Squaring reification with the physicality of information.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Can someone who believes that all information is physical justifiably and legitimately accuse anybody of reification?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Can someone who believes that all information is physical justifiably and legitimately accuse anybody of reification?

Yes.

[Sebastian Toe]

Can someone who believes that all information is physical justifiably and legitimately accuse anybody of reification?

I believe that they can.

[SteveH]

Information, however you define it, is not physical. It is an emergent property of matter, but it is not material itself. DNA, for example, contains information, encoded in it, but it is not itself information.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I believe that they can.

Then you need to demonstrate how the unreal information you claim is being reified is also real at the same time.Good luck with that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Information, however you define it, is not physical. It is an emergent property of matter, but it is not material itself. DNA, for example, contains information, encoded in it, but it is not itself information.

Yes. I think one has a problem as a reductionist and physicalist wanting everything physical and atomistic and emergent at the same time.

One ends up claiming both the physical reality of everything and the unreality suggested in a concept of reification.

In that position one wants ammunition such as reification but one also suggests that there is nothing beyond the physical.

One is left with the duty of explaining where the unreality is and what its spatial and temporal properties are.

[Sebastian Toe]

Then you need to demonstrate how the unreal information you claim is being reified is also real at the same time.Good luck with that.

I never said that I was going to do it!   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I never said that I was going to do it!   

Sad, We will never know if you could.

[bluehillside Retd.]

SteveH,

Information, however you define it, is not physical. It is an emergent property of matter, but it is not material itself. DNA, for example, contains information, encoded in it, but it is not itself information.

It's more nuanced than that. Current thinking is that "the universe" is effectively a quantum computer - thus, the "material" is itself bits of information. Try here for example for an overview:

http://www.informationr.net/ir/18-3/colis/paperC03.html#.WZa4qq3MzuR

I can also recommend Vlatko Vedral's book "Decoding the Universe" if the subject interests you.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Irrationalist,

Yes. I think one has a problem as a reductionist and physicalist wanting everything physical and atomistic and emergent at the same time.

One ends up claiming both the physical reality of everything and the unreality suggested in a concept of reification.

In that position one wants ammunition such as reification but one also suggests that there is nothing beyond the physical.

One is left with the duty of explaining where the unreality is and what its spatial and temporal properties are.

Can I suggest that if you tried to find out something about the subject that might help prevent you from committing so many howlers in future?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the Irrationalist,

Can I suggest that if you tried to find out something about the subject that might help prevent you from committing so many howlers in future?

Its a free country. You can suggest anything that spuriously pops into your head so I see no change here.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Irrationalist,

Its a free country. You can suggest anything that spuriously pops into your head so I see no change here.

Like you do with "God" you mean?

Oh, and there's nothing "spurious" about suggesting that you might want to be a bit less ignorant about the subjects you presume to criticise. If anything, it might do you a favour.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the Irrationalist,

Like you do with "God" you mean?

Oh, and there's nothing "spurious" about suggesting that you might want to be a bit less ignorant about the subjects you presume to criticise. If anything, it might do you a favour.

I'm asking questions Hillside. Refusing to answer them on the grounds that the questioner doesn't know the answer is somewhat suspect isn't it.

Reification might be a valid accusation. Information might be physical i.e. real.
What I am asking you is how do you square a belief that information is physical(real) with reviving the notion of unreal(non physical) information which is necessary for any accusation of reification?

I'm afraid this thread is now a record of you shuffling around having to answer...............Good job for you that most folks who bother with this forum are of your ilk eh?