the universe has a lot of information. the neat thing about information is that it can encode some extremely specific stuff. but the contents of the information are not physical. and although some of the information can be interpreted by low-level systems, there are other pieces of "higher order" information that can only be interpreted by sufficiently intelligent systems.
thus, in order to "will" the contents of the higher order information into existence, the universe caused intelligent beings (humans on earth and likely aliens elsewhere) to evolve.
prove me wrong.
>admits that "information" doesn't even exist
>b-b-but muh universe had to create something that can invent a thing that doesn't exist so that it could "process" it
information does exist, it's just not physical dumbass
>information does exist
It doesn't. Sorry. Subjective human abstractions aren't real.
then do say, why does your computer work.
by "higher order", I mean that the information may exist in some low-level atomic form, but the level at which the information contents reside requires a system with at least X level of intelligence
really? no refutations? did I figure out the meaning of life?
This is false on at least two levels:
1. Information is physical.
2. Qualia are non-informational.
Both of those are debatable statements but if you choose to believe both of those then sure. All I'm saying is my theory probably explains a lot more than yours does.
>Information is physical.
https://phys.org/news/2016-07-refutes-famous-physical.html
>Qualia are non-informational
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_argument
>phys.org
I hate pop sci journalism so much. The headline is pure clickbait. They merely created a more efficient logic gate which consumes slightly less energy. Nowhere does this imply that information was non-physical.
>knowledge argument
Just shifting the goalposts to the definition of knowledge (which philosoplebs still fail to answer). Does knowledge have to be informational? I say yes. Therefore, Mary does not gain knowledge. She does however experience something new.
Information doesn't exist. Cope.
In your brain it certainly doesn't.
It exists "in my brain". It just doesn't exist objectively. This easy to demonstrate. Is a random string of digits "information" according to you?
You seem to have ontological and epistemological difficulties with the correct usage of the word "existence". Either fix this or drop the word from your vocabulary.
Is a random string of digits "information" according to you? Notice how your natural tendency is to execute the pseudbabble subroutine rather than answer the question.
I'm too lazy to write an answer. So just consider me in superposition and provide your retort for both the yes and the no case. Let's see where your argument is going.
>I'm too lazy to write an answer
I accept your concession, then.
> So just consider me in superposition
I consider you in a superposition of seething and coping.
Meh, how stubborn. Okay, I say yes. Now post your brilliant reply.
A random string is information? By what definition?
By your definition. When you said "information doesn't exist" you presupposed a definition of information. I don't need to know that definition but I can say with certainty that it implies the aforementioned result.
>By your definition.
What about your definition? Is it information by your definition? LOL @ your poorly-coded deflection subroutine.
Kolmogorov complexity, Shannon entropy, thermodynamic entropy ... Any definition of information will do. They all depend on a choice of context / frame of reference but that doesn't make the concept nonexistent, pseud.
>Any definition of information will do.
Then provide one in your next post. Actually laughing out loud @ your deflection routine.
I provided three, dumbass.
You provided none and I accept your concession. You need to be sterilized by the state. You need to be beaten into a bloody pulp if you offer any kind of resistence to the procedure.
You are upset because you have no arguments and you don't understand the words I posted. You could look them up on Wikipedia or something.
You are upset because you essentially argue for your own sterilization whenever you try to (You) me. lol
I can understand your anger but don't you think it would be more productive if you spent your time learning basics of information theory instead of throwing a tantrum? After all, you initiated this discussion despite seemingly having no knowledge of the field at all.
Still waiting for you to provide a definition of "information". LOL @ your broken little deflection subroutine.
I gave you three. Read the thread again.
>1. Information is physical.
>2. Qualia are non-informational.
Pick one and only one.
Making a purpose of consciousness does not explain how you get it from information processing.
Anon, it's time to drop the dumb emergence idea. It will get you nowhere with consciousness.
Friendly reminder
>conservation of information is not a law
>the second law of thermodynamics only holds in a closed system, the universe is not a closed system
>conscious observers are consistently creating new information by collapsing quantum mechanical wave functions
Your teleological variant isn't very convincing.
You haven't established why it's "important" for such an information consuming system to be incarnated, in the first place.
By the same token, consider pi. Or any mathematical fact. There is not a single perfect circle incarnate in nature. Yet according to your principle, nature should have created such long ago.
how would you store information without making use of any kind of matter?
Consciousness is just a useful hallucination
>t. nonsentient golem
How is it useful?
Intelligence and consciousness aren't the same, dumbass.
I am not conscious, and neither are you.
I am not conscious, and neither are you.
I am not conscious, and neither are you.
I am not conscious, and neither are you.