|
Author
|
Topic: What information is not.
|
Stephen Wright
Member
Member # 195
|
posted 14. December 2006 13:55
quote:
2ndclass - "I'm not aware of any principled distinction between material and immaterial entities, so I don't see how an answer to the question could be testable"
The ready definition of matter is clear, as an entity having measurable mass. This extension of definition enables the particle state of an electron or photon to be included, even with their mass at a very small value. The wave state of an electron or photon would be a candidate for carrying the representation of information (formal definition).
I see two primary definitions of information used in Physicalism. The first being the quantified mathematical component - modeled in communication theory and in thermodynamics as negentropy. This is what I would denote as the "formal" presentment.
The second definition of information would be the semantic meaning of a message, sense impression or obtained guidance. This definition, referring to what is conceptual and contextual, is decidedly excluded from Shannon's formal math treatment. The newly growing area of Philosophy of Information is making progress in "nailing down" these different (and confusing) takes on the use of the term.
Modern literature contains the comment that qubits or units of information in quantum computing are considered physical - in contrast to bits or bytes, which are not material (immaterial) and are considered abstractions about actual physical phenomena or virtual simulations.
IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Connally
Member
Member # 3076
|
posted 14. December 2006 14:07
2nd Class,
Okay, good, I can certainly agree not to call it supernatural. I appreciate you clarifying all that. When I said the term can be appropriate I think I just mean in the more popular sense as a synonymn for spiritual.
I have tremendous gratitude and respect for ID, but no science (or philosophy, for that matter) is required for the argument I am making. It could have been just as effective 3000 years ago, and the more science you apply to it the clearer and louder it becomes. So again, my main argument is that when we have different mediums (such as the brain, black-and-white paper, electromagnetic waves, etc.) that carry the exact same information, if those mediums have no physical qualities in common then whatever it is they do have in common (the rational, creative data) has no physical properties or qualities. So to the extent that we can know anything, we can know that information/data/meaning is immaterial. Does that one fact not completely annihilate Darwinism and point directly to the rational, creative Author of life?
Now it might conflict somewhat with what you said from Plantiga—that “there is also no ‘information’ in nature (that is ‘in’ the electrons, molecules,etc. themselves).” I mean I wouldn’t say there is information “in” things; but I would argue that everything in the universe is a medium for information. I don’t think it’s necessary to argue that information is only in the mind and that therefore the fact that it harmonizes with external reality is evidence of intelligent design. Right now there is information in a bunch of books in the library, sitting on shelves, being ignored. Likewise there is information throughout nature (DNA, chemistry, the process of photosynthesis, mathematics, etc.) which is there whether we perceive and translate it or not. Surely Plantiga would agree? Furthermore, so far as we can tell, humans are the only ones capable of perceiving, translating, and using information.
As far as Platonism goes, I would passionately reject that label. I’ve heard way too many leading Darwinists use Platonism as a pass-the-buck cure-all for mystery, and from my experience it introduces nothing but esoteric fog and semantic games to the discussion. That’s why in my initial post I said they’ll use it to hide nonsense in. They cannot, under any circumstances, actually address the argument I am making. Their only defenses are rhetorical.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 14. December 2006 14:21
Matt said:
quote:
so far as we can tell, humans are the only ones capable of perceiving, translating, and using information.
I don't know about "perceiving", but every living cell, through the process of protein synthesis, translates and uses information.
It can be argued also that all lifeforms perceive, translate and use information in their own way. When a bird senses danger and emits a warning which sparks a reaction amongst his fellow birds, is that not perceiving, translating, and using information?
Fascinating discussion!
IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Connally
Member
Member # 3076
|
posted 14. December 2006 14:29
Stephen:
quote:
Modern literature contains the comment that qubits or units of information in quantum computing are considered physical - in contrast to bits or bytes, which are not material (immaterial) and are considered abstractions about actual physical phenomena or virtual simulations.
Do you think bits or bites are only human constructs? From my perusal of popular science books they are avoiding this question ("What exactly are bits--not what do they mean or how do we measure them, but what are they?" like the plague:
- Seth Lloyd, Professor of Mechanical Engineering at MIT, wrote a book this year titled Programming the Universe, in which he compares the universe to a gigantic computer. Computing what? "Its own dynamic evolution. As the computation proceeds, reality unfolds," writes Lloyd. In chapter two he tells about teaching an MIT graduate course on information. He begins it by teasing his twenty-odd students with the question, "What is information?" They offer no answer. Nor does Lloyd in his book.
- In 1997 Oxford University published a book titled The Number Sense: How the Mind Creates Mathematics. (Information, mathematics, and language all go hand-in-hand, which is why a laptop computer can do an extremely good job of both editing grammar and translating from one language to another.) Although he provides a fascinating study of how the brain might create and process mathematics, in the last chapter, titled "What is a number?" he gives a very curious answer: don't ask. "If I insist so strongly on this point, it is because of its important implications for education in mathematics." That is to say, it will exasperate students entirely to search for an answer, perhaps drive them mad. (p. 241)
- A new 448-page textbook titled Information Science, published by Princeton University, steers clear of the question.
- As does a book published in 2003 titled Information: The New Language of Science by Hans Christian von Baeyer, a professor of physics at the College of William and Mary.
I want to clarify that I am not suggesting what information is either. In fact, I don't think we can know. But I do think we can know for absolute certain what information is not: objectively, it is not physical.
IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Connally
Member
Member # 3076
|
posted 14. December 2006 14:39
Daniel:
quote:
It can be argued also that all lifeforms perceive, translate and use information in their own way. When a bird senses danger and emits a warning which sparks a reaction amongst his fellow birds, is that not perceiving, translating, and using information?
Not necessarily. By the same logic my laptop computer comprehends the sentence "Two plus two equals four," which it doesn't. By the same argument my digestive system comprehends chemestry.
Wolf packs have a complex social system (alpha male, beta male, etc.), but is there any evidence that wolves perceive such social communication any more than a spider perceives geometry or a beaver perceives engineering or a bluebonnett perceives photosynthesis? No, there is not. The only evidence that something perceives information is that he/she/it is able to use it creatively.
Now nature is of course jam packed with creative information. But that doesn't necessarily mean that nature or the creatures in nature are doing the communicating. Wolves and spiders and bluebonnettes may all simply be machines. They may simply have a creative Author/Designer behind them.
However, even if this argument were wrong--even if we did discover that birds could perceive information--that would not dint my primary argument, which is that information is immaterial. It would simply mean that birds have immaterial natures (i.e. souls) like we do. But again, I don't think there is any evidence for this.
IP: Logged
|
|
JT75
Member
Member # 3262
|
posted 14. December 2006 15:36
Klaus:
I think you are referring to the patterns or "exemplars" in the mind of God prior to creation. (I know "prior", "before", "after" do not apply to the eternal state, but when we talk in terms of time and eternity we tend to conflate our references). And "logos" is a good way to talk of the immaterial aspect that I was referring to, but not as a timeless creation (like what is experienced by the angelic host). What I am referring to is the here and now immaterial aspects of material objects. For instance, the format of a paper (Chicago style, MLA, or Turabian) is not to be found in the "matter" of the paper (which is the raw text) but rather is the "form" of the text. This form is an intelligible rather than material aspect of the paper. Similarly, when I see a horse as not merely a particularized object but "as a horse," I am able to know the essence of the object and combine it with the general concept "Horse" in this way we make general concepts apply to particular objects and hence classify them as "what" they are.
This is the distinction the Aristotle makes between form and matter, the same language that St. Thomas utilizes in developing his philosophy. To my mind, information lies in the realm of form, that is, intelligible rather than material reality and although it may have material indicators our perception of it "as information" is as immaterial as the object that we are perceiving. In fact this is what in- form- ation seems to be, identification of the form of an object. Mathematics is then employed as a non-conotative language by which this form is highly specified.
IP: Logged
|
|
JT75
Member
Member # 3262
|
posted 14. December 2006 16:05
Matt:
I think you're on the right track, but I think it would be better to say that information is "based in things", certainly our knowledge is based in the sensible world although it resides in the mind. I would be careful of saying that no science or philosophy is necessary for you to make your argument. Of course you are assuming some ideas from science and philosophy in making this argument. And I would say that if information is a type of knowledge than it has relationship with both the knower and the thing known, so I concede the point that information cannot be completely in the mind but must have its basis in the world of facts, that was a good clarification. Further, your argument certainly destroys materialism but I cannot see how it, directly, destroys Darwinism (although perhaps it does so indirectly, if you would care to elaborate). Finally, I was not implying that you personally are a Platonist, I was merely pointing out that Aristotelians/Thomists only believe the referents of abstract concepts like "Man" exist in the mind, Platonist that they actually exist in some mystical realm of "Ideas" and as such are part of Reality. I think we agree that this is not what we are speaking of when we talk of the existence of information.
IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen Wright
Member
Member # 195
|
posted 14. December 2006 17:40
Matt,
I think that bits and bytes are semiotic (the study of symbols) constructs - offered by humans. Other living things exhibit lower levels of semiotic representational skills.
What is represented by information (formal) values is not a human construct - but a measurable property of the physical universe such as matter and energy.
Many of the posts above seem to conflate semantic meaning - with formal information theoretic math measurement targets, which exists independent of human thought. I think it very important to speak specifically, as to which is meant. Seth Lloyd is clearly NOT talking about information (semantic) that is contextual and meaningful.
Realism regards matter and energy as objective. Informational Realism (K. Sayre 1976 and L. Floridi 2005) would address information (formal) in the same manner, as objective structure, whether created by computation or by natural events.
IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Connally
Member
Member # 3076
|
posted 14. December 2006 23:50
JT75:
Well you’re probably right that the annihilation of Darwinism would be indirect. I can think of two reasons. First, it would simply mean that we are not our brains, for it would be nonsensical to even consider how the brain could use the five senses to perceive something that is immaterial. “I can perceive, translate, and use information; therefore, I am…what?! Well whatever I am, I am as immaterial as information is.” There is no room in Darwinism for such loud evidence of spirituality.
The second reason (and one that I think is more direct) is that it means information is an objective phenomenon. Scientists do not author the rational explanations of nature—explanations such as photosynthesis, relativity, uncertainty, entropy, coalescence, etc. Rather they merely discover them (discover the rational, creative data) and translate them into, for example, English. Thus all of nature conveys the rational, creative communication of (a) rational, creative, immaterial! author(s).
Take this to its logical conclusion: we can explore and use information indefinitely but we cannot create it. Compare it to the old joke about the Darwinist saying he could make anything God can make, and so God says, “Okay, make a rock.” And the Darwinist says, “Okay, well I’ll start with some matter…” And God says, “Make your own matter.” I’m saying that in similar fashion we cannot create information any more than we can create matter. (Though we can, of course, use both creatively!) Bertrand Russell was confronted with this and I'll bet it's what sent him into la-la land. He actually created his own little world where he pretended to doubt all sorts of un-doubtable truths so that he could then pretend to author the explanations of them.
IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Connally
Member
Member # 3076
|
posted 15. December 2006 00:10
Stephen:
quote:
Many of the posts above seem to conflate semantic meaning - with formal information theoretic math measurement targets, which exists independent of human thought. I think it very important to speak specifically, as to which is meant. Seth Lloyd is clearly NOT talking about information (semantic) that is contextual and meaningful.
Actually I really think he was. I'd have to go back and look. He did admit it was a mystery.
Regardless, I'm trying to think of what it would mean to have information that is not "contextual and meaningful." There may be parts of a painting that are very plain blue sky with little beauty apart from the painting as a whole. I mean is not all of mathematics contextual and meaningful, and does it not exist as a unified whole?
IP: Logged
|
|
JT75
Member
Member # 3262
|
posted 15. December 2006 05:56
Matt:
I think I see the point now, if we are not our brains (if there is an immaterial aspect to human nature) then there is something definite about what makes us human that is not material and therefore could not be subject to Darwinian mechanisms (like mutation or selection pressures). In this way the destruction of materialism leads to a refutation of the Darwin's interpretation of Man. I also think you are right about man's inability to create. Traditionally theologians have distinguished "making" from "creating." Man can make things but only God can create. I would like to add that we also have to distinguish between what we might call natural information and artificial information ("artificial referring to the word "artifacts", that which is the product of human creativity, not to be taken as a synonym for "fake/unreal"). Since the "explanations" you refer to (photosynthesis, relativity, uncertainty, entropy, coalescence) are all natural I don't think we'll disagree on this point. All the information/explanations we "read off" of nature have their origin in a mind that is supra human, the information like the sentence I am typing are artificial productions of the human mind that only mimic what is found naturally in the cosmos. The only reason I make this point is that a nontheist might object to the proposition "only God creates information" by pointing out that humans can generate information as well. This gives us the ability to affirm the "make vs. create" distinction and the "natural vs. artificial" distinction without being side-tracked from the real point, namely, the natural order reflects the mind of a Creator.
IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen Wright
Member
Member # 195
|
posted 15. December 2006 10:10
Matt,
quote:
“I'm trying to think of what it would mean to have information that is not "contextual and meaningful."
There is an awful lot of this subject matter that is counter intuitive. Semantic meaning needs an intelligent agent to “frame” the facts from a distinct and discreet point of view. In turn, the agent needs to be in a specific environment. Context comes from the agent/environment relationship and meaning from a local point of view, where the perspective of self comes into play. All experience is seen to be subjective to the agent. Semantic meaning therefore is seen as subjective – with all the epistemological issues, which come from subjectivity. Sorting personal opinion from objective reference is the meat of empirical science.
The advent of the Information Age can be said to date from Claude Shannon and Warren Weaver’s 1947 classic paper that lays out the objective math for measuring information transfer. What is measured is objective and therefore open to science testing and analysis. Digital information, in this sense, is the elimination of uncertainty – by decisive answers to yes/no or on/off questions. A bit or binary digit (0/1) records just this unit of uncertainty reduction. Semantic meaning is possible only to an intelligent agent who can decode the pattern of 0 or 1’s.
The removal of subjectivity is an essential component that makes the math work in objective reality. Code, in binary form or in natural analogue forms is the subject matter of information (formal). We don’t read and get meaning from code – only decoded messages that have definition in contexts we can understand and structured in concepts that we have learned. The semantic meaning is the target of coded transmissions, but binary digits are neutral to meaning – in themselves.
To transmit an image of a painting – the format actually transmitted has no meaning to your eyes. It must go through the essential steps prescribed by the science. The painting must be encoded into an objective physical substrate that represents the actual canvas and paint – and then reconstituted after its journey through a channel.
Trying to “think” about what information (formal) or negentropy mean will not help – it is the study of the math concepts of the subject matter that will bring it into focus. Language betrays us in this.
[ 15. December 2006, 10:15: Message edited by: Stephen Wright ]
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 15. December 2006 12:39
Stephen, I appreciate your comments. You seem well-versed in this topic.
I'm trying to sort through the semantics here. It seems to me that there needs to be a distinction made between immaterial and abstract. For example, "materialists" deal with and speak of abstract concepts all the time, which would be a contradiction if immaterial and abstract were synonymous.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 15. December 2006 15:04
Matt said:
quote:
By the same logic my laptop computer comprehends the sentence "Two plus two equals four," which it doesn't. By the same argument my digestive system comprehends chemestry.
The argument can be made that we humans, like the laptop, are only doing what we're programmed to do when we "comprehend" information.
Your original statement however, was that we were the only ones to "perceive, translate and use" information. Virtually all of life has this capability - as we are now finding in the field of cell intelligence.
To comprehend that it is actually 'information' and to debate the meaning of these words is decidedly human, but there's no reason (as far as I can see) to believe that information processing capabilities are not inherent - to a lesser degree - in all of life.
IP: Logged
|
|
JT75
Member
Member # 3262
|
posted 15. December 2006 15:37
Daniel:
To be fair to Matt's argument I think that we have to concede that he has implied that humans are "aware" that we percieve and process information. When DNA is translated there is a translation of information, but to say that the DNA is aware of this would be absurd (and I don't think your making this claim). So with the "awareness point" having been made, I think it stands that humans are the only creatures who process information and are conscious of the fact that they are doing so.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic