We find many videos on UA-cam where it appears that there is a new fad in physics community that "information" is fundamental to reality. And this excites non-physicist crowd. But to some extent this is because of different meanings of the word "information". I think non-physicists assume the meaning of the "information" to really mean the "useful or relevant information" that Carlo is discussion while discussing the "meaning of meaning". But the physicists are really talking about the descriptive, detailed information of every degree of freedom and it's evolution over time as it falls out of the laws of physics. For example, at a given moment if there is or is not a matter or energy in the plank length voxel of the universe and will there be in the next moment. If lay people find out that that is what physicists mean by information is fundamental the excitement in lay public will go away. This is somewhat similar to the confusion caused by the word "observer" as physicists use it in the context of quantum mechanics. A lay person, understandably thinks the word "observer" to mean a human or a conscious entity. Whereas physicists really meant to say a macroscopic measuring device that interacts with a quantum system. And because of that misunderstanding we get Deepak Chopras of the world who want to latch on to quantum mechanics to push their woo woo ideas.
I always find that the expression 'woo-woo' is a sure sign of scientism and a reductive physicalism. The fact is that the reason why 'non-physicists' see a correspondence between 'information' is used by physicists and others, is because physicists have no single clear definition of it--or anything else foundational to their field. 'Observers' are another example of this, as physicists sometimes define it as "a macroscopic measuring device that interacts with a quantum system", and other times as, indeed, a conscious observer (from Von Neumann to Stapp) in ways that comport with Deepak Chopra's (or in many other ways. Physics, like all forms of knowledge, is an ever-evolving model or conceptual interpretation of reality, rather than a rigid fundamentalist absolute dogma about it.
@@richardgrego7160 exactly. Therefore lay people should first dig deeper and understand which definition physicists are usinginwhich context before connecting to their own ideas. Scientists are human and use sloppy language.. But if you ask they will tell you. Yes, information as used in Shanon's entropy is different than the information is fundamental to the universe discussion. The word "observer" was an unfortunate choice made by early quantum physicists. Same in case of "god" particle for Higgs boson. I am aware of John Von Newman's thinking of conscious observer, but most modern physicists do not think that conscious observer is required for collapse of wave function. Some newer theories don't even agree that there is instant collapse.
Haven't watched the video yet, but I'm going to venture a guess and say that the "Hard Problem" still hasn't been solved, and the mind-body problem and explanatory gap remain insoluble philosophical and scientific problems. Did I guess right?
Basically you guessed right. Not sure what's the point of claiming that consciousness is made of relations rather than matter, if we don't have a causal account for its occurrence in either case. Will have to read those paper to see what Carlo meant in more details.
@@namero999 - Why would it be “like something” to be relations between physical stuff? Seems like a non sequitur. No different than integrated information or 40 MHz: Why would any of these things have experiences? There’s still no theory-not even a rough, preliminary, speculative hypothesis-that _even tries_ to explain conscious experience in purely physical terms. Well...unless you count one’s that require brute facts or strong emergence, which require that there be new, undiscovered laws of nature. But such theories can hardly be considered materialist or physicalist theories.
I've never understood the antipathy of most scientists toward the idea that consciousness could arise from as yet undiscovered principles of nature. Note - *not* "supernatural": natural, just not yet part of our mainstream view. As far as I can see if you begin with this assumption the "big picture" can all be explained in a much simpler way. I really hate to think that's it's mere arrogance that drives the antipathy. I don't see how it's possible to be completely certain that our picture of the world is complete. If I had to guess, I'd guess that the biggest problem is the rivalry that's developed between science and religion. Scientists fear that conceding an "unknown" consciousness is too close to allowing for the possibility of God and so on. I certainly don't see that allowance as "necessary," though I suppose I could see it weakening the argument against. But come on, guys - do you want to win your school playground scrap so badly that you'll ignore possible truths to do it? That's not *supposed* to be how scientists operate. I can at least *understand* the religious camp "digging in their heels." But *scientists* are not supposed to "heel dig." That rivalry is b...sh.. anyway - there's just no reason that science and religion should be at each other's throats. They weren't when I was younger - at least not nearly to the same degree. Looking back, I find fault on both sides. The extreme fundamentalist religious views, the attempts to commandeer the school curricula etc. - all of that is beyond ridiculous. And scientists - how do you expect people of faith to react to people like Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss, who don their scientist robes and attack with all the foaming at the mouth ferocity they can muster? You've all let the same thing happen to you that has happened in our political culture in general, and I find it *pathetic*. People on both sides should be ashamed of themselves. I'm sure not all of you on either side are directly to blame. But you're all letting the extremists in your camps drive the agendas. That makes it your fault too - because together the sensible people on both sides could put a stop to the war. Police your own houses - turn your backs on the radicals and foster an air of sanity.
I really like the work of Carlo and I enjoyed this video. However I'm not convinced by the extremely reductive definition of meaning given here. I'm sure each one of us can point to meaningful things that have nothing to do with survival and reproduction. At the very least, it's an ad-hoc definition for supporting the argument he was making, but far from the common-sense definition of meaning that is usually discussed in philosophy.
It's just a redefinition of "meaning", which basically equals a denial of of _true_ meaning. It's just so straightforwardly obvious that under a purely physicalist ontology, you either have to deny that _true_ meaning/intentionality exists (hence our thoughts aren't _really_ about anything), and/or admit that physicalism can't logically explain it. Period.
This man is a genius!!!
Hi @Johannes Kleiner thank you for posting Rovelli’s lecture.
We find many videos on UA-cam where it appears that there is a new fad in physics community that "information" is fundamental to reality. And this excites non-physicist crowd. But to some extent this is because of different meanings of the word "information". I think non-physicists assume the meaning of the "information" to really mean the "useful or relevant information" that Carlo is discussion while discussing the "meaning of meaning". But the physicists are really talking about the descriptive, detailed information of every degree of freedom and it's evolution over time as it falls out of the laws of physics. For example, at a given moment if there is or is not a matter or energy in the plank length voxel of the universe and will there be in the next moment. If lay people find out that that is what physicists mean by information is fundamental the excitement in lay public will go away. This is somewhat similar to the confusion caused by the word "observer" as physicists use it in the context of quantum mechanics. A lay person, understandably thinks the word "observer" to mean a human or a conscious entity. Whereas physicists really meant to say a macroscopic measuring device that interacts with a quantum system. And because of that misunderstanding we get Deepak Chopras of the world who want to latch on to quantum mechanics to push their woo woo ideas.
I always find that the expression 'woo-woo' is a sure sign of scientism and a reductive physicalism. The fact is that the reason why 'non-physicists' see a correspondence between 'information' is used by physicists and others, is because physicists have no single clear definition of it--or anything else foundational to their field. 'Observers' are another example of this, as physicists sometimes define it as "a macroscopic measuring device that interacts with a quantum system", and other times as, indeed, a conscious observer (from Von Neumann to Stapp) in ways that comport with Deepak Chopra's (or in many other ways. Physics, like all forms of knowledge, is an ever-evolving model or conceptual interpretation of reality, rather than a rigid fundamentalist absolute dogma about it.
@@richardgrego7160 exactly. Therefore lay people should first dig deeper and understand which definition physicists are usinginwhich context before connecting to their own ideas. Scientists are human and use sloppy language.. But if you ask they will tell you. Yes, information as used in Shanon's entropy is different than the information is fundamental to the universe discussion. The word "observer" was an unfortunate choice made by early quantum physicists. Same in case of "god" particle for Higgs boson. I am aware of John Von Newman's thinking of conscious observer, but most modern physicists do not think that conscious observer is required for collapse of wave function. Some newer theories don't even agree that there is instant collapse.
@@richardgrego7160 Well said.
Well done Carlo!!!
Haven't watched the video yet, but I'm going to venture a guess and say that the "Hard Problem" still hasn't been solved, and the mind-body problem and explanatory gap remain insoluble philosophical and scientific problems.
Did I guess right?
Watch the video
@@lemonsys - Ah...alright.
Basically you guessed right. Not sure what's the point of claiming that consciousness is made of relations rather than matter, if we don't have a causal account for its occurrence in either case. Will have to read those paper to see what Carlo meant in more details.
@@namero999 - Why would it be “like something” to be relations between physical stuff? Seems like a non sequitur. No different than integrated information or 40 MHz: Why would any of these things have experiences?
There’s still no theory-not even a rough, preliminary, speculative hypothesis-that _even tries_ to explain conscious experience in purely physical terms.
Well...unless you count one’s that require brute facts or strong emergence, which require that there be new, undiscovered laws of nature. But such theories can hardly be considered materialist or physicalist theories.
..... You couldn't be more wrong!
I've never understood the antipathy of most scientists toward the idea that consciousness could arise from as yet undiscovered principles of nature. Note - *not* "supernatural": natural, just not yet part of our mainstream view. As far as I can see if you begin with this assumption the "big picture" can all be explained in a much simpler way. I really hate to think that's it's mere arrogance that drives the antipathy. I don't see how it's possible to be completely certain that our picture of the world is complete. If I had to guess, I'd guess that the biggest problem is the rivalry that's developed between science and religion. Scientists fear that conceding an "unknown" consciousness is too close to allowing for the possibility of God and so on. I certainly don't see that allowance as "necessary," though I suppose I could see it weakening the argument against. But come on, guys - do you want to win your school playground scrap so badly that you'll ignore possible truths to do it? That's not *supposed* to be how scientists operate. I can at least *understand* the religious camp "digging in their heels." But *scientists* are not supposed to "heel dig."
That rivalry is b...sh.. anyway - there's just no reason that science and religion should be at each other's throats. They weren't when I was younger - at least not nearly to the same degree. Looking back, I find fault on both sides. The extreme fundamentalist religious views, the attempts to commandeer the school curricula etc. - all of that is beyond ridiculous. And scientists - how do you expect people of faith to react to people like Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss, who don their scientist robes and attack with all the foaming at the mouth ferocity they can muster? You've all let the same thing happen to you that has happened in our political culture in general, and I find it *pathetic*. People on both sides should be ashamed of themselves.
I'm sure not all of you on either side are directly to blame. But you're all letting the extremists in your camps drive the agendas. That makes it your fault too - because together the sensible people on both sides could put a stop to the war. Police your own houses - turn your backs on the radicals and foster an air of sanity.
I really like the work of Carlo and I enjoyed this video. However I'm not convinced by the extremely reductive definition of meaning given here. I'm sure each one of us can point to meaningful things that have nothing to do with survival and reproduction. At the very least, it's an ad-hoc definition for supporting the argument he was making, but far from the common-sense definition of meaning that is usually discussed in philosophy.
It's just a redefinition of "meaning", which basically equals a denial of of _true_ meaning.
It's just so straightforwardly obvious that under a purely physicalist ontology, you either have to deny that _true_ meaning/intentionality exists (hence our thoughts aren't _really_ about anything), and/or admit that physicalism can't logically explain it. Period.
🐙 thank you.🤓