Max_B
Member
A concrete example of such information would make your thought experiment more approachable...
Proving the Immaterial World
- Thread starter steve001
- Start date
A concrete example of such information would make your thought experiment more approachable...
I have a program that extracts information about a book from various book-related files and generates an XML file with that information. Before I give someone that XML file, it exists only on my hard drive.
I have a document that describes a fictitious computer architecture. No one else has that document.
I have a program that tests changes to a programming language compiler. No one will ever get a copy of that program.
There are hundreds of examples on my computer.
~~ Paul
Max_B
Member
I dunno... but to play around with your thought experiment from a down-to-earth perspective I would make these comments...
Do those doucuments actually exist on your hard-drive? I thought the actual storage was just a spatial pattern of binary bits...
I don't suppose we can say any of those patterns were developed by you in isolation, they all came into being because of past/present patterns you had access to... and therefore perhaps your unique pattern might be created again from the same past/present patterns if there was any value in doing so.
I'm also not sure how one could test your idea, if there is no copy of the pattern now existing to compare against, because the only unique copy was destroyed. How would one ever be able to tell whether the pattern had come into existence again in the future?
Which I presume we will agree contains information.
The probability of someone creating the same information is virtually 0. But recreating the same information is not the same as that information existing without any substrate encoding it.
I'm willing to believe that it can come into existence again. For example, this sequence that I am making up off the top of my head:
0101000111010011110010
already exists an amazing number of times and will be replicated in the future. But it will always be encoded in some substrate and not exist in a free-floating, material-independent manner.
~~ Paul
S
Sciborg_S_Patel
Couldn't it exist in some Platonic Realm, like some people think Math does?
Max_B
Member
I dunno what that might be... do you class 'fields' 'waves' and 'energy' as free floating?
If I understood what it means for anything to exist in a Platonic realm, perhaps I would say yes. But I don't. ;)
~~ Paul
Let's stop this information line. That's not what this question is about. The question I've asked is a simple one that can be answered with a yes or no, follow by why or why not if one cares to elaborate. I using now the afterlife as an example, since it exemplifies what people would naturally consider to be in opposition to materialism. If the afterlife should become a proven fact, meaning we have a comprehensive understanding of what, how and why it is true through the scientific method, would that still make the afterlife part of the realm of the immaterial or would it become part of the material paradigm?
Side note. Such things as electromagnetic radiation, gravity, even space itself are all material things even though none of these things are made of matter.
MysticG
New
If an afterlife were explained and understood using the scientific method, then I would have no problem with someone calling it material, if that is how they choose to describe it. At that point it becomes a matter of semantics - We can investigate it regardless of whether it is called material or immaterial.
Ultimately, whatever exists simply IS. Whether we call it material or immaterial is only a type of linguistic mapping that we superimpose over reality. We are debating how to draw the map - I am more interested in exploring the territory.
C
chuck.drake
How is it possible to discover the afterlife using the scientific method? Maybe that question should have it's own thread. I'm not sure it is even possible.
What I don't understand is the very strong dislike, perhaps even to the point of hatred some members here and some people across the interweb have for materialism ( Craig calls it materialistic nonsense), yet they champion the works of people such as Parnia, Sheldrake, Radin and others whom use science to find that proof. Some it seem do not want the material world to exist at all. It does not make sense to me this personal dichotomy that I see. I want to see into the minds of these people.
Start one.
MysticG
New
Yes, I am also not sure if it is possible - I was only assuming that it had been scientifically explained because that was the context of Steve's question.
Craig Weiler
Associate
I think that I'm right in line with the OP because it's important to establish first that something immaterial can exist. The fact that information exists is irrefutable. We can't have reality without information. And so we need to establish as fact that information is purely immaterial. Once that is done, we no longer have any barriers to the idea of something can be immaterial.
There is certainly no point in having a discussion if we disagree on something so basic.
S
Sciborg_S_Patel
I can understand that. It would seem Math is timeless and doesn't have a need for spacial differentiation. It's possible the Phenomenal, if it has an independent existence, might be similar.
The antagonism is likely more toward the evangelists of materialism rather than the concept itself. As it's a separate topic, more on this here.
The mistaken association of materialism with the success brought by the scientific method is discussed in this Kastrup piece.
Craig Weiler
Associate
Science is about measurement, which is a form of information, which we have (hopefully) established is immaterial. So I don't see the connection between science and materialism.
But to address this directly, I object to materialism for the most basic of reasons: it does not match the evidence. We can learn nothing interesting from following a broken and unusable model of reality.
I don't see how we've established that. Can you point to an example of immaterial information? I agree, though, that science does not rely on philosophical materialism.
You must be talking about "scientific materialism," because philosophical materialism doesn't use evidence. But then you just said there is no connection between science and materialism. So I confused.
~~ Paul
Max_B
Member
Can you explain why 'energy', 'fields' and 'waves' are "...a substrate..."? I've not heard of these things being described by that term.
To understand the distinction between the spatial pattern of stored information on your hard drive. You might also explain how you would store your unique information purely in the form of 'energy', 'fields' and 'waves' so that you could access your information again... say a week in the future...?
They are the (physical) thing in which the information is encoded. Presumably when we talk about information not relying on a substrate, we mean that it floats about without being encoded in a (physical) thing. But perhaps no one is suggesting this. That's why I'm confused.
I'm not sure what you mean. It is stored on the disk in the form of magnetic patterns. I can retrieve it in the future. What distinction are you talking about?
~~ Paul