What Does "Physical" Really Mean?

[David T]

I think her definition is OK and I'm happy with that. Your position here seems to be that because we do not have a full account of what might ultimately be included in the "catalogue" of phenomena that are "physical" (i.e. amenable to explanation by a more complete physics) that consciousness will never be amenable to explanation by a more complete physics. We just don't know that. But we do know that there are claimed phenomena (like Jesus walking on water or the resurrection of the dead...etc.) that are forever beyond explanation by physics no matter how much more complete it may become. Its irrelevant to the discussion whether they really happened or not - there is (and can be) no physical explanation for them as real events no matter how complete the physics.

Its a bit disingenuous to suggest that because we cannot know all that the adjective 'physical' refers to at any given point it is not a useful adjective because there are very many phenomena that we can know that the adjective refers to. Think about other adjectives like 'red' or 'human' for example - is it possible to know precisely the limits of what those adjectives refer to at any given time? But that doesn't mean they are not useful in describing some of the uncountably many 'red' things there are or some of the uncountably many 'human' characteristics we might yet discover as a more complete account of what it means to be 'human' becomes available.

Anyway, all that apart, even if information were to turn out to be a "disembodied abstract entity" - we still have the problem of how we could possibly interact with it without the unquestionably 'physical apparatus' required to receive and interpret the information.

My best guess is to go with Whitehead's inextricably intertwined mental/physical bipolar explanation. There is, as far as I can see, no information (that we can possibly know about) that is not either embedded or encoded in a physical 'substrate' (although I suppose one could argue that it is the physical that is embedded in a mental substrate). It is a leap of faith to suggest that there will, under some scheme similar to this (Whiteheadian metaphysics), ultimately be a perfectly adequate physical account of how bits of mental/physical reality relate - many-to-many - to produce consciousness (and to say that is more or less what I mean by 'physicalism'). But, by the same token, I think its just as much a leap of faith to suggest that consciousness will forever remain beyond the explanatory power of physics on the grounds that we are currently ignorant of what a future physics might look like.

Siti it's interesting you quoted whitehead.
I am very fascinated how sharply he turned after the publication of Godels incompleteness theory. It was as if he was tracking as a mathematical reductionist, suddenly Godels theorm kicks him into exploring metaphysics. Russell the eternal reductionist just didn't think much of whiteheads shift but I find it fascinating.. I think he had a really good marriage and his wife played an important roll (freudian) in his life. Is there anything you can correct or add to my little bit of understanding.

 

[blü 2]

Cite that evidence.

I'll get back to you shortly.

a 2010 opinion by the Third Circuit, In re Application of the U.S. for an Order Directing a Provider of Electronic Communication Service to Disclose Records to the Government, which the Supreme Court might or might not lend its attention to this term, stands for the proposition that the Stored Communications Act, 18 USC § 2703, does not require courts to issue orders to disclose cell site location information to the government upon application even if the government provides (quoting the statute) "specific and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the contents of a wire or electronic communication, or the records or other information sought, are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation."

So the Third Circuit (as the relevant court) decided that a relevant court is not required to rubber-stamp an application just because it fits the criteria for bringing such an application. I infer they feel free instead to take unspecified other factors into account as well. (That sounds like a very court-like thing for a court to decide, so my two bucks says the Supreme Court won’t throw out the principle, even if they qualify it.)

But what exactly is the question regarding 'physical' here?

 

[Revoltingest]

You cited examples of "physical" phenomena, but you didn't define the adjective. What definition of "physical" would include all that you noted here?

I thought my usage was clear.
If not, then read Poly's posts.

 

[blü 2]

@Nous

Neural nature of concepts:

2015:

2008:

2007:

 

[Aupmanyav]

But this doesn't negate our discussions of information to be physical or not.

I have lagged in posting on this topic. I will catch up. But we have not yet defined 'physical'.

 

[Nous]

I'll get back to you shortly.

So the Third Circuit (as the relevant court) decided that a relevant court is not required to rubber-stamp an application just because it fits the criteria for bringing such an application. I infer they feel free instead to take unspecified other factors into account as well. (That sounds like a very court-like thing for a court to decide, so my two bucks says the Supreme Court won’t throw out the principle, even if they qualify it.)

Your inference is very perceptive. Third Circuit did indeed advise the lower court (which initially reinterpreted the statute) that reasons should be given as to why the court is not issuing the order and what the government needs in order to obtain the information.

Anyway, I doubt the big Court is going to say much about this decision that reinterprets the statute because that statute and the Third Circuit opinion is only tangentially relevant to the case being reviewed (Carpenter v. US). Moreover, the government doesn't dispute the Third Circuit ruling in any of its arguments in Carpenter. And the language of the statute seems to be clear that courts are not required to issue the order--it's just that for decades now courts have been reading that statute as requiring them to issue an order for such information even when the government does not have facts rising to the level of probable cause.

But what exactly is the question regarding 'physical' here?

I had to dig back through the thread. I asked you: Is there any evidence that one can distinguish those topics [the topic of this thread vs. reasoning about the case law underpining a court opinion] by examining what's happening in another person's brain?

 

[Nous]

@Nous

Neural nature of concepts:

2015:

2008:

2007:

Thanks, I look at them. I'm trying to remember the question I asked you.

 

[Nous]

I thought my usage was clear.
If not, then read Poly's posts.

That was precisely a question I was going to ask him, as I don't recall that he has stated a non-circular definition of "physical"--rather, has only given examples of certain particles and claimed that anything that interacts with something physical is physical. It seems that he disagrees that information is physical. Do you say information is physical or not? If not, what is it? Why does it ride on the backs of photons?

 

[Aupmanyav]

But, as you say, we need to interpret this light in order to know what it is like over at Betelgeuse. So, in this case, the information is our interpretation of that physical state. And I am ok with that also.

So, it seems to be a matter of definition: is it the physical state that is (or carries) the information? Or is it our interpretation that creates the information? Both ways seem reasonable, but we are only using one word for the two distinct concepts. .. On the other hand, if too many prior states in the star could lead to the same physical state for the light (say, many different sizes of the star), then the light would not carry information about those aspects of the star.

We seem to be here. But what makes us to be seem here (physically, some people will say. Hope they know what is physical and what is non-physical. At least I do not know) can have so many reasons. Physical, non-physical, hard to define. I am neither a mathematician nor a philosopher, but a Hindu influenced by Buddha. Maya, illusion, anatta, anicca. I am OK with that.

 

[blü 2]

Your inference is very perceptive. Third Circuit did indeed advise the lower court (which initially reinterpreted the statute) that reasons should be given as to why the court is not issuing the order and what the government needs in order to obtain the information.

Anyway, I doubt the big Court is going to say much about this decision that reinterprets the statute because that statute and the Third Circuit opinion is only tangentially relevant to the case being reviewed (Carpenter v. US). Moreover, the government doesn't dispute the Third Circuit ruling in any of its arguments in Carpenter. And the language of the statute seems to be clear that courts are not required to issue the order--it's just that for decades now courts have been reading that statute as requiring them to issue an order for such information even when the government does not have facts rising to the level of probable cause.

I had to dig back through the thread. I asked you: Is there any evidence that one can distinguish those topics [the topic of this thread vs. reasoning about the case law underpining a court opinion] by examining what's happening in another person's brain?

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[blü 2]

Thanks, I look at them. I'm trying to remember the question I asked you.

About the neural nature of concepts.

 

[Polymath257]

That was precisely a question I was going to ask him, as I don't recall that he has stated a non-circular definition of "physical"--rather, has only given examples of certain particles and claimed that anything that interacts with something physical is physical. It seems that he disagrees that information is physical. Do you say information is physical or not? If not, what is it? Why does it ride on the backs of photons?

What I would say is that information supervenes on the physical. And, in fact, that is what I mean by physicalism: EVERYTHING ultimately supervenes on the physical.

If you know all the physical facts of a situation, you will be able to derive everything about the information in that situation (and everything about consciousness also).

As for my definition of physical, a recursive definition is NOT circular, although it looks like it at first. What keeps it from being circular is having a 'first case' from which everything else derives. So, everything that interacts with anything physical is physical. If that was all I said, it would be circular. But I ground the induction by saying, for example, anything made of atoms is physical. At that pint, the recursion has a way to start and we have a legitimate definition.

 

[Nous]

What I would say is that information supervenes on the physical.

Does that mean you're saying that information does or does not produce effects on "the physical"?

As for my definition of physical, a recursive definition is NOT circular, although it looks like it at first. What keeps it from being circular is having a 'first case' from which everything else derives. So, everything that interacts with anything physical is physical. If that was all I said, it would be circular. But I ground the induction by saying, for example, anything made of atoms is physical.

OK. So, photons, quarks, fields, and other items are not physical.

 

[Polymath257]

Does that mean you're saying that information does or does not produce effects on "the physical"?

No, that is not what I am saying. Why would you think that?

OK. So, photons, quarks, fields, and other items are not physical.

Since photons, quarks, etc do interact with atoms, they are physical. You didn't read what I said. It is an inductive definition. Do you understand what that is?

 

[Nous]

No, that is not what I am saying. Why would you think that?

Why don't you answer the question: Does information produce effects on "physical" things?

Since photons, quarks, etc do interact with atoms, they are physical.

OK. My comment was a brain fart.

Define "interact".

 

[Polymath257]

Does that mean you're saying that information does or does not produce effects on "the physical"?

No. More correctly, I am saying that information is simply an aspect of the physical.

Let me give you a scenario.

Suppose I agree with my wife that if I plan to be home late, I will put a quarter on the kitchen table at the corner. My wife comes home and finds a quarter at the corner of the kitchen table. She deduces (correctly) that I planned to be home late.

Was there information in this scenario? yes. Where? In the location of the quarter. What information did that coin convey? That I planned to be home late.

So, the physical aspects of the coin, together with the prior agreement of my wife and me served to create information in the location of that quarter. If that quarter had *not* been there, that would have *also* been information, in this case saying that I planned to be home on time (or at least, not late).

Now, lest you think that the agreement between my wife and I was actually what created the information, ignore that aspect of it. The fact that there is a coin at the corner of the table says, because of the laws of physics, that it came to be there in some way. The coin being there gives information about the existence of a person who interacted with that coin in the past. Even better, the picture on the quarter and the writing on it provides information about the society in which that quarter was made, including that it is a society with written language, a calendar system, the ability to print coins with very specific, detailed imagery, etc. Once again, that information is a result of the physical characteristics of that coin and the surrounding laws of physics, etc.

And this is how *all* information comes about: some sort of causal interaction that leaves a physical change in something that can be used to deduce the prior state of affairs through the use of the laws of physics.

So, it isn't that information 'produces effects on the physical': the information *is* simply an aspect of the physical. Causal interactions produce effects on the physical and thereby produce information.

 

[Polymath257]

Why don't you answer the question: Does information produce effects on "physical" things?

Wrong formulation.

OK. My comment was a brain fart.

Define "interact".

No. If you cannot understand basic concepts, I won't get into the game of defining them to senselessness. This is why philosophy has a bad reputation among the sciences: it avoids the real issues by hiding behind semantic obscurity.

 

[Nous]

No. More correctly, I am saying that information is simply an aspect of the physical.

Is information an objective "aspect" ("property"?) of physical things? Or is information subjective?

Let me give you a scenario.

Suppose I agree with my wife that if I plan to be home late, I will put a quarter on the kitchen table at the corner. My wife comes home and finds a quarter at the corner of the kitchen table. She deduces (correctly) that I planned to be home late.

Was there information in this scenario? yes. Where? In the location of the quarter. What information did that coin convey? That I planned to be home late.

So, the physical aspects of the coin, together with the prior agreement of my wife and me served to create information in the location of that quarter. If that quarter had *not* been there, that would have *also* been information, in this case saying that I planned to be home on time (or at least, not late).

Now, lest you think that the agreement between my wife and I was actually what created the information, ignore that aspect of it. The fact that there is a coin at the corner of the table says, because of the laws of physics, that it came to be there in some way. The coin being there gives information about the existence of a person who interacted with that coin in the past. Even better, the picture on the quarter and the writing on it provides information about the society in which that quarter was made, including that it is a society with written language, a calendar system, the ability to print coins with very specific, detailed imagery, etc. Once again, that information is a result of the physical characteristics of that coin and the surrounding laws of physics, etc.

And this is how *all* information comes about: some sort of causal interaction that leaves a physical change in something that can be used to deduce the prior state of affairs through the use of the laws of physics.

So, it isn't that information 'produces effects on the physical': the information *is* simply an aspect of the physical. Causal interactions produce effects on the physical and thereby produce information.

Dude, you kind of scooped me here, as I had just written a scenario asking about information. Above you answered your question about "where" was the information, saying that it was "in the location of the quarter." By that, I take it you mean "on the corner of the kitchen table". Yes? Was the information riding on top of the atoms of the quarter and the table directly underneath it?

What was "the causal interaction" that left a change in physical things that can be used to deduce the prior state of affairs? When was that information created?

Consider my scenario and the questions I had already formulate:

Three men have just exited an office and are standing in the corridor at the bank of elevators. One of them, Dr. Jones, says to the other two, “So will I see you at our next appointment?” One of the others, John, turns to Dr. Jones, they shake hands, with John giving an unusually tight squeeze, and John says matter-of-factly, “Good luck, Dr. Jones.”

Did information (information such as Landauer claimed is physical) exist in any of these acts, in the sound waves, in the atoms of the compressed waves or within anyone's ears, in the atoms of the persons' hands, or anywhere else? If so, where exactly was this information?

Does the information that exists somewhere in that circumstance also exist somewhere among the people who are told about that circumstance (those acts, the words, the handshake)?

 

[Nous]

OK. My comment was a brain fart.

Define "interact".

No. If you cannot understand basic concepts, I won't get into the game of defining them to senselessness.

Your concept of "interact" is senseless?

Actually I now think my comment might not have been entirely a brain fart, as I am not sure that a "down" quark (for instance) interacts with atoms.

But, of course, that depends on what you mean by "interact".

 

[Polymath257]

Your concept of "interact" is senseless?

Actually I now think my comment might not have been entirely a brain fart, as I am not sure that a "down" quark (for instance) interacts with atoms.

But, of course, that depends on what you mean by "interact".

Of course it does. Down quarks are part of the nucleus of atoms.