Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Information, Materialism and Free Will

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The existence of information is a fundamental refutation of materialism.

Information has no mass. It has no physical dimensions. And it can exist in multiple places at the same time. It has no physical or materialistic properties whatsoever. Put a gigabyte of information on your computer’s blank hard disk, and check out how much more the disk weighs. Back up your hard disk and that information will exist in two places at the same time. You can transmit that information at the speed of light (at which speed nothing with rest mass can travel).

Life is not fundamentally based on atoms, molecules and chemistry. These represent the media and low-level mechanism in which life’s information is stored and expressed.

As to the question of determinism (a conclusion frequently derived from a materialistic worldview) and free will, I propose the following: Unless the choices people make can be predicted with certainty, we have the functional equivalent of free will, which is all that matters in real life. Without the supposition of, and existence of functional free will, life would be absurd and unlivable.

This is why the question of materialism versus design is so important. It impinges upon everything that ultimately matters. Are we fundamentally information-based, non-material free agents, or are we natural-law-based, biochemical automatons?

Comments
BarryA: "A very wise man once wrote, “There is nothing new under the sun.” I wonder what Solomon would have thought about the 20th century.mike1962
August 23, 2006
August
08
Aug
23
23
2006
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT
Carlos: just because we are having the same debates does not mean that we have not progressed, if by this you mean to imply that whole new categories for discussing such questions should long since have been conceived. I would place myself squarely in the idealist camp, which I take to mean that an independent non-material life-giving substance exists and which is the foundation of free-will. This substance has the capacity to act upon and within matter when necessary but is not dependent upon matter for its existence. Its called a soul, or spirit for human beings. The free will is always bound by the consequenses of its previous choices, which originate in this non-material essence (choice) but react back upon the material substance at the appropriate time (consequence). That is a lawful relationship, but not at all the same as determinism. Its called karma. I would appreciate anyone who is able to take a minute to explain to me why we would see the will as being determined or unfree based upon physical laws, and have to look to "quantum uncertainty" for the free will's expression. I just don't get this, perhaps because I am such a committed non-materialist, but help would be appreciated...tinabrewer
August 23, 2006
August
08
Aug
23
23
2006
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT
Appealing to the will doesn't necessarily get us to freedom, even the kind within boundaries. The will is the cause of actions. Is the will uncaused? No. The will has a nature. I choose something because I desire something. I don't make choices based on a neutral will. Therefore, libertine freedom is not an optiongeoffrobinson
August 23, 2006
August
08
Aug
23
23
2006
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT
Carlos writes: "I find it striking that we’re still having the same basic debates today, in 2006, as the ancient Greeks had — the basic options still seem to be materialism (Democritus to Dennett), idealism (Plato to Dembski), or a compromise (Aristotle to Kauffman). Does anyone else here get this impression?" Yes, I get the same impression. A very wise man once wrote, "There is nothing new under the sun."BarryA
August 23, 2006
August
08
Aug
23
23
2006
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT
To mike1962, the article is here: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2444 To ajl, I don’t know if they are “must reads,” but I think “Orthodoxy” by G.K. Chesterton and “Mere Christianity” by C.S. Lewis would be good places to start.BarryA
August 23, 2006
August
08
Aug
23
23
2006
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT
I accept the point above about competing interpretations of quantum mechanics -- some of which are very mystical indeed! But all I needed to say there was that, regardless of which -- if any -- current interpretation of QM gets accepted, none of them give legitimacy to Democritean "atoms and void" materialism. Geoff Robinson makes an excellent point about abstract objects (concepts, sets, numbers, etc.). We have no way of doing away with these things, and if our ontology doesn't allow some room for them, so much the worse for our ontology. But this doesn't mean that they need be on the list of the basic furniture of the universe, and it doesn't mean that Platonism is the only other option to materialism. Still, I find it striking that we're still having the same basic debates today, in 2006, as the ancient Greeks had -- the basic options still seem to be materialism (Democritus to Dennett), idealism (Plato to Dembski), or a compromise (Aristotle to Kauffman). Does anyone else here get this impression? It sometimes looks to me as though our science has grown enormously (including mathematics as part of science), but our conceptual frameworks for thinking about science have not.Carlos
August 23, 2006
August
08
Aug
23
23
2006
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT
Thanks for the lessons. I should have known better.John A. Davison
August 23, 2006
August
08
Aug
23
23
2006
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT
Between hyper-Calvinism, where we make no choices and everything is determined, and open-theism, where not even God knows what will happen in the future, lies orthodoxy. Hey BarryA, I like what you said, and have found myself getting much more interested in orthodoxy of old. On a previous post, bFast said: As a born and raised evangelical protestant, I must say that the older I get the more respect I have for Catholic theology. with that, I was wondering if you could recommend any "must reads" on the "orthodoxy" that you speak ofajl
August 23, 2006
August
08
Aug
23
23
2006
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT
John Davison: "How the hell can something be free if it has boundaries?" I can wiggle my finger at will. I cannot leap across the galaxy at will. Pretty obvious that it's a freedom within boundries.mike1962
August 23, 2006
August
08
Aug
23
23
2006
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT
How the hell can something be free if it has boundaries? Because freedom is a relative, conditional even, concept, not an absolute one.tribune7
August 23, 2006
August
08
Aug
23
23
2006
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT
How the hell can something be free if it has boundaries? I also thought free will was verboten here. Don't blame me Denyse. I didn't bring it up. "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. DavisonJohn A. Davison
August 23, 2006
August
08
Aug
23
23
2006
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT
BarryA, What article is that?mike1962
August 23, 2006
August
08
Aug
23
23
2006
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT
Information cannot exist without mass to represent it. So what came first -- mass or the information?tribune7
August 23, 2006
August
08
Aug
23
23
2006
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT
Gil, about the same time you were posting this, I was reading this by David Berlinski (the full article is over at Discovery Institute): “The concept of time now occupies centre stage. A number of philosophers are standing by. And what they are saying, those philosophers, is that change is an illusion. Things do not become, they have not been, and they will not be: they simply are. Human beings reach events in the future by displacing themselves in time just as they reach places on the earth by displacing themselves in space. They do not bring those places into being, nor those events. It is thus that time dwindles, and thus that time disappears, replaced by an entirely more arid notion, that of position along a temporal stream. “Einstein’s special theory of relativity, Gödel observed, was widely thought to support this view. Imagine a group of observers scattered carelessly throughout the cosmos. Each is able to organise the events of his life into a linear order; and as a result each is persuaded that his life consists of a series of nows, moving moments passing from the past to the present to the future. I might as well dismiss those observers before they do any real harm. This is how we see things. Now is after all now, it is not? Right now. “Apparently not. Simultaneity, special relativity revealed, depends on the speed at which we are moving with respect to one another. Moving at different speeds, the two of us, it is entirely possible that my now might be your past or your future. “It follows that what is becoming for me may have become or may become for you. But then Gödel asks, very reasonably, how something can become for me when it has already been for you? The idea is if not absurd then deeply unattractive. What is left when becoming is subtracted from the cosmic account is time – that remains. But change has disappeared. A philosophical conjecture has been ratified by a great physical theory. I would add that if there is no “becoming,” there are no choices and thus no free will. I personally believe that God knows the beginning from the end. He knows in an absolute sense what I am going to be doing six hours from now, and therefore I cannot not do what He knows I will do and therefore I have no free will. I also believe that I can choose to do bad or good, and I can choose to accept God or reject Him and therefore I do have free will. I hold these contradictory ideas in suspense, just as I hold the contradictory idea of the Trinity in suspense, waiting until a time when I will no longer see “through a glass darkly.” Between hyper-Calvinism, where we make no choices and everything is determined, and open-theism, where not even God knows what will happen in the future, lies orthodoxy. Is this analysis based on pure reason? Obviously not. But does not our reason also tell us that there are limits to what reason can tell us? As Pascal said, the heart has reasons that reason does not know.BarryA
August 23, 2006
August
08
Aug
23
23
2006
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT
StephenA: "If life is information based does this mean that life is media independant? Is computer based life possible?" Perhaps. But if consciousness is not an emergent property of matter in a particular arrangment, then computers could never be conscious. And if consciousness is the source of agency, nor could computers have free will.mike1962
August 23, 2006
August
08
Aug
23
23
2006
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT
"Unless the choices people make can be predicted with certainty, we have the functional equivalent of free will" I disagree with this statement. Randomness could also be a fundamental element. This would allow for the inability to predict with certainty, but it certainly would not be the functional equivalent of free will. geoff -- Free will does _not_ and has not ever meant unbounded freedom, but instead freedom within boundaries. The way I take it is that if a given natural law has multiple possible destinations, a will can actualize a given one for their own purpose.johnnyb
August 23, 2006
August
08
Aug
23
23
2006
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT
DaveScot, When I read your post the information went from one medium (my computer) to another (short term storage in my brain's memory banks) at the speed of light, which backs up Gil's contention that information can travel at the speed of light, which nothing with mass can do. I'm not sure I understand the subjective/objective information distinction you make. Can you elucidate?BarryA
August 23, 2006
August
08
Aug
23
23
2006
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT
Oh another philosophical point. This gets into universals and particulars. Universals (and information) are immaterial concepts. A materialist cannot account for these things. Universals don't need to be instantiated to exist and be immaterial. Unicorns come to mind. None exist. The idea does.geoffrobinson
August 23, 2006
August
08
Aug
23
23
2006
04:10 AM
4
04
10
AM
PDT
Freedom is a tricky thing. "Freedom" is usually defined as no constraints whatsoever. Or basicly uncaused actions. Well, I'm not a materialist. But I don't believe in uncaused acts of the will. So non-materialists can believe in some form of determinism. But materialists really have no other choice.geoffrobinson
August 23, 2006
August
08
Aug
23
23
2006
04:06 AM
4
04
06
AM
PDT
Everything in the universe is material or it wouldn't be there. That includes ourselves, our brains and the way that our brains operate. I should say ways because it is obvious that our brains operate in drastically different ways depending on our congenital tendencies. In other words our "free wills" vary substantially from individual to individual. As Ernst Mayr put it when he described himself as - "...a dyed-in-the-wool Darwinian like myself." The Growth of Biological Thought, page 132. I never cease to be amazed at such a demonstration of what Einstein so clearly understood about the human condition. "Our actions should be based on the ever-present awareness that human beings in their THINKING, feeling, and acting ARE NOT FREE but are just as causally bound as the stars in their motion." Alice Calaprice. The New Quotable Einstein, page 200 (my quite unecessary emphasis). I also must agree with him with - No idea is conceived in our mind independent of our five senses [i.e., no idea is divinely inspired]. By that I think he meant by a living personal God which he rejected as have I. Nevertheless, like Einstein I am a devout determinist so I reserve the possibility that ideas were also predetermined just as the entire evolutionary sequence was. It just gives me intellectual pleasure to believe such things so I hope I don't offend anyone with my heresies, especially when I share them with a man for whom I have such great respect. Purely as an intellectual experiment, I have even gone so far as to suggest that the great music and literature of the past had also been written and, like all of mathematics and science generally, had simply been discovered and expressed by those who had been "determined" or, to use my term, "prescribed" to have that privelege. After all isn't that exactly what Einstein meant? "EVERYTHING is determined... by forces over which we have no control ibid, page 196 (my emphasis) I have only carried his convictions to a seemingly absurd extreme. That does not mean I am wrong. "An hypothesis does not cease to be an hypothesis when a lot of people believe it." Boris Ephrussi "Oh the big wheel run by fate, and the little wheel run by the grace of God." Isn't science fun? "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."John A. Davison
August 23, 2006
August
08
Aug
23
23
2006
03:43 AM
3
03
43
AM
PDT
"Is computer based life possible?" Unless you know of a physical law that prohibits it then the working assumption is that it is possible. I don't know of any law that prohibits it. Do you? Here's a great book that explores the limits of the possible. Not only is the book free in hypertext format, the book is now 20 years old and among other things it predicted was hypertext and the world wide web.DaveScot
August 23, 2006
August
08
Aug
23
23
2006
01:11 AM
1
01
11
AM
PDT
DaveScott: “Not even information can exist without matter because absent matter/energy there’s no known medium to carry it. It appears we live in a material universe and there’s nothing else that matters.” In the cosmos matter cannot exist without information. In the cosmos information cannot exist without matter. Both are necessary for having an universe. Scholasticism said: Essence (information) and Substance (matter) are the two fundamental principles of manifestation.niwrad
August 23, 2006
August
08
Aug
23
23
2006
01:02 AM
1
01
02
AM
PDT
Carlos, Davescot is right. The jury is still out on the nature of quantum mechanics. Besides, 1. The wave like nature of electrons doesn't allow for the traditional "where is it?" Since it has properties like a wave we should have a probability test that reflects that ie orbitals - then we have near 100% probability of knowing the orbital/field where an electron will lie. 2. If quantum mechancics was that "unpredictable," Newtonian mechanics would not nearly be as good as it is ie if the will's predictability is at the level of the Newtonian mechanics (assuming Naturalism) then quantum probabilities are not so much a prb (or just as much which is nothing really). 3. Though we don't know what "mere matter" is, from the information we do know now, its safe to say that quarks, neutrinos, and electrons aren't producing any information for free! So at least with our current version of matter we can say that we are in fact not automatons, but free agents. We're limited to the info we have now so let's use itrather than have faith that 22nd Century scientists will prove us wrong, they may in fact confirm us even more :)jpark320
August 23, 2006
August
08
Aug
23
23
2006
12:01 AM
12
12
01
AM
PDT
Carlos, The' standard line on methodological materialism in science is that scientific explanations are formulated in terms of matter, energy, and their interactions. In the realm of classical mechanics and thermodynamics, information seems to be a matter of "interactions." There is no storage or transmission of information without a matter-energy medium. Furthermore, information has several useful definitions, none of which compels universal adoption. This suggests that scientists are not so much observing information in nature as reifying mathematical models. I have read that in the realm of quantum theory, information seems to have an independent existence. There are many interpretations of quantum mechanics, some very straightforward and some very mystical. As someone who cannot interpret quantum mechanics literature for himself, I am biased in favor of straightforward interpretations. Gil: "Are we fundamentally information-based, non-material free agents, or are we natural-law-based, biochemical automatons?" Carlos: "Why not both?" Ah, a man after my own heart.Tom English
August 22, 2006
August
08
Aug
22
22
2006
11:50 PM
11
11
50
PM
PDT
Carlos, Matter and energy are the same thing. E=MC^2. Time is sort of an arbitrary construct. It is based upon motion or changes in matter. Without matter, time doesn't exist. Space doesn't exist without matter either. Space is measured by the position of matter. According to Standard Theory, before the big bang neither space nor time nor matter existed. Obviously gravity is a property of matter too. No matter, no gravity. So the $64,000 question is: Without matter does anything else exist? The answer is no as far as anyone can empirically determine. Not even information can exist without matter because absent matter/energy there's no known medium to carry it. It appears we live in a material universe and there's nothing else that matters, so to speak. I have no idea whether free will exists or not. Above the quantum level it evidently doesn't. But it sure feels like I have free will. I'm not sure you really exist so I can't say whether your feelings on it matter or not, so to speak. The jury is still out on whether quantum uncertainty is real or there are hidden variables we don't know about that would make for certain outcomes. Without a quantum theory of gravity the jury will remain out on that question. This also raises the question of whether there is any such thing as a random event or whether what we perceive as random is simply a lack of knowledge. I'm sure I don't want to know. Unlike Neo, I'd go for the blue pill. Ignorance is bliss. Now I suddenly have a desire for a nice thick steak and I don't want to think about whether it's just strings vibrating in dimensions too small to experience. A steak by any other name tastes as good is my motto.DaveScot
August 22, 2006
August
08
Aug
22
22
2006
11:19 PM
11
11
19
PM
PDT
Ah! A philosophical problem! Excellent! (I'm a philosopher in my real life, too. Makes for laughs when I'm told that I shouldn't quit my day job.) One problem arises with the restrictions posed on "materialism." If we stipulate that "materialism" means "the position that everything that exists is made of matter," we're already in trouble. Why? Two reasons (at least!): (a) this implies that space, time, energy, fields (e.g. gravity) do not exist; (b) it leaves open the question as to what "matter" is. On the first objection: some philosophers prefer to speak of "physicalism" instead of "materialism," since we're dealing with fundamental concepts from physics (space, time, energy, matter, etc.). But this leads us straight into a response to the second objection: if "physicalism" is only committed to the existence of what physics tells us there is, then physicalism cannot yield a definitive ontology, because physics, as a sphere of scientific inquiry, is always changing. New discoveries are always being made, new experiments designed and run, new mathematical models built, etc. To see the force of this point, consider the typical Democrtiean picture of matter: little hard balls bouncing around. Now consider how drastically that picture has been revised in light of general relativity and quantum mechanics! And now consider: what further drastic revisions may be required as a result of further discoveries? Clearly we don't know what those discoveries will be -- but the good money says that the picture of "matter" used by 22nd-century physicists will be very different from our current one. So, what to say about "information"? Without having a solid command of information theory, my prejudice is that we simply don't know whether or not information could arise from "mere matter" or not, because we don't know what "mere matter" even is! But we can say this with some confidence: it's not what Democritus, Aristotle, or Newton thought it was -- we know that -- so we shouldn't let ourselves be held captive by their pictures. Another, and perhaps more helpful, way of getting the question of the ontology (or ontogeny?) of information going is to consider information as structures. Structures of what? Well, why not as structures of matter and energy? One might object: "but Carlos, the structures aren't reducible to matter and energy!" OK -- but I didn't say that they were, did I? General point: physicalism does not entail reductionism. Emergentist physicalism, in which higher-order structures emerge from lower-order ones, is at least still a contender -- even if it's proponents owe us a much better story about how, exactly, "emergence" happens. Without the supposition of, and existence of functional free will, life would be absurd and unlivable. I can think of at least three people who would disagree: Benedictus Spinoza, Friedrich Nietzsche, and John Davison. Since John is here, I'll let him speak for himself, and I'll adopt the temerity to speak for the other two. (Please notice that, while Nietzsche may be regarded as a sort of atheist -- and here I'm actually skeptical as to whether that's the best interpretation -- Spinoza seems very hard to peg as an atheist. Sure, Spinoza denies the existence of a transcendent and creator God, but he identifies salvation and immortality with what he calls "the intellectual love of God," and that's not a typical atheistic move, either!) Are we fundamentally information-based, non-material free agents, or are we natural-law-based, biochemical automatons? Why not both?Carlos
August 22, 2006
August
08
Aug
22
22
2006
10:23 PM
10
10
23
PM
PDT
DaveScot, All information is massless? If I take fifty grains of sand and space them in a line somehow using a morse code pattern to code the message "Information is massless" - or whatever - and I then take fifty bowling balls and line them up in proportional morse code to spell the smae message. Is information any more massive from one example to the other? And whether it is a known coding system or an arbitray concept of information, the information will have the same mass relevence or nonrelevence when comparing the two scenarios... so what is mass or matter but a place holder for us to interact with information.JGuy
August 22, 2006
August
08
Aug
22
22
2006
10:00 PM
10
10
00
PM
PDT
"Life is not fundamentally based on atoms, molecules and chemistry. These represent the media and low-level mechanism in which life’s information is stored and expressed." This raises an interesting point. Information is media independant (it's the same information whether it is transmitted by sound waves or read from a book). If life is information based does this mean that life is media independant? Is computer based life possible? Or does life require more than just the right information and the media to process it?StephenA
August 22, 2006
August
08
Aug
22
22
2006
09:29 PM
9
09
29
PM
PDT
I'm a bit conflicted on this point, Gil. Information cannot exist without mass to represent it. Even the tranmission at light speed you describe is not without mass. Photons are massless only at rest and they are never at rest. Their kinetic energy gives them mass according to the equation e=mc^2. While the weight of the hard disk doesn't change there is also no objective change in the information content when the magnetic fields are rearranged. I've come to the conclusion that one must discriminate between types of information. There is objective information and subjective information. The positions of any given particles carry the same amount of objective information (x,y,z coordinates for instance) whether they are arranged in a manner meaningful in any given context or not. Subjective information I think has the massless properties you suggest. The information that defines life is indeed subjective so as long as we make the qualification that it's subjective and not objective information I'm in full agreement with you. Subjective information is massless.DaveScot
August 22, 2006
August
08
Aug
22
22
2006
09:25 PM
9
09
25
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply