What Does "Physical" Really Mean?

[Nous]

Why don't you answer the question: Does information produce effects on "physical" things?

Wrong formulation.

What does that mean? You don't want to tell us whether or not information is causal? You don't know whether information produces effects on physical things?

Do you know whether information "interacts" (whatever you mean by that) with atoms?

 

[Nous]

Of course it does. Down quarks are part of the nucleus of atoms.

I know where quarks are located.

In what way does a down quark interact with atoms?

 

[Polymath257]

Is information an objective "aspect" ("property"?) of physical things? Or is information subjective?

Any given situation has a LOT of information about previous states.

Dude, you kind of scooped me here, as I had just written a scenario asking about information. Above you answered your question about "where" was the information, saying that it was "in the location of the quarter." By that, I take it you mean "on the corner of the kitchen table". Yes? Was the information riding on top of the atoms of the quarter and the table directly underneath it?

No, it is the fact that the coin is at the corner that is the information.

What was "the causal interaction" that left a change in physical things that can be used to deduce the prior state of affairs? When was that information created?

When the coin was placed on the table.

Consider my scenario and the questions I had already formulate:

Three men have just exited an office and are standing in the corridor at the bank of elevators. One of them, Dr. Jones, says to the other two, “So will I see you at our next appointment?” One of the others, John, turns to Dr. Jones, they shake hands, with John giving an unusually tight squeeze, and John says matter-of-factly, “Good luck, Dr. Jones.”

Did information (information such as Landauer claimed is physical) exist in any of these acts, in the sound waves, in the atoms of the compressed waves or within anyone's ears, in the atoms of the persons' hands, or anywhere else? If so, where exactly was this information?

Yes, in all of them. Again, every physical situation has a LOT of information concerning past states.

Does the information that exists somewhere in that circumstance also exist somewhere among the people who are told about that circumstance (those acts, the words, the handshake)?

Well, a copy of that information (whether it is the same information is another matter--depends on definitions) is certainly in each of the brains of the people involved. But I suspect there is also information in residual heat in the walls that would say something about their existence in that room.

 

[Polymath257]

What does that mean? You don't want to tell us whether or not information is causal? You don't know whether information produces effects on physical things?

Do you know whether information "interacts" (whatever you mean by that) with atoms?

Once again, information isn't something separated from the actual physical things.

 

[Polymath257]

I know where quarks are located.

In what way does a down quark interact with atoms?

Through the strong force with other quarks, through the electromagnetic force with the electrons, etc.

 

[Nous]

Is information an objective "aspect" ("property"?) of physical things? Or is information subjective?

Any given situation has a LOT of information about previous states.

So apparently you don't have a clear idea as to whether information is objective or subjective.

You haven't been able to tell us whether or how information interacts with physical things, thus whether information is physical.

And you claim that information is located in "facts" as opposed to physical things.

Did I get all that right?

 

[Nous]

Through the strong force with other quarks, through the electromagnetic force with the electrons, etc.

Is it not correct to say that the down quark does not interact (whatever you mean by that) with atoms?

 

[Polymath257]

Is it not correct to say that the down quark does not interact (whatever you mean by that) with atoms?

Too many 'nots' in that one.

Down quarks interact with atoms.

 

[Polymath257]

So apparently you don't have a clear idea as to whether information is objective or subjective.

Again, it depends on which definition you use. If you use one definition, it is objective (because it is the physical situation) and if you use the other definition, it is subjective (because it is part of a conscious state apprehending the information).

You haven't been able to tell us whether or how information interacts with physical things, thus whether information is physical.

It is a nonsense question. How does the physical situation interact with the physical things? It is *defined* by them.

And you claim that information is located in "facts" as opposed to physical things.

The information is the state of the physical situation: it is determined by the physical things and their physical characteristics (like mass, charge, location, etc).

Did I get all that right?

As usual, no.

 

[siti]

Siti it's interesting you quoted whitehead.
I am very fascinated how sharply he turned after the publication of Godels incompleteness theory. It was as if he was tracking as a mathematical reductionist, suddenly Godels theorm kicks him into exploring metaphysics. Russell the eternal reductionist just didn't think much of whiteheads shift but I find it fascinating.. I think he had a really good marriage and his wife played an important roll (freudian) in his life. Is there anything you can correct or add to my little bit of understanding.

According to Charles Hartshorne, Whitehead said that "Bertie [Russell] thinks I am muddle-headed, I think he is simple-minded". But in relation to the current topic, what I think Whitehead's scheme does is to allow the 'bits' of physical reality that the world is made of in a 'physicalist' paradigm to carry around with them the 'bits' of information that make them what they are. These are the 'mental poles' of each 'occasion of experience' (that also have a 'physical pole') - which are the 'atoms' that the world is really made of. The mental/physical poles are inseparable and 'things' - as in 'objects' - don't really exist as such except as fleeting 'snapshots' of a part of a continually evolving process as it once was. Its hard to get the head around because its so counter-intuitive (not unlike quantum mechanics) but the best I can do to explain it to myself is to say that an electron (for example) is simultaneously both what it IS (physically) and WHAT (informationally/mentally) it is. I have no way of knowing (to invoke Kant) the ding an sich IS part - only the electron itself would ever experience that - but I can measure some of its properties (its momentum perhaps) and at least have a partial description (information) telling me WHAT it is. And that's the same for everything from quarks to quasars and everything in between including you and me. We exist as a nested web of processes, composed of a nested web of processes embedded in a web of processes. Physics will probably never achieve a complete explanation of all that because to do so would necessitate replicating it - but that doesn't mean it isn't fundamentally physical in the sense that physics could not, in principle, explain it all - by replication if necessary - if it were physically possible to do so. Hows that for circularity? But essentially what I am suggesting is that perhaps 'physicalism' is the belief that the physical universe that we observe could indeed, in principle, be replicated physically (which is to say that if we had sufficient supply of all the bits and pieces of physical stuff that exist in the universe we could put a universe together exactly like the one we have - no need for anything beyond that). (Geez - that's gonna stir the pot a bit isn't int?)

 

[David T]

According to Charles Hartshorne, Whitehead said that "Bertie [Russell] thinks I am muddle-headed, I think he is simple-minded". But in relation to the current topic, what I think Whitehead's scheme does is to allow the 'bits' of physical reality that the world is made of in a 'physicalist' paradigm to carry around with them the 'bits' of information that make them what they are. These are the 'mental poles' of each 'occasion of experience' (that also have a 'physical pole') - which are the 'atoms' that the world is really made of. The mental/physical poles are inseparable and 'things' - as in 'objects' - don't really exist as such except as fleeting 'snapshots' of a part of a continually evolving process as it once was. Its hard to get the head around because its so counter-intuitive (not unlike quantum mechanics) but the best I can do to explain it to myself is to say that an electron (for example) is simultaneously both what it IS (physically) and WHAT (informationally/mentally) it is. I have no way of knowing (to invoke Kant) the ding an sich IS part - only the electron itself would ever experience that - but I can measure some of its properties (its momentum perhaps) and at least have a partial description (information) telling me WHAT it is. And that's the same for everything from quarks to quasars and everything in between including you and me. We exist as a nested web of processes, composed of a nested web of processes embedded in a web of processes. Physics will probably never achieve a complete explanation of all that because to do so would necessitate replicating it - but that doesn't mean it isn't fundamentally physical in the sense that physics could not, in principle, explain it all - by replication if necessary - if it were physically possible to do so. Hows that for circularity? But essentially what I am suggesting is that perhaps 'physicalism' is the belief that the physical universe that we observe could indeed, in principle, be replicated physically (which is to say that if we had sufficient supply of all the bits and pieces of physical stuff that exist in the universe we could put a universe together exactly like the one we have - no need for anything beyond that). (Geez - that's gonna stir the pot a bit isn't int?)

Siti I don't find it counter intuitive at all it's correct. I was on a pan deck metal roof today and it was raining sideways from south to north. In antiquity, the very modern split between my being and the world around us also being did not exist. Anima mundi. Really whitehead is not stating anything out of alignment to that ancient understanding. Yes whitehead articulates in complex abstraction but that's only because we are thick headed creatures enamored with our conceptual games like wine tasting. "Oh I like that concept It has a fruity boquet, with a hint of pepper I will rate it a buy and take a case home". Nature is not, nor has it ever been the sole domain to be properly explained by the highly educated. It always has been and continues today in culture , that only educated people understand nature properly!!! Most atheists here have rather smugly said that over and over here. Nature is completely open to my daughter, who can't walk or talk, it hides from our intelectualizing it totally although we love to. That's why whitehead is difficult but my daughter gets him so easily, she can't read. After you explained whitehead I like him even more!! Trust me, seeing the world through my daughters eyes is almost impossible for us today, and to experience it would feel totally counter intuitive and strange. Nature is the great bottom up, not the great top down.

 

[siti]

Siti I don't find it counter intuitive at all it's correct. I was on a pan deck metal roof today and it was raining sideways from south to north. In antiquity, the split between my being and the world around us also being did not exist. Anima mundi. Really whitehead is not stating anything out of alignment to that ancient understanding. Yes whitehead articulates in complex abstraction but that's only because we are thick headed creatures enamored with our conceptual games like wine tasting. "Oh I like that concept It has a fruity boquet, with a hint of pepper I will rate it a buy and take a case home". Nature is not, nor has it ever been the sole domain to be properly explained by the highly educated". It always has been and continues today, that only educated people understand nature properly!!! Most atheists here have rather smugly said that over and over here. Nature is completely open to my daughter, who can't walk or talk, it hides from our intelectualizing it totally. That's why whitehead is difficult but my daughter gets him so easily she can't read. After you explained whitehead I like him even more!!

Its counter-intuitive to me because I am educated and a scientist (of sorts) - probably an atheist too as far as most people's classification would go - but I am accustomed, by training, to expect clear answers about what things are - so it boggles my mind to think about what the world must really be. Whitehead was obviously way smarter than most humans - let alone me - so he must have blown a few fuses inside his cranium as he wrote Process and Reality. But I definitely think he was right about the bipolar reality bit - I mean the information has to be entwined in the physical reality and vice versa - you can't ever have one without t'other, but ultimately its only one thing - I mean each thing is only one thing - not a real/ideal body/soul admixture but two sides of a single coin. And the deeper one probes, the harder it is to determine where one side begins and the other ends.

 

[Nous]

Again, it depends on which definition you use. If you use one definition, it is objective (because it is the physical situation) and if you use the other definition, it is subjective (because it is part of a conscious state apprehending the information).

What definitions are you referring to? I haven't quoted any defintions for "information," "objective" or "subjective".

But, according to your definition of "physical," information is not physical. Information is not an atom, nor does it exchange a force particle with atoms. Accoding to you, information is located in "facts".

According to your definition of "physical" and what you've said about information, the thesis that "everything that exists is physical" (physicalism) is false.


BTW, I asked you about whether information is objective or subjective because you have an adamant belief that the quantum wave function is subjective. Yet the wave function is merely an object that contains information on observables of a system.

 

[Polymath257]

What definitions are you referring to? I haven't quoted any defintions for "information," "objective" or "subjective".

But, according to your definition of "physical," information is not physical. Information is not an atom, nor does it exchange a force particle with atoms. Accoding to you, information is located in "facts".

Physical facts.

According to your definition of "physical" and what you've said about information, the thesis that "everything that exists is physical" (physicalism) is false.

BTW, I asked you about whether information is objective or subjective because you have an adamant belief that the quantum wave function is subjective. Yet the wave function is merely an object that contains information on observables of a system.

Physicalism is the belief that everything supervenes* on the physical. In other words, knowing the physical situation is sufficient to determine all information about the situation.

 

[Polymath257]

BTW, I asked you about whether information is objective or subjective because you have an adamant belief that the quantum wave function is subjective. Yet the wave function is merely an object that contains information on observables of a system.

I do not have such an 'adamant belief'. Instead, I said that the current evidence points to it depending on the observer.

 

[Polymath257]

Yet the wave function is merely an object that contains information on observables of a system.

No, the wave function is our mathematical model that we use to predict the probabilities for measurements of observables.

 

[Nous]

Physical facts.

I'll just repeat: according to your definition of "physical," information is not physical. Information is not an atom, and does not exchange a force particle with atoms. Right?

Physicalism is the belief that everything supervenes* on the physical.

The verb "supervene"does not help you to argue that information is an atom or exchanges a force particle with atoms.

the definition of supervene

Verb (used without object), supervened, supervening.

1. to take place or occur as something additional or extraneous (sometimes followed by on or upon).​

Definition of SUPERVENE

to follow or result as an additional, adventitious, or unforeseen development​

 

[Nous]

I do not have such an 'adamant belief'. Instead, I said that the current evidence points to it depending on the observer.

Cite that evidence.

 

[Polymath257]

I'll just repeat: according to your definition of "physical," information is not physical. Information is not an atom, and does not exchange a force particle with atoms. Right?

The verb "supervene"does not help you to argue that information is an atom or exchanges a force particle with atoms.

the definition of supervene

Verb (used without object), supervened, supervening.

1. to take place or occur as something additional or extraneous (sometimes followed by on or upon).​

Definition of SUPERVENE

to follow or result as an additional, adventitious, or unforeseen development​

Wrong definition. here is the correct one in context:

Supervenience (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

"A set of properties A supervenes upon another set B just in case no two things can differ with respect to A-properties without also differing with respect to their B-properties. In slogan form, “there cannot be an A-difference without a B-difference”.

Later in the article:

‘Supervenience’ and its cognates are technical terms. This is not news; ‘supervene’ is rarely used outside the philosophy room these days. But it occasionally is, and when it is, it typically has a different meaning. It is typically used to mean “coming or occurring as something additional, extraneous, or unexpected” (Webster's New International Dictionary, 3rd edition). This is the sense at issue in the following passages from the Oxford English Dictionary: “upon a sudden supervened the death of the king (1674–48)” and “The king was bruised by the pommel of his saddle; fever supervened, and the injury proved fatal (1867)” (cited in Kim 1990, 2–3). It is also the sense at issue in W.V.O. Quine's autobiographical remark about his adolescence: “necking, as it was called, supervened in the fullness of time as necking will” (1985, 43). However, this use of ‘supervenience’ is irrelevant to the philosophical use of the term. The philosophical use of ‘supervenience’ is strictly proprietary, and so in no way beholden to its vernacular use(s). In this way, ‘supervene’ is different from terms like ‘cause,’ ‘freedom,’ or ‘justice’. ‘Supervene’ receives its sense by stipulation, and the notion so defined is to be judged by its philosophical fruits (McLaughlin 1995).

(Emphasis mine).

 

[Nous]

Wrong definition. here is the correct one in context:

Supervenience (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

"A set of properties A supervenes upon another set B just in case no two things can differ with respect to A-properties without also differing with respect to their B-properties. In slogan form, “there cannot be an A-difference without a B-difference”.

Later in the article:

‘Supervenience’ and its cognates are technical terms. This is not news; ‘supervene’ is rarely used outside the philosophy room these days. But it occasionally is, and when it is, it typically has a different meaning. It is typically used to mean “coming or occurring as something additional, extraneous, or unexpected” (Webster's New International Dictionary, 3rd edition). This is the sense at issue in the following passages from the Oxford English Dictionary: “upon a sudden supervened the death of the king (1674–48)” and “The king was bruised by the pommel of his saddle; fever supervened, and the injury proved fatal (1867)” (cited in Kim 1990, 2–3). It is also the sense at issue in W.V.O. Quine's autobiographical remark about his adolescence: “necking, as it was called, supervened in the fullness of time as necking will” (1985, 43). However, this use of ‘supervenience’ is irrelevant to the philosophical use of the term. The philosophical use of ‘supervenience’ is strictly proprietary, and so in no way beholden to its vernacular use(s). In this way, ‘supervene’ is different from terms like ‘cause,’ ‘freedom,’ or ‘justice’. ‘Supervene’ receives its sense by stipulation, and the notion so defined is to be judged by its philosophical fruits (McLaughlin 1995).

(Emphasis mine).

So you do not dispute that according to your definition of "physical," information is not physical, i.e., information is not an atom and does not exchange a force particle with atoms.

And obviously you have not substantiated your claim that "the current evidence" indicates that the wave function is merely subjective.