|
Author
|
Topic: What information is not.
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 25. January 2007 21:01
quote:
I don't think there is such a thing , but how do we determine that?
By trying to find out!
quote:
It seems to me that it's a matter of differing interpretations of the evidence - based on our own world views. I'm perfectly comfortable with the notion that the entire universe is built upon a foundation of information and that that information has an intelligent agent as it's source.
It seems to me that that has been the prevailing attitude of most cultures through most of history.
quote:
The evidence (as I interpret it) fully supports my contention because I view this information as evidence of a designer.
What evidence?
quote:
For some (you I assume?), there is no evidence of any designer, so all the "information" that exists (outside of that produced by us intelligent agents) is unsourced information. Those who feel this way are perfectly comfortable in their interpretation of the evidence as well and feel that the evidence fully supports their views. Their view is that information exists in the absence of any known designer (thus supporting the notion that information does not require an intelligent source).
So what's the difference? Our world views.
So, is it a good idea for us to just accept that and leave it that way or should we try to find out, for sure? The impression that I get from, quote:
...we'll probably never agree on one.
is that it is an impossible effort and it should stop! And that attitude is the reason that the attempt to find out once and for all has had such a hard time getting started.
IP: Logged
|
|
Zarathustra
Member
Member # 3407
|
posted 25. January 2007 23:38
One has to note at this point that the purpose of this website is to promote religious ignorance while skulking under the cloak of "scientific examination". Only the pathologically opaque could have failed to notice the "subliminal" suggestions such as Bible/Jesus/Spiritual/Soul/Intelligence/Designer, etc.
The triumvirate of Matt, Smith, and Fox, have given it their best shot, and have failed miserably. If any evidence were needed to demonstrate how the belief in imaginary super-powers can detrimentially affect one's ability to reason, then one need not look any further than the mire into which said three have chosen to muddy themselves.
Fox argues that a calculator does not know how to add, since it is not able to understand how it operates. Since Fox cannot explain how his cognitive processes work, we will also have to conclude that Melvin does not know how to think. Sadly, there is far too much evidence to support this erroneous position. Fox quotes Dumbski, who thinks "Jesus" is responsible for our scientific theories. Who is more deserving of contempt? Dumbski for saying it, or Fox for quoting the words of an idiot?
Smith says that "Information is all that can be known". From this, we have to conclude that Daniel's world contains much less information than everyone else's. Since everything in the physical universe can be observed, and abstractions about all their possible relationships can be conceived, Smith is claiming that "Information is everything". Zarathustra has no doubt that Daniel is waiting day and night for the call from Nobel Committee to tell him that he about to be rewarded for this brilliant new discovery.
Matt is the most pernicious of the three, since he has nothing to offer, and is amusing himself at everyone's expense by parasitically latching onto whatever the more-able say. Note his vocabulary shifts over the last 18 pages. As soon as a real person moots a concept, he will twist their nomenclature into a defense of his non-point. When challenged, he slips away into denials and misrepresentations, in the hope that his complete misunderstanding of the concepts behind the words will pass unnoticed. The sad thing is that he thinks he is getting away with it. Clever old Matt.
Matt, and his lap-dogs, have nothing left to say now, simply because they had nothing useful to say to start with.
[ 25. January 2007, 23:54: Message edited by: Zarathustra ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 26. January 2007 09:58
Zarathustra,
It is true that I have nothing new to contribute at this time. I will clarify one point.
The calculator can’t explain how one adds. This is true. But that is not why it can’t add. It can’t add because it can’t understand the abstraction or the concept of correspondence. It can’t set up the procedure to make the correspondence, therefore, it can’t add.
I can’t explain how my cognitive processes work. But I do understand how to work them - I do not need instruction; and so, I can model the world to deal with it effectively according to my goals, plans, ends and desires. That is to say, I can think, at least according to Wikipedia.
If I think of something new to say on this topic, you will be the first to know. If history is a predictor of the future, you will attack my comments and my intellect instead of addressing the content of my argument constructivly. This is not the brainstorms way [read moderators guidelines]. You will do what you think is best.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 26. January 2007 23:11
IF,
The problem with this discussion is we will never agree on the conditions necessary to verify our hypotheses.
quote:
quote:
The evidence (as I interpret it) fully supports my contention because I view this information as evidence of a designer.
What evidence?
You missed it, (it's in my statement you quoted). The information is the evidence.
I will say "All known designs are based on information, therefore information is a characteristic of design, therefore wherever you find information, you find design."
You will say "Wait. The information in nature is information within undesigned objects, therefore no designer is required to produce information."
And, as I said, we'll go round and round.
So how can we find out the truth?
The only way to conclusively prove that there is a designer is for the designer to introduce himself to all of us and explain how he did it.
The only way to conclusively prove that there isn't a designer is to search the entire universe (every dimension included) and find no designer. The problem is: Anyone capable of doing that would have to be omnipresent and omniscient and would himself then be a god (which is what most have in mind when talking about a designer), so there's the paradox.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 26. January 2007 23:13
Mel,
Don't worry about what the Troll says. He's only here to irritate and agitate. He has nothing to contribute.
It's better to ignore his type.
As the saying goes: "Don't feed the trolls".
[ 26. January 2007, 23:14: Message edited by: Daniel Smith ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 27. January 2007 05:41
Daniel,
I think you are right. Thanks for the information.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 27. January 2007 10:36
Daniel
quote:
... The information is the evidence.
...
Does it mean the same thing as, "the information is the information" and "the evidence is the evidence"? If you find meaning in your statement I sure would like you to take the time and explain it to me because I don't understand how it has meaning! Especially in lieu of the title of this particular blog!
Someone sent me an email with a quote that went something like this, "People without a good understanding of truth are disarmed against lies". I think the attitude expressed in you last few comment submissions is very common and some would even say natural but it sure doesn't "feel" like it to me. It appears that one of us has a bad understanding of truth and I don't want it to be me.
IP: Logged
|
|
Zarathustra
Member
Member # 3407
|
posted 28. January 2007 00:21
quote:
Smith: Don't worry about what the Troll says. He's only here to irritate and agitate. He has nothing to contribute.
If anyone cares to examine the record, they will find a considered and full examination of the issues raised by Matt's vapid proposition dealt with by Zarathustra. That some have remained opaque to reasoned argument does not alter this fact, since the text remains available for anyone to review. If Smith continues to use a cheap epithet to refer to Zarathustra in future, then he will be accorded a similar courtesy in future references to himself, but in terms more creative.
quote:
Melvin: I think you are right. Thanks for the information.
Thanking someone who is even less able that yourself just because they agree with you is a bad policy. I had thought you above this, Melvin.
quote:
Smith: The only way to conclusively prove that there isn't a designer is to search the entire universe (every dimension included) and find no designer.
A solipsism. We can replace "designer" with any other word and be faced with the same problem. The term "Martian Cheese Bicycles" works just as well, and one would not be so foolish as to say that they exist. Or perhaps they exist in one of Daniel's "extra" dimensions. Who can say?
No, in the world that most of us inhabit, things are said to exist because we have reason to believe that they do. Only someone living in a make-believe world would claim that something exists just because we can't prove it doesn't.
[ 28. January 2007, 00:48: Message edited by: Zarathustra ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 28. January 2007 06:54
quote:
No, in the world that most of us inhabit, things are said to exist because we have reason to believe that they do.
Now here we have a valid point. But Daniel has provided evidence for a designer; information. For information to exist there must be an author. We have covered this above with respect to Zarathustra’s hidden olive green color code. The author need not “send” the information but he or she sure creates it. As it was for Zarathustra, the author may not what anyone to know the exact content.
My great aunt Flossie was a spectacular cook. The favorite of her creations was a red chocolate cake. Sometime after Flossie’s death, my sister, no slouch in the kitchen, found Flossie’s recipe card for the red chocolate cake. She has tried several times to recreate the masterpiece to no avail. I mean it’s good but there is definitely something missing. I am convinced Flossie intentionally altered the recipe card in order that her fame would not be diminished in the tastes of those who had partaken of the now mythical red cake.
The point is, you can have information without a receiver but you can’t have information without an author, else we would see the color white when olive green is the true color. We could suppress the truth and demand that the color is white or that the cake is red, but we would not be right. Righteousness is determined by the author. If no author, then there be no right, no wrong, no information, only chaos.
This is not what we observe. We observe order. It is true that the physical order we observe is slipping away into chaos and death [2nd law] but that phenomenon has been explained by the author.
quote:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
The information is out there. That we perceive information at all, be it elliptical orbits or DNA codes, is evidence of an author; a designer.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 28. January 2007 14:30
IF,
quote:
Does it mean the same thing as, "the information is the information" and "the evidence is the evidence"?
No, it's not the same thing.
I have defined information as "all that can be known".
I have further argued that information requires an intelligent source (though I think I actually like Mel's term "author" better).
I then argued that the existence of information in nature is evidence of an intelligent source for nature.
So, we can argue any of these three points.
===========================================
Zarathustra,
You started off mixing valid arguments with insults, then just nixed the arguments and went straight for the insults, now you're back to at least throwing in an argument or two. It's an improvement, (however slight).
For the most part, this has been a civil forum, one where dissenting views are presented without animosity towards the other speakers (an internet anomaly). If you come in here and contribute, I'll not object to your occasional "eccentricities", however, if all you do is exhibit "troll-like" behaviour, I'll call you on it.
Fair enough?
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 28. January 2007 14:51
Daniel,
quote:
No, it's not the same thing.
How is it different?
quote:
I have defined information as "all that can be known"?
Are you comfortable defining a word in your own way then using that as a logical proof?
quote:
I have further argued that information requires an intelligent source (though I think I actually like Mel's term "author" better).
Does that mean that you don't want to consider any other definition or context?
quote:
I then argued that the existence of information in nature is evidence of an intelligent source for nature.
How does presupposing an intelligence become evidence of an intelligence?
IP: Logged
|
|
Zarathustra
Member
Member # 3407
|
posted 28. January 2007 20:29
If there happens to be three ducks floating on a pond, is it correct to say that the cardinality of those ducks must be the result of some other agent causing it to be so?
If Daniel constructs a "simulation" of the above scenario using toy ducks in his bathtub, it can rightly be said that the information of interest (the number, ducks) still "works". Can we, however, say that Daniel's bathtub contains the "same" information, or do we have to conclude that all he has is a copy of those few features that are of interest to us?
What would we have to do to capture all the "information" on the duckpond?
[@Daniel: In all honesty, Z admits to having spoken numerous words of questionable merit; but Z does not take this course lightly. The more astute readers of this forum will have noticed that there is a one-to-one correspondence between the verbal calumny delivered and the insults to reasoned argument presented previously by its targets. In this, fairness is addressed. I must applaud Smith on his nomenclature in this particular case. Apt to the point of serendipity, one is minded of the Three Billy Goats Gruff, if only in that they were overly confident in crossing one bridge too far.]
[ 28. January 2007, 20:32: Message edited by: Zarathustra ]
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 29. January 2007 08:58
It is both interesting and irritating to follow this debate about an issue that is fully resolved or at least resolvable in formal scientific analysis. If a group of scientists can agree upon a formal framework or perspective for analyzing a class of data/information problems or issues, then within the context of their agreed upon logical framework, they typically be able to resolve issue arising from the distinctions between 'physical data manifestations' and 'the pure or abstract information content of the data'. They will also, usually be able to resolve issues surrounding the mathematical modeling mapping rules that tie data to information within the framework being analyzed.
I can't imagine too many scientists or mathematicians really believing that there is some single universal context in which all physical data and all abstract information both have some type of reality.
Again, it is difficult, at least for me, to see the purpose of endless debate over an issue that is clearly unresolvable on an absolute basis, but readily resolvable on the clearly defined but limited framework of science.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 29. January 2007 12:03
LifeEngineer,
quote:
Again, it is difficult, at least for me, to see the purpose of endless debate over an issue that is clearly unresolvable on an absolute basis, but readily resolvable on the clearly defined but limited framework of science.
I believe that the purpose of any discussion is to clarify the issues for all those concerned. The resolution of the discussion or debate is often much more difficult but at least a clear understanding of all the relevant issues should be a goal and reaching that goal should not be abandoned. In government/politics compromises are often required to resolve the issues. Many belief systems do not allow compromises of any sort that is why a clear understanding of all of the issues is so important.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 29. January 2007 13:02
Discussion without the goal or purpose of reaching conclusions or resolutions, while it may provide a degree of entertainment, is something like addressing a math problem by generating random numbers. It should by now be apparent to most people that discussion that attempt to address subjective opinions on any subject have essentially no chance of reaching resolution. There is no evidence that will necessarily lead anyone to change their personal or subjective opinion on a subject.
In my opinion, we have a choice, we can view discussion as a unproductive form of entertainment, or if we wish to attempt to resolve an issue of disagreement we need to accept and follow scientific methods and standards. IMHO.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
