understand you correctly your argument is Physics assumes an accumulation of isolated objects (say particles) but Informational Realism is seeing the universe as interconnected streams of information?

I think what I am missing is where Physics in your examples is lacking. I can see, for example, in ITT where Information plays a role. But here I don't see what Physics is missing and you are adding? How is Physics lacking in explaining past/future states in a way that Information makes up for?

Don't get me wrong, I think Physics misses a lot about reality - Intrinsic Qualities, Present Time, the Reason for Causation & Constants - but what I am unable to grasp is where your examples show the necessary lack that Information serves to fulfill?

The identical blocks and their environment are at the system level.  There is no reason to assume there is potential interaction in the future, except as information.  Systems are measured, other than as aggregate physical objects, by information science.  There are no units SI units to address systems. 

In the real world, there are no isolated objects.  Isolation of objects in the thought-experiments of physics is a very useful tool in understanding things strictly physical or things where there is a combined analysis using both physical measurements and informational analysis. * 

Isolation - as in a physical state where the range of nearby forces have an insignificant effect - doesn't apply when measured in an informational context.  Structures are real in the "here and now" and embodied in the physical, but have reality in the past and future.  There is no real world object, event or process that didn't evolve to now, from some prior condition, in a conserved overall fashion.  In probabilistic settings such as informational entropy, the MTC (mathematical theory of communication) or logical analysis - "isolation" makes no sense what so ever.

Physicalism, as metaphysical view, says lots of speculative things about randomness.  However, using the SI units of Materials Science - there are no units to address unrealized potentials, except by abstract logical connections.  The units to address randomness are separate and informational and not on the SI list.  The Material Sciences address material structures and forces only!

This viewpoint I am expressing is not standard.  Here are the primary assumptions:

• Methodological materialism holds for a wide range of empirically backed facts.  These facts are generated from real-time testing and recorded data.  We cannot physically test in the past or in the future.  The test data is comprised of units of measure that are found on the SI list.
  
• Methodological informationalism holds for a range of logic-based facts about levels of order and organization.  These facts are generated from detected and recorded observations about evolving informational objects that leverage real-world meanings into possible events in the past, present and future.  The observational data are measured in units that are not on the SI list, such as nats, bytes and binary designations such as true/false or on/off.
  

* two circuits identical of physical construction - each is measured as to channel capacity.  The difference is the signal coding and decoding.  The channel capacity for each circuit can be different, as the formula for channel capacity includes logical relations between source and receiver independent of the physical specs of the circuit.

https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/units.html

As far as I can tell, you've come up with a narrow, unique definition of Physics and Physicalism which does not reflect what Physics discovers or what Physicalism represents, in order to make it seem like Information is different. Physics is not merely a list of properties which have been measured in SI units. 

I still have no idea why you think Physicalism does not involve itself with past or future states, nor why you think it has nothing to say about randomness (either indeterminism or chaotic systems). Or why Information would be unable to recognize a system in which the properties of interest have been isolated (for example, the production of two entangled particles for an experiment testing Bell's Inequality).

Linda

As far as I can tell, you've come up with a narrow, unique definition of Physics and Physicalism which does not reflect what Physics discovers or what Physicalism represents, in order to make it seem like Information is different. Physics is not merely a list of properties which have been measured in SI units. 

I still have no idea why you think Physicalism does not involve itself with past or future states, nor why you think it has nothing to say about randomness (either indeterminism or chaotic systems). Or why Information would be unable to recognize a system in which the properties of interest have been isolated (for example, the production of two entangled particles for an experiment testing Bell's Inequality).

Linda

I have only modest background reading folks like J. Kim (the best), Smart and Armstrong.  I would respond to quotes from Physicalism proponents.

Information is different level from Physics in the "properties in the universe" expressed as math equations.  They have different measurement criteria; where one measures forces and materials and the other abstractions like order and organization.  There are points of intersection and information theory clearly has been developed from ideas in physics.  I am not much for "properties" and am more comfortable talking about dispositions and propensity.  

 The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to interpret, they mainly make models. By a model is meant a mathematical construct which, with the addition of certain verbal interpretations, describes observed phenomena. The justification of such a mathematical construct is solely and precisely that it is expected to work.

• "Method in the Physical Sciences", in The Unity of Knowledge (1955), ed. L. G. Leary (Doubleday & Co., New York), p. 157
  

Physics can measure the mass and energy of particles.  However, entanglement is observed as an informational event.  The empirical data behind the math of Physics is just measurements attached to SI units.  Please tell me what else is there?