The Information Theory of the Soul

[viole]

It's immaterial, not physical stuff.

"Integrated information theory" (which qualifies as a form of panpsychism, or more specifically - panexperientialism) is a leading contender.

One of us is confused.

You invoke Tipler because he makes a clear difference between being immaterial and being not physical. .First principle = matter, Second principle = information = immaterial. But both still physical. He does not say anywhere that information is not physical. Actually, he says the contrary.

And now you seem to identify immaterial with nonphysical, again, contradicting Tipler (still a puzzle why you post things that do not make your case). Otherwise, your sentence "It's immaterial, not physical stuff" would be a non-sequitur.

So, again, since information is physical (albeit immaterial, allegedly), can it be used to explain souls?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Jedster]

Information is physical. Are souls physical too? If not, then information theory is unapplicable.

Ciao

- viole

What do you think about the 21 grams theory?

 

[atanu]

And I saw the video. What it missed is that information is strongly related with entropy. They are basically the same thing. As Shannon showed. So, if information is immaterial then entropy is too. Which begs the question: why do we measure entropy in calories per celsius degree if it is immaterial?

Schrodinger, btw, used a term 'negentropy' to characterise 'conscious living entities'. Effect is seen in terms of entropy.

 

[atanu]

One of us is confused.

Yes.

 

[Gambit]

One of us is confused.

It's not me.

You invoke Tipler because he makes a clear difference between being immaterial and being not physical. .First principle = matter, Second principle = information = immaterial. But both still physical. He does not say anywhere that information is not physical.

It's physical (in Tipler's sense) because it can be measured by physics; it's nonphysical in the sense that it is immaterial.

So, again, since information is physical (albeit immaterial, allegedly), can it be used to explain souls?

Because the metaphysics of classical theology defines the soul in terms of what physics calls information. This doctrine is known as "hylomorphism" ("hyle" is Greek for matter and "morphe" is Greek for form). "In-formation" is that which in-forms (gives form) to matter. And that which gives form to matter is the soul.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

What do you think about the 21 grams theory?

Not a lot!
http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.co.uk/2007/03/does-soul-weigh-21-grams.html

 

[viole]

It's physical (in Tipler's sense) because it can be measured by physics; it's nonphysical in the sense that it is immaterial.
.

And that is not confusing? It is physical, but not physical?

You see, that is the problem with some phylosophy. Everything goes. Even self contradicting statements.

By the way. Tipler says very clearly that there is not such a thing that does not obey the laws of physics, much to the disappointment of the interviewer. Entropy is, for him, immaterial, but still very much physical. He never said that immaterial entails not physical. Quite the contrary. This difference is only in your erroneous interpretation, I am afraid. Its stance is totally physicalist.

Do you agree with him? Do souls obey the laws of physics?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

What do you think about the 21 grams theory?

You can imagine what I think about it. If true, the ground we walk on is covered with souls that could not escape gravitational pull. Oops, just stomped on my grandad soul. Sorry. Lol.

Question for you: when do people acquire a soul during their embryonic development? Not before the brain weighs at least 21 grams?

The aswer to that might be relevant to the abortion debate.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Gambit]

And that is not confusing? It is physical, but not physical?

You see, that is the problem with some phylosophy. Everything goes. Even self contradicting statements.

I clearly explained to you that it depends on how the term "physical" is defined. You either get that or you don't. I have nothing more to discuss on this matter.

By the way. Tipler says very clearly that there is not such a thing that does not obey the laws of physics, much to the disappointment of the interviewer.

But you seem to be conveniently sidestepping a very critical point that Tipler made at the end of the video interview - namely, that the laws of physics are created by the cosmological singularity, a.k.a. God, the uncaused, first cause.

 

[viole]

I clearly explained to you that it depends on how the term "physical" is defined. You either get that or you don't. I have nothing more to discuss on this matter.

I would do the same, in your situation .

But you seem to be conveniently sidestepping a very critical point that Tipler made at the end of the video interview - namely, that the laws of physics are created by the cosmological singularity, a.k.a. God, the uncaused, first cause.

True, but irrelevant. Worse, contradictory. In the middle of the video he states clearly that there is not such a thing that violates the laws of physics. Which would entail that the uncaused cause does not violate the laws of physics, if it exists, either. Ergo, the creator of the laws of physics cannot violate the laws it created.

So, I guess he is quite confused too. As it is to be expected after reading his "the physics of immortality".

Ciao

- viole

 

[Gambit]

Which would entail that the uncaused cause does not violate the laws of physics, if it exists, either. Ergo, the creator of the laws of physics cannot violate the laws it created.

The law of the conservation of energy is always being violated.

Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy, so one particle can become a pair of heavier particles (the so-called virtual particles), which quickly rejoin into the original particle as if they had never been there. (source: "Are virtual particles popping in and out of existence?" by Gordon Kane, 10/09/06 edition of "Scientific American")

 

[viole]

The law of the conservation of energy is always being violated.

So?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Gambit]

So?

So, your belief that the universe is a physically-closed system is not true.

 

[viole]

So, your belief that the universe is a physically-closed system is not true.

The energy/time Heisenberg indetermination principle is valid also in closed systems.

So, I have no idea what your point is.

Maybe we should stick with metaphysics, don't you think so?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Gambit]

The energy/time Heisenberg indetermination principle is valid also in closed systems.

So, I have no idea what your point is.

That the law of the conservation of energy is always being violated is evidence that the universe is not a physically-closed system. Heck, that I can raised my right hand is evidence that the universe is not a physically-closed system.

Maybe we should stick with metaphysics, don't you think so?

I am. But that doesn't mean physics might not be relevant to metaphysics.

 

[viole]

That the law of the conservation of energy is always being violated is evidence that the universe is not a physically-closed system. Heck, that I can raised my right hand is evidence that the universe is not a physically-closed system.

Nope. It is just eveidence that the principle needs adaptations when quantum mechanics becomes important.

Can you explain how raising your right hand is evidence that the Universe is not closed?

I am. But that doesn't mean physics might not be relevant to metaphysics.

Sure. Metaphysics back pedals all the time when our physics knowledge improves. The contrary, does not happen frequently.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Gambit]

Nope. It is just eveidence that the principle needs adaptations when quantum mechanics becomes important.

I just cited a reputable source that explicitly states that the law of conversation is constantly being violated due to quantum fluctuations. That qualifies as evidence that the world is not physically closed. If you disagree, then we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[viole]

I just cited a reputable source that explicitly states that the law of conversation is constantly being violated due to quantum fluctuations. That qualifies as evidence that the world is not physically closed. If you disagree, then we will have to agree to disagree.

Nope. For the simple reason that it is "violated" also in closed system. Ergo, its violation in system X, does not entail that X is not closed.

Ciao

- viole

 

[allfoak]

We are here for the purpose of turning matter into spirit.
Our soul is a paradox that i don't even pretend to understand.

If Thomas Aquinas is correct (he has many that agree with him) then the soul, being eternal, is formed through the experiences of the body.
It is also said by many of the same people that the soul experiences countless lifetimes to achieve this.

Now, how the soul can be eternal and still be evolving is beyond my ability to explain at the moment.
The spirit evolves in the same manner through the experiences of the soul.

What all of this involves is a death and re-birth for the body consciousness as well as the soul consciousness.
It is the Christian resurrection while still in the body.
It is the changing of matter to spirit.