CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Information isn't some metaphysical substance, information doesn't exist as a thing in itself. Everything can be used as information or perceived as information, because information is not a thing, it's an abstract concept which is derived from perceiving actual things.
I know it’s not a thing, it’s not material. It relies on material, but it is not material itself. It’s still real. Which means there is more to reality than the physical/material.
If you think it’s not real, try not using clocks anymore. Information exists in reality.
What you don't understand about conceptual things is that it's not so much that they are real or not real, it's that they are always based in something real but not exactly real themselves because they are just a subjective reflection of something physical.
What you don't understand about conceptual things is that it's not so much that they are real or not real
It is about whether or not they are real if the question is concerning reality. The fact that information relies completely on matter does not make matter less real. Just as the fact that gravity relies completely on matter does not make it less real. That reminds me, gravity is not material either (there is no known graviton). If you go a step further, experience relies completely on information. Experience is not less real than information. The fact that both experience and information rely on the presence of a material in no way makes these non-physical/material phenomenon less of an aspect of reality, which is the question at hand.
Furthermore, these non-material phenomenon affect the material world.
EDIT: The fact that information relies completely on matter does not make information less real. Correction.
There is no information without interpretation. That requires an interpreter.
Edit: I just saw and responded to your post in the other side. I’ve never thought about it in the way you described. It wouldn’t necessarily be accurate to say that matter is an interpreter, but the information still relies on the physical for existence.
There is no information without interpretation. That requires an interpreter.
Edit: I just saw and responded to your post in the other side. I’ve never thought about it in the way you described. It wouldn’t necessarily be accurate to say that matter is an interpreter, but the information still relies on the physical for existence.
I understand why you might think so, but as strange as it might sound to you, it is actually the other way around. A hundred years of quantum experiments have yielded the repeated observation that, without an interpreter, the physical itself ceases to exist, and becomes only information. Without an interpreter, reality itself deteriorates into a set of mathematical probabilities.
I can certainly agree with you that there is a symbiotic relationship between (certain types of) information and interpreters, but simply because they both exist simultaneously (and depend upon one another) doesn't necessarily mean they both have to be physical.
A hundred years of quantum experiments have yielded the repeated observation that, without an interpreter, the physical itself ceases to exist
This is a contradiction. One cannot observe the effects of an absence of an interpreter since the observer is always present to interpret said effects.
Without an interpreter, reality itself deteriorates into a set of mathematical probabilities.
Mathematical probability is the only practical way for us to understand the nature of what we are not observing. This does not mean that the math exists alone, absent the subject of said math. Schrodinger's cat is not actually both alive and dead at the same time, that's just the best way to think of it until you check.
The subjective is part of the objective. Subjectivity is part of reality.
The subjective is physical, the idea that it's "something else" is just part of the subjectivity. What you see as feelings and concepts and information are chemicals and electricity in reality.
The subjective is physical, the idea that it's "something else" is just part of the subjectivity.
Sometimes you replace the idea of “opinion” with the idea of “subjective”, such as here. However, it is not mere opinion that experience is non-material. Nor is it mere opinion that information is non-physical, though it relies on the physical and has physical affects. Also, gravity is non-material, though a physical reality.
What you see as feelings and concepts and information are chemicals and electricity in reality.
No, they are more than that. Feelings and concepts are experienced, and experience is itself non-physical, though it relies on objectively observable electro-chemical interactions. The experience of “red” cannot be reproduced or conveyed objectively. By this I mean that you could induce the brain State that correlated with red, but you cannot know if the subject of inducement is experiencing red the way you experience red.
Yet color is often crucial non-material information that can only be acquired subjectively. This doesn’t make it less objectively real. It is no less real than the precise effect that non-material gravity has on mass.
The objective fact of the matter is that there is a lot more to reality than the physical and material, including the debate question itself.
Wrong question is being asked. The Yes side represents the lesser of two evils, so that’s where I will put my opinion.
Reality is a composition of all that there is, as opposed to is there more, to imply reality is lacking.
The five human senses perceive a subset of reality. Technology has enhanced this perception. However there are other beings in the universe which technology and the five human senses may not perceive unless you the individual tap into the power of God or Satan.
THey are literally the only two honest people here. They said so. And every time someone has thought they were wrong, it turned out those people were just dishonest (and a host of other bad things). So if they say you’re wrong, just go with it. Otherwise you’re a liar.
I mean no. Information and the experience thereof is strictly physical.
No. If you removed all the matter and energy from the universe you would still be left with a universe which has laws. Those fundamental laws represent an example of information which is not physical, yet nevertheless must exist in order for the universe to adhere to them.
Those laws, which are information, are properties of the physical universe.
Well, your statement is sort of true, but firstly, let's discuss your loaded language. If you remove everything from the universe which defines it as physical, then how can the universe still be physical? That is a paradox. If information remains in a perfect vacuum then obviously that information is not physical and your claim that "all information is physical" is false.
Secondly, while I again acknowledge your statement to be partly true, what is not true is that this gives these laws any physical form. Whether they are properties of the universe or not, they still do not exist in the physical sense. You could not burn the law of gravity onto a hard drive and take it with you to another universe.
If you remove everything from the universe which defines it as physical, then how can the universe still be physical?
Spacetime is physical, but not material. If material doesn't exist, then the laws that govern it does not exist. There are no laws that govern the peniton particle because there is no such thing as a peniton particle. If your remove everything that makes the universe physical, including non-material spacetime, then you no longer have a universe at all.
your claim that "all information is physical" is false.
No, space-time is a mathematical construct used to explicate the standard model of the universe. To call perfect emptiness "physical" is a contradiction in terms (i.e. a paradox).
If material doesn't exist, then the laws that govern it does not exist.
Wrong. You are conflating causes with effects, which I have already tried to explain to you once. If there were no water anywhere in the universe, then that would not stop H2O being the chemical rule for creating water. If there were no cars anywhere in the universe, then that would not change the rules one has to follow in order to build a car.
There are no laws that govern the peniton particle because there is no such thing as a peniton particle.
This is a false analogy. There are laws which govern all particles, regardless of what you decide to name those particles. Were your premise correct that the laws governing them simply vanish when one removes them all, then it would be quite an astounding coincidence when one puts them all back and the exact same laws begin to take effect, would it not?
Obviously, if one returns all the particles to their original positions, and the initial effects are repeated, that proves the universe has retained information absent all physical matter.
This is another bad example. Cars, Wheels, etc, are not examples wherein new physical laws are created. These are all clever arrangements based on the effects of existing physical laws. But those effects cannot be said to pre-exist the matter which demonstrates them. Gravity is not a blueprint, it is a consequence of mass within spacetime. As such it is not independent of mass or spacetime.
There is no physical law that is independent of it's material counterpart. Both have always existed. Neither one can be "removed".
space-time is a mathematical construct used to explicate the standard model of the universe.
No. math is a human means of understanding the physical universe.
To call perfect emptiness "physical" is a contradiction in terms
Not in the slightest. Perfect emptiness has length, for example, which is physical. You are conflating non-material with non-physical.
You are conflating causes with effects
The presence of mass is the cause of space-time's gravitational effect on it. The conflation is yours.
If there were no water anywhere in the universe, then that would not stop H2O being the chemical rule for creating water.
Again, you are relying on existing things to presuppose their governing laws. But this example, as with the car, is worse because it is overextending the beyond the issue, which is fundamental physical laws, not arrangements based on those laws. There are a number of things that have not yet been invented, and the manner in which they will be built would be true if they were built now. But all of it relies on a universe wherein the fundamental already exist. None of them rely on the use of a peniton particle, which has no physical laws governing it.
This is a false analogy. There are laws which govern all particles, regardless of what you decide to name those particles
There are not laws governing particles that do not exist, such as the peniton.
Were your premise correct that the laws governing them simply vanish when one removes them all, then it would be quite an astounding coincidence when one puts them all back and the exact same laws begin to take effect, would it not?
Matter cannot be removed from the universe. It has always been present. The flaw in your thought experiment is to presuppose the laws that accompany existing matter while they have always necessarily co-existed. That's why you have to consider matter that currently does not exist and never has. Such matter has no governing laws. A universe without matter, would necessarily be one that has never had matter. There are no laws of matter in that universe.
Gravity, for example, does not exist in a universe devoid of mass.
I am afraid that you are confusing the law of gravity with the effects of gravity. The law of gravity would still exist if all the mass were removed from the universe, but it would not affect anything because its effects are dependent on mass.
Similarly, if you removed everything from the universe which has colour, it would not change the rule which governs colour.
We live in a universe where color and mass necessarily exist. Considering the removal of them from a universe where they exist is different than considering a universe wherein they never existed. If they first exist, then you recognize their physical qualities as laws, but only because they actually exist. If they never existed, neither did any such laws.
There are an infinite number of particles which have no laws governing them whatsoever. Those are all of the particles that do not exist. As such, neither do any corresponding laws.