If materialism is correct does that mean information and knowledge are the same thing

[Interesting Ian]

Thus if a hypothetical super being were acquainted with all possible information about the world - which I imagine would consist in a completed physics - would this entail that s/he would know all there is that could be known?

Thus would such a super being know what love is, anger is, the feel of a hot summer's day with the one you love, the experience of greenness?? If such a super being didn't, would you agree that this would entail that materialism is false?

 

[scribble]

Thus if a hypothetical super being were acquainted with all possible information about the world - which I imagine would consist in a completed physics - would this entail that s/he would know all there is that could be known?

Nonsense question -- in materialism, such a being is literally impossible, so speculating on it's capabilities is ridiculous.

Why is it impossible? Because of data density. In order to know every fact about the universe, you need the entire universe to store it in. There wouldn't be room for anything else to exist external to your superbeing.

The question is inherently flawed. Please try again.

Now, think about this: is it possible for a human brain to know everything about itself?

(You use the phrase "completed physics" -- if such a thing is even possible, which is highly debatable, do you imagine that one human mind could hodl every detail concerning it? In our "uncompleted" physics we have today, no one man can do so. Again, it's rubbish.)

 

[Z]

Have to agree with Scribble - but let's look at this, hypothetically.

IF there existed an extra-dimensional being with a Universe-sized data storage system, and IF that creature had all information within our universe, THEN that creature would know everything about our universe, INCLUDING what love is, anger is, the feel of a hot summer's day with the one you love, the experience of greenness. That's simple fact. Materialism, in fact, requires this to be true - that if one has a complete model of all information (including completed physical model of the universe in its exact state at all times) one then would, in fact, KNOW everything within that universe.

IF such a being DIDN'T know these things, then that being WOULD NOT have all the information in the universe. It's really that simple.

 

[RussDill]

Emergent properties Ian. Knowledge alone does not bring wisdom.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

If materialism is correct does that mean information and knowledge are the same thing?


No



There can be information available, of which know one has knowledge.

These are called " things we don't know about ".

 

[Interesting Ian]

Nonsense question -- in materialism, such a being is literally impossible, so speculating on it's capabilities is ridiculous.

It doesn't matter. My question is simply a way of addressing the issue of whether information and knowledge are co-extensive. Is there more to knowledge than information?

 

[Z]

Presumably, 'knowledge' implies 'one who has the information'.

So there must be information and someone to know that information in order to have knowledge. However, this does not refute materialism, either, if the 'one who knows' is also entirely material.

So, to answer the actual question that you used as a title, NO, if materialism is correct, that does not mean that information and knowledge are the same thing.

 

[lifegazer]

Re: If materialism is correct does that mean information and knowledge are the same thing

Thus if a hypothetical super being were acquainted with all possible information about the world - which I imagine would consist in a completed physics - would this entail that s/he would know all there is that could be known?

Thus would such a super being know what love is, anger is, the feel of a hot summer's day with the one you love, the experience of greenness?? If such a super being didn't, would you agree that this would entail that materialism is false?

All human experience explained by numbers/equations?

For every equation, there is always a question or more left unanswered.
For instance: suppose 1-dimensional strings turn out to be the cause of every perceived effect (afterall) and that all effects can be explained via equations derived from 1-dimensional strings.
Questions remain unanswered by these numbers/equations: Where do these strings exist? Why do they act so? Why not a different order than the one perceived? Their origin? What instigated the ordered collaboration of countless such strings with a singular order at the same time? Etc..

It's impossible to have answers for everything unless you introduce the existence of 'God', imo. Then, numbers and equations lose their power, since they cannot explain existence - but only the perceived-effects within existence.

The paradox is that an external reality can never be understood by a super-intelligence. Science is likened to a dog chasing it's own tail.

 

[RussDill]

Re: Re: If materialism is correct does that mean information and knowledge are the sa

It's impossible to have answers for everything unless you introduce the existence of 'God', imo. Then, numbers and equations lose their power, since they cannot explain existence - but only the perceived-effects within existence.

The paradox is that an external reality can never be understood by a super-intelligence. Science is likened to a dog chasing it's own tail.

No lifegazer, then you simply are saying, "don't bother asking, god did it". There would then be infinitely many questions that we could ask about god, but never know.

 

[H'ethetheth]

I'm inclined to think that if one has all available information, one knows everything there is to know.
This is however an impossibility of monstrous proportions.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

The problem is that some knowledge may require a lack of information.

Like, to know how it is not to know everything ...

 

[lifegazer]

No lifegazer, then you simply are saying, "don't bother asking, god did it". There would then be infinitely many questions that we could ask about god, but never know.

I challenge you to envisage a [scientific] time or a theory which explains everything.
Feel free to let your imagination roam free and "make it up".
...Then, I shall ask you questions which you won't be able to answer...
= it's impossible to know everything about things, by logical default.

Don't believe me? Then given imaginative license, surely you can "make-up" a theory which neither needs God nor invites any more questions.

I only have reason to help me in this challenge. You have reason, science & imagination. How can you lose?
Easily. Don't bother trying. The non-existence of 'God' = the eternal search for the answer.

Physics can never conquer the concept of God - not even a billion years from now.
Those of you waiting for the death of God and/or religion are doomed to eternal frustration.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Have to agree with Scribble - but let's look at this, hypothetically.

IF there existed an extra-dimensional being with a Universe-sized data storage system, and IF that creature had all information within our universe, THEN that creature would know everything about our universe, INCLUDING what love is, anger is, the feel of a hot summer's day with the one you love, the experience of greenness. That's simple fact. Materialism, in fact, requires this to be true - that if one has a complete model of all information (including completed physical model of the universe in its exact state at all times) one then would, in fact, KNOW everything within that universe.

IF such a being DIDN'T know these things, then that being WOULD NOT have all the information in the universe. It's really that simple.

As I mentioned, Scribbles point is wholly irrelvant to the substance of my question. Please let us try to avoid irrelevancies.

Now, I find it interesting that one could know what the experience of greenness is like before ever experiencing it. Could you justify this?

 

[Interesting Ian]

Emergent properties Ian. Knowledge alone does not bring wisdom.

If these emergent properties cannot be derived from physical facts as revealed by physics, what justifies you in calling them material?

 

[Kopji]

Thus if a hypothetical super being were acquainted with all possible information about the world - which I imagine would consist in a completed physics - would this entail that s/he would know all there is that could be known?

It seems that for us to know this fact (that the super being knows everything), we have placed ourselves beyond the knowledge of the super-being.

This imples that there is knowledge beyond what the super being knows.

 

[Crossbow]

Re: If materialism is correct does that mean information and knowledge are the same thing

Thus if a hypothetical super being were acquainted with all possible information about the world - which I imagine would consist in a completed physics - would this entail that s/he would know all there is that could be known?

Thus would such a super being know what love is, anger is, the feel of a hot summer's day with the one you love, the experience of greenness?? If such a super being didn't, would you agree that this would entail that materialism is false?

So what if Information and Knowledge are/are not the same thing?

I do not see any practical implications of this matter one way or the other.

 

[Correa Neto]

OK...

There are a lot of scientific papers on ore deposits geology stored is someone´s library. Lets call X the library´s owner. X has no training in geology.

Can X find an ore deposit by him/herself?

No.

Because X lacks the training and the experience (among other things required to find an ore deposit). X lacks the skill regarding how to make use of the data. That´s all what´s about it and nothing else. Give X the training, the experience and the resources and he/she may be able to find an re deposit. No need for a god or any analogy regarding it. It is -again- not needed.

Now, regarding IIan´s question, first of all, what do you consider as being "all the possible information about the world" (sidenote - I assume Ian mean universe)?

Measurements of angular velocities of all celestial bodies, quantum states of all particles, DNA sequencing of all creatures, etc. or the knoweledge of the sets of physical equations that can be used to describe the behavior of these systems? Or all the above? Remember that information withou processing and knowledge of what to do with it is uterly useless.

If such an entity were to feel say, anger or love, there is no need for all the information - such states in many cases require more hormones than massive ammounts of data storage and processing. Feelings are not necessarily related to a huge information ammount, but more to processing of some information under the influence of chemical compounds released by the body.

Actually, many of what was labelled as "feelings" may disappear after knoweledge is provided and some processing is made. An example? Prejudice. Another? False beliefs such as religions. Some more? Illusions created by desire that non-materialism is real.

As for the greeness, first lets figure how the hypothetical entity would acquire and interpret the data. Gradual data acquisition? Or it would just pop-up complete? Even if it just pops-ups, the massive ammount of information still has to be processed, what may create a series of feelings during the process (awe, greeness, impatience, boredom, wonder, tireness, etc.).

 

[Z]

Re: Re: If materialism is correct does that mean information and knowledge are the same thing

All human experience explained by numbers/equations?

For every equation, there is always a question or more left unanswered.
For instance: suppose 1-dimensional strings turn out to be the cause of every perceived effect (afterall) and that all effects can be explained via equations derived from 1-dimensional strings.
Questions remain unanswered by these numbers/equations: Where do these strings exist? Why do they act so? Why not a different order than the one perceived? Their origin? What instigated the ordered collaboration of countless such strings with a singular order at the same time? Etc..

It's impossible to have answers for everything unless you introduce the existence of 'God', imo. Then, numbers and equations lose their power, since they cannot explain existence - but only the perceived-effects within existence.

The paradox is that an external reality can never be understood by a super-intelligence. Science is likened to a dog chasing it's own tail.

Now, from what little I know of math - which isn't much, granted - lifegazer has a point here.

For every mathematical set, it becomes necessary to define this set in terms of mathematical language one order higher than the existing set. I can't explain it, I just remember hearing this before.

So in order to know everything about this solar system, for example, you would have to be external to this solar system (I'm sure someone can explain why better than I can). To know everything about this galaxy, you'd have to exist outside this galaxy. And so forth - thus, absolute knowledge of the entire universe would be logically impossible, yes?

Now, I find it interesting that one could know what the experience of greenness is like before ever experiencing it. Could you justify this?

You asked, if one had all information, would one know everything? Ergo, the experience of greenness is a piece of information - thus, the superbeing would have to have that experience before being able to know everything, yes?

Now, consider, for a moment, that we had a means of stimulating within the human brain the appropriate areas responsible for sensation without actually having sensed-objects available. Mr. Never-Seen-Green comes into the compound, and we stimulate the brain so that it perceives a colorless cube (white? black? I always get confused as to which is which) as green - that is, possessing absolute knowledge of what brain correlates equals the perception of green, we stimulate these brain correllates within Mr. NSG's brain.

Now, he freaks, and asks us, "What color is this cube? I have never before seen this color - which is strangely like blue, but also like yellow, in some way! What color is this?" Or, lacking the descriptive language of this color, does he, perhaps, simply label the color 'blue' or 'yellowy-blue'?

Now, if we never offer him even this much, then he lacks the information to understand green - just as many of us here lack the information to understand ultra-violet. I know this is a color - yet I cannot see this color, nor even imagine what it might look like. Yet if I possessed all information about ultra-violet light that would include the experience of having seen ultra-violet light - either directly or through brain-stimulation. But without explanation, I might merely think I was seeing some sort of 'deep purple' or something along those lines.

At any rate, I see some of your point, Ian, but the qualia of sensation is still dependent upon material processes.

Do define what you mean by 'information' and by 'knowledge', Ian. It would help a lot.

 

[Stitch]

Why is it impossible? Because of data density. In order to know every fact about the universe, you need the entire universe to store it in. There wouldn't be room for anything else to exist external to your superbeing.

Compression algorithms?

 

[CFLarsen]

Thus if a hypothetical super being were acquainted with all possible information about the world - which I imagine would consist in a completed physics - would this entail that s/he would know all there is that could be known?

Thus would such a super being know what love is, anger is, the feel of a hot summer's day with the one you love, the experience of greenness?? If such a super being didn't, would you agree that this would entail that materialism is false?

You just shot yourself in the foot, Ian.

This all-knowing super being would be God. The God you think "allows" the non-physical to interact with the physical.

If there is no such God, then materialism would be false?

But you say that God exists. Ergo, materialism cannot be false.

Do you want some band-aid for your foot?