I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

[Darat]

There's a thread that is quite active I challenge you: your best argument for materialism that is - as you can probably guess - all about the best arguments for why materialism is "correct". There have been several members that have posted who have argued by assertion that there is an alternate to materialism that is as successful (or more so) at predicting and describing the reality we exist in.

Rather than derailing that thread I'd thought I'd start this one so they can put forward their alternate (or alternates).

Anyone willing to kick this thread off?

 

[Nonpareil]

Anyone willing to kick this thread off?

Seeing as the only alternative actually put forth throughout the entirety of the other thread is idealism, and that those defending it have nothing better to offer than special pleading and claims of an alternate epistemology - which has yet to be defined, let alone defended - in which anecdotal reports of NDEs are acceptable as evidence of consciousness without a brain, I don't see this really going anywhere.

But I will watch with interest regardless.

 

[The Man]

Well, if one extends the holographic principle to the other two spatial dimensions then the universe just becomes information in time. While not relying on conciseness as idealism does it would still posit that what we perceive as physical material is just information in just time, perhaps over a surface or just one dimension of that surface as say an intrinsically curved loop (for a closed surface). Certainly solves one of my main problems with idealism, its reliance on consciousness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle

 

[PixyMisa]

Well, if one extends the holographic principle to the other two spatial dimensions then the universe just becomes information in time. While not relying on conciseness as idealism does it would still posit that what we perceive as physical material is just information in just time, perhaps over a surface or just one dimension of that surface as say an intrinsically curved loop (for a closed surface). Certainly solves one of my main problems with idealism, its reliance on consciousness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle

Though in the terms currently being discussed, such theories - strange though they may seem - are materialism, not idealism. Loop quantum gravity, digital physics, Tegmark's mathematical universe, are all very abstracted from what we like to think of as solid matter, but we already know that solid matter is not only 99.999999999% absence, but that what is there is not necessarily where it appears to be, or indeed, anywhere in particular, so this sort of thing doesn't really unsettle our worldview much further than it already is.

 

[The Man]

I didn't say it was idealism, or that it would "unsettle our worldview much further than it already is". Just that it is not in the strict sense materialism, specifically in that all that would exist would be information (and a dimension or two)

 

[Aepervius]

I didn't say it was idealism, or that it would "unsettle our worldview much further than it already is". Just that it is not in the strict sense materialism, specifically in that all that would exist would be information (and a dimension or two)

Even if it was only information in that sense, as Pixymisa pointed out this would still fall under the umbrela of materialism, not idealism.

 

[The Man]

Even if it was only information in that sense, as Pixymisa pointed out this would still fall under the umbrela of materialism, not idealism.

Well, if you're going to limit the umbrellas to just two, then there would be no alternative to materialism other than idealism. Under that restriction I would have to say that given the dependence on just information and not physical material existence that it would be closer to idealism.

 

[Nonpareil]

Well, if you're going to limit the umbrellas to just two, then there would be no alternative to materialism other than idealism. Under that restriction I would have to say that given the dependence on just information and not physical material existence that it would be closer to idealism.

That's not what idealism says, and it rests upon a misapprehension of what "information" means in the given context anyway.

If you have all information - meaning every single characteristic, down to the smallest detail - about an object, you have the object itself.

 

[Apathia]

I like The Man's contribution to this thread. I prefer the fruits of Empiricism over speculations in Ontology and Metaphysics.

 

[The Man]

That's not what idealism says, and it rests upon a misapprehension of what "information" means in the given context anyway.

What's "not what idealism says"? What is it that "information" means in the context you would like to use.

If you have all information - meaning every single characteristic, down to the smallest detail - about an object, you have the object itself.

Only if that object is just information. If not then the object and information about it are two distinct things. We have information about say electrical charge but that information is not in and of itself electrical charge.


ETA: since this particular thread is about alternatives to materialism I think the context should be "what does materialism say" not what does idealism say.

 

[Nonpareil]

What's "not what idealism says"?

That the universe consists of information.

Idealism states that the universe arises from consciousness rather than the other way around. In the holographic universe model, consciousness arises from the interactions of information. It's more a matter of "what is matter?" than whether or not idealism is true.

Idealism remains unsupported. Information does not require consciousness to exist beforehand.

What is it that "information" means in the context you would like to use.

I'm not an expert on the subject, but essentially, information is any quantifiable characteristic of an object. This was covered extensively in the original thread.

It's a very interesting theory, but it doesn't support idealism, and it's really more of a clarification on what is meant by "matter" than anything else.

 

[The Man]

That the universe consists of information.

At least not that I’m directly aware of.

Idealism states that the universe arises from consciousness rather than the other way around. In the holographic universe model, consciousness arises from the interactions of information. It's more a matter of "what is matter?" than whether or not idealism is true.

Haven’t others argued (on the other thread) that consciousness is just brain processes? So even from a materialistic standpoint consciousness is just a particular form of information processing that we find happening in brains. If that brain itself is now just information then it is all just information processing and consciousness just being a particular form of self-referential information processing.

Idealism remains unsupported. Information does not require consciousness to exist beforehand.

If all there is is information then information does not require material to exist beforehand either

I'm not an expert on the subject, but essentially, information is any quantifiable characteristic of an object. This was covered extensively in the original thread.

Certainly in some cases, but we can have information on information and information processing is just information on what to do with information. From a materialist perspective the material is primary and the information it carries as well as how it interacts are properties of that material.

It's a very interesting theory, but it doesn't support idealism, and it's really more of a clarification on what is meant by "matter" than anything else.

In idealism consciousness is primary and material aspects and properties arise from that.

So idealism puts consciousness as primary while materialism puts material as primary. With just information however, information is primary, secondary and tertiary so both material aspects and consciousness would be particular kinds of information processing. So in an informational universe neither consciousness nor material would be primary but just the results of information processing. With the lack of martial being primary and how we empirically ascribe consciousness as a form of information processes I would have to put it closer to idealism than materialism while it actually disputes the primary tents of both.

Heck, for all I know the important information is just that an informational universe is a load of horse hockey anyway but it was the only alternative I could think of that went against both the basic tenets of idealism and materialism.

 

[Fudbucker]

I don't know if Tegmark's "universe is math" argument is idealism, because I'm not capable of understanding it, but it certainly sounds like idealism.

 

[annnnoid]

Well, if one extends the holographic principle to the other two spatial dimensions then the universe just becomes information in time. While not relying on conciseness as idealism does it would still posit that what we perceive as physical material is just information in just time, perhaps over a surface or just one dimension of that surface as say an intrinsically curved loop (for a closed surface). Certainly solves one of my main problems with idealism, its reliance on consciousness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle

I believe Fermilab was doing an experiment on something related:

http://www.fnal.gov/pub/presspass/press_releases/2014/2-D-Hologram-20140826.html

...and that would not be the first indication that the universe is informational.

http://www.nature.com/news/simulations-back-up-theory-that-universe-is-a-hologram-1.14328

http://www.newscientist.com/article...ting-physics-the-universe-is-information.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2014/04/is-information-fundamental/

And there was, a while back, a JREF thread on that very subject where it was all-but established that this has now become a credible if not conventional paradigm.

It's kind of ironic that it has taken such scientific progress to generate such metaphysical conclusions...if for no other reason than that dogmatic materialists never stop proclaiming that the universe is coherent and, for all intents and purposes, follows the mathematical laws of physics. Everywhere...all the time.

...but where are the laws? Where is the mathematics? The only place they have been 'located' is in the consciousness of those who understand them.

Nowhere else. No one has ever been able to establish anything remotely resembling a direct link between physics / mathematics and the universe these 'things' supposedly so accurately and explicitly describe, explain, and predict.

No one…anytime…anywhere.

…but now we have a universe that, apparently, is not material...but informational. So maybe that’s where all that mathematics is somehow hiding! Consciousness (information processing) on a cosmic scale. +1 for idealism!

 

[Fudbucker]

Oh, and here's Koch's extremely interesting statement, which I would define as "dualism":

"I think consciousness, like mass, is a fundamental property of the universe."

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/531146/what-it-will-take-for-computers-to-be-conscious/

 

[Nonpareil]

Haven’t others argued (on the other thread) that consciousness is just brain processes? So even from a materialistic standpoint consciousness is just a particular form of information processing that we find happening in brains. If that brain itsef is now just information then it is all just information processing and consciousness just being a particular form of self-referential information processing.

Yes.

Which isn't what idealism says.

If all there is is information then information does not require material to exist beforehand either

Quite true. But this is because material is information, in this model. Like I said, it's a clarification on materialism, not really a contradiction.

Certainly in some cases, but we can have information on information and information processing is just information on what to do with information.

This is where I have to bow out, as my knowledge of information theory is not nearly as complete as several other posters'. All I can say is to keep in mind the difference between the colloquial and specific uses of the term "information", and to remember that I did say perfect information.

From a materialist perspective the material is primary and the information it carries as well as how it interacts are properties of that material.

I don't agree. A thing is the sum total of all its characteristics. Matter is no different; obviously matter is itself, so obviously it is its information. It seems a largely semantic argument to me if you want to then try and claim materialism is false on that basis.

 

[annnnoid]

Seeing as the only alternative actually put forth throughout the entirety of the other thread is idealism, and that those defending it have nothing better to offer than special pleading and claims of an alternate epistemology - which has yet to be defined, let alone defended - in which anecdotal reports of NDEs are acceptable as evidence of consciousness without a brain, I don't see this really going anywhere.

But I will watch with interest regardless.

...ooops. Seems there is a little bit more to offer than you thought.

Your 'one-true-epistemology' seems to be really betraying you on this one doesn't it Nonpareil. Here we have the OTE explicitly implementing an idealistic paradigm.

You have my sympathy.

 

[The Man]

Yes.

Which isn't what idealism says.

Who said that's "what idealism says"?

Quite true. But this is because material is information, in this model. Like I said, it's a clarification on materialism, not really a contradiction.

Material is the result of information as opposed to information being a property of material. That's a pretty contradictory clarification.

This is where I have to bow out, as my knowledge of information theory is not nearly as complete as several other posters'. All I can say is to keep in mind the difference between the colloquial and specific uses of the term "information", and to remember that I did say perfect information.

Sorry to hear that.

I don't agree. A thing is the sum total of all its characteristics. Matter is no different; obviously matter is itself, so obviously it is its information. It seems a largely semantic argument to me if you want to then try and claim materialism is false on that basis.

Well, if you don't agree with the basic tenet of materialism then it is you trying to claim materialism to be false.

I seem to recall a saying somewhere that all arguments in philosophy are semantic.

 

[annnnoid]

Yes.
Which isn't what idealism says.

There is no singular version of idealism any more than there is a singular version of materialism.

…generally speaking…idealism suggests the universe is ‘immaterial’ (to whatever degree it is possible to accurately define the word). If the universe is information…that’s certainly about as far from material as you can get without drifting into nothing-at-all.

…it can also refer to the universe as existing as some variety of consciousness / intelligence. If the universe is ‘information’…then it’s not much of a leap to add ‘processing’….if for no other reason than that is what seems to be occurring everywhere all the time (not to mention that whole inconvenient issue of mathematics and the mathematical basis of physics and that the whole damn thing seems to function according to rules that don’t exist anywhere). From there…it’s not much of a leap to consider how the word ‘intelligence’ might occur within such a paradigm.

…it can also suggest that consciousness creates reality (a rather complex metaphysical issue that doesn’t lend itself to the variety of simplistic exploration that occurs at a place like this).

There are other iterations…but the first two certainly seem consistent with at least some of the latest advances in theoretical physics.

 

[The Man]

There is no singular version of idealism any more than there is a singular version of materialism.

…generally speaking…idealism suggests the universe is ‘immaterial’ (to whatever degree it is possible to accurately define the word). If the universe is information…that’s certainly about as far from material as you can get without drifting into nothing-at-all.

…it can also refer to the universe as existing as some variety of consciousness / intelligence. If the universe is ‘information’…then it’s not much of a leap to add ‘processing’….if for no other reason than that is what seems to be occurring everywhere all the time (not to mention that whole inconvenient issue of mathematics and the mathematical basis of physics and that the whole damn thing seems to function according to rules that don’t exist anywhere). From there…it’s not much of a leap to consider how the word ‘intelligence’ might occur within such a paradigm.

…it can also suggest that consciousness creates reality (a rather complex metaphysical issue that doesn’t lend itself to the variety of simplistic exploration that occurs at a place like this).

There are other iterations…but the first two certainly seem consistent with at least some of the latest advances in theoretical physics.

You sure the universe isn't primarily just ellipses?

As I tried to express before, an informational universe makes both conciseness and material (along with just about everything else) just information processing. So it basically puts them both on a similar footing as emergent properties.