Matter vs. Not-matter

[T'ai Chi]

Where do skeptics consider things like:

ideas
information
emotion
thoughts
feelings
sensory input
(can't think of any more)

Can these things be classified as 'matter' or 'non-matter' ?

Is there anything that is non-matter?

Are these things less, as, or more important than things that are matter?

[The Don]

Nice question, I'll try and make my answer as glib as possible.

ideas
emotion
thoughts
feelings

Are all responses to external stimulii and are learned or hard-wired reactions to these stimulii. There is always a physical response to these "non-matter" (your terminology) things and so in my opinion they are "matter"

sensory input

Can be defined in terms of the interaction of Matter (photons, air, molecules) with other matter (retina, eardrums, tongues). Therefore they are "matter"

information

Is always stored in some way physically
books - physically on paper
electronically - physically on some storage medium
in human memory - physically within the brain. We don't understand exactly how but we can see the information storage and retrieval processes at work

So by your definition, it's all matter

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Where do skeptics consider things like: You generalise and confuse/misunderstand the term skeptic.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
ideas information emotion thoughts feelings sensory input
Nice laundry list brought to you through the wonders of neurochemistry.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Can these things be classified as 'matter' or 'non-matter' ? Yes.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Is there anything that is non-matter?To the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence supporting the existence of "non-matter" if by that term you mean to imply 'not matter/energy". If you know of such evidence, why not simply present and defend it.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Are these things less, as, or more important than things that are matter? Fallacy of presupposition. When did you stop molesting kids?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt


To the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence supporting the existence of "non-matter" if by that term you mean to imply 'not matter/energy". If you know of such evidence, why not simply present and defend it.



1+1=2

What's to defend? Go see xouper's

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30154

and defend material reality there.

-1=1 is tougher.

[T'ai Chi]

The Don,

To me, you seem to be saying that because all these things are caused by an interaction with matter, that they themselves are matter (please correct me if I have misunderstood).

I'm essentially asking 'how do we classify the interaction itself'?

As an example, information we store on paper, computers, in memory. You seem to be saying that paper, computers, and the brain are physical things, which are matter, therefore information is matter. I'm not questioning the things that the information is stored on, but rather, what is the information itself? To me, information seems to be more than the paper, computers, and memory that it is written on. -Although I admit I can't define exactly what I mean.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt

To the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence supporting the existence of "non-matter" if by that term you mean to imply 'not matter/energy". If you know of such evidence, why not simply present and defend it.


Because I don't know of any evidence either. I'm inquiring a bit here, not defending 'my side'.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

I'm not questioning the things that the information is stored on, but rather, what is the information itself?

The information has no existance in the absence of a suitable processor (i.e. a brain (which is composed of matter) to interpret it..

Of course the scratchings on the paper, the pigment on the canvas and the magnetized areas of the disk drive do exist as matter, even in the absence of a suitable processor to give it meaning..

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Diogenes


The information has no existance in the absence of a suitable processor (i.e. a brain (which is composed of matter) to interpret it..

Of course the scratchings on the paper, the pigment on the canvas and the magnetized areas of the disk drive do exist as matter, even in the absence of a suitable processor to give it meaning..

Is 1+1=2 "information", or some deeper "Truth"? If just "info" why do you think so? If humans cease to exist would 1+1 still = 2? What is matter-like about the concept?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by hammegk


Is 1+1=2 "information", or some deeper "Truth"? If just "info" why do you think so? If humans cease to exist would 1+1 still = 2? What is matter-like about the concept?

In my opinion it wouldn't exist as an idea ( information ), which by definition, requires a brain..
The truthfullness would be moot.. One atom over here, and one atom over there would still equal 2 atoms, there just wouldn't be anyone to count them and proclaim the result true or false...

[jj]

Originally posted by Diogenes


In my opinion it wouldn't exist as an idea ( information ), which by definition, requires a brain..
The truthfullness would be moot.. One atom over here, and one atom over there would still equal 2 atoms, there just wouldn't be anyone to count them and proclaim the result true or false...

Careful, there, there is a definition of "information", and a very useful one, that doesn't require the existance of a brain, it can be measured mechanically, for instance. (Yes, a brain is required to interpret the measurements, but those measurements can be in units of information to start with.)

However, the rest of your point holds, as would Peano's theorem, even if there were no minds around to observe its existance (once it's written).

Going back to Whodini's original question, it's pretty simple, you know, all of the things he lists either have a direct physical interpretation (i.e. sensory input comes from various forms of energy) or a direct chemical instantiation in the brain, or so it would seem.

There's no evidence for and no need to hypothesize any "dualism" or such.

[hammegk]

Thinking about The Way Things Are, does your view allow the universe to exist without a perceiver? If so, how?

[jj]

Originally posted by hammegk
Thinking about The Way Things Are, does your view allow the universe to exist without a perceiver? If so, how?

Define "observer", please.

[epepke]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Where do skeptics consider things like:

ideas
information
emotion
thoughts
feelings
sensory input
(can't think of any more)

Can these things be classified as 'matter' or 'non-matter' ?

Is there anything that is non-matter?

Are these things less, as, or more important than things that are matter?

I gotta laugh at questions like this.

I don't know what Skeptics™ decide, but as a person who is fairly well versed in 20th Century physics, I don't even know what matter is.

Take a very simple case: one electron in a hydrogen atom. It has a spin which, when measured, will be either up or down. One could say that the electron is matter, and the spin is information. I think that it is possible to do things to the electron such that, if the spin is up, afterward there is a high probability that the spin willl be down. But I don't know that the spin is a seperate thing from the electron; I don't know that Joe Electron switches its spin or that it is replaced by Fred Electon with the opposite spin; I just think electron number is conserved. But there are plenty of particles whose number is not conserved.

Down one level, and I don't know if there is an electron there. I think that there is an amplitude that an electron is there, and if I assume that an electron is a point particle, I can calculate a probability of finding an electron there. If I stick to the highest probabilities, then they form a fuzzy sphere around the nucleus, and I can calculate that pretty easily. But the sphere is much bigger than the electron would appear if it were not around the proton. So, is there really an electron there, or is there information about the nucleus that there is a certain probability of finding an electron around it?

Furhtermore, this spin of which I speak seems to be related to a thing called angular momentum, which is related to rotational symmetry, which is related to the very existence of another particle.

I'm pretty sure that everything in the universe works basically the same way, because if there were something that didn't work the same way, then all hell would break loose, and this doesn't seem to have happened.

In the absence of a solution to these extremely simple cases, I don't see that it's remotely possible to make a decision about a statement like "information is matter."

[jj]

Originally posted by epepke

In the absence of a solution to these extremely simple cases, I don't see that it's remotely possible to make a decision about a statement like "information is matter."

Well, now, hold on. We can characterize the behavior of matter (as indeed you just have) without knowing exactly what it is.

We can transmit information, and calculate how much information can be or has been transmitted, using the behavior of matter as the transmission media.

And we do.

I think we can safely conclude that "information is transmitted by matter" in any case. It can also be stored in/by matter, and processed by things made of mass/energy.

So it's not quite as bad as you put it.

[c4ts]

Still, information would be a property of matter, not matter itself.

[jj]

Originally posted by c4ts
Still, information would be a property of matter, not matter itself.

Not a property, rather something that matter can represent.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by epepke

I don't know what Skeptics™ decide, but as a person who is fairly well versed in 20th Century physics, I don't even know what matter is.


I just addressed it to skeptics because most of the people on this board are skeptics I assume. :)


In the absence of a solution to these extremely simple cases, I don't see that it's remotely possible to make a decision about a statement like "information is matter."

Okie.

Thanks for the interesting discussion about spin in any case. :)

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by jj

We can transmit information, and calculate how much information can be or has been transmitted, using the behavior of matter as the transmission media.


jj,

Are you talking about the Shannon Information?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Where do skeptics consider things like:

ideas
information
emotion
thoughts
feelings
sensory input
(can't think of any more)

Can these things be classified as 'matter' or 'non-matter' ?

Well, a few of those things dont exist in any concrete form (ideas, information... note: I dont know how you define "information"), they only "exist" as concepts. The others (emotion, thoughts, feelings, sensory input) dont exist without matter.

Is there anything that is non-matter?

Photons.

By a technicality (called Eienstein's theory of Special Relativity), energy and matter are equivelant, they are really twos sides of the same coin. In a way, matter can be described as "congealed energy".

Are these things less, as, or more important than things that are matter?
I dont think its possible to measure somethings "importance" (unless you tried to catergorize them using Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs)... but, I consider all of those things listed above equally important.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by hammegk
Thinking about The Way Things Are, does your view allow the universe to exist without a perceiver? If so, how?

An observer isnt necessary for the universe to exist.

How? On a pragmatic level, Materialism states that "knowledge" exists even if we dont know it. For instance, just because Aristoteleans of the 1600s believed that the Sun revolved around the Earth did not mean that the Earth did not revolve around the sun or that people could not learn that information. In the same way, just because the people of Spain thought the world was flat before Columbus' voyage did not mean that the world was flat and suddenly became round.

[epepke]

Originally posted by jj
I think we can safely conclude that "information is transmitted by matter" in any case. It can also be stored in/by matter, and processed by things made of mass/energy.

We can say that.

But I don't think that we can say much about matter as a separate philosophical category from information.

Not that it matters (pun intended).

[epepke]

Originally posted by Yahweh
By a technicality (called Eienstein's theory of Special Relativity), energy and matter are equivelant, they are really twos sides of the same coin. In a way, matter can be described as "congealed energy"

Energy-momentum, actually--that's the thing that transforms as a 4-vector in the same way spacetime does and determines graviation according to GR.

[sorgoth]

Originally posted by epepke


I gotta laugh at questions like this.

I don't know what Skeptics™ decide, but as a person who is fairly well versed in 20th Century physics, I don't even know what matter is.

Take a very simple case: one electron in a hydrogen atom. It has a spin which, when measured, will be either up or down. One could say that the electron is matter, and the spin is information. I think that it is possible to do things to the electron such that, if the spin is up, afterward there is a high probability that the spin willl be down. But I don't know that the spin is a seperate thing from the electron; I don't know that Joe Electron switches its spin or that it is replaced by Fred Electon with the opposite spin; I just think electron number is conserved. But there are plenty of particles whose number is not conserved.

Down one level, and I don't know if there is an electron there. I think that there is an amplitude that an electron is there, and if I assume that an electron is a point particle, I can calculate a probability of finding an electron there. If I stick to the highest probabilities, then they form a fuzzy sphere around the nucleus, and I can calculate that pretty easily. But the sphere is much bigger than the electron would appear if it were not around the proton. So, is there really an electron there, or is there information about the nucleus that there is a certain probability of finding an electron around it?

Furhtermore, this spin of which I speak seems to be related to a thing called angular momentum, which is related to rotational symmetry, which is related to the very existence of another particle.

I'm pretty sure that everything in the universe works basically the same way, because if there were something that didn't work the same way, then all hell would break loose, and this doesn't seem to have happened.

In the absence of a solution to these extremely simple cases, I don't see that it's remotely possible to make a decision about a statement like "information is matter."


Here's what I think:

Although I am not too sure yet of it's truth, I am very interested in Superstring Theory. It seems to make sense, in a nonintuitive sort of way. Since matter/energy would be defined by the pattern of the strings, would not all information be conserved in the string resonances?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
To me, information seems to be more than the paper, computers, and memory that it is written on. -Although I admit I can't define exactly what I mean. [/B]

I don't think that can be maintained.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by c4ts
Still, information would be a property of matter, not matter itself.

No, matter is information.

[smalltlalk_2k]

Would the Strings in String Theory be matter? If so then isn't everything matter? That is assuming String Theory is correct, and my limited understanding of String Theory is correct. Don't Strings make up everthing in the universe even forces?

[homunculus]

Most of what you mentioned has a physical substrate (for example, chemical and/or electrical patterns within brains and nervous systems). No observeable process can be explained by introducing any non-corporeal, invisible forces or entities, which never interact with any other matter (or do so, but not in any consistent, measurable way).

Consider the ancient notion that the movement of planets was controlled by angels. This theory cannot by itself "explain" the movement of planets, unless supplemented by an independant theory of how angels move (all we have done here, is invoke something else which is itself unexplained).

Paul.

[jj]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


jj,

Are you talking about the Shannon Information? [/B]

I'm talking about "information" in any usual sense.

Shannon's reduction to bits, and providing of units, is only part of the story. (And the channel capacity theorem has proven remarkably useful, too, of course.)

[jj]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


No, matter is information.

Really ...

Note, I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but your statement is quite ambiguous, really.

Please expand on this statement.