90
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 19:
Line 19: +
→Economics isn't materialism?
::::: As for the hard drive example, your response totally sidesteps the point. His comments about information not being physical are quite correct. See [[information]] for more. You are still not clear what you are referring to, in that the linked page of his doesn't mention hard disks (or drives), so I'm only going by what you say he says. Information is found in the ''arrangement'' of matter (including the state of electrons), not in their ''presence''. Processes in the material world do not explain the ''origin'' of information; they can only explain the medium on which it is stored and transmitted. His quote in this article page is quite correct.
::::: As for the hard drive example, your response totally sidesteps the point. His comments about information not being physical are quite correct. See [[information]] for more. You are still not clear what you are referring to, in that the linked page of his doesn't mention hard disks (or drives), so I'm only going by what you say he says. Information is found in the ''arrangement'' of matter (including the state of electrons), not in their ''presence''. Processes in the material world do not explain the ''origin'' of information; they can only explain the medium on which it is stored and transmitted. His quote in this article page is quite correct.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:30, 7 November 2008 (EST)
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:30, 7 November 2008 (EST)
::::::I read the information article. It simply reinforces the argument presented on the website in question (which I suggest you read) and does not actually serve as a reliable resource for supporting evidence. In the natural science article, I noticed that it states that science is not possible without Christianity, and the pursuit of science outside of Christianity is merely unfounded idle speculation. It also strongly implies that without Christianity, the concept of a real, orderly, and observable universe is impossible, and states that we are rational because God is rational. These conjectures seem biased and illogical to me. Perhaps I am devoid of the particular logic that is required to decipher the article as logical. I have long held that I am too sane for society. As to the problem of information not being physical, we could use the exact same argument to show that feelings, visions, causes of physical movement, etc etc are separate dimensions in and of themselves, and then we would simply flummox ourselves into insanity, and achieve nothing. Alternatively, we could simply accept that information can exist physically in that the medium in which it exists actually IS information, much as the space in which we live, which is not entirely populated by matter, exists physically because it can only be explained physically and cannot exist without physical interaction. Lastly, the origin of information can well be random, as has been shown multiple times by scientists and idle thinkers alike, depending on the method of interpretation (is p an r or is r a p?) and information can be taken to be a record of observable processes (per Pavlov's experiments).--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 10:52, 8 November 2008 (EST)