Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Gitt’s First Law of Information.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by phank View Post
    And I suppose if you poke at a pebble and it moves away from your finger, the poke is the symbol, and the moving away is the intelligent response. The pebble has decoded and responded to the information in the poke (or flow of water or wind, or pull of gravity, or whatever else might inform a pebble that it should move).

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Paprika View Post
      Do you have a problem with how gravity decodes information?

      K54

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
        Do you have a problem with how gravity decodes information?

        K54
        It's all explained right here:

        http://www.ask.com/wiki/Intelligent_...apn&ap=ask.com

        Intelligent Falling proposes that the scientific explanation of gravitational force cannot explain all aspects of the phenomenon, so credence should be given to the idea that things fall because a higher intelligence is moving them. Furthermore, IF asserts that theories explaining gravity are not internally consistent nor mathematically reconcilable with quantum mechanics, making gravity a "theory in crisis". IF also makes the claim that gravity is "only a theory", parodying the claims made by creationists regarding the theoretical status of evolution. Pretend IF apologists advocate that IF should be taught in school along with the theory of gravity so that students can make "an informed decision" on the subject in accordance with demands to "teach the controversy".

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by phank View Post
          Intelligent Falling also poses a philosophical/theological problem when bad things happen, e.g., defenestration.

          The problem is akin to a theodicy. Why would the Intelligence behind IF allow death by defenestration?

          K54

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Roy View Post
            Gitt would no doubt argue that the information comes not from your material brain, but from your immaterial intelligence.

            Roy
            Try this out: Information is for all practical purposes simply a state that exists. But We as intelligent beings decide to correlate two (or more) states, with one element being represented by the other.

            The symbols I am writing contain information because they represent words/sounds that we as humans make which in many cases also represent other real states. These correlations exist in our minds, they are mappings that allow us to function.

            Virtually any state in the universe can be correlated to some other state. And these correlations are generally many to 1 mappings. The mapping itself does not represent the entire state of the object it represents. The correlation efficiency of my mapping tends to define information capacity, but information capacity does not by itself imply information. That is, 64k bits has a certain a fixed information capacity. And any fully random sequence of 64k bits can carry that much information. But if no correlation for that sequence is defined, then it has 0 information in the sense we humans tend to define it. Though in the shannon sense, it's entropy or potential information content will be about as high as it can get.

            DNA is a state of molecules. And in the right environment it will though a series of chemical reactions typically produce some sort of living organism. In this way the DNA state a direct encoding of an ideal state of the resulting living thing. But the environment also has input into what that living thing will become.

            So DNA does contain information, in that it is a state, and that state directly correlates to another state - the living thing it creates.

            But everything in the universe has a state. That state could be seen as the unfolding of the universe, and one could I suppose say then that all the information in the universe pre-existed its formation somehow. This would be consistent with God imparting into the universe all the information that it could have - consistent with information not being created.

            However, this is very different from what ID (and Gitt etc) try to imply. The state of the universe is not static, and new states evolve from previous states. Each new state contains new potential encodings to try to represent it, and hence new information. So new information most clearly can result from the ongoing evolution of the universe - except in the sense that the new state is the result of the old state. But again, that is not the sense these guys are going for.

            So there is nothing fundamental about information that can keep new 'information' (a new state that results in a different living being, or a different correlation between to states) from evolving from a previous state except for what is restricted by the set of potential state transitions of the fundamental processes which drive the evolution. This is what determines what is and is not possible in terms of 'new' information. There is no mysterious property of 'information' that can be leveraged to do an end run around that evaluation.

            Jim
            My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

            If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

            This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

            Comment


            • #21
              Software is hardware (material) creating something non-material. Just think of something like World of Warcraft. There is no actual world out there to play in. It is just a huge database and software being generated by computer hardware.

              Comment


              • #22
                I know that I have had conversations about this on the old boards, but I wanted to throw my .02 in the ring.

                It seems to me that any thing that exists has properties. This is not information or even data (there is a subtle difference for my purposes). However, a property is quantifiable, qualifiable, measurable, etc. Properties are things that can be put through a "knowledge matrix" whereby we assess the properties and create "data". In this sense, data is not information because it lacks a key component (getting there).

                Information is shared data. As such, information requires a sender and a receiver. It also requires a transmission medium and an encoding/decoding process that both sender and receiver understand. Data has no transmission medium requirement and can be assessed directly without the need for encoding or decoding.

                In nature, we experience properties and amass data. We share data (as information) within ourselves and with others. We see it happening all over the place. The question, for me, amounts to whether encoding and decoding systems arise through mechanistic processes without being guided by intelligence. We have multiple examples of encoding systems being developed by intelligence. Do we have multiple examples of encoding systems that were clearly not developed by intelligence?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Alsharad View Post
                  I know that I have had conversations about this on the old boards, but I wanted to throw my .02 in the ring.

                  It seems to me that any thing that exists has properties. This is not information or even data (there is a subtle difference for my purposes). However, a property is quantifiable, qualifiable, measurable, etc. Properties are things that can be put through a "knowledge matrix" whereby we assess the properties and create "data". In this sense, data is not information because it lacks a key component (getting there).

                  Information is shared data. As such, information requires a sender and a receiver. It also requires a transmission medium and an encoding/decoding process that both sender and receiver understand. Data has no transmission medium requirement and can be assessed directly without the need for encoding or decoding.

                  In nature, we experience properties and amass data. We share data (as information) within ourselves and with others. We see it happening all over the place. The question, for me, amounts to whether encoding and decoding systems arise through mechanistic processes without being guided by intelligence. We have multiple examples of encoding systems being developed by intelligence. Do we have multiple examples of encoding systems that were clearly not developed by intelligence?
                  Evolution
                  Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                  Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                  But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                  go with the flow the river knows . . .

                  Frank

                  I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                    Evolution
                    Please show how evolution is an encoding system. Alternatively, you can provide the multiple encoding systems that exist inside Evolution. For my part, your answer is too broad and insufficiently explained. Furthermore, one who subscribes to ID or Theistic Evolution can say that Evolution contains encoding systems that clearly WERE developed by intelligence.

                    Can you demonstrate that the encoding systems in Evolution could not have possibly been developed by intelligence?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Alsharad View Post
                      Do we have multiple examples of encoding systems that were clearly not developed by intelligence?
                      Yes.

                      The spectral lines in starlight encode information about the elements comprising the star.

                      The width of tree rings encodes information about the climate (wet or dry) in the years the tree was growing.

                      The water molecule isotopic compositions of 16O and 18O in ice core samples encode information about the climate in the years the layers were laid down.

                      The natural selection part of evolution encodes information about the local environment in the genome as it filters phenotypic variations. This information accumulates and is carrier forward to future generations as heritable traits.

                      Encoding doesn't have to involve an intelligence.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Alsharad View Post

                        Can you demonstrate that the encoding systems in Evolution could not have possibly been developed by intelligence?
                        You can't prove a negative.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Alsharad View Post
                          Please show how evolution is an encoding system. Alternatively, you can provide the multiple encoding systems that exist inside Evolution. For my part, your answer is too broad and insufficiently explained. Furthermore, one who subscribes to ID or Theistic Evolution can say that Evolution contains encoding systems that clearly WERE developed by intelligence.
                          I am going by pure science, not my belief, which is God Creates by natural methods not the inferior Intelligent Design methods of an engineer. Theist can say, of course, but the fact is evolution stands as a natural encoding system by the evidence. For that matter there is no evidence nor falsifiable hypothesis that encoding occurs in nature from an outside Intelligent Designer.

                          Can you demonstrate that the encoding systems in Evolution could not have possibly been developed by intelligence?
                          You cannot prove the negative.
                          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                          go with the flow the river knows . . .

                          Frank

                          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                            Yes.

                            The spectral lines in starlight encode information about the elements comprising the star.

                            The width of tree rings encodes information about the climate (wet or dry) in the years the tree was growing.

                            The water molecule isotopic compositions of 16O and 18O in ice core samples encode information about the climate in the years the layers were laid down.

                            The natural selection part of evolution encodes information about the local environment in the genome as it filters phenotypic variations. This information accumulates and is carrier forward to future generations as heritable traits.

                            Encoding doesn't have to involve an intelligence.
                            These examples would be data, not encoding. There must be a transmitter and receptor along with a medium. At this point, all you have is properties that have been run through a knowledge matrix. I apparently have not been clear in my explanation of the subtle difference between data and information. By encoding, I mean that data has to be translated into a common "language" that the sender and receiver have to both understand. Also we can assess data from non-physical things, like ideas and dreams.

                            In regards to not proving a negative, information is non-physical in that itself cannot be measured. While it is immaterial, it seems that the laws of logic still apply and you can prove a negative with logic. However, I can rephrase this way:

                            Can you demonstrate that the encoding systems in evolution necessarily arose without intelligence?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              I am going by pure science, not my belief, which is God Creates by natural methods not the inferior Intelligent Design methods of an engineer. Theist can say, of course, but the fact is evolution stands as a natural encoding system by the evidence.
                              You haven't demonstrated how evolution is an encoding system. DNA replication is an encoding system. Languages are encoding systems. Encryption algorithms are encoding systems.
                              Additionally, since the existence of the encoding systems in living organisms as having a non-intelligent origin is the focus of the argument, if either side of the argument points to it as evidence of their conclusions, then they are begging the question. Are there any non-biological encoding systems that exist in nature that necessarily arose without intelligence? Have we ever documented a natural encoding system coming into being without intelligence and not from a pre-existing encoding system?

                              I don't know. I am putting it out there with people that know a lot more than me. I am just playing with the idea and being the devil's advocate. I don't necessarily believe what I am writing. ;)

                              For that matter there is no evidence nor falsifiable hypothesis that encoding occurs in nature from an outside Intelligent Designer.
                              True dat. And at this point, I am not sure that my line of reasoning belongs in Natural Science 301. It probably needs to be re-posted in some Philosophy forum. Let me know if you think that I should re-post there.
                              Last edited by Alsharad; 10-29-2014, 09:40 PM. Reason: Didn't finish my thought

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Alsharad View Post
                                I know that I have had conversations about this on the old boards, but I wanted to throw my .02 in the ring.

                                It seems to me that any thing that exists has properties. This is not information or even data (there is a subtle difference for my purposes). However, a property is quantifiable, qualifiable, measurable, etc. Properties are things that can be put through a "knowledge matrix" whereby we assess the properties and create "data". In this sense, data is not information because it lacks a key component (getting there).

                                Information is shared data. As such, information requires a sender and a receiver. It also requires a transmission medium and an encoding/decoding process that both sender and receiver understand. Data has no transmission medium requirement and can be assessed directly without the need for encoding or decoding.

                                In nature, we experience properties and amass data. We share data (as information) within ourselves and with others. We see it happening all over the place. The question, for me, amounts to whether encoding and decoding systems arise through mechanistic processes without being guided by intelligence. We have multiple examples of encoding systems being developed by intelligence. Do we have multiple examples of encoding systems that were clearly not developed by intelligence?
                                Well certainly that's one way information is generated - by a sender and a receiver, that is, by sharing data.

                                However, it seems to me that if meaning can be extracted from something, then information (which in one way or another, is data) must be there by one means or another. Can you get meaning without having information and can you get information without having data?

                                So if you can extract meaning from a rock, by, say, the elements it is composed of and their arrangements then that rock must contain information. Presumably that information was put there by a natural process.

                                Like I say, I think Gitt's definition is a contrivance, desingned to exclude evolution from being called science, simply because he sets up this definition for information, then tries to use it to make evolution by a natural process, impossible.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                136 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X