On the Unilateralism of Physicalism and the Universality of Informationism ^†

Abstract

The Call for Papers of IS4SI points out that paradigms from the disciplines of information and physics, respectively, reflect very different scientific viewpoints and methodologies. The sponsor and organizer selected “Paradigm Changes in Information Discipline” as the theme of the conference. The authors of this paper believe that the key to achieving the transformation of the “scientific paradigm” from a physical discipline to an information discipline lies in revealing and identifying one of the most fundamental propositions: recognizing the one-sidedness of “physicalism” and the universality of “informationism”, and accepting the world view, scientific view, values, and methodology of theoretical information science. Therefore, the main content of this paper discusses the one-sidedness of physicalism, the universality of informatics, and propose the promotion of the zeitgeist of the information age.

1. Introduction

“Paradigm Change in the Information Discipline” has been selected as the theme of the IS4SI 2023 Beijing summit. The purpose of this paper is to point out that the key to achieving the transformation of the “scientific paradigm” from a physical discipline to an information discipline lies in revealing and identifying one of the most fundamental propositions: recognizing the one-sidedness of “physicalism” and the universality of “informationism”. We believe that accepting the worldview and methodology of information science is necessary for us to promote the zeitgeist of the information age.

2. Criticizing the One-Sidedness of Physicalism

2.1. The Origin of “Physicism”

Physics is the foundation of all-natural sciences. It summarizes and abstracts the existing characteristics, laws, and mechanisms of motion in all material objects “on the ground” and “in the sky” through quantitative and formulaic methods. It is reasonable and correct. The maturity of physics and its physical popularization and application in material disciplines such as chemistry and biology have led to the development and glory of natural sciences and technology, engineering, products, and industries, making an indelible and great contribution to the progress of human civilization. However, the practical utility and scope of application of these concepts, principles, and methods of physics have been unilaterally exaggerated by some philosophers and have been sublimated into the philosophy of physicalism. Physicalism assumes that the physical sciences can encompass everything in the world, and ultimately everything in the world can be explained through physics. The thesis of physicalism maintains that the physical language is a universal language of science—that is to say, every language of any sub-domain of science can be equipollently translated into the physical language [1].

2.2. Refuting Physicalism Based on Common Sense and Convention in the Information Age

We believe that today, common sense and convention have fully exposed and deeply criticized the one-sided nature of physicalism. Individuals traveling to the United States must fly for more than 10 h. Our thesis participated in an online academic exchange in the United States, where individual contributions and the hiring of organizers took place between mouse clicks. A person refers to 100 papers and 50 works, and the completed doctoral thesis is granted “copyright”. The original authors of those papers and works continue to enjoy copyright. The paper “produces” in a “non-consumption” manner. More importantly, in the world of papers and works, there has been an “explosive growth of information”; there is no “conservation law” like the material world. How do physicists who are advocates of the “conservation law” explain the “non-conservation phenomenon” of informatics?

The driving force of the material world is “blind”. Comets collide with the Earth, not their own “choice”; they are unaware of the “consequences”. However, humans can calculate the likelihood of their collision by using powerful rockets to push the comet out of its original orbit or simply by blowing it up in advance. We have our own values and interests to pursue, and we have invented “language” and “characters” to record the experience of “thought” and achieve the accumulation, inheritance, and innovation of knowledge [2]. Humans do not think in an “individual” way, as animals do, relying on their ears and faces and taking action. Humans think in a “group” way, relying on the “information dissemination” network led by the government to achieve collaborative behavior among social members. More than 1.4 billion Chinese people regard “national rejuvenation” and “national prosperity” as their highest pursuit; how do we “thoroughly explain” in the language of “physics”?

2.3. Criticizing Physicalism in the Sense of Logic

Plato’s “idealism” worldview is superior to physicalism. The existence of the material (A) and the existence of immaterial (not A) are the “one divides into two” of the world, and they are also “united into one”. This is the “dialectics”. If there is only “material” and no “immaterial”, then “one divides into one”, and if there is no other branch with whom to form dialectical unity, how can dialectical development take place? Physicism makes dialectics unable to stand on its feet, and it has no foundation for settling down and living and can only be a “broken” (one-sided) theory. Of course, Aristotle criticized Plato’s idealism, writing “Categories” and “Metaphysics” and pioneering physics and physicalism; this, combined with people’s common sense and conventions, has allowed the physicalism worldview and methodology to dominate society and academia for thousands of years. Its achievements are major, but it is time to correct mistakes!

2.4. Criticizing Physicalism That Uses the Paradigm of Information Science

There is no need for us to repeat or continue the debate between Aristotle and Plato on “universals” more than 2000 years ago. However, overturning Aristotle’s “criticism” of idealism is a necessary condition for us to achieve the “paradigm transformation of information science”.

There is no difference between Aristotle and Plato in their understanding of the two “worlds” (i.e., the “ideal world” and the “physical world”). Their contradiction lies in the “connection” between these two worlds. Plato believes that the “ideal world” can exist independently (separately), and Aristotle criticizes this “separation theory”. We have seen that Plato’s “Republic”, Hugo Grotius’s “War and Law of Peace”, and John Rawls’s “A Theory of Justice”, like natural scientists, put aside the abstraction of “particulars” and are devoted to studying the theory of “universals”. Human theories about the state, the rule of law, and justice not only “exist” in a separate way from “particulars” but also “evolve” in a separate way.

In the field of law, there is “judicial syllogism”. If Zhang San “kills”, it is a “particular”. The criminal prosecutor must prove that the case conforms to the “universal” concept of homicide: (1) the victim has died; (2) the illegal act causes the victim’s death; (3) the defendant is the person who committed the act; (4) the defendant undertook “intentional” murder. There is also the “return of the dead” style of unjust, false, and erroneous cases. The judge involved said that Zhang San killed Li Si; the judges sentenced Zhang San to death; Zhang San was killed; Li Si went home alive. The judge did not even know whether the “victim” was dead and actually abused “state violence” to “kill Zhang San by mistake”. If the second paragraph of Article 33 of the Constitution states that “all citizens are equal before the law,” then what happens to the head of the judge who commits murder in violation of the law? If analyzing the epistemological cause for this type of “perverting the law to kill”, the judge does not understand the “universal” theory of “killing”. Therefore, in the “judicial” process of the “particular” case, judges create erroneous judgments and unfair cases “in accordance with the law”!

The entry for “universal” in the English–Chinese Dictionary of Western Philosophy explains, “Since Plato and Aristotle, the debate about the nature and status of universals has run through the whole history of philosophy.” The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy states, “universal. See METAPHYSICS”.

To this day, do we still adhere to Aristotle’s metaphysics and oppose the “separation theory” of “universals” and “particulars”?

3. We Advocate the Universality of “Informationism”

3.1. The Onesidedness of Wiener’s “Three Element Theory” of Cosmic Elements

In “Informationism: From a Social Perspective to a Worldview”, Xiao Feng stated that there are two usages of Informationism in English: (1) in poetry, it is used to describe the common tendencies of a group of Scottish poets; (2) in philosophy, it is considered a new philosophical trend. “From the perspective of the Chinese world language, it is relatively reasonable to distinguish ‘Informationism’ from the three major fields of ‘social outlook’, ‘literary outlook’, and ‘philosophical outlook’, generally reflecting the different meanings of ‘Informationism’.” He said: ‘The worldview of informationism in philosophy’ is based on people’s trichotomy ‘of the phenomena that exist in this world, that is, the belief that material, energy, and information are the three major components of the world. If a certain philosophical viewpoint regards one of these as the most basic element, it forms “materialism”, “energyism”, and “informationism”, respectively. “Informationism” is nothing more than an abbreviation of “Informationism”, which can also be abbreviated as “Credibility (Information) Theory” [3].

As mentioned above, Xiao Feng proposed three “monism(s)” about the constituent elements of the universe: material monism, energy monism, and information monism. To explain “Informationism” in this way is clearly “misreading” and “misunderstanding”. If we advocate “information monism” now, it comes to an end like the “idealism” of the past because so-called “naked information” that does not require a material carrier does not exist at all. Moreover, the paradigm of information science can only be applied to the field of information and cannot replace the paradigm of physical science to “do something for others“ and explain the existence and laws of material and energy.

Wiener proposed the idea of the trinity of “material, energy, and information” [4], which presupposes “the primacy of material”. However, logically, the direct “corollary” of Wiener’s theory of the “three elements” of the universe is that the “energy” of physics can not only explain the laws of motion of “material”, but also explain the evolutionary laws and “non-conservation phenomena” of “information”. However, in practice, using the concepts and principles of physics can only explain the “material characteristics” in the processes of communication, control, computation, and robotics and cannot explain the “information characteristics” in the processes of basic informatics and human and social informatics. This “Wiener’s inference” error stems from the inherent shortcomings of Wiener’s “three elements theory”: (1) the wrong positioning of the concept of “information”; (2) the lack of a concept of “power” in information evolution.

3.2. What Is Informationism?

In order to overcome the dilemma of Wiener’s inference, we advocate: (1) defining the “material-information duality” of all things in the universe; (2) promoting the status of “information” on an equal footing with “material”, and recognizing the “dichotomy” between the information world and the material world; (3) Adding a concept of “information energy” that corresponds to “material energy” (i.e., “energy” in physics); (4) Using material energy to explain the material and its motion, and using information and information energy to explain information and its evolution; (5) The “quaternism” of “material, material energy; information, information energy” integrates and explains nature, society, and thought. The simplified popular version of the “quaternism” is “matter, energy; information, intelligence”. Intelligence, first of all, is human intelligence, as well as animal intelligence, life intelligence, machine intelligence (artificial intelligence), and so on.

It is well-known that the interrelation and interaction between the “material” and “immaterial” (“body” and “mind”) in the universe has been a difficult problem that Western science and philosophy have not solved since Plato and Descartes. However, contemporary information technology, information products, information engineering, and the information industry have solved this problem at the “technological” level of computers, mobile phones, the Internet, robots, and artificial intelligence. The goal of theoretical informatics is to solve the problem of “only information technology, no information science” based on information technology. If establishing and developing an information philosophy based on “Informationism”, and proposing a philosophical “ontological commitment” of “information”, which is the research object of the “immaterial”, then we can easily explain the basic facts that these two worlds are opposed and dependent on each other, both interrelated and interacting with each other.

We can define “Informationism”: this theory holds that everything in the universe has a “material-information duality”, with no “material” without information and no “information” without carriers; all existence, processes, dynamics, laws, and mechanisms in the universe have a “duality” [5]. It acknowledges the rationality of all-natural scientific concepts, principles, and methods; however, the scope of its application is limited to the “material” side of natural and man-made things. It states that “information” and “information energy” are concepts corresponding to “material” and “material energy”. “Information phenomena in human society, the world of artificial “ideal products”, and classic texts in the history of human thought can only be explained using the “information science” of information phenomena. It advocates that all-natural, social, and thinking phenomena in the universe can be explained in the “fusion” of information science into natural science. The concepts of Informationism and Physicism are opposite: Meta-Informatics corresponds to Aristotle’s Meta-Physics; Physicism is the thinking behind physical science, rejecting the existence of “immaterial”; Informationism is the thinking behind information science and recognizing the science and philosophy of “material” phenomena.

Obviously, “Informationism” is not an upgraded version of “idealism” and monism in the information age. The division of material and information in the form of “A and non-A” supports dialectics. What if “one divides into one” and there is no other branch with whom to form a “dialect” and “integrate into one”? Western philosophy has led by Aristotle’s “Meta-Physics”, yet does not accept dialectics at all, which is the root cause.

3.3. The Universal Applicability of Informationism

We believe that Informationism is universally applicable to the interpretation of natural, social, and thinking phenomena. In the “discipline informatization” of natural science, physical informatics, chemical informatics, bioinformatics, geographic informatics, and so on have emerged. In the “discipline informatization” of the Humanities and social sciences, we first applied the worldview and methodology of theoretical informatics to “psychology” to obtain “information psychology”. The approach of information psychology has the universal significance of disciplinary informatization; therefore, we applied theoretical informatics to law, ethics, dissemination science, linguistics, and political science and received corresponding good results. Due to space limitations, we cannot elaborate here. We are willing to discuss with scholars in relevant disciplines and welcome questions and criticisms of our views.

4. Promoting the Spirit of the Times of “Informationism”

4.1. Non Reductive Physicalism and “Hylomorphism” Cannot Rescue the Fatal Flaw of Physicalism

After physicalism was questioned and refuted, and its main assumptions and basic propositions were in chaos, some scholars put forward two “alternative” theoretical schemes of “Non-reductive Physicalism” and “Hylomorphism” in order to save traditional physicalism from the dilemma of reductionism.

The kind of “reduction” that non-reductive physicalism “abandons” no longer adheres to the following path of reduction in “language”:

language of psychological phenomena → language of physiological phenomena → language of physical phenomena.

However, it adheres to the following path of reduction in its “ontology”:

spiritual phenomena → phenomena of physical particle motion

It still advocates that there is no special “spiritual entity” behind spiritual phenomena. In this way, the so-called “non-reduction” is not really a “non-reduction” but a ‘weak reduction’. It has not abandoned the basic position of physicalism and clearly cannot overcome the drawbacks of “ontological reduction” [6].

In Aristotle’s “Four Causes Theory”, the foundation is “material causes” and “formal causes”. It effectively mainly uses substance and form to explain the birth and death, increase and decrease, and movement processes of natural and artificial material products. After the concept of “information” was emphasized in academia and society, scholars who advocated for “hylomorphism” believed that this theory was even more effective than “information theory” because form is the core of in-form-action, and the concept of form is broader than the scope of information [7]. We believe that all things in the universe have a “material-information duality”, and information is an “immaterial” being. The information contains all “Immaterial Being”, and any “form” of “material” is only a part. The application scope of hylomorphism does not exceed the scope of “material” and it cannot even explain the mechanism of biological genetic material (genetic DNA). Moreover, the “intangible culture” of humanity, especially institutional culture and spiritual culture (religion, philosophy, and science), has its “material” as human “language and written symbols”, and its “form” is “speech”, “various applied literature”, “academic papers”, “works”, and various media and film works, etc. The explanatory power of “hylomorphism” for them is almost zero. Hylomorphists hope to help physicalism, but “ideals are full, reality is bony”.

4.2. The Solid Foundation of Physicalism for Hundreds of Years, Has Been Shaken, and Its Building Is Leaning and Fall Down

“Information” is one of the most frequently used words in today’s society. When smartphones and the Internet cannot be left without a moment, and when big data and artificial intelligence become products and resources, all members of society have become producers, sellers, and consumers of certain information products. Anonymous online violence has become an “information killer”, causing people to tangle, depression, and suicide. We are not only “biological people” but also “information people”. Information technology, information engineering, information products, and the information industry are developing rapidly with each passing day. The rise of “informationism” in the unified world of “physicalism” could inevitably lead to a trend of widespread responses where a single spark ignites a prairie fire.

The author of this paper believes that regarding the spirit of the times after the “hundred schools of thought contend” in Ancient Greece, it is the “gods” in the Middle Ages, the “material” in the industrial society, and the “information” in today’s society. We acknowledge directly the “immaterial nature” of information and elevate it to the height of the “spirit of the times”. After achieving the “paradigm change” in information science, the edifice of physicalism could inevitably collapse. With the informatization of the discipline, the worldview methodology of information science seems set to be constantly popularized and permeated in the Humanities and social sciences. A situation where natural science and information science “collaborate” to explain nature, society, and thinking will be formed.

4.3. The Call of the Times—Realizing the Transformation of the Discipline Paradigm from Physicism to Informationism

The information age of mankind has arrived. We must recognize the “information world”, “information life”, and “information killer”. A law professor from a key university went to the Provincial People’s Hospital for an examination and found that all medical indicators were “qualified”, but the person “died of depression”. Every year, hundreds of school students are unaccounted for, and tens of thousands of people commit suicide. We need to correct the physicalism worldview and methodology, establish an informationism discipline paradigm, calmly respond to various possible options, and avoid the troubles of various entanglements and depression.

Just like “Deep-Blue” defeating human chess players, ChatGPT is approaching the peak of human intelligence. We have completed the transformation from a physicalism discipline paradigm to an informationism discipline paradigm, and it is possible to adapt to the challenges of the “strong artificial intelligence” scientific and “technological situation”.