|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
 Posted - 10/31/2005 : 16:59:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ar
And no, I am not satisfied by "snowflakes" as the information already existed in the electronic structure of the atoms forming the crystals.
It is the properties of the crystals that makes the snowflake form, not "information". By saying that information already existed in the electric structure of the atoms, you are defining those properties as information. I don't agree that a flat surface is information. That another flat surface fits on the first surface isn't information either.
A complex structure does not have to contain information.
That a snowflake is beautiful is an emergent property of water that can appear if certain conditions are met, according to natural laws.
You know, for someone who ascribe to neither creationism nor evolution sure have many opinions that resemble creationism. Perhaps you're an IDist? (the bastard sister of creationism)
You have the same misconceptions of 2nd LoT och Information Science. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2005 : 17:07:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ar
quote:
Originally posted by Siberia
010001001010101100010101
is information.
To a non-binary-reading person, it's randomness.
Considering you only have 3 or so bytes of it, yes, it may be random or it may be information. It is ambiguous.
"010001001010101100010101" is crystal clear to me. It means that Siberia has completed her Java-programming assignment her teacher gave her, with which she has been struggling all weekend.
quote:
BUT - give me enough binary - say, a typical windows exe, and I could find enough pattern and repetition in it to convince myself it is NOT random, even if I cannot translate it.
As long as you cannot translate or interpret it, it will be a collection of DATA. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
ar
New Member
30 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2005 : 17:17:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by ar
And no, I am not satisfied by "snowflakes" as the information already existed in the electronic structure of the atoms forming the crystals.
It is the properties of the crystals that makes the snowflake form, not "information". By saying that information already existed in the electric structure of the atoms, you are defining those properties as information. I don't agree that a flat surface is information. That another flat surface fits on the first surface isn't information either.
A complex structure does not have to contain information.
That a snowflake is beautiful is an emergent property of water that can appear if certain conditions are met, according to natural laws.
That is absolutely true. I was wrong. The formation of crystals (and other similar phenomena) is ordered, and is definately not in the same ordered-randomness catagory as sand dunes and hurricanes. I need time to consider the ramifications of that fact.
quote:
You know, for someone who ascribe to neither creationism nor evolution sure have many opinions that resemble creationism. Perhaps you're an IDist? (the bastard sister of creationism)
You have the same misconceptions of 2nd LoT och Information Science.
After I am done here, I will take this same question to a creationist forum, and they will note the same thing in the vice-versa. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2005 : 18:05:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ar
After I am done here, I will take this same question to a creationist forum, and they will note the same thing in the vice-versa.
What kind of creationist forum are you looking for, there are several. One of the more "worst" as far as I know is the Rapure Ready Bulletin Board. However, I do not recommend them, their disconnect to reality is severe. Try some Christian-net forum. Had the_ignored been here, I'm sure he could have offered several, depending on what kind of creationism you want.
To start with (and I'm assuming Christian forums) Young Earth Creationist (most disconnected from reality) to Old Earth Creationism. Then there's the Intelligent Design supporters that are mostly Christians.
You should know that Skeptic Friends Network is not an Atheist Board, if you're looking to compare religion versus non religion. We (most of us) are skeptics, but are everything from atheists through agnostics to theists (even of non-Christian faiths).
We prefer to deal with Science as a way to describe the reality in which we live. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 10/31/2005 18:48:40 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2005 : 18:39:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
quote:
"010001001010101100010101" is crystal clear to me. It means that Siberia has completed her Java-programming assignment her teacher gave her, with which she has been struggling all weekend.
Funny, I thought she was telling me the approximate population of Nevada.
Edit:
How did you get ascii characters out of that Mab? Or is it some other character system?
It's another character system, agreed between the two of us only. Though it appear random to you, it's information to us.
It's merely en encoded way of typing the character '!' |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 10/31/2005 18:40:22 |
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2005 : 21:35:58 [Permalink]
|
| I just got a chance to check the posts; I wasn't sure I was very clear, but you've all fixed that, especially DrM's posts on problems with the "abstract" nature of "information" with which I totally agree... the 2nd Law "works great" within it's intended context, but when people take "creative" or "artistic" liberties in it's interpretation and application (as appears to be the case with Creationism) you can easily come up with fallacious and weird implications. |
Ron White |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2005 : 21:48:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ar
After I am done here, I will take this same question to a creationist forum, and they will note the same thing in the vice-versa.
I don't understand. What do you expect Creationists to explain exactly? They'll merely say that life is too complex to arise without divine intervention. They believe that on faith, and some may even try to dazzle you with shoddy science or flat-out deception. They won't have any actual proof of their beliefs, mind you, (which consist entirely of "goddidit"), but they'll do their damnedest to convince you that evolution (which they WILL conflate with abiogenesis) is impossible.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 10/31/2005 21:58:48 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2005 : 22:03:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by ar
After I am done here, I will take this same question to a creationist forum, and they will note the same thing in the vice-versa.
I don't understand. What do you expect Creationists to explain exactly? They'll merely say that life is too complex to arise without divine intervention. They believe that on faith, and some may even try to dazzle you with shoddy science or flat-out deception. They won't have any actual proof of their beliefs, mind you, (which consist entirely of "goddidit"), but they'll do their damnedest to convince you that evolution (which they WILL conflate with abiogenesis) is impossible.
This is all too true.
This thread quickly derailed from the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, because of the very real misunderstanding of it's application. (And Information Science/theory)
We think that science is the only way to correctly describe the reality in which we live. A theist, especially Christian, thinks that Truth can be revealed through revelation. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2005 : 00:52:54 [Permalink]
|
| The answer to the original question of the post is really "It depends which way they're screwing things up." They might be conveniently forgetting the Sun is there. Possibly they have concocted an "imaginative" (and wrong) version of how "probability" locally relates to entropy and change. Or best of all (my favorite) they can exploit the vague and abstract nature of the question "What is information (or) organization?" and go hog-wild. Ya know, these folks are really determined. |
Ron White |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2005 : 06:41:30 [Permalink]
|
I have been googling the net and it appears the new (at least new for me) buzz is the use of chaos theory by the fundies. It looks like the view from 50,000 ft is that "there are laws governing randomness so there are underlying patterns even in randomness, therefore the universe must have been designed (by God)".
I guess that is where AR was trying to lead the discussion.
Here is one of these chaotic god sites:
http://www.hssrd.org/journals/2004/english/chaos.htm
From the Abstract:
quote:
And randomness has its own laws. Thus all three models of reality that science has are not without an underlying order. Thus there is nothing discovered by science that contradicts the view that the universe is Designed.
The site this goes on to completely misrepresent the 2nd law by ignoring the energy input form the sun:
quote:
Maybe it is worth mentioning here the law of increase of entropy or the second law of thermodynamics. It states that the total entropy (disorder) in a disconnected system goes on increasing or can at most stay constant... It could be so, though the matter is not that simple; supporters of Darwinism say that an animal is not a disconnected system and order in it can evolve due to the effect of its surroundings. The law of increase of entropy could allow such a possibility, but it remains a remote possibility and far-fetched idea.
Same old crap, new buzz words.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
sts60
Skeptic Friend
141 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2005 : 07:37:47 [Permalink]
|
It could be so, though the matter is not that simple; supporters of Darwinism say that an animal is not a disconnected system and order in it can evolve due to the effect of its surroundings.
No. An animal doesn't evolve. Populations do. This is a fundamental misrepresentation of evolution. It's like the comic-book idea of someone "mutating"; a mutation is intergenerational.
The law of increase of entropy could allow such a possibility, but it remains a remote possibility and far-fetched idea.
No. Once you fix the basic misunderstanding about a single animal evolving, it remains an absolute certainty and an everyday occurrence that things grow and change using energy from their environments - mainly solar energy or chemical energy. Otherwise none of us would be here. Without the Sun, there'd be almost no life on Earth, except for extremophilic stuff clustered around deep ocean vents. |
| Edited by - sts60 on 11/01/2005 07:39:41 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2005 : 08:11:45 [Permalink]
|
ar, when you decide to go to a creationist board, why don't you tell us where you're going so we can have a look at what they are telling you?
Or at least post their responses here, so we can get the chance to offer criticism.
Creationist have long history of abuse of scientific concepts.
Letting them roam free with it is just as irresponsible as giving a 12 year old a bottle of alcohol and the car-keys.
Used correctly, both cars and alcohol are good things, but abuse them, and catastrophy is around the corner.
In your first post: quote:
How do evolutionists resolve the creationist's argument that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics?
There are many arguments they use regarding 2nd LoT. If you post specific arguments here, we will be able to more accurately addess them. You've got some of them sorted out (hopefully), but if you are still unsure, just let us know, and we'll fix it. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2005 : 08:29:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
... Same old crap, new buzz words....
The word that comes to mind is... "weird." With the term "information" used in the basic, intended, practical senses, there's no confusion. Bonding (e.g. ionic in a crystal lattice, or covalent in a chemical synthesis) is forming a structure, which is then "organized"- you "might say" it contains information... making bonds requires energy. Breaking bonds (e.g. crushing crystals) gives off energy... in doing so, it "disorganizes"... you "might say" the information was lost. But regarding the subjectivity involved in all of this "creative use" of the thermodynamic sense of the term "information" I don't think watching an ice cube melt is any more "informative" than watching an ice cube freeze. Likewise for questions of how much "information" is in a hurricane... one might as well argue whether a Big Mac or Whopper contains more "information." I hadn't heard of these 2LTD/evolution issues before I read the post last night, and now that I have, I think they're weird... there could be a "contest" to see who could pervert the Laws of Thermodynamics to most idiotic effect using creationist principles (but please... no!) |
Ron White |
|
|
|
ar
New Member
30 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2005 : 10:28:44 [Permalink]
|
A note to everyone:
I have noted among several members an animosity that has no place in a scientific discussion. If you cannot leave personal feelings out of your post, please don't waste our time and convolute the thread. I don't want to hear about "fundies," "people screwing things up," "chaotic god sites," etc. It is simply testimony to lack of confidence in science, and the subsequent need to bolster it with the belittling of opposing views.
Thank you.
Dr. Mabuse:
quote:
What kind of creationist forum are you looking for, there are several....
Thank you for the information. As far as letting you know where I go - I won't. I don't want the whole thing to degenerate into rapid fire argument. I will, however, post their conclusion here.
This thread did indeed derail from the original question. The primary reason for this was - I did not have a clear understanding of my question in the first place - so I shot in the dark as best I could, and now I think the real question has emerged.
Now, I'd like to summarize this thread, and organize my own thoughts, and state my evolved question. Please respond only if you have something very pertinent to say, and leave emotion out of it.
Here is what I believe, based on my current knowledge:
1a. Information exists as more than an abstract concept, and can be recognized out of it's context by it's transcendence of random, natural process; by it's transcendence of information-less structure (ordered randomness) (i.e. hurricanes, water waves); by it's transcendence of natural patterns based on the laws of physics (i.e. crystal structure, solar system formations, etc).
1b. Information can be recognized as a set of data whose organization defies probability, and therefore must have come from an intelligent source. It can be intuitively recognized (I am aware that that is very debatable), but it can also be recognized algorithmically by complex rules of formulation (i.e. grammer, in written language).
1c. Information cannot be translated out of it's context, but that fact is irrelevant. The question is - can it be recognized, and therefore shown to exist.
2a. Nature cannot produce information. It can produce data that may at superficial glance appear informational, but this "information" consists of regular repeating patterns which are simply manifestations of 1) physical laws and 2) chaos/quantum mechanics.
The question follows:
How did information, as "defined" above (1b) arise?
Now, I would like to strip down these "definitions," and put them "through the fire" so to speak.
Thank you.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
