/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9386660]

What is the most fundamental thing in the universe and why is it information?

[Anonymous No.9386717]

>information

[Anonymous No.9386723]

the most fundamental thing in the universe isn't information, it's things

genius

[Anonymous No.9386724]

>>9386660
The most fundamental thing is life, actually. Can't record or observe information if you're dead.

[Anonymous No.9386728]

everything is fundamental if you think about it

[Anonymous No.9386756]

>>9386724
You can't have life without a million other things. Its not fundamental at all.

[Anonymous No.9386762]

>>9386756
>there are actually people who are this retarded

[Anonymous No.9386773]

>>9386762
I know right.
>The most fundamental thing is life
Is the most retarded thing I heard all day.

[Anonymous No.9386775]

>>9386724
>>9386762
Nah, he's right and you're retarded. If anything's blatantly *not fundamental* it's biological organisms.

[Anonymous No.9386783]

>>9386660
>>9386723
>>9386724
>>9386728
>>9386756
All wrong.
Undifferentiated Being is the most fundamental "thing" (not to imply that Being is a thing, since Being precedes things).
And the only thing you can say about Being is that it is. Everything else follows from that.

[Anonymous No.9386795]

Here the answer
https://neurosix.wordpress.com/2016/10/03/on-information/

[Anonymous No.9386797]

>>9386783
>Undifferentiated Being
No such thing, try again.

[Anonymous No.9386812]

It's math

[Anonymous No.9386813]

>>9386783
This is tautological nonsense.

[Anonymous No.9387276]

>>9386783

[Anonymous No.9387283]

What came first, zero or one

[Anonymous No.9387290]

>>9387283
trick question, people came first.

[Anonymous No.9387295]

>>9387283
I came first in ur mum.

[Anonymous No.9387348]

>>9386660
>information
>thing
Nice try.

[Anonymous No.9387363]

Information is meaningless without interpretation. Only living organisms can interpret information.

It's not that difficult to understand.

[Anonymous No.9387370]

its all dots my friend

nothing exists but these fundamental dots. you and i dont really exist, we and everything else is just an aggregation of dots

[Anonymous No.9387510]

>>9387363
This is actually probably pretty difficult for many westerners to understand given they've been raised in liberal environments where identity is only represented by physical or facade traits at face value, with a fuller sense of physicality extending to physical location or physical presence.

They think facts are facts and science is infallible and things exist intangibly apart from themselves or other things, often so blinded by this on the extreme liberal end that they lack empathy and ability to take responsibility or admit flaws. Nothing is ever their fault when it actually is, and they'll project their own failures arbatrarily onto opponents, which as a thinker one will be able to read this and correctly infer intent, which makes them paranoid as fuck when you start responding to all the stuff they're thinking but not saying.

Anyway most westerners probably wont understand what interpretation means.

[Anonymous No.9387530]

>>9387363
>Information is meaningless without interpretation.
Wrong.
>Only living organisms can interpret information.
Also wrong.
>It's not that difficult to understand.
There's nothing to understand because your shit ideas don't map to reality.

[Anonymous No.9387533]

>>9387530
>>9387510

[Anonymous No.9387536]

>>9387533
Post all the meme pictures you want, you're still wrong.

[Anonymous No.9387537]

>>9387536
Actually I'm right and you can't prove it wrong. Feel free to try though.

[Anonymous No.9387540]

>>9387537
Try proving it right first, then I'll tell you what's specifically wrong with your attempt at reasoning.

[Anonymous No.9387545]

>>9387540
If a tree falls in a forest and nothing is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

[Anonymous No.9387547]

>>9387510
This post went from 100 to 0 real fast. I've never seen anyone fuck up such a good point before.
-1/12 / 10

[Anonymous No.9387552]

>>9387547
>t. Angry butthurt liberal
Considering the message of the post was consistent throughout, you only outed yourself as a brainlet.

[Anonymous No.9387604]

>>9387552
>This is actually probably pretty difficult for many westerners to understand given they've been raised in liberal environments where identity is only represented by physical or facade traits at face value, with a fuller sense of physicality extending to physical location or physical presence.

You were fine until there, after that it was a bunch of rambling that was so far removed from both the OP and the post you were replying to, consistent is the wrong word to describe this

[Anonymous No.9387615]

>>9387604
>You were fine
You were fine until there but I don't see how the rest of the post is relevant.

[Anonymous No.9387624]

>>9387545
Two different meanings of sound here.
1) A physical vibration through a medium.
2) Your physiological and behavioral reactions to sensory stimuli from that sort of vibration.
Meaning 1 is there if no one's around to hear it. Meaning 2 isn't. Which doesn't really say anything except that there was a sound wave and it didn't result in behavioral responses from living organisms.
I'll also point out there's nothing special about the "living" part. You can have a non-living artificial structure that has the same reactions we do to sound, which makes your original claim wrong.

[Anonymous No.9387628]

>>9386660
information changes overnight anon
its people that are the most important
ownership of intelligent and useful individuals is the key to everything

[Anonymous No.9387643]

>>9387624
kek

Also no, setting a non-living camera to record a tree falling when no one is around will not satisfy as a result if the footage is destroyed before being observed by a living organism, and the moment of observing surviving footage no longer satisfies the question of nothing being around to hear it cause clearly you are around to do so.

You really do find the concept of reality's intangibility very difficult to understand.

[Anonymous No.9387649]

>>9387615
New anon to the conversation here, but you seem to be mistaking a lot in the analysis. For one, there's a truth to the fundamental nature of life that shifts the burden of knowledge from biological systems, to the identity of the self. To take the self to be purely biological in possibility is an easy to make, but fallacious assumption. I don't mean there's any spirit mumbo jumbo, but the notion of simulated reality; a matrix like scenario. If, however, we specify our domain of discourse to only refer to the simulated reality we experience, then the most fundamental thing is a moot point; there can not be one most fundamental thing because it always, invariably, results in two things.

For there to be matter in a coherent form, it must have motion. To have motion it must have at the very least two states it can occupy. This is analogous to anything; for there to be a self there must be something other than the self. To have any change or entropy or heat or anything at all, there must be two or more possible states. Everything boils down to this principle of there being something that is, and everything else that it is not.

There are many Western conceptions of the nature of perspective and perception. It's core to any proper liberal education to have knowledge of this kind of epistemological framework. I have no idea why the argument turns from one about perception to liberalism, desu.

[Anonymous No.9387669]

>>9387649
Thats a lot of words to express the opinion that movement is fundamental while also being too dumb to mention time, while agreeing but also simultaneously disagreeing.

[Anonymous No.9387714]

>he doesn't understand gravity is fundamental

[Anonymous No.9387752]

quarks or some shit.

idk man ask Black science man

[Anonymous No.9387776]

>>9387714
Gravity is not nearly as important as you think it is

[Anonymous No.9388341]

>>9387628
Information is information even if it changes

[Anonymous No.9388475]

>>9387643
>non-living camera
Nobody said the non-living artificial structure was a camera.
Take all the sensory intake and information processing functions your allegedly fundamental living thing does.
Reproduce them with a non-living artificial structure.
And there, you're now wrong because you're getting the same results from something that isn't alive.
That's the most obvious of your multiple reasoning problems here. You're conflating the quality of being alive with sensory intake and information processing. Just because living organisms have those functions doesn't mean they're the only things that can have those functions. Most of what defines life in the first place is irrelevant to the issue here e.g. being made up of biological cells and maintaining homeostasis.
There are other ways you're wrong, but that's the low hanging fruit of something you got blatantly wrong in an indefensible way.

[Anonymous No.9388498]

>>9386660
>So, todee wee aar tolking aboot informieshon

[Anonymous No.9388555]

>>9386660
Matter and energy are the most fundamental things in the universe.

[Anonymous No.9388670]

>>9387669
>while also being too dumb to mention time
Movement is time dummy

[Anonymous No.9388677]

>>9386783
That doesn't even exist, let alone as the most fundamental thing. Dumb cunt.

[Anonymous No.9388696]

>>9388555
Matter and energy are information.

[Anonymous No.9388703]

>>9387624
>Meaning 1 is there if no one's around to hear it
Prove it.

[Anonymous No.9388715]

>>9387510
What a load of horseshit.
You're no better than religionfags with you're ramblings.

Why can't people just accept reality instead of coming up with bullshit like this.

[Anonymous No.9388741]

The most fundamental thing is atoms, by definition.

[Anonymous No.9388765]

>>9388741
but atoms are made up out of other things, so they aren't fundamental

[Anonymous No.9388826]

>>9388703
>Prove it.
For one thing, "physical vibrations through a medium" is a definition that has nothing to do with human witnesses.
If you believe human witnesses do have something to do with it then the burden of proof is on you to establish this additional feature which no modern mainstream interpretation of physics either predicts or otherwise supports.
Also keep in mind we're not talking about "sound" as in the perceptual / behavioral reactions organisms have *to* these vibrations per the original distinction. What you're suggesting, that basic physical phenomena stop happening when people aren't around, is a fairly outlandish claim for which you've provided no evidence so far, and that which can be asserted with no evidence can be dismissed with no evidence.

[Anonymous No.9388964]

>>9388475
If only it were illegal to be as stupid as you.

>>9388715
Take your ad hominems and go die you brainlet. You're so stupid, you can't even argue. You're so stupid, you tried anyway instead of realizing it was pointless to reply.

Absolutely 56%.

[Anonymous No.9389055]

>>9388964
Even if you take your retarded premise that all physical phenomena need some sort of observation to exist there is absolutely no reason to believe that observation needs to come from a biological organism. Whatever mechanism you think allows biological organism to provide that observation is either A) a mechanism that can be reproduced artificially or B) non-existent bullshit. Either way you're wrong.
You have nothing left to argue with except meme pictures. Your "argument" is not even remotely salvageable at this point.

[Anonymous No.9389059]

>>9389055
Right and uh. So uh.
So haha. Hhahahahaaahha you're actually... oh man..

So uh...

So what created the artificial non-living thing?

[Anonymous No.9389060]

>>9389055
Your skull has less pressure than a vaccum.

[Anonymous No.9389097]

>>9389059
>So what created the artificial non-living thing?
Any process you feel like, its origin story isn't relevant for a couple reasons, but for starters it isn't relevant because you haven't provided an argument for why the only possible way a non-living structure of this sort can form is through the work of a living creator.
Would it be implausible for this sort of structure to form without a living creator? Sure, which just means you're wrong in a way that can be demonstrated with an implausible but not impossible counterexample.
If living things were really more fundamental than physical phenomena like sound then this example wouldn't just be implausible, it would be impossible.

[Anonymous No.9389098]

>>9389097
You are simply just retarded and have no chance of succeeding on this planet.

[Anonymous No.9389110]

>>9389098
Living things aren't more fundamental than basic physical phenomena like vibrations you idiot. All of your technological conveniences like the computer you're using to shitpost on right now were built off of an understanding of physical reality you think is retarded, so you should probably stop using them and build your own retard technologies based on your own retard misunderstanding of the world.

[Anonymous No.9389118]

>>9389110
Did the computer arrange itself or was it built by humans.

Feel free to die sooner than sooner.

[Anonymous No.9389146]

>>9386660
Most fundamental thing in the universe is consciousness