|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
 Posted - 11/01/2005 : 11:43:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ar...
The question follows:
How did information, as "defined" above (1b) arise?
By the definitions you yourself have developed in order to elicit the answer you already seem to have in mind, since you claim part of the definition of "information" is...quote:
1b. Information can be recognized as a set of data whose organization defies probability, and therefore must have come from an intelligent source.
... then obviously god did it. Or space aliens. But that answer is so weak as to be meaningless because anyone can redefine a set of terms, then pose a question that can be answered, according to the self serving definitions, with the response initially sought by the inventor of the definitions. Look at George W. Bush and his bastardization of the terms "freedom", "peace", and "terrorist", for a clear example.
And regarding your concern for "animosity": You continue to provide fairly clear indications that you misunderstand science, physics, and/or the contemporary theory of evolution. When someone who does understand these things calls you on it, that isn't animosity, it's an attempt to correct your misunderstanding; it's an effort to help you understand. You are not being persecuted here. Get over it.
Early in the thread you said you don't believe in creationism or in evolution. You've shown at least some evidence that you lean towards the creationism side, and it seems you'd like to get some informed, clear thinking skeptics to stumble. Probably not going to happen, because a valid scientific theory, well supported by mountains of evidence, is unlikely to fall apart when compared to a belief in supernatural causes that have no evidentiary support.
|
 |
|
|
ar
New Member
30 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2005 : 11:52:48 [Permalink]
|
I would like to request to the moderators that the previous post be removed as it did not objectively address a single concept in my previous post.
Thank you. |
| Edited by - ar on 11/01/2005 11:54:00 |
|
|
|
Paulos23
Skeptic Friend
USA
446 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2005 : 12:20:19 [Permalink]
|
ON this board I would be supprised if they do what you asked Ar, it is not that kind of board.
Besides, GeeMack did address concepts from your post, and called you on rigging the question. A very valid post in my eyes. Just one you didn't want or expect. GeeMack is right, while most of the posters here may come on a little to strong, they are trying to correct your misconseptions with facts, something you admited wanting to do. My suggestion is to take thier suggestions and facts and see where they lead you, you may be suprised. |
You can go wrong by being too skeptical as readily as by being too trusting. -- Robert A. Heinlein
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2005 : 12:46:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
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).
What? Information is only a set of data that defies probability? That does not make sense. Does that mean when a coin is flipped to see who receives the ball in the Superbowl no one will be able to figure out who will receive the ball?
Quantum mechanics is based on probabilities. Scientist using the probabilities of quantum mechanics designed the computer you are typing on.
quote:
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.
I am a natural being, I exist in nature; the marks I am puting on this paper are not random (no snide comments please). Therefore I am demonstrating that nature can produce "information" even using your rather non-typical definition of information.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Paulos23
Skeptic Friend
USA
446 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2005 : 12:50:10 [Permalink]
|
| Thank you Furshur, I have been strugling to say the same thing. But you said it more clearer then my first draft was. |
You can go wrong by being too skeptical as readily as by being too trusting. -- Robert A. Heinlein
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2005 : 12:57:01 [Permalink]
|
Well thank you Paulos23.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
ar
New Member
30 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2005 : 13:36:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
quote:
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).
What? Information is only a set of data that defies probability? That does not make sense. Does that mean when a coin is flipped to see who receives the ball in the Superbowl no one will be able to figure out who will receive the ball?
Quantum mechanics is based on probabilities. Scientist using the probabilities of quantum mechanics designed the computer you are typing on.
quote:
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.
Thank you, furshur - for actually addressing my points!
Yes, information can imitate randomness, but the vice versa is not true. As was pointed out earlier - a short string of binary may be information or it may be random data. Until you have enough data to be able to extract rules of formulation (i.e. grammer, machine code, etc), it is ambiguous.
quote:
I am a natural being, I exist in nature; the marks I am puting on this paper are not random (no snide comments please). Therefore I am demonstrating that nature can produce "information" even using your rather non-typical definition of information.
Again, I am trying to deduce whether or not nature alone can produce information. As such, the fact that you exist being evidence of natural information is circular reasoning within this discussion, where the assumption that evolutionary theory is true is not allowed.
Now, you have said my definition of information is non-typical, but you have not provided an alternative. Please do.
GeeMack:
quote:
You are not being persecuted here. Get over it.
I'm not sure what you're referring to. I haven't even formulated a position yet - so who could be persecuting me?
My point is - I want solid science, not:
"those fundies are so screwed up in the head, just like George Bush"
Honestly, I don't know what fundies or George Bush have to do with information theory.
Let's leave the sophomoric angst out of it, and keep it clearly objective, as furshur has done in his previous post.
quote:
ON this board I would be supprised if they do what you asked Ar, it is not that kind of board.
I wouldn't think so. I was making the point that if posts are not objective, I don't care to read them - and I want you to save yourself the time it takes to write them!
Thank you. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2005 : 13:44:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ar
Yes, information can imitate randomness, but the vice versa is not true.
False. Natural processes can imitate "ordered information." When pulsars were first discovered, their metronomic emissions of electromagnetic radiation were first seriously considered to stem from an alien intelligence.
You can read a little about pulsars here.
|
"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 11/01/2005 13:44:57 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2005 : 13:52:40 [Permalink]
|
Definitions:
information Noun (Short form: info)
a. A collection of related data.
b. Knowledge obtained from investigation.
c. The attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in computer program) that produces specific effects.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
ar
New Member
30 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2005 : 13:53:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by ar
Yes, information can imitate randomness, but the vice versa is not true.
False. Natural processes can imitate "ordered information." When pulsars were first discovered, their metronomic emissions of electromagnetic radiation were first seriously considered to stem from an alien intelligence.
You can read a little about pulsars here.
Humbert, I appreciate your attempt to clarify things, but from your last 3(?) posts, I can only conclude you have not actually read the entire thread.
The only reason I bring this up is that you would be aware, if you had read my previous post, that a simple, repeating pattern cannot be regarded as information, as I have defined it.
Yes, you may take issue with my definition, but you need to tell me what the issue is.
I am still waiting for someone to point out a weakness in my definition of information (besides accusing me of rigging the definition to fit my argument). |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2005 : 14:05:54 [Permalink]
|
The weakness of your definition is that a set of data whose organization defies probability does not imply that it must have come from an intelligent source. Your assumption that it does is built into your definition, so we cannot use your definition without arriving at your predetermined conclusion.
This is not a minor quibble. Your definition is indeed rigged. We don't need to prove your defintion false, you need to convince us why we should accept your premises. As it stands, we do not.
You pick examples that fit your conclusions but then reject ones that do not on specious reasoning. If Mt. Rushmore is indicative of an intelligent designer according to your definition, then so is the Old Man of the Mountain. What's the probability that chaotic natural weathering would produce a face on a mountain instantly familiar and recognizable to the planet's most intelligent species? According to your logic, this should impossible without an intelligent agent.
|
"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 11/01/2005 14:24:12 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2005 : 14:13:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Again, I am trying to deduce whether or not nature alone can produce information. As such, the fact that you exist being evidence of natural information is circular reasoning within this discussion, where the assumption that evolutionary theory is true is not allowed.
You are going to have much clearer on what in the world you are talking about.
When you say 'nature alone', does that mean people are excluded? We are not natural? What leads you to believe this - if that is what you are saying. Is all life 'unnatural'?
Anything that is ordered and non-living you claim that it is ordered randomness. You are defining terms so that only your conclusions are applicable. I am not buying your definitions.
A hurricane is most definately a highly ordered system.
Crystals are also highly ordered systems.
Information from probabilites - most definitely.
I use to be on a boat the utilized a power source that was designed on the probability that a thermal neutron would be captured by a uranium 235 atom and undergo fission.
You need to adequately define and prove your definition of 'information' before we can even begin to have a discussion that is meaningful.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2005 : 14:27:59 [Permalink]
|
I'm sorry, but you are simply being dishonest.
You state:
quote:
Again, I am trying to deduce whether or not nature alone can produce information.
And yet your DEFINITION of information states:
quote:
2a. Nature cannot produce information. It can produce data that may at superficial glance appear informational....
So you want me to prove to you by YOUR definition of information (which states nature cannot produce information) that nature can produce information.
That's absurd.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
ar
New Member
30 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2005 : 14:44:33 [Permalink]
|
Humbert,
quote:
You pick examples that fit your conclusions but then reject ones that do not on specious reasoning. If Mt. Rushmore is indicative of an intelligent designer according to your definition, then so is the Old Man of the Mountain.
I have not picked any examples! I am taking my examples from earlier posts by others.
Please, give me any examples you want. Your Mt. Rushmore / "Old Man of the Mountain" example is great - The "Old Man of the Mountain" does not defy probablility. It does not resemble any other existing thing against extreme odds. It does resemble an existing thing, but with a huge "fuzziness" that demonstrates it being the product of random, natural causes! Mount Rushmore, on the other hand, resembles an existing thing so closely that it defies randomness. Therefore, I conclude, Mount Rushmore is the product of non-random process, whereas the "Old Man of the Mountain" may or may not have been the result of non-random process.
quote:
The weakness of your definition is that a set of data whose organization defies probability does not imply that it must have come from an intelligent source. Your assumption that it does is built into your definition, so we cannot use your definition without arriving at your predetermined conclusion.
Is there a set of data that defies random process, and is therefore highly improbable?
Yes, there is, and that is what I am calling information.
Could this "information" have arisen naturally?
That is the question! So far I have not seen an example where nature has produced highly organized set of data.
And no, hurricanes are not highly ordered. They are ordered randomness, much like a fractal. Much like a coast line. Much like shifting sand dunes. Waves on the water. A whirlpool down a drain.
You can call "ordered randomness" whatever you want - ranting, a buzz word - that does not change the fact that it is an excepted, mathematical phenomena. It looks complex, but is the result of simple equations and relationships (i.e. physical laws), and contains no information. |
|
|
|
ar
New Member
30 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2005 : 14:52:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
I'm sorry, but you are simply being dishonest.
You state:
quote:
Again, I am trying to deduce whether or not nature alone can produce information.
And yet your DEFINITION of information states:
quote:
2a. Nature cannot produce information. It can produce data that may at superficial glance appear informational....
So you want me to prove to you by YOUR definition of information (which states nature cannot produce information) that nature can produce information.
That's absurd.
If I, from your perspective, am misunderstanding a concept, and am therefore dishonest, I think we need a new definition of honesty!
To simplify things, let's drop the word "information."
Let me put it this way:
Can natural* forces produce non-randomness?
*(non-supernatural forces - although this parenthetical remark seems redundant to me)
And the chaotic "order" of hurricanes, whirlpools, sand dunes, etc is not non-randomness. It is ordered randomness. That is - order produced by very simple laws and relationships. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
