90
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 33:
Line 33: + + + + + + + + +
→Economics isn't materialism?
::::::: "''...depending on the method of interpretation...''": Or, rather, how one ''defines'' information. I'm talking here about data that has ''meaning''. Matches on a table laid out in the shape of letters and words which spell "I have gone out" constitutes ''information'', because it has ''meaning'' (it tells you something that the person who laid them out wanted you to know). Matches scattered randomly on a table do not tell you anything specific, so have no ''meaning'', so do not constitute ''information''. And note that the ''matter'' (the matches) are the same in both cases; it's the ''arrangement'' that is different. The information is conveyed in the ''arrangement'' of the matches, not in the matches themselves.
::::::: "''...depending on the method of interpretation...''": Or, rather, how one ''defines'' information. I'm talking here about data that has ''meaning''. Matches on a table laid out in the shape of letters and words which spell "I have gone out" constitutes ''information'', because it has ''meaning'' (it tells you something that the person who laid them out wanted you to know). Matches scattered randomly on a table do not tell you anything specific, so have no ''meaning'', so do not constitute ''information''. And note that the ''matter'' (the matches) are the same in both cases; it's the ''arrangement'' that is different. The information is conveyed in the ''arrangement'' of the matches, not in the matches themselves.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:08, 9 November 2008 (EST)
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:08, 9 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::Philip, you are probably the most reasonable person I've seen on CP, yet you seem to be getting hot-headed over this. Please don't. I'm not saying I'm right [about the previous statement], but if that's the case, then heed. That said:
::::::::The external article that supports the CP view is not a "source". It is essentially a blog article. It has not been peer-reviewed, it has not [apparently] been researched, it is simply a philosophical argument that may well be flawed. The fact that the CP view is in agreement with it proves nothing; in fact, it implies that the CP view was heavily influenced by that website. See [[circular reasoning]].
::::::::You say that you read the website. Yet you also said you remember nothing of hard drives. I suggest, therefore, that you read it again, as I derived my hard drive argument from that website's expressions.
::::::::The bias I saw was not perceived by me because of any bias on my part. The entry clearly states: ''Although some early civilizations, particularly Greece, developed some scholarship, it was not until the 1500s in Europe that science proper developed. This was due to the prevailing Christian world view ...''. How is this ''not'' biased? It states almost explicitly that the science of the ancient Greeks was merely idle speculation. For "scholarship" zdr "science" is not really science, is it (by definition)? And where is the evidence that pre-Christian "scholarship" was not "science proper"?
::::::::My statement regarding my sanity is this. I examine almost everything I and others do objectively. I try to fathom the reasons for almost everything. Thus, if the definition of insanity is doing things without a clear reason, then I am more sane than the general populace, am I not?
::::::::It is a problem if information is not physical, as opposed to it being physical. That would add another necessary dimension to our sphere of perception .. or would it? Would a non-physical entity called information be within our sphere of perception, if all that we can perceive is physical? Or is information a spiritual entity; or, indeed, God? The complexity of the science of information thus necessarily increases.
::::::::In regards to the abovementioned "problem", would it not make sense to assume that anything that is interpreted physically but not actually verifiably physical is another dimension, or spiritual entity? How about feelings? forces? intelligence itself? If we were to conjure new entities willy-nilly, then we would be subject to the problem of appearing to simply explain everything with the philosophical equivalent of "God did it". Is that in the interests of any science? I think not.
::::::::As to your next point, I counter: what evidence? I have no wish to shoot you down, I wish simply to objectively examine this evidence.
::::::::Probability holds that matches scattered randomly on a table *can* provide a perceived message. Can we decipher the following if we find it in nature? हाँ हम कर सकते है! But could you do it without me to interpret it?