You're right, money cannot be copied.
Neither can plums.
But I wasn't saying money can't be copied. I said it can be copied, and that it's regularly copied, and that it creates inflation when it's copied. Both money and plums can be copied, it's just that we don't yet have the technology to copy plums except through their own self-copying technology.
I don't think the ability to copy matter is any more or less metaphysical than lighting up or extinguishing stars - if anything the latter should be easier, in both cases what you need is extreme quantities of energy.
When our technology exceeds the technology of biology we'll be able to copy plums just as easily as we copy games today. And it's a whole lot closer than being able to alter stars, I'd give it 50 years at most, there are people today working on the technology that would allow the molecular copying of every object, we know how to do it, it's theoretically possible, but igniting a dead star breaks the second law of thermodynamics. You don't need to break any laws of physics to copy a physical object molecule for molecule, but you do to bring to life dead stars. Maybe you just aren't that familiar with the state of developing technology, but building stuff on the atomic scale is one of the fastest growing areas of technology right now.
What I am saying is that: as long as you are incapable of copying matter, anything that you can copy will be regarded and defined as information. That is what the word information means.
What? Why is that what the word information means? I've never heard information used to mean anything that can be copied exactly until this thread.
Only when you will have invented that machine will plums and other material objects become actual information. The meaning of words is not what things are, it is what they represent to us withing a certain cultural framework.
That sounds a bit crazy to me. How can something not be information now and become information later, merely because of the development of some ability? So plums are information to civlizations more advanced than ours, and games are not information to civilizations not yet advanced enough to copy computer data?
A plum, so far, is not information also because it cannot be comprehended by any known entity that is capable of comprehension - the database is simply too large. Or do you actually believe that the entire molecular structure of a plum can be comprehended by a person in the same way a source code of a program can be comprehended?
You don't need to comprehend something for it to be information. Many games are so complex that no one person can comprehend them. No one can keep all of a game's source code, resources, etc., in his mind, at least for games with rule sets more complex than a board game. If we could, we wouldn't need computers to run them, we could just play them in our heads.
Seriously, though, I wouldn't have a problem with you copying stuff that I wrote or a house that I built were that possible. I think if our society had a more sharing attitude, we wouldn't have a lot of the problems we have ended up with.
On a more fundamental level, though, we're talking about the difference between you remunerating me for a lost item, in terms of a sale, versus you remunerating me for time I chose to spend on creating something. I chose to spend time making something, and now I want to see a gain from that, but I've already made the thing that I set out to make. Whose responsibility is it then to give me additional benefits for that? We make it the purchaser's responsibility, in our society, but I find that a hard position to justify when it comes to something which I can't consider property. It seems to me like I'm putting restrictions on someone else's behavior until I get something that I feel I deserve.
Haha, don't worry, I've read the complete works of Max Stirner, Nietzsche, and Ayn Rand, so questioning altruism isn't a big deal to me.
I think a sharing attitude only comes when you have something to share, and piracy isn't about sharing your own stuff, it's about sharing someone else's stuff. I'm not saying it's not a good idea to let people copy things, just that it's a good idea to ask permission first, rather than saying anyone should be allowed to copy anything without permission. Sharing by force (and if you believe in IP, which as you mentioned earlier doesn't necessarily exist but doesn't exist any less than other social structures of property, piracy is a use of force) isn't sharing in the classical sense.