[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Maintenance is complete! We got more disk space.
Become a Patron!

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 209 KB, 1920x1080, pm.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9386660 No.9386660 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

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

>> No.9386717
File: 37 KB, 586x578, 1512336388757.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.9386723

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


>> No.9386724
File: 152 KB, 723x1024, 1507795715012.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

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

>> No.9386728

everything is fundamental if you think about it

>> No.9386756

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

>> No.9386762
File: 101 KB, 597x843, BjEWY1gCEAAUHz3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>there are actually people who are this retarded

>> No.9386773

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

>> No.9386775

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

>> No.9386783

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.

>> No.9386795

Here the answer

>> No.9386797

>Undifferentiated Being
No such thing, try again.

>> No.9386812

It's math

>> No.9386813

This is tautological nonsense.

>> No.9387276
File: 107 KB, 551x600, 19.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.9387283

What came first, zero or one

>> No.9387290

trick question, people came first.

>> No.9387295

I came first in ur mum.

>> No.9387348

Nice try.

>> No.9387363

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

It's not that difficult to understand.

>> No.9387370
File: 59 KB, 503x444, dog (2).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

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

>> No.9387510

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.

>> No.9387530

>Information is meaningless without interpretation.
>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.

>> No.9387533
File: 314 KB, 1102x580, 1510087893604.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.9387536

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

>> No.9387537
File: 53 KB, 403x448, 1509935607777.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

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

>> No.9387540

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

>> No.9387545
File: 7 KB, 420x420, b36.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

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

>> No.9387547

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

>> No.9387552

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

>> No.9387604

>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

>> No.9387615
File: 38 KB, 645x729, 1509035922690.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

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

>> No.9387624

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.

>> No.9387628

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

>> No.9387643
File: 38 KB, 655x552, DDhvQLSXsAI6fNh.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


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.

>> No.9387649

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.

>> No.9387669
File: 5 KB, 250x174, q5OL30E.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

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.

>> No.9387714

>he doesn't understand gravity is fundamental

>> No.9387752

quarks or some shit.

idk man ask Black science man

>> No.9387776

Gravity is not nearly as important as you think it is

>> No.9388341

Information is information even if it changes

>> No.9388475

>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.

>> No.9388498

>So, todee wee aar tolking aboot informieshon

>> No.9388555

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

>> No.9388670

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

>> No.9388677

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

>> No.9388696

Matter and energy are information.

>> No.9388703

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

>> No.9388715

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.

>> No.9388741

The most fundamental thing is atoms, by definition.

>> No.9388765

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

>> No.9388826

>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.

>> No.9388964
File: 60 KB, 1024x558, 1509533757591m.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

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

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%.

>> No.9389055

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.

>> No.9389059
File: 73 KB, 798x798, smilelaugh.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

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

So uh...

So what created the artificial non-living thing?

>> No.9389060
File: 16 KB, 498x467, 1512340128839.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Your skull has less pressure than a vaccum.

>> No.9389097

>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.

>> No.9389098
File: 87 KB, 370x265, English-Muffins.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

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

>> No.9389110

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.

>> No.9389118
File: 9 KB, 211x239, 1513971000563.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

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

Feel free to die sooner than sooner.

>> No.9389146

Most fundamental thing in the universe is consciousness

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.