I see it differently in that i say that any human constructs like math are just an informational patterns and that intangible just means 'intrinsically informational'.
And the difference between tangible and intangible is whether the information is intrinsic to something physical. Information acquires (temporary) tangibility by modifying the states of something that already is tangible.
Yes, we know you believe that "tangible" means "physical" (key words of your reply highlighted). The link shows you how this belief of yours is wrong. Merely telling us again "Well, I say tangibility requires physicality" is not an argument, nor is it a refutation to the argument that were presented to you -- it is just
denial that wastes everyone's time.
As such, and pursuant to taking the conversation back to the topic, can you please stop making noise in this thread?
Yeah, well, if you can point me where that article clearly describes why bitcoin is tangible then i'll be happy to leave.
You should have left about five comments ago then.
In other words, what is your definition of tangibility (in your own words and without links please) ?
I gave you a link that defines tangibility in a philosophically rigorous way (presumably, you can infer from my behavior that I agree with said definition).Either you didn't read it (in which case there's no guarantee you'll read anything I say) or you didn't give a shit (in which case there's no guarantee you'll be able to sustain a conversation with me).
So,
if you want to discuss this like a rational adult with me, you'll have to make do with what you already have.
The writer equals information to corporality because they get fuzzy at the quantum level.
But economy (and bitcoin) do not interact at the quantum level. They interact at the macro level.
You can only include the quantum level into economics if, and only if, the economics considers the actual quantum effects.
Otherwise it's just mombo jumbo.
On the level at which human economics takes place there is a distinction between matter and information. Denying it is silly.
I mean, the guy claims that numbers are supremely tangible because they are based on pure logical proof.
In what way (even from a philosophical perspective) does pure logical proof incept something with the property of tangibility?
How is algebra (as he claims) something tangible instead of an idealized abstraction?
And even if we assume he is correct then tangible would just be another word for everything (or nothing if we follow through on his ideas about wuantum mechanics).
What else is there in the universe than matter and information? (important question)
If you call both tangible then absolutely everything is tangible, even the patterns of information that rerpresents the spaghetti moster in someones head.
I mean, why have an extra word for 'everything'?
So we have this guy that says that because matter blurs with information at the quantum level you should consider both information and matter to be tangible.
Sure, but what else is left in the universe to be intangible?There is no room for it simply because at the core of his argument is that everything is tangible.
So why make the distinction at all?
Well, according to the writer something is simply intangible if you can't capitalize on the contents. So if you don't understand some information (for instance a number sequence) then that is intangible. His specific example was of a goldfish that doesn't perceive number hence the numbers are intangible for the fish.
The problem with this is of course that it makes the word 'tangible' free to be defined by the user.
Whether something is tangible or not becomes a matter of individual position.
What is tangible for you can be intangible for me, or so the writer claims.
Another way to look at this is to consider the writers claim that "anything real or definite is tangible".
We know from physics that absolutely nothing in the universe is definite, even more so at the quantum level.
So if you would define tangibility this way you would end up with the answer that nothing in the universe is tangible.
And indeed, what is real? At the quantum level information forms reality. But the laws governing this mechanism are not rooted in our everyday logic at all. Things that exist in multiple places at the same time, particles that are located at exactly the same spacetime coordinates as others, matter that behaves like waves and interferes, stuff like that.
And the reason that you see this strange behavior is because information can interact directly with the information that expresses matter.
So it's pretty strange for the writer to propose that both information and matter are tangible because they are real and definite and pointing to things like planck numbers to support the relation when at the planck scope of the world things seem less real than ever conceived by humans.
So the word 'real' and 'definite' have no meaning at the quantum level. Even time becomes flexible. The assertion "anything real or definite is tangible" is therefore
firmly rooted in our macro-perception of the universe. You would have trouble defining even the notion of 'is' at the quantum level when stuff oscillates in time.
O.t.o.h. at our scale of the universe (tangible) matter is pretty much separated from any information we may want to transport through it. That is why we invented words like tangibility in the first place. To describe this divide between matter (which we have come to understand as physical informational systems) and abstract informational systems built on top of the possibilities offered by the aggregate of states of the physical system.
Anyway, i dont feel like discussing this guy anymore, he's boring and moreover, he cannot defend his writings.
So that is why i asked what YOU think is the definition of tangible?
