How, exactly, would any definition of reality that included anything else but matter read? At what point and how does the real either become or be other than real?

Information is absolutely fundamental.
Information entangles energy to create matter, and subsequently all that the matter can do is express this information via its form, and qualia.
Everything exists as a pattern of entangled information, energy, and matter. And it seems, the more complex the entanglement the more conscious the matter is.

Which camp do you roughly fall into and what are your arguments for it? — khaled

I chose "Other". My view is hylomorphism, which is the Aristotelian view that reality, starting with the ordinary objects of experience, can be analyzed in terms of matter and form. My argument, as it were, is that it provides a useful framework for understanding the world. Aristotle himself introduced it in response to the problems posed in his day by Parmenides, Plato and others.

Aristotle introduces matter and form, in the Physics, to account for changes in the natural world, where he is particularly interested in explaining how substances come into existence even though, as he maintains, there is no generation ex nihilo, that is that nothing comes from nothing. — Form vs. Matter - SEP

I don't believe information is a thing anymore than prime matter is. I believe in materialism and idealism

Two sides of one coin

How, exactly, would any definition of reality that included anything else but matter read? — tim wood

So I guess all forms of qualia are not part of reality? They're not matter are they?

This prompted some "All mind" theories like the copenhagen interpretation and panpsychism which argue that mind is either the fundamental building block instead of matter or is required for the existence of matter (more accurately for collapsing the wave function). — khaled

Comparing Copenhagen theory with panpsychism is like comparing astronomy with astrology. Copenhagen is a minimalist interpretation of quantum mechanics that does not care about consciousness but measurement, since measurement is the latest time we can establish that a system ceased behaving in a quantum way and was, by then, behaving in a classical way.

As an obvious illustration, consider a measurement apparatus that prints results to paper and does not need human oversight. Imagine it is measuring a process that at most takes an hour, but no one comes in to view the results for three days. The Copenhagen interpretation does not suggest that the wavefunction collapses when the paper is eventually looked at.

In addition, Copenhagen is not wavefunction realism. The wavefunction is interpreted as everything known about a system. In no way does Copenhagen suggest that reality is comprised of mind. It is, unlike panpsychism, a scientific, physicalist field.

Other:

Is reality fundamentally made up of mind, matter, or both? — khaled

Void. (re: Democritus ......... D. Deutsch)

From old thread discussions, excerpts of my 'anti-idealist, anti-supernaturalist, anti-nonphysicalist/immaterialist' speculative commitments:

Atomism - pre-Hobbes, Gassendi, La Mettrie, d'Holbach, Feuerbach "materialism" - includes 'void' as well as 'atoms'. — 180 Proof

I've always interpreted the combinatorial aspect of 'Swirling & Swerving-Atoms-In/(Of?)-Void' as information, or the 'physical measure' of the information content of whatever (i.e. comes-to-be, or continues-to-be, or ceases-to-be) happens. — 180 Proof

Methodological, not metaphysical, materialism no doubt is the worst, least true, intellectual commitment made in human cultural history, except, of course, for all the others tried so far in the last three plus millennia vis-à-vis progressively disclosing how the world (which includes subjects-in-the-world ... as opposed to shibboleth "rational subjects" or "transcendental egos" or "immaterial souls" etc) works. — 180 Proof

After quantum mechanics many scientists now do not know what to make of mind. — khaled

This is not accurate. There are interpretations of quantum mechanics that involve the mind (e.g. Neumann–Wigner), but as Kenosha Kid says, the Copenhagen interpretation is not it, nor are its main competitors. Mentalist interpretations of QM are pretty far from the mainstream.

This is not accurate — SophistiCat

I said many not all. Quantum interpretations that involve mind are generally not popular

The Copenhagen interpretation does not suggest that the wavefunction collapses when the paper is eventually looked at. — Kenosha Kid

As far as I know that is exactly what it suggests. The uncollapsed "result" is measured by a measuring system which then prints it to the paper at whichpoint we see it. The collapse happens somewhere in this process. What makes you think it happens at the paper? Why not at the measurement device? Or in the printer? Or in the cable leading to the printer? The copenhagen interpretation sets the collapse of the wave function to be at the point we can actually see it collapse, aka when we observe it. Because that is the only point at which we can actually know it collapsed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CT7SiRiqK-Q&t=853s

But regardless it was weird of me to compare them since the copenhagen interpretation isn't exactly "All mind". Panpsychism and some rare forms of idealism are the only things that fit that category. The copenhagen interpretation doesn't actually say "The world is made up of mind" but rather "Things only exist in a definite state when we observe them". At least in my understanding.

the more conscious the matter is — Pop

Sounds like panpsychism to me. People like to diss it but I actually really like the theory. They cite the "Combination problem" as this massive dagger going right into the theory's heart then turn around and say "Sure we haven't found any way particles can lead to qualia and we haven't even developed a way of measuring qualia but materialism is still a valid belief". Materialism has a way worse combination problem if you ask me. At least panpsychism has the existence of qualia assumed just unkown how it combines while materialism doesn't even have that.

The uncollapsed "result" is measured by a measuring system which then prints it to the paper at whichpoint we see it. The collapse happens somewhere in this process. — khaled

Yes. That is not the same as saying the collapse happens precisely when we look at a piece of paper printed three days ago.

What makes you think it happens at the paper? — khaled

That was precisely what I said doesn't happen.

The copenhagen interpretation sets the collapse of the wave function to be at the point we can actually see it collapse, aka when we observe it. — khaled

It states that it occurs when a measurement is taken. It does not stipulate a requirement on consciousness. The process of measurement is considered mechanical, not mental.

Materialism is nonsensical as it simply relegates consciousness as some kind of illusion yet asserts that the world is how it is observed by consciousness. How do you get minds from brains or vice versa?

Idealism is just as bad as it is more of an anthropomorphic projection of the human mind onto the world.

Dualism is flawed as it requires an explanation of how mind causally interacts with matter and vice versa.

With that said, I think that information is fundamental, and information is the relationship between cause and effect.

It states that it occurs when a measurement is taken. It does not stipulate a requirement on consciousness. The process of measurement is considered mechanical, not mental. — Kenosha Kid

It also says when an observation is made. So what it seems to stipulate is that consciousness is type of measurement. Measurements are only setup and used by conscious beings. How is a measurement taken without the idea of measurement?

It also says when an observation is made. So what it seems to stipulate is that consciousness is type of measurement. Measurements are only setup and used by conscious beings. How is a measurement taken without the idea of measurement? — Harry Hindu

I'll rephrase the explanation. A system begins in state A. An automatic spin measurement is made and printed a minute later that says it is in state B. A conscious measurement is a minute after that showing it to be in state A. A minute after that, someone reads the sheet of paper.

If consciousness is the trigger, the order of state measurement is: A, A, A, B. The second A is a continuation of the first. This is not what Copenhagen describes.

Instead, the state evolves as: A, B, A, A. I.e. the purely mechanical measurement gives A -> B, however we only know anything about that afterwards.

The Copenhagen wavefunction is a mathematical encoding of what we know. If what we know about the past changes, that change is encoded in the past, not at the moment of discovering the change.

As far as I know that is exactly what it suggests. The uncollapsed "result" is measured by a measuring system — khaled

Which is when the collapse allegedly occurs: when the (classical) measuring system interacts with the quantum system to produce a measurement. Measurement here is a technical (and quite contentious) term; it should not be interpreted by appealing to its common meaning outside of QM.

Some of the original proponents of the so-called Copenhagen interpretation also favored mentalist takes on QM, but what most physicists nowadays take to be the Copenhagen interpretation has nothing to do with mentalism.

Information is completely mental

Information is absolutely fundamental. — Pop

I agree. That is the basis of my Enformationism worldview. This is not traditional Panpsychism though, but the cutting-edge concept of Information as the essence of Energy. It's a position held by several notable scientists, but it's still not a mainstream notion. Most people are only familiar with Shannon's narrow definition of Information, as equivalent to Entropy. But physicists have expanded that notion into a causal role in reality. That's what I call Enformy : the power to enform, to create. :smile:

Is Information Fundamental? : https://www.closertotruth.com/series/information-fundamental

With that said, I think that information is fundamental, and information is the relationship betweencause and effect. — Harry Hindu

Precisely! But, since Causal Information, or as I call it Enformy, includes both cause & effect, it is responsible for both Mind and Matter. Matter is the result of energy relationships (e.g. E=MC^2; hot/cold), while Mind is the awareness of those relationships (e.g. meaning). So, in answer to the OP, Information is "dualistic" in nature : both Matter and Mind, both Energy and Entropy. But it's much more than that. Information is Matter & Mind & Life, and everything else in the world. :smile:

Into the Cool : Energy Flow, Thermodynamics, and Life ...
" natural basis of life"
https://books.google.com/books/about/Into_the_Cool.html?id=wXK6R_ygxCgC

I chose "Other" because my point of view is it does not matter, which way you look at it. WHAT you look at is explicable all three ways. So there is no useful information or decision-making capacity borne out of aligning one's self with any of the established viewpoints. What we perceive is the same either way. So it's futile to decide an undecidable question, especially when the anwser has no consequence to speak of.

I will check out your version. My version also varies from the mainstream view, there is too much to unload here, but I believe the laws of physics describe a biased universe that wants to be just so.The universe has the freedom of infinite possibility including the freedom not to be, but in the local universe, at least, it insists on one way of being - fortunately for us. However this seems to display a bias, and a bias is emotional information. I have also come to the understanding that consciousness is always composed of emotional information, and to be a consciousness can be composed of nothing other then emotional information. So this leads me to question whether unemotional information can even exist? I have written information is fundamental - but I strongly suspect emotional information is fundamental.

Information is completely mental — Gregory

What is DNA other then information? How dose a causal chain work?

At least panpsychism has the existence of qualia assumed just unkown how it combines — khaled

The way I understand it : information determines matter, and subsequently the matter expresses the information that determined it - this we call qualia. Put another way : information informs matter how to be, so what matter expresses in its form is the information that determined it.

DNA is matter. Everything is matter, energy or thought. Information is what we learn. That is, it is our thoughts about matter energy and thoughts. Information can't exist as an object in the world. I don't mean to sound positivist, but this is a distortion of language

What about solipsism. Completely possible, and there are even variations on that theme. No matter involved in it whatsoever.

material world makes just as much sense as solipsim, and so does a mix of matter and spirit world. We are not in a position to get proof about which is true and which is not.

,

That's the idealist side of the coin. You can doubt that others exist, but you would be wrong. Enter the materialist side and behold there are bodies that arouse shame, love, and emotion in you

I'm just saying that need a better word for the fundamentals of the world than information. We get.Information about things, which means we learn about objects

You can doubt that others exist, but you would be wrong. — Gregory

Prove this. Please.

Well now I am wondering if only I exist. No, it makes no sense. I experience people are certainly as I experience myself. I cannot give you a syllogism though

Your experience is the only evidence to YOU that others exist. What does this tell you?
- that others exist, since you experience them? Yes.
- that you exist only, since your experience requires nothing but yourself to be existing? Yes.
- both are equally likely? Yes.
- is there a proof to prove either one? No.
- is it your own sole decision to doubt one, the other, or both, saying that you don't know for sure? Yes.

I experience people are certainly as I experience myself. — Gregory

You don't feel their feelings. You interpret their actions that they have feelings. You interpret your experience of others that the others exist.