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]

Originally posted by scribble
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]

Originally posted by 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?
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]

Originally posted by lifegazer

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 ... :p

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
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]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
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]

Originally posted by RussDill
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]

Originally posted by 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?

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]

Originally posted by lifegazer
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]

Originally posted by scribble

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]

Originally posted by 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?

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?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Correa Neto


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)?



World can mean precisely the same as Universe. Information is any communication or representation of knowledge such as facts or data in any medium or form. Once we provided all such information, is there anything else left to be said? The problem here is how do we communicate the experience of greenness. Consider the fact that what I experience as greenness you might always experience as redness, but you would describe your red experience as being green. This implies that your experience cannot be communicated. Rather we have to take it on faith that when I experience greenness, you have pretty much the same experience. Same goes for pain, elation, love, or indeed everything we ever experience. We can verify measurements ie what science says about the world; but we cannot know our qualitative experiences are the same. This implies there's more to the world than information.



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?


Yes all the above.




Remember that information withou processing and knowledge of what to do with it is uterly useless.



Let's say you have the knowledge of what to do with it.



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.



You can have complete information regarding hormones and complete information regarding the physical state of a body when it experiences love or greenness or whatever. Why is this insufficient? And if it is insufficient, and many things can only be known through undergoing the "raw" experience, does this not imply that a completed physics is leaving rather a lot out of the world??



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.



Not the feeling of prejudice, or the experience of beliefing something blah blah.



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.). [/B]

The processing of information creates the experience of greenness? But can one derive this experience of greenness from the information? How do experiences fit into our scientific theories of the world??

[MRC_Hans]

I think Claus points to the core of the matter.

The being that has all information in the Universe must either:

1) Be able to gain information that is not passed to it (like how I percieve green).

2) Be the Universe.

#1 Means that the being is God.

#2 Is of course entirely compatible with materialism, although the definition of the Universe as a being is perhaps semantically trying.

Thus the original question becomes a tautology: If an external being is imagined, this being is God and whether God know my perception of green or not, the existence of a God that is not part of the Universe is incompatible with materialism.

If an external being is NOT imagined, then the being equals the universe and confirms matrialism.

We're back to square #1

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Snip*

The processing of information creates the experience of greenness? But can one derive this experience of greenness from the information? How do experiences fit into our scientific theories of the world?? [/B]I think you are introducing an unnecessary complication here. I show you a green sheet of paper and tell you "This is the color green". A certain pattern is stored in your brain, giving you the memory of the color green.

I do the same to another person, and the same thing happens. The exact pattern, if mapped to individual neurons, may not be the same in his brain and your brain, but that is of no importance. You both have a repeatable, verifiable memory of green, and whenever somebody shows either of you a green paper after this, you will be able to identify it as green (provided you have normal color perception, of course).

The classification of this recording of information as a qualia, or an experience, or whatever, is simply a sematic construct.

Hans

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
I think Claus points to the core of the matter.


Claus said nothing relevant I'm afraid.



The being that has all information in the Universe must either:

1) Be able to gain information that is not passed to it (like how I percieve green).



How would it know what it is like to experience greenness?



2) Be the Universe.

#1 Means that the being is God.

#2 Is of course entirely compatible with materialism, although the definition of the Universe as a being is perhaps semantically trying.

Thus the original question becomes a tautology: If an external being is imagined, this being is God and whether God know my perception of green or not, the existence of a God that is not part of the Universe is incompatible with materialism.



Like Claus and Scribble you have completely missed the point of this thread.

This is simply a variant of the knowledge argument against materialism I am presenting here. You know, the super scientist called Mary who has lived in a black and white room all her life, but knows everything there is to be known about colour vision.

See for example:

http://host.uniroma3.it/progetti/kant/field/ka.html

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by 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? The fact is, how can something exist without the knowledge thereof? In which case the knowlege of all things must exist. The only question is, where? Thus is it possible to maintain the knowledge of all things from a single unified perspective? There's only one Universe isn't there?

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Claus said nothing relevant I'm afraid.

I'm afraid he did ;)

How would it know what it is like to experience greenness?

The same way that you know.

Like Claus and Scribble you have completely missed the point of this thread.

If all people miss the point of your threads, what does that say about your communication abilities?

This is simply a variant of the knowledge argument against materialism I am presenting here. You know, the super scientist called Mary who has lived in a black and white room all her life, but knows everything there is to be known about colour vision.

That would be a refutation of materialism. Do you have her phone number?



Hans

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


See for example:

http://host.uniroma3.it/progetti/kant/field/ka.html [/B]

This is interesting. The article mentions that the question of whether it can be extended beyond perceptual senations to consider all conscious states hasn't really been addressed. I have presumed in this thread though that love, anger etc, is not substantively different from colour in this context.


Jackson writes that the KA can be deployed, "for the various mental states which are said to have (as it is variously put) raw feels, phenomenal features or qualia" (1982, 130). Surprisingly, the question of exactly how far the KA extends has not been seriously investigated. Virtually all of the published discussions of the KA follow Jackson's in focussing exclusively on perceptual experiences and sensations. (Janet Levin's (1985) paper on the KA, "Could Love Be Like A Heatwave?", is no exception: love is mentioned nowhere in the text of her article.) But there is a substantive issue about whether Jackson's reasoning, to the extent that it is sound, can be extended to other aspects of consciousness, such as emotions and propositional attitudes. A brief discussion of that issue occurs in Alter 1995b, and a more detailed account appears in an as yet unpublished paper by Alt er, "What a Vulcan Couldn't Know".

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Crossbow
So what if Information and Knowledge are/are not the same thing? Knowledge is different. It's the use of information. On this scale of the Universe, Knowing is Doing.

The Universe knows everything it needs to be the Universe and does it. Even seeing green.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by Atlas
Knowledge is different. It's the use of information. On this scale of the Universe, Knowing is Doing.

The Universe knows everything it needs to be the Universe and does it. Even seeing green.

Knowledge is the mental storage of information. The presupposition that hasn't been addressed in this thread is mental structure: What should we call a mind?

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by 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?

Knowledge is mental storage of information. Not all knowledge derives from that level of information (physics). Unless you consider things like psychology as extensions of physics.

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?

Feeling love as a certain person feels it (at a certain occassion over a certain period of time) -- requires adopting another person's mental network. If a superbeing has the information that allows it to adopt another's mental network, there is no reason but that it could feel love as they do; and store that with comparative reference to the way others feel love.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Suggestologist

Knowledge is the mental storage of information. The presupposition that hasn't been addressed in this thread is mental structure: What should we call a mind? The knowledge of all things must exist. It's just a matter of having a mind to perceive it. Whereas if everything is perceivable, through knowledge, does that mean a single unified entity does exist? ...

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
...snip...Information is any communication or representation of knowledge such as facts or data in any medium or form. Once we provided all such information, is there anything else left to be said? The problem here is how do we communicate the experience of greenness. Consider the fact that what I experience as greenness you might always experience as redness, but you would describe your red experience as being green. This implies that your experience cannot be communicated. Rather we have to take it on faith that when I experience greenness, you have pretty much the same experience. Same goes for pain, elation, love, or indeed everything we ever experience. We can verify measurements ie what science says about the world; but we cannot know our qualitative experiences are the same. This implies there's more to the world than information.

Not necessarily, I think. You have to figure out how to make sense of all that data. In the greenness or redness example, what happens is that if you somehow transmit to my brain your concepts, its a process equivalent or analog to telling me (with examples included) what these feelings are. Love, on the other hand, may be quite harder, but this may be just a prejudice of mine. One can (sometimes) be taught -or condicioned- to love something. But, if one also provides the ability -and the time- to proccess all the information, maybe just the data would be enough.

However, the to achieve the same results that I or you or someone else reached -without the transfer of the feelings- You would need to have some sort of algorithm that could duplicate our reactions when we receive a certain set of impulses... What could, perhaps, be considered also as just information...



Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Yes all the above.



Let's say you have the knowledge of what to do with it.

Here´s the problem. Where should the line be drawn between "dumb data storage" and real knoweledge? Note that you just made a separation between "knowing everything" and "having the skill to figure out what to do with all this data".

You can have complete information regarding hormones and complete information regarding the physical state of a body when it experiences love or greenness or whatever. Why is this insufficient? And if it is insufficient, and many things can only be known through undergoing the "raw" experience, does this not imply that a completed physics is leaving rather a lot out of the world??



Originally posted by Interesting Ian
...snip...Not the feeling of prejudice, or the experience of beliefing something blah blah.



The processing of information creates the experience of greenness? But can one derive this experience of greenness from the information? How do experiences fit into our scientific theories of the world??

See above. I think that the processing of information creates the experience. And with the propper "software", yes, the experience could be derived.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:
This is simply a variant of the knowledge argument against materialism I am presenting here. You know, the super scientist called Mary who has lived in a black and white room all her life, but knows everything there is to be known about colour vision.
Mary has all the book knowledge about color vision, but not all the information. This, of course, says nothing about materialism one way or the other. However, it might answer your original question, depending on your definition of knowledge.

Lord Emsworth said:
The problem is that some knowledge may require a lack of information.

Like, to know how it is not to know everything ...
Just wanted to repeat this.

~~ Paul

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
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.

You only believe that because you think the only explaination for everything is God. Its a circular argument.

[RussDill]

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

Who is deriving them?