|
Author
|
Topic: What information is not.
|
Zarathustra
Member
Member # 3407
|
posted 10. January 2007 20:39
This site purports to take a view of these topics from the "vantage point of various information- and design-theoretic models". I am still hopeful, in spite of the pollution that has come to pass hereabouts.
Matt, by his own admission, does not even know what information is, yet this has not deterred him from telling everyone what it must be. Being too idle to do any background reading in order to remedy his position of ignorance, he has resorted to repeating the same thing over and over, possibly because he has no other means to convince anyone. Alas, that method is not likely to succeed either.
For the benefit of our other, more genuine, readers, I shall explain why Matt's claim that information is "immaterial" does not lead to a conclusion that it exists in any kind of non-physical dimension.
In any system (i.e. collection) of physical objects, two things can be said to exist:
a) the physical properties of those objects, and
b) the state of that system at any particular time.
Anyone who cannot understand that a physical system has a "state" should stop reading now, since this web forum is clearly not intended for them.
Item b) is most salient; the state of any collection of physical entities is distinct from any physical property of them individually. This should be obvious. The state is not "material" in any way that Matt would understand, yet it exists nonetheless.
Any "information" that exists in a physical system necessarily depends on the continued existence of both the objects of that system and the means by which its state is recognised. This is true of all information systems, both mechanical and human.
To give a concrete example: Matt thinks that his DVD of "The Chronicles of Narnia" actually "contains" that information all by itself. This is risible. The state of the system required for the information to be available involves more objects than he is prepared to admit: a) the DVD, b) a mechanism to convert the bit-patterns into an AV signal, c) a device to transduce said signal into physical audio and visual stimuli, d) the perceptive/cognitive mechanisms in the human brain to interpret them according to the pre-existing model in that brain.
If any of the above components is permanently removed from the system, it can no longer be said that "The Chronicals of Narnia" are on the DVD, since all parts of the system must exist for the information to be retrieved. This is for the same reason that the information about goats on the Mesopotamian farmer's clay tablet is lost when no-one can read it.
Daniel begs to differ, with:
Smith: What other possible limitation can exist that would make that particular inference "unavailable"?
Let's see if Daniel is making false claims. Here is a color, using an encoding: 84, -3, 21.
Since Daniel asserts that the information is still there, he ought to be able to tell us what that color is in his next post. If he can't, it simply means that his argument is bankrupt. It will still be amusing to watch him evade this challenge.
Matt: For example, I am now observing that there are no elephants in my living room. I can see none.
Can we also conclude that you are also simultaneously observing the non-existence of Elvis, Mother Teresa of Calcutta, the Eiffel Tower, and Botswana? Normal people cannot observe things that do not exist. Perhaps Matt has "special powers" because he belongs to a cult that worships invisible super-beings, as he confessed to earlier. How many other things is he not seeing in his living room?
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 10. January 2007 20:59
Stephen and JT75,
Your claim then is that I am a “unified ontological unit which is composed of two very different substances, one material the other immaterial.”
Let me ask you then: When I die and the material part of my mental physical composite is six feet under, where exactly am I?
You might say (1) “You are no more.” This would be the case if the two were truly unified; one dies, the other dies.
You might say (2) “You are in the grave with the decomposing body.” This would be the case if the two different substances were inseparable and the immaterial was indestructible.
You might say (3) “You are somewhere else but you are not you anymore because part of you is gone.” This then is very nearly the same as (1).
I would say that the only thing that has changed is my circumstance. The short period of time in which I was an intimate inhabitant of my body is over. The sum total of my identity has not changed in the least. On the other hand, my situation has changed dramatically.
But wait! What of my memory? Can I truly be who I am if I lose all the information stored in my brain? This worry is based on an assumption that any information encoded in the bio-chemical configuration of my brain can’t exist apart from that storage facility. As Matt and Klaus have pointed out already, this is not a reasonable assumption, given our consensus that information is immaterial.
My father died of lung cancer 10 years ago. During his last month of suffering the effects of the disease combined with the effects of the morphine dramatically debilitated his physical performance. I was with him about 20 hours a day. His flesh could do almost nothing. But the flesh counts for nothing. There are neither words to describe the depth of our relationship nor any physical representation of the value of our fellowship during his final days on this earth. No electro-chemical manipulation of my brain could induce the joy we experienced as he slipped out of time and into an eternity with God. The naturalist, with all his philosophy and mathematical models, can’t begin to configure the complex workings of the Holy Spirit toward the beloved created man for they are subsumed in the revelation of the person of Jesus Christ. The good news is that this revelation is available to all men and women.
I apologize if this post pulls you all too far away from the comfort of the bench of science. However, one can’t seriously discuss the immaterial and not include talk of the Spirit of God.
2nd Class,
If in fact you have a calculator that can add or an arrangement of stones that form a circle, I encourage you to either, call the Smithsonian or post them on e-bay. You could make a mint on those items.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 10. January 2007 21:42
Zarathustra,
Too easy! White! And here is an encoding. Take the standard color wheel on MicroSoft Word. Rotate from the standard position an angle determined by the point [-3, 21]. Move along the terminal ray 84 mod 7. Which ever color hexagon you land on, that is the encoded color.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
Zarathustra
Member
Member # 3407
|
posted 10. January 2007 22:14
Melvin the Immaterial: Too easy! White! And here is an encoding. Take the standard color wheel on MicroSoft Word. Rotate from the standard position an angle determined by the point [-3, 21]. Move along the terminal ray 84 mod 7. Which ever color hexagon you land on, that is the encoded color.
Nice answer, Mel! It's a shame that it's not the right one. Daniel believes that the information is already available in what I provided, so we can confidently expect him to identify the correct color.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 10. January 2007 23:21
JT75,
In my earlier discussion on this subject I proposed a definition for Information:
"All that can be learned".
The core of this definition is the "can be" part. It means: "even if there are no 'learners'".
This is information in the absolute sense. Sure, memories can be lost, and photos and clay tablets destroyed, but the information that was once learned can always be learned again.
quote:
Z: Here is a color, using an encoding: 84, -3, 21.
Since Daniel asserts that the information is still there, he ought to be able to tell us what that color is in his next post.
It does not matter if I can decode your color. That is entirely irrelevant. If it's a color code, it's a color code. That in itself is information. Since you know the code, you can verify which color it codes for, but even if no one existed to verify this, it wouldn't change the fact that that is a color code. The original meaning can be lost, but anything that's lost can also be found.
And, to agree with Matt, it is an immaterial, non-physical entity all it's own. Can it be learned? Then it's information.
JT75 and Z,
What if I guess the meaning of the markings on the clay tablets? Have I just re-created the information? Or was it there all along just awaiting my discovery?
I'd argue for the latter.
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 11. January 2007 08:05
Zarathustra,
Wrong? I’m wrong? Who says I’m wrong?
You wrote:
quote:
Here is a color, using an encoding: 84, -3, 21.
Well, here is a color, white, using the encoding here described. Take the standard color wheel on MicroSoft Word. Rotate from the standard position an angle determined by the point [-3, 21]. Move along the terminal ray 84 mod 7. Which ever color hexagon you land on, that is the encoded color.
How could this possibly be wrong?
To quote the warden, “What we have here is a failure to communicate.”
Zarathustra had some information [color] he wanted to communicate. The information exists; Zarathustra knows what the color is. He attempted to communicate this information to others including Melvin the Immaterial. Melvin perceived a color but that color was inconsistent with the information intended to be communicated.
The above description is the only way in which Melvin could be wrong. The information always existed and in fact still exists. Even if Zarathustra dies and is no more, the information still exists. What would be missing in that case would be the ability to judge right from wrong.
This whole color game plays well for Matt’s argument.
Matt wrote:
quote:
Neither the brain nor any computer we could ever make will ever be able to perceive, translate, interpret or author/create something that is immaterial.
In order to perceive, translate, interpret or author/create information requires meaning. Meaning requires intent. Intent requires will and will is immaterial.
Perhaps what Zarathustra is truly attempting to communicate is that information can’t exist without the will to communicate it. After all, he is very pleased that none of us can identify the color he is thinking of based on his seemingly specific yet completely arbitrary clue. His will was to hide the information from us.
Melvin was wrong because Zarathustra was the author. Only he has the authority to pronounce right or wrong with respect to the color he decided was correct. Without an author, there is no correct information and thus no information at all. If the universe has no author, then no meaning and so no information exists at all. There is no meaning aside from the authors will. The very fact that we [humans] find information and meaning we believe correct in the universe is testimony to the author of that information. Just as ‘white’ was incorrect as decreed by Zarathustra, so any statement about the universe can only be verified by the author of that universe. No author, no correctness, no information.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 11. January 2007 10:28
"In order to perceive, translate, interpret or author/create information requires meaning. Meaning requires intent. Intent requires will and will is immaterial."
Does an individual cell have a will?
Do Bacteria have a will?
Read "Godel, Escher and Bach" for more insight!
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 11. January 2007 11:15
It is interesting to observe that issues like the nature of information and the nature of mental abstractions are essentially unresolvable outside the framework of formal scientific analysis. Yet within the framework of rigorous hard science analysis there is no dispute or controversy surrounding either the nature or uses of mental abstractions. Again I find the differences between formal scientific treatment of an issue and the non-formal scientiific treatment interesting.
IP: Logged
|
|
JT75
Member
Member # 3262
|
posted 11. January 2007 13:00
Melvin,
You wrote:
quote:
Stephen and JT75,
Your claim then is that I am a “unified ontological unit which is composed of two very different substances, one material the other immaterial.”
Let me ask you then: When I die and the material part of my mental physical composite is six feet under, where exactly am I?
You might say (1) “You are no more.” This would be the case if the two were truly unified; one dies, the other dies.
You might say (2) “You are in the grave with the decomposing body.” This would be the case if the two different substances were inseparable and the immaterial was indestructible.
You might say (3) “You are somewhere else but you are not you anymore because part of you is gone.” This then is very nearly the same as (1).
I would say that the only thing that has changed is my circumstance. The short period of time in which I was an intimate inhabitant of my body is over. The sum total of my identity has not changed in the least. On the other hand, my situation has changed dramatically.
Since your question is raised with reference to the afterlife then I have to respond based on my Christian theist understanding of this state. If you are one of the redeemed then the immaterial aspects of who you are in the presence of God and your body is decomposing in the ground. But I would also say that my response is some form of #3. I would not say that you are not you (if such a phrase is coherent), however, I would say that you have a different sort of existence than you do now (namely, wholly immaterial). Further, I would point out that the Christian tradition is very appreciative of the physical aspects of humanity (unlike, say, Platonic philosopohy or the Gnostic religion). In fact, Scripture implies that human nature is not fulfilled in a disembodied state, this is why we are given a new body and not simply left as disembodied "intellect/will/soul." It is human nature to be an embodied soul, and without the body human nature is incomplete.
The two substance view that I raised was in an effort to Christianize your position, if you are not a Christian and do hold strongly to a Platonic view of matter, then I apologize. If, however, you believe you are representing a traditional Christian view this is mistaken. See J.P. Moreland's disucssion in "Scaling the Secular City" for a concise discussion of substance dualism and Christianity.
IP: Logged
|
|
JT75
Member
Member # 3262
|
posted 11. January 2007 13:22
Daniel wrote:
In my earlier discussion on this subject I proposed a definition for Information:
"All that can be learned".
The core of this definition is the "can be" part. It means: "even if there are no 'learners'"
....The original meaning can be lost, but anything that's lost can also be found...
JT75 and Z,
What if I guess the meaning of the markings on the clay tablets? Have I just re-created the information? Or was it there all along just awaiting my discovery?
Daniel,
I think maybe we are going to disagree over the issue of justification. I just don't see how somthing can be potentially learned without learners. After all, doesn't "something learned" imply a relationship with a learner? I don't see how one could be justified in saying they know that information can exist even unknown, this seems to be self-defeating. The only possible justification I could think of would be to argue something like the following: All information that existed, exists, or will exist (actually or potentially)is eternally in the Infinite Mind of God and therefore is never truly destroyed (in the absolute sense) even though for all practical, temporal purposes a given set of information might be irretrievably lost to humankind. If all information (in any sense and at any time) is maintained in the Eternal Mind, then it is always potentially learned/re-discovered, etc.
But even in the above case it would seem that the only one to know if this is actually true would be God. To suppose otherwise would be to assume that we have incorrigible, comprehensive, infallible access to the divine intellect, which is an incredible (and false) claim. So in the above scenario even if God would be epistemically justified in holding that information is never destroyed and always available, it is hard to see that this would be the same for us.
Finally, No, you cannot guess the information on the tablets. This is just the point. How would you ever know if your guess was correct? This seems to assume that someone somewhere knows the correct answer in order for you to verify your guess, but this is not the case. The information is lost to all but the Almighty.
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 11. January 2007 14:21
IF,
That is a large book, much information. It may take me some time. I have been meaning to do so.
I would say that the individual cell and the bacteria have a will. I do not believe it is a free-will as are yours and mine.
They have the will to live. Action is taken within the cell in order to prolong its physical existence. This does not occur in inanimate objects. Note, I did not claim that a will was sufficient only necessary.
LifeEngineer,
You wrote:
quote:
Yet within the framework of rigorous hard science analysis there is no dispute or controversy surrounding either the nature or uses of mental abstractions.
Even if this were true it would only be such based on an agreed set of assumptions or axioms. If you mean to suggest hard science can’t be accomplished apart from a set of assumptions excluding supernatural entities, then I reject your assertion.
JT75,
I can live with almost all of what you had to say in your last two posts. It is true we will receive a new body, but we do not know exactly what that body will be like. Remember, all things will be made new.
JT75 wrote:
quote:
Further, I would point out that the Christian tradition is very appreciative of the physical aspects of humanity (unlike, say, Platonic philosopohy or the Gnostic religion).
As I read the Bible statements like, “Who will rescue me from this body of death!” and “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing.”, standout in my mind. I get my information about God and man more from Moses, John, and Paul than I do from J.P. Moreland.
And yes, I am a Christian.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 11. January 2007 14:45
quote:
JT75: I don't see how one could be justified in saying they know that information can exist even unknown, this seems to be self-defeating.
Lets take the example of DNA: Would you agree that DNA contains "information"? Did this information exist before we discovered it? I think we can both agree that it did - even though there were no "learners" aware of it.
I think everything in the universe is built upon a foundation of information. I think *this* information exists - whether we discover it or not. The physical laws of the universe existed long before we discovered them.
I agree also that there is both right and wrong when it comes to information. The "rightness" and "wrongness" does not depend on the learner, it depends on the author - as Melvin pointed out.
[ 11. January 2007, 14:45: Message edited by: Daniel Smith ]
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 11. January 2007 16:14
Melvin: quote:
If in fact you have a calculator that can add or an arrangement of stones that form a circle, I encourage you to either, call the Smithsonian or post them on e-bay. You could make a mint on those items.
This is your lucky day. I have both, and I'll give you first shot at them for, say, $10,000 apiece.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 11. January 2007 16:54
Mel,
Do all humans have free will which includes babies, mentally ill, etc?
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 12. January 2007 04:11
IF,
Yes, all humans have a free will. Don’t confuse free will with physical ability. It might be my will to not commit any sins but I lack the power to actuate that desire. As Paul wrote, “For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do.” Again, I may will to be a child of God; but I lack the authority. More from Paul:
quote:
For creation awaits with eager expectation the revelation of the children of God;
for creation was made subject to futility, not of its own accord but because of the one who subjected it, in hope
that creation itself would be set free from slavery to corruption and share in the glorious freedom of the children of God.
We know that all creation is groaning in labor pains even until now;
and not only that, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, we also groan within ourselves as we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies.
For in hope we were saved.
Every single human being has the option to receive the most important string of factual information ever created – the good news of Jesus Christ – or reject it. This is the purpose of free will and the reason every person has it.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
