Horses for courses .. eg: most macroscopic objects aren't describable in quantum theory .. for good reasons .. (Physics).Perhaps we should define information more clearly?
It is self evident that for scientific experiments to work, we can't have quantum category information -- things such as electron orbital characteristics, for instance, flitting in and out of existence. Likewise, since genetics is real and reliable, we don't have subatomic information coming and going so as to arbitrarily turn that reliability into bedlam. There are things we can stand on in this world.
..Philip Bruce Heywood said:Such as this world being here for us to jolly about on and smell the daisies --- up until the Revelation angel proclaims, Time shall be no more. That's space - time.
An argument which is actually undermined by employing web-word capitalisations ...Philip Bruce Heywood said:This NATURAL world.
.. (but not outside their own minds).Philip Bruce Heywood said:But people can experience things that are brand new, experience each other (for better or worse!) and have what might be called religious experience which is outside physical analysis.
Every piece of objective historical evidence demonstrates that he used his mind in coming up with his innovations .. with none demonstrating independence of it.Philip Bruce Heywood said:We can encounter new things outside the purely physical. This is new information of a sort? It has an influence on physical outcomes? This is somewhat deep. But no, Einstein never thought up anything new regarding Physics. How could he? If it's Physics, it always existed in space-time. The man was prone to forgetting at which station he was supposed to get off the train, but that may not be relevant?
Upvote
0