|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
 Posted - 11/01/2005 : 15:06:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ar
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.
(emphasis mine)
The very concept of science is that it is a tool by which the reality in which we exist can be described.
All theories are by their nature tentative, and the scientific method is used to find the most accurate theory possible to explain any given phenomenon.
As such, Evolution is a collection of theories that explains the diversity of life on Earth. The evidence collected in support of this theory has been mounting for 150 years, to a point at which we now consider Evolution a fact.
By not allowing an assumption of evolution as true, you are placing the whole discussion outside the realm of science. What we have left is philosophy and theism and fantacies.
If you reject evoltion, you must also reject the viability of the 2nd Law of themodynamics, since they both rests on the same basic assumption: There exist an objective reality, and science is a method of describing it.
A theist is not confined to by science, because they either reject the idea that there is an objective or ultimate reality, or that this reality can be investigated and described.
|
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. |
 |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2005 : 15:08:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ar
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.
Please explain how you came to the determination that Mt. Rushmore was designed but the Old Man in the Mountain was not using your own definition of information. If your determination was simply a result of eye-balling it, a "judgement call," then your definition is useless, and all you really mean is you know design when you see it.
|
"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 15:09:51 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2005 : 15:16:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ar...
I'm not sure what you're referring to. I haven't even formulated a position yet - so who could be persecuting me?
Here is where you appear to be claiming persecution...quote:
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.
You go on to say...quote:
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.
You are apparently under some misperception that science requires a foundation of "confidence". Science isn't faith. Once you get past that mistaken idea you may be more capable of understanding the responses to your questions here. When you're wrong about something, and the people on this board let you know you're wrong, that's not belittling, that's correcting. As has been pointed out, some of us are much less diplomatic about it than others.quote:
Honestly, I don't know what fundies or George Bush have to do with information theory.
George W. Bush bends the definition of terms in order to support his otherwise unsupportable claims. "Fundies" bend the definition of terms in order to support their otherwise unsupportable claims. You are attempting to bend the definition of terms in an apparent effort to support your otherwise unsupportable claims. I see a very close correlation.quote:
If I, from your perspective, am misunderstanding a concept, and am therefore dishonest, I think we need a new definition of honesty!
You're being dishonest about your purpose here. On this forum there's no need to pretend to be on the fence if you're not. You seem to be anti-science. Your rhetoric has its roots in the creationist camp. You display a pretty obvious agenda of trying to find some loopholes in the theory of evolution so that you might exploit them to support your notion that "god did it." So let's call a spade a spade. You'll likely find a lot more productive, cooperative discussion if you come clean about your intentions.
|
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2005 : 15:18:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
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)
I think I see the problem.
Anything that you define as non-random you assume is 'supernatural'
Anything that you define as random is natural.
The supernatural is by definition outside of nature and unmeasurable.
And you said I was using circular logic.
I would say that since there is ZERO evidence of the supernatural I would assume that all that is observable is natural - but hey that's just me...
|
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 : 15:26:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by ar
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.
(emphasis mine)
The very concept of science is that it is a tool by which the reality in which we exist can be described.
All theories are by their nature tentative, and the scientific method is used to find the most accurate theory possible to explain any given phenomenon.
As such, Evolution is a collection of theories that explains the diversity of life on Earth. The evidence collected in support of this theory has been mounting for 150 years, to a point at which we now consider Evolution a fact.
By not allowing an assumption of evolution as true, you are placing the whole discussion outside the realm of science. What we have left is philosophy and theism and fantacies.
If you reject evoltion, you must also reject the viability of the 2nd Law of themodynamics, since they both rests on the same basic assumption: There exist an objective reality, and science is a method of describing it.
A theist is not confined to by science, because they either reject the idea that there is an objective or ultimate reality, or that this reality can be investigated and described.
Your post makes absolutely no sense in a conversation whose point is to determine whether or not evolution is correct (by questioning it's possible contradiction of physical laws).
If I understand what you are saying, then I'm not sure why you took part in the coversation at all, except to say:
"Evolution is true, because the alternative is not within the realm of science, therefore cannot be true."
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by ar
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please explain how you came to the determination that Mt. Rushmore was designed but the Old Man in the Mountain was not using your own definition of information. If your determination was simply a result of eye-balling it, a "judgement call," then your definition is useless, and all you really mean is you know design when you see it.
I did not even mention "information" in that quote. I narrowed the topic down further and talked only about randomness verus non-randomness.
If I was trying to "see" object in clouds, and I saw something somewhat resembling a ship, that would be one thing.
If I saw a detailed ship, with sails, a mast, a crows nest, and a statue on the front, I would go see a doctor.
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2005 : 15:27:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ar
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.
I'm sorry, ar, but the policy on moderation of this board is to stay our hand as much as possible. Most moderations are made for copy-right reasons, but not much else. Two people ever have gotten temporary bans for abusive language, and one became permanent when he broke conditions of the temporary ban.
If you find people abusing or disruptive: ignore them.
Otherwise, try to filter out what you consider name-calling, and try to find the core of their argument.
I sometimes think it helps by copying the post somewhere else (like a word processor) and then strip the fluff of the post away, in order to increase the signal/noise ratio of the post. |
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. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2005 : 15:36:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ar
I did not even mention "information" in that quote. I narrowed the topic down further and talked only about randomness verus non-randomness.
No, I realize. That was question I asked in my post. I asked you do to so. I'm trying to get a workable set of criteria from you that identifies design per your requirements, whether that be through "information" or "order" or whatever you are attempting to use.
quote:
If I was trying to "see" object in clouds, and I saw something somewhat resembling a ship, that would be one thing.
If I saw a detailed ship, with sails, a mast, a crows nest, and a statue on the front, I would go see a doctor.
Then where does that leave life? Any reference to cells as "tiny machines" or to DNA as a "computer code" is equally as vague as seeing ships in clouds. They sort of resemble one another, but it's a very long jump to claim we can consider them equivalent.
|
"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 16:01:53 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2005 : 15:42:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ar
Your post makes absolutely no sense in a conversation whose point is to determine whether or not evolution is correct (by questioning it's possible contradiction of physical laws).
I find your idea of applying the 2nd LoTD on a questionable definition of information equally non-sensical.
The Law of Entropy is ONLY applicable on CLOSED systems. And the only truly closed system is the Universe. (And we can't even be sure that the Universe is a closed system).
2nd LoTD was defined to apply on chemical reactions and energy transfers, and in isolated physical systems. No biological entity is isolated in the sense that 2nd LoTD requires.
While the word Entropy exists in other contexts, it does not have the same meaning as when used in the context of 2nd LoTD.
|
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 11/01/2005 16:04:44 |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2005 : 15:51:59 [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).
Lets for arguments sake that we have a number of objects lined up next to eachother. On the left is something that "clearly is organized (really defies probability)". Moving to the right, the objects start to look less and less organized so that on the far right there is something that "does not look organized at all". Where, exactly, would you draw the line of whether something's organization defies probability or not? You may show an algorithm to clarify your position if you wish. When you've done this, please show why this organization must come from an intelligent source.
|
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
ar
New Member
30 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2005 : 16:15:48 [Permalink]
|
Dr. Mabuse:
quote:
I find your idea of applying the 2nd LoTD on a questionable definition of information equally non-sensical.
The Law of Entropy is ONLY applicable on CLOSED systems. And the only truly closed system is the Universe. (And we can't even be sure that the Universe is a closed system).
2nd LoTD was defined to apply on chemical reactions and energy transfers, and in isolated physical systems. No biological entity is isolated in the sense that 2nd LoTD requires.
While the word Entropy exists in other contexts, it does not have the same meaning as when used in the context of 2nd LoTD.
Please re-read this post I made earlier:
quote:
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 emo....
You are quite right, that this conversation currently has little to do with "2LoT." I am happy to accept that.. and actually already did.
Hawks:
quote:
Lets for arguments sake that we have a number of objects lined up next to eachother. On the left is something that "clearly is organized (really defies probability)". Moving to the right, the objects start to look less and less organized so that on the far right there is something that "does not look organized at all". Where, exactly, would you draw the line of whether something's organization defies probability or not? You may show an algorithm to clarify your position if you wish. When you've done this, please show why this organization must come from an intelligent source.
Indeed, I could not tell you where the cut-off point was - where the data went from "random" to "non-random."
But I could tell you that one end of the data spectrum was definately improbably organized, and the other was random!
I am not interested in showing where this information came from. I am interested in whether or not nature can produce it. |
| Edited by - ar on 11/01/2005 16:17:03 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2005 : 16:47:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ar
Indeed, I could not tell you where the cut-off point was - where the data went from "random" to "non-random."
But I could tell you that one end of the data spectrum was definately improbably organized, and the other was random!
I am not interested in showing where this information came from. I am interested in whether or not nature can produce it.
Then were back to the snowflake. It seems pretty organized to me.
If something has the appearance of randomness or not doesn't really have much, if any, bearing on information content. I don't understand your focus on information. Why do you need to have it defined, especially in an evolutionary context?
Where beginning life is concerned, and whether or not DNA was created by pure randomness or by a creator, have no bearing on Evolution.
Creationism is about the creation of life. Abiogenesis is about the creation of life.
Once the first bacteria was functioning, the internal process in the bacteria enabled the DNA to grow and evolve.
Abiogenesis is still in its infancy, and because of that, its answers to most questions is "we don't really know... yet".
As skeptics, we are more comfortable with that answer than are creationists, because of their need for absolute answers. |
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. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2005 : 17:23:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Then we're back to the snowflake.
Yeah, we're going in circles.
Ar, you need to define information for us in a way that that differs from your idea of "organized chaos" or "order" but yet does not assume intelligent agency. In each example, you simply are relying upon your own personal judgement to ascribe the boundaries for these concepts. How can we possibly demonstrate an example of nature producing information if you won't define "information?" So far your definition of information seems to be "something that looks like it could have come from a human." That's far too anthropomorphic to be useful.
Let's go back to Hawk's question. Say you are walking down the street near a row of pine trees. Dead and brown needles litter the ground at your feet. They lie scattered and criss-crossed in a haphazard way as you would expect if they simply fell randomly and at different intervals.
At one particular spot along the road, the needles lie close together in parallel. They do not appear jumbled, but all line up in the same direction as if someone has placed them there.
My question to you is this: Where did this "order" from disorder come from? Looking at the arrangement of pine needles, would you conclude that an intelligence must have arranged them so? Why or why not?
|
"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 |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2005 : 17:50:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Indeed, I could not tell you where the cut-off point was - where the data went from "random" to "non-random."
But I could tell you that one end of the data spectrum was definately improbably organized, and the other was random!
If your only criteria for distinguishing between the two is your intuition, then your argument is meaningless, since my intuition might tell me something different. You have yourself said that algorithms could distinguish between them. What criteria would they use?
quote:
Considering you only have 3 or so bytes of it, yes, it may be random or it may be information. It is ambiguous.
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.
Could you do it for a typical vic-20 program? What criteria do you use?
quote:
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.
What if there was an intermediate between these? Is it "organized" because it was wheathered since it was created or is it "disorganized" because purely natural processes created it? What criteria do you use? |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2005 : 19:45:21 [Permalink]
|
| I'd like to point out that I have not ruled out the possibility of something creating the first life. While I think that life started on its own, it is just an opinion based on extrapolation of known science. Abiogenesis reseach haven't gathered enough evidence yet. If I had to place a bet, I'd bet on naturalistic materialism cause, and not creator. But as any good skeptic, I'll remain prepared to change my mind, should new evidence point elsewhere. |
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 - 11/01/2005 : 20:52:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ar
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.
Fair enough.
Just keep in mind that creationists have a history of abusing science in order to fit their point of view.
quote:
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).
I can think of natural patterns that contain information: vibrations from something dropping into the water received by the lateral vibration-sensors of a fish tells the fish the direction to the object. Likewise, infra-sound noise gives some migrating birds orientation relative to waterfalls. Information is data that is interpreted. The noise from the waterfall is random and chaotic by nature, yet birds have the ability to recognise it as information.
quote:
1b. Information can be recognized as a set of data whose organization defies probability, and therefore must have come from an intelligent source.
I disagree, and refer you to my examples above.
quote:
It can be intuitively recognized (I am aware that that is very debatable),
That is indeed debatable. If you have a file of 2KB, you can't intuitively say if the file is a machine-language program for the Zilog Z80, the Intel 8080, the Motorola 6502, or if it's a zipped letter to my mom.
quote:
but it can also be recognized algorithmically by complex rules of formulation (i.e. grammer, in written language).
Does
"recognized algorithmically by complex rules of formulation" refer to all kinds of information, or just some kinds of it?
If you make the definition of information too wide, then loose the point of making a definition in the first place.
quote:
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.
The relevance is in the context. A DNA-strand contains information in the sense that it's a template for building proteins. The infra-sound noise from a water-fall is relevant information for the bird trying to navigate. If we don't listen for it, it is irrelevant to us. If there are no birds within hearing range of the same water-fall, then the noise it just noise, and the information is lost. If we detect the noise, we will not be able to draw information from it, because we will probably think of it as ambient noise of no consequence.
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.
This is an unevidenced assumption, that nature cannot produce information. Strictly logically speaking, it's an unprovable statement, since it contains a universal negative.
You will need to take that statement back to the drawing board.
quote:
The question follows:
How did information, as "defined" above (1b) arise?
The kind of information actually do fit the premises you stated can only have intelligent origin. But we have shown you that there is information that does not fit your definitions, so once again, time to go back to the drawing board.
|
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. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
