Non-realist Christianity

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sword,

See whether you can spot the problem here.

I'll give you a clue: the fallacy of reification.

Hang on a minute........all is physical is it Hillside?......even information?...........and here you are accusing people of reification, making the non physical concrete.

What's going on?

[Shaker]

Hang on a minute........all is physical is it Hillside?......even information?...........and here you are accusing people of reification, making the non physical concrete.

What's going on?

Information is a property of brains, and brains (for those lucky enough to have one) are physical objects, are they not?

If you have any example(s) of information existing apart from some physical substrate (such as a brain or the contents of a computer; something physical at any rate), I'm all ears.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Information is a property of brains, and brains (for those lucky enough to have one) are physical objects, are they not?

If you have any example(s) of information existing apart from some physical substrate (such as a brain or the contents of a computer; something physical at any rate), I'm all ears.

If what you say is true how can you also accuse of reification? Since reification is making the abstract concrete or physical.
Over to you Brains.

[Shaker]

I haven't once mentioned reification, for one thing.

For another, on the naturalist view things that we might conveniently call abstract - mathematics, for instance - are dependent upon (and for not a few people, actually created by) human brains. Essentially there's no difference other than a semantic one, since the former inescapably entails the latter (again, unless you can show otherwise).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I haven't once mentioned reification, for one thing.

For another, on the naturalist view things that we might conveniently call abstract - mathematics, for instance - are dependent upon (and for not a few people, actually created by) human brains. Essentially there's no difference other than a semantic one, since the former inescapably entails the latter (again, unless you can show otherwise).

No you didn't but you were stupid enough to try to defend Hillside who did mention reification like some terrier.

Even Hillside seems to have the sense to try and sweep claiming all information is physical and accusing people of reification under the carpet since it all seems a tad contradictory and possibly a turd that cannot be polished.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Irrationalist,

Hang on a minute........all is physical is it Hillside?......even information?...........and here you are accusing people of reification, making the non physical concrete.

What's going on?

You've missed it completely. Old Rubber Spatula of Unreason told us that the answer was that someone had "trusted God". Absent demonstrating this god in the first place, what he should have said if he wasn't to overreach was something like, "trusted his belief about a god" - which is why he fell into the fallacy of reification.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Irrationalist,

No you didn't but you were stupid enough to try to defend Hillside who did mention reification like some terrier.

Even Hillside seems to have the sense to try and sweep claiming all information is physical and accusing people of reification under the carpet since it all seems a tad contradictory and possibly a turd that cannot be polished.

Wrong again - see above.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the Irrationalist,

You've missed it completely. Old Rubber Spatula of Unreason told us that the answer was that someone had "trusted God". Absent demonstrating this god in the first place, what he should have said if he wasn't to overreach was something like, "trusted his belief about a god" - which is why he fell into the fallacy of reification.

No doubt but What I want to know is how you square the concept of reification, making the non physical physical with the belief that information is physical.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Irrationalist,

No doubt but What I want to know is how you square the concept of reification, making the non physical physical with the belief that information is physical.

No doubt, and I'd be willing to explain it to you if you wanted to start a discussion on it. That though has nothing to do with old Rubber Spatula's use of reification when he told us that someone "trusted God" rather than "trusted his belief in God".

Do you understand the issue now? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the Irrationalist,

No doubt, and I'd be willing to explain it to you if you wanted to start a discussion on it. That though has nothing to do with old Rubber Spatula's use of reification when he told us that someone "trusted God" rather than "trusted his belief in God".

Do you understand the issue now?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Irrationalist,

Vlad the Irrationalist,

No doubt, and I'd be willing to explain it to you if you wanted to start a discussion on it. That though has nothing to do with old Rubber Spatula's use of reification when he told us that someone "trusted God" rather than "trusted his belief in God".

Do you understand the issue now?

So now we know you've mastered cut and paste, did you have anything of your own to say?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the Irrationalist,

So now we know you've mastered cut and paste, did you have anything of your own to say?

How do you square accusing people of reification and believing that information is physical?
Take your time.....I understand the Earth has billions of years before it is engulfed by an expanding sun.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Irrationalist,

How do you square accusing people of reification and believing that information is physical?
Take your time.....I understand the Earth has billions of years before it is engulfed by an expanding sun.

Two mistakes there:

First, I don't have to. Whether or not I can explain "information is physical" is entirely unrelated to Rubber Spatula's reliance on the fallacy of reification. A tu quoque is a tu quoque whichever way you look at it - or, to put it another say, two wrongs wouldn't make a right.

Second, I can explain it easily. If you want to start a discussion on it, I'll even do so.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the Irrationalist,

Two mistakes there:

First, I don't have to. Whether or not I can explain "information is physical" is entirely unrelated to Rubber Spatula's reliance on the fallacy of reification. A tu quoque is a tu quoque whichever way you look at it - or, to put it another say, two wrongs wouldn't make a right.

Second, I can explain it easily. If you want to start a discussion on it, I'll even do so.

How can the question I asked have mistakes and be a tu quoque?
NURSE.......HES HAVING THE IMAGINARY ARGUMENTS AGAIN!!!

Hillside how do you square accusing someone of Reification while holding the view that information is physical?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Irrationalist,

How can the question I asked have mistakes and be a tu quoque?

Because your tu quoque was one of your mistakes.

This thinking thing really isn’t your long suit is it.

NURSE.......HES HAVING THE IMAGINARY ARGUMENTS AGAIN!!!

Oh dear. See above.

Hillside how do you square accusing someone of Reification while holding the view that information is physical?

Now try reading what I actually said slooooowly for comprehension. The “when” renders your question null – whetheror not I can explain “information is physical” (which I can by the way, as indeed can Vlatko Vedral in his rather good book “Decoding the Universe”) is entirely irrelevant to Rubber’s use of reification.

Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the Irrationalist,

Because your tu quoque was one of your mistakes.

This thinking thing really isn’t your long suit is it.

Oh dear. See above.

Now try reading what I actually said slooooowly for comprehension. The “when” renders your question null – whetheror not I can explain “information is physical” (which I can by the way, as indeed can Vlatko Vedral in his rather good book “Decoding the Universe”) is entirely irrelevant to Rubber’s use of reification.

Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?

Anybody?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Irrationalist,

Anybody?

Your'e asking anyone else why you don't grasp that your tu tuoque is a bad idea?

Seriously?

Weird indeed.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

It's because of Christianity's emotional hold that I hang on as a non-realist.

Could you expand on this please. I'm not sure what you mean? Thanks.

[Dicky Underpants]

Could you expand on this please. I'm not sure what you mean? Thanks.

Have you read Steve's opening post?

[Dicky Underpants]

Could you expand on this please. I'm not sure what you mean? Thanks.

Or Shaker's #33?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Have you read Steve's opening post?

Ah just the man.
Can non realism exist in a universe where information is physical?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the Irrationalist,

 – whetheror not I can explain “information is physical” (which I can by the way, as indeed can Vlatko Vedral in his rather good book “Decoding the Universe”)

That's nice for you but not relevant to believing that information is physical and accusing someone of reification which seems to be contradictory because how can any information be non real and subsequently reified?

I have started another thread could you please refrain from visiting it just to say you are unwilling to address the question.

[SteveH]

Could you expand on this please. I'm not sure what you mean? Thanks.

I don't believe that God exists, as the arguments against are strong, and the arguments for are weak, but Christianity has a strong emotional hold, so I continuea as a practising Anglican Christian. If it turns out that I'm wrong, and God is real, I trust I won't be condemned for not believing what I found impossible to believe any longer. I assume that commitment is more important than intellectual assent to ceertain propositions.

[SteveH]

On another tack: of course information isn't physical - what a silly idea. It is an emergent property of certain physical arrangenets (e.g. the DNA code), but emergent properties are not physical.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't believe that God exists, as the arguments against are strong, and the arguments for are weak, but Christianity has a strong emotional hold, so I continuea as a practising Anglican Christian. If it turns out that I'm wrong, and God is real, I trust I won't be condemned for not believing what I found impossible to believe any longer. I assume that commitment is more important than intellectual assent to ceertain propositions.

I think you might have a unique place around here Steve.
I find atheists a bit cagey when you ask what they mean by exist....fearing the "ah so" and the "in that case" scenarios. Many Christians you might find would agree that God is not just another thing.

Perhaps you could help us out with a definition of existence and/or reality.