|
Author
|
Topic: Granville Sewell and the Second Law of Thermodynamics
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 14. March 2007 22:52
Mel
Screen names are nothing but licence to engage in character assassination, personal denigration and mindless rhetoric, confident that one will never be held responsible for such reprehensible activities. 2ndclass is an habitue of After the Bar Closes where absolutely nothing of significance has ever surfaced. Need I say more? Visit that pathetic sewing circle and mutual admiration society and draw your own conclusions as I have done. It is the last bastion of Darwinian mysticism which is all that it has ever been. It is an intellectual desert.
I love it so!
I regard it as a cheap shot to mention Martin as 2ndclass just did. Martin has contributed much of value here at "brainstorms" and just happens to be my primary ally here and elsewhere. We have even been banned from the same forums for exactly the same reasons, forums where 2ndclass still freely posts. As far as I can tell 2ndclass has contributed very little of substance here or anywhere else. Like his crony Alan Fox, his role has been largely to disrupt any deviation from the Darwinian atheist agenda. Fox finally managed to get himself banned here at "brainstorms." Maybe 2ndclass can do the same.
Furthermore, Martin is not an alias. That happens to be his name.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 15. March 2007, 09:44: Message edited by: John A. Davison ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 15. March 2007 06:13
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=45f91a7f311a3392;act=ST;f=14;t=1274;st=13320
In support of my claim that After The Bar Closes is an intellectual desert and worse, please visit the above link. I call your attention in particular to the comments by Arden Chatfield, now Charden Atfield, in his message March 14,2007, 22:50. where he found it necessary to use the "F" word as well as "old" and "senile" in describing me. He has also insulted Martin, knowing full well that neither of us can respond there.
Also please peruse, on the same installment, the comment by Kristine on March 14, 2007, 20:05, in which she apparently challenges my claim that P.Z. Meyers deleted the whole thread in which he had disemvoweled the messages by myself and Martin. Apparently she approves of such practices. I invite both to post here where Martin and I can respond to their hateful, mindless vitriol. I am confident they will be neither disemvoweled nor deleted.
I love it so!
It doesn't get any better than this.
"A past evolution is indeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 15. March 2007 07:12
It is probably not going to be possible to carry on a meaningful discussion here because clearly neither 2C nor melvin have any actual knowledge of the subject being discussed and john is not even interested in the topic.
However, it may be useful to address at least one of the silly misconception mentioned above. Information is not, can not be and has never been a single abstract mathematical concept or construct. The general concept of information arises from the distinction between 'data' and the 'meaning of data'. Mathematicians and scientists have developed formal definitions of the information/data distinctions that are useful in performing certain types of analysis. The phone companies and data transmission companies, for example, have an interest in measuring how much information can be preserved given transmission through an imperfect or noisy communications channel.
I am not personally an expert on this type of analysis, but I understand that the definitions of information being used are useful for the type of analysis being performed and the analysis is very useful in designing communications channels. It is also my understanding that it is recognized as an accepted principle that closed communications channels can not create information (although if the channels are noisy they can loose information).
As a continuation of the analysis of communcations channels, scientists and mathematicians have attempted to analyze information in computers or logic machines. At least one of the questions addressed by this analysis is whether these logic machines are capable of generating information.
If you recognize that computers operate on two types of input- data input and input in the form of programs, then it would appear that computers or logic machines are not fundamentally different than communications channels. Therefore using the concepts and definitions that worked in analyzing communications channels, computers should not be able to create information. Esoteric random number generators, despite the silly suggestion from 2C do not create information.
The above would be a good starting point for a serious discussion of the question of information creation.
The above should be the starting point for
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 15. March 2007 09:57
Life Engineer
You are right that I am not interested in the subjects beig discussed on this thread. I have only one overbearing passion and that is to determine the MECHANISM of a past evolution. As a physiologist it is only the MECHANISM that matters to me.
Let me add however that I am confident that no computer program can ever generate anything more than what was front loaded into the program initially. That is the mandatory and indispensible feature of the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 15. March 2007 10:56
Melvin: quote:
But 2ndclass would agree I hope that these important studies don’t make information a mathematical concept any more than fractal models of clouds make those physical structures mathematical concepts.
Ah, but there's the difference. Information can be analyzed and manipulated just like numbers and equations, without reference to physical laws or to any real or hypothetical physical system. If I say "What is the kinetic energy of a 2 kg object traveling at 3 m/s?", the answer depends on the natural laws of our universe. But if I say "What is 1/2 * 2000 * 3^2?", it doesn't. By the same token, we can talk about information as a pure abstraction without reference to anything physical.
quote:
I am trying to pin down an operational definition of the terms “useful” and “meaningful”. 2ndclass, would you agree that the information stored in DNA is useful and meaningful? If so, what makes it useful and why is it meaningful? And, it is useful and meaningful to whom or what? Is the mRNA a well designed “bot”, as you might call it, programmed to respond to specific stimuli or is it more like a pin ball slammed about by forces it can’t recognize nor respond to while endlessly repeating vague parabolic curves?
Well, I'm wondering all that myself, except for the last question, which I'm not at all equipped to address. I don't know whether anyone has tried to formalize the notions of meaning and utility, but to me it seems a daunting and problematic task.
It's obvious that some DNA sequences result in reproduction and some don't, and it's tautologically true that the former sequences will be around longer than the latter. So we could measure a sequence's usefulness by its longevity in the real world. But then we're faced with the issue that there are rocks that have been around longer than any species. Is the information in these rocks more "useful" than the genome of a viable species?
And as far as meaning, if I understand correctly, most DNA is non-coding. We could say that only DNA that gets expressed in the phenotype is meaningful. But that seems like an ad hoc definition that's specific to DNA rather than general to all information.
As one man's trash is another's treasure, it seems that all information is useful and meaningful in some contexts but not in others. It's easy to posit a context in which the sequence fdhsuweioafjdiljfweioh is useful and meaningful, and just as easy to posit a context in which the Gettysburg Address is pure gibberish.
These are my random thoughts. I would be interested in reading yours.
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 15. March 2007 11:03
John: quote:
Furthermore, Martin is not an alias. That happens to be his name.
Ah, well in that case, he certainly doesn't belong on your list of cowardly identity-hiders.
My name is Robert. I guess I'm off your list now, too.
It's always a joy to talk with you, John. It makes me nostalgic for the playground taunts of the 2nd grade, complete with transposing the first letters of people's first and last names.
[ 15. March 2007, 11:06: Message edited by: 2ndclass ]
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 15. March 2007 11:44
LE: quote:
However, it may be useful to address at least one of the silly misconception mentioned above. Information is not, can not be and has never been a single abstract mathematical concept or construct.
Where is it mentioned above that information is a single abstract mathematical concept or construct?
quote:
It is also my understanding that it is recognized as an accepted principle that closed communications channels can not create information (although if the channels are noisy they can loose information).
If you're referring to Shannon's model, then you're correct. Shannon defines channels such that they never generate information.
quote:
As a continuation of the analysis of communcations channels, scientists and mathematicians have attempted to analyze information in computers or logic machines. At least one of the questions addressed by this analysis is whether these logic machines are capable of generating information.
Who are the scientists and mathematicians who are asking this question? Names? References? Or are you just making this up?
quote:
If you recognize that computers operate on two types of input- data input and input in the form of programs, then it would appear that computers or logic machines are not fundamentally different than communications channels. Therefore using the concepts and definitions that worked in analyzing communications channels, computers should not be able to create information. Esoteric random number generators, despite the silly suggestion from 2C do not create information.
Before, you seemed to be defining "channel" the same as Shannon. If so, then modeling a computer as a channel makes no sense at all. Shannon's channels do not manipulate or re-encode information, they merely add noise. Algorithmic processing is treated as corruption as far as Shannon's channels are concerned.
If, on the other hand, you model the computer as the sender, then the "message" part of Shannon's model is the output of the computer. Does that mean that the computer generated the message from scratch? Shannon's model doesn't address that question, but if the computer has a quantum random number generator, then it can crank out information that is causally disconnected from any input. In other words, it's a closed system generating information. The fact that the information has no "meaning" is irrelevant in Shannon's model, and in fact, randomly generated data is generally more information-rich than what we would call meaningful data.
Or maybe you're not referring to Shannon's model at all. If so, it would be nice if you would define the words "information" and "channel" for us.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 15. March 2007 13:31
Well come on 2ndclass Robert. Tell us your last name with your middle initial so I can transpose you too. Tell Martin and I where we may find your evolution publications if you have any which I doubt very much. In the meantime please stay at your home base. You, like Alan Fox, are nothing but a troublemaker in my book. If I receive any more lip from you or if Martin does I will really expose you. You are incredibly vulnerable. Trust me. It will be a pleasure.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 15. March 2007 14:12
John: quote:
Tell Martin and I where we may find your evolution publications if you have any which I doubt very much.
I have none. I know very little about evolution, or biology in general. Fortunately, this thread is supposedly about thermodynamics.
quote:
If I receive any more lip from you or if Martin does I will really expose you. You are incredibly vulnerable. Trust me. It will be a pleasure.
Like most bullies, your threats are completely empty.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 15. March 2007 15:18
It is interesting to note that 2C is incapable of dealing with mathematical logic which leads one to believe he is simply another grad student who learned how to do google searches. In his flawed logic, a closed communications channel with a random nubmer generator generates information, but of course he has no support for this silly claim.
He also is apparently unable to recognize that a closed logic system with defined input and output is no different logically than a communications channel.
His inability to grasp or deal with logic means he lacks the ability to contribute to a potentially interesting discussion. But more than likely he is not posting here because of any interest in productive discussion.
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 15. March 2007 16:25
LE: quote:
It is interesting to note that 2C is incapable of dealing with mathematical logic which leads one to believe he is simply another grad student who learned how to do google searches.
Shame on me for using Google to find my references. I should be making stuff up and providing no references at all, like you.
quote:
In his flawed logic, a closed communications channel with a random nubmer generator generates information, but of course he has no support for this silly claim.
No, I said, "Shannon defines channels such that they never generate information." As for RNGs as a source of information, I've explained it repeatedly and given a quantitative example, which you're free to address at any time. But you won't. You'll continue to ignore it, just as you ignore all specific questions and calls for references.
quote:
He also is apparently unable to recognize that a closed logic system with defined input and output is no different logically than a communications channel.
I can probably guess what you mean by "closed logic system" and "defined input and output", but maybe you can tell me whether your definition of "communications channel" is the same as Shannon's. If not, maybe you can tell me what it means. And maybe you can tell me what you mean by "information". Is that asking too much?
Or you can just tell me where you learned this stuff, and I'll read the same sources, which will save you a lot of time. What do you say?
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 16. March 2007 05:41
I find it hilarious that 2ndclass describes me as a bully. You want bullies? Try DaveScot aka David Springer, P.Z. Meyers, Richard Dawkins, Wes Ellsberry and the whole damn Discovery Institute. These people have all banned me from their forums and except for Meyers, who apparently doesn't know any better, won't even mention my name because they are scared to death of me and my sources. How can I be a bully when I am not allowed to speak except right here at "brainstorms." I wonder how much longer even that will be allowed. I am already not permitted to introduce a thread.
Not only am I not a bully, I have gone out of my way to invite others, coining a word in the process, to -
SOCKITTOME
P.Z. Meyers (check Pharyngula) and self-named 2ndclass seem to be responding favorably to my request. So does Alan Fox over at After The Bar Closes (check that as well). God bless them all.
I'll take all the publicity I can muster. There is no such thing as bad publicity when you know you are in the right.
It is hard to believe isn't it?
It doesn't get any better than this.
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 16. March 2007, 05:43: Message edited by: John A. Davison ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 16. March 2007 06:32
To find the comments by Alan Fox (and Kristine) you will have to back up to page 445 of the Uncommon Descent thread at After The Bar Closes. Drivel flows so fast there that it tends to be forgotten but not by me! Can you imagine 445 pages of nonsense? It is right there for all to see. Woops, 446 pages.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemontrable"
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 16. March 2007 06:53
2C- you need to explain to us mortals how it is possible for a closed system to generate information but a communications channel can have no such ability. Certainly a communications channel must have some capacity to trasform information. What are you suggesting is the difference between a closed processing system and a closed communications channel that permits one to generate information but not the other.
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 16. March 2007 11:08
LE: quote:
2C- you need to explain to us mortals how it is possible for a closed system to generate information but a communications channel can have no such ability. Certainly a communications channel must have some capacity to trasform information. What are you suggesting is the difference between a closed processing system and a closed communications channel that permits one to generate information but not the other.
That's how Shannon defines his model and his notion of information. Information comes from the sender by definition, and any changes introduced by the channel are considered deterioration by definition.
I've asked you twice whether your definition of channel is the same as Shannon's. Not only do you not answer the question, you don't even acknowledge it. This seems to be your MO.
A week ago I showed quantitatively that a sender containing an RNG generates information. The RNG in the example was quantum-based, so the sequence generated is causally disconnected from any input. I've pointed to this example many times. Again, not only have you not addressed it, you haven't even acknowledged it. I've also repeatedly asked what you mean by information and for a reference explaining your notion of it. Again, not only have you not answered it, you haven't even acknowledged it. Even when I ask point blank the simple yes-or-no question of whether you can provide such a reference, you pretend I didn't ask.
You have a long track record of doing this. See, for instance this thread where you're repeatedly asked whether you've read the paper in question. It's a simple yes-or-no question, but you pretend that nobody has asked it.
If you don't want to answer a question, at least have the guts, integrity, and civility to acknowledge it. It's called responsiveness, and it's a key to honest dialogue.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
