I don't understand the question. "WHO" is behind what? — Harry Hindu
Yes, causality = information = meaning. However, I don't understand your aversion to synonyms. Do you not use some words interchangeably? Also, I think "information" provides that sense of aboutness that "causality" does not seem to imply. — Harry Hindu
all effects carry information about all prior cause — Harry Hindu
We have terms that have more than one definition, so I don't understand this sudden aversion to different words meaning the same thing, or words that have more than one definition. It would only matter if the definitions contradicted each other, and they don't. — Harry Hindu
An intriguing implication of this would be the possibility that what we regard as things and whose opposite we consider is nothing may have opposites that are things themselves. — TheMadFool
Now, not only do I not understand the question, but I don't understand your reason for asking it if you're just going to say that it doesn't matter if I understood the question or not.It doesn't matter if you didn't understand the question. — TheMadFool
That's weird to say that information isn't synonymous with causality when you were the one that provided the example of a detective at a crime scene observing the aftermath of a crime and garnering information about the crime from the crime scene. I agreed with you. Would you agree that others would agree that that is a good example of how effects carry information about their causes? You're the one throwing me off.I get synonyms but information, last I checked, isn't synonymous with causality. They're treated as distinct concepts. To add, you said
all effects carry information about all prior cause
— Harry Hindu
and that threw me off. In what sense would effects "carry information" if not in ways distinct and separate from causation itself? For instance, running with my detective example, if Sherlock Holmes sees the tables and chairs overturned in a room, he concludes that there had been a scuffle in the room. The information that there was a scuffle in the room is distinct from the scuffle itself right? is the inference of a scuffle identical to the scuffle itself? if it is then every time I gather causal information, whatever it is that I inferred should actualize in reality too, no? — TheMadFool
Excellent question. Thanks.Are you saying that all relations are causal? What about something like Joe is heavier than Ron? Isn't that information which is not a matter of causality? — Metaphysician Undercover
No. I'm not saying that all relations are causal. Causality is a kind of relationship. So, if you are saying that there is information in the comparison of Joe's weight with Ron's, then information is actually in all relationships. That is fine with me. I sometimes use "relationships" and "process" instead of "information" to define the fundamental layer of reality. My "Information Philosophy" is very similar to Process Philosophy. — Harry Hindu
On the other hand, it seems to me that both Joe and Ron's weight is information, and Joe being heavier than Ron is a comparison of those two bits of information that then creates more information by inference - that Joe is heavier than Ron. So could you get the information that Joe is heavier than Ron without first having the information of Joe and Ron's weight, or Joe and Ron's physical appearance? In a sense, Jon being heavier than Ron is an inference, or an effect, of comparing the information of Joe and Ron's weight or physical appearance. — Harry Hindu
Good point! That is why I say that Energy is Information (the power to enform), but Information is not just mechanical Energy. Information also causes Meaning in a mind. :smile:Yes, causality = information = meaning. However, I don't understand your aversion to synonyms. Do you not use some words interchangeably? Also, I think "information" provides that sense of aboutness that "causality" does not seem to imply. — Harry Hindu
Here, I would just say that static relationships are less complex than dynamic relationships, therefore static relationships have less information than dynamic ones. I do prefer to use "information" for the prior reasons I've stated. As I said, Process Philosophy is similar, not exactly the same as my "Information philosophy".Why "process"? Do you deny the possibility of a static relationship? Are not the relationships between 1 and 2, 2 and 3, etc., static? — Metaphysician Undercover
Measurement are just comparisons, just like Joe being heavier than Ron. What is measured is the relationship between their body's mass and the Earth's gravity.How is Joe's weight, or Ron's weight causal? That's what I don't understand. If a thing's weight is the product of a measurement, then this information is caused. But how would you account for the information within the thing itself? Clearly there must be some sort of information within the thing itself which is called "Joe", to validate the measurement as true. Isn't it the case that this information is there within Joe whether or not it acts as a cause in the case of Joe being measured? — Metaphysician Undercover
Yes. Like Pierre Simon Laplace, Claude Shannon had "no need for that [God] hypothesis" in his definition of Information. In both cases the researcher was following the principles of Methodological Naturalism. As the quote below indicates, by eliminating supernatural causes from consideration, scientists could avoid getting entangled in insoluble perennial philosophical / theological wrangling over intangible & non-empirical Metaphysical concepts."Information" Is an ambiguous term which allows the modern materialist, or physicalist, through the use of illusion, to escape the need for God in metaphysics. — Metaphysician Undercover
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.