Tuesday, December 8, 2009

"Please Read This."

I began this series with:

“Nothing Did It” http://makarios-makarios.blogspot.com/2009/12/nothing-did-it.html

“Atheism of the Gaps” - http://makarios-makarios.blogspot.com/2009/12/atheism-of-gaps.html

“Es - ka - Pay” - http://makarios-makarios.blogspot.com/2009/12/es-ka-pay.html
===================

Ginx, are you aware that information is an entity in and of itself? Information is not a by-product, or some sort of residue from chemical reactions.

Information is as real as matter and energy. We own it, buy it, sell it, store it, transmit it, encode it and decode it.

You don’t sit down at your key-board,write:

lk nwoie ntlkmc amoint lin mnoiensot,

and hope that I understand what you wanted to say.

Information comes from a thought that is based in an intelligent mind. The intelligent mind forms / invents a code, be it binary code, or letters in an alphabet, or base chemicals, A,C,G,T and the intelligent mind uses that code to convey the message / instructions to the intended recipient.

This - lk nwoie ntlkmc amoint lin mnoiensot, as you noted Ginx, is complexity.

Each and every letter eliminates 1/26 of any other letter that could possibly be in that exact spot.

This - I love you. I'll meet you after work. - is specified complexity.

Not only does it use parts of a very complex code. It uses the complex code in a formulated and specified manner to convey a message or instructions.

In my first example, the code itself is amazing enough. That it exists at all is a thing of wonder. And as atheists propose, it may be possible that any random mixing over billions of years MAY have come up with exactly lk nwoie ntlkmc amoint lin mnoiensot, IF the code already existed.

Nothing but an intelligent mind with a purpose to convey would have written the second example. I love you. I'll meet you after work.

Not just complexity but specified and formulated complexity is what we have in DNA instructions and the processing ability of the receptive proteins.

15 comments:

Ginx said...

If a billion monkeys sat at a billion typewriters for a billion years, out of all the scraps of paper, you would be able to cull a complete work of Shakespeare. If that Shakespearean play could multiply, the world would be full of Shakespeare.

Information is most certainly not a thing. It is an abstract concept, like "love" or "God." It The closest thing to what you speak of would be Natural Laws, such as the properties of light or gravity. That information does seem to be inherent in the universe, but even those may be altered (especially when considering fecund universes, which I discovered when trying to figure out who Lee Smolin was).

Information is a "thing" in the same same electricity flowing through our brain or a computer is a "thing." If the hardware of your body or computer malfunctions, that information is not stored somewhere like some electric notecard, unable to be reached.

You're decades behind the curve, Mak. Most Christians who have any hope of reconciling their faith with science have long passed into the phase of claiming the fundemental laws are the domain of God, not the petty programming of individual species on Earth.

Keith said...

The problem with information is there is a lot of it about and its difficult to tell at first glance what information is true, what is false.

Makarios said...

If a billion monkeys sat at a billion typewriters for a billion years, out of all the scraps of paper, you would be able to cull a complete work of Shakespeare. If that Shakespearean play could multiply, the world would be full of Shakespeare.

That is such a load of rot. In a scenario like that, nothing of impotance would be the result.
=============

You think that natural laws aren't real? Natual laws aren't invented Ginx. They're discovered.

Makarios said...

Ginx, if information isn't real, what is it that you and I are transmitting when we click, "Publish Your Comment"?

What is it that we're trying to convey if not infornmation??

Ginx said...

We're conveying semantic clues in the form of light pixels which travel between "a series of tube" (as the US Senate would describe it).

And yes, sadly monkeys would be able to do that. They would have no idea which pieces of paper were significant, but self-awareness is not necessary for things to occur.

I'm not saying humans make the natural laws of the universe, they merely observe them. I believe my point was that you would have far more luck trying to argue that God wrote the laws of physics than trying to argue that God took a microscopic interest in the generation of life on Earth.

Makarios said...

We're conveying semantic clues in the form of light pixels . . ."

If that's all we were doing I may as well type,

lk nwoie ntlkmc amoint lin mnoiensot,

We are conveying information to each other and you know it.
===========
And yes, sadly monkeys would be able to do that.

I don't believe it.
=================
I'm not saying humans make the natural laws of the universe, they merely observe them.

We only observe things that already exist.

Gorth Satana said...

What model of information theory do you accept?
You seem to be flipping between two incompatible models.

Here you seem to be talking about Kolmogorov complexity.
But to paraphrase him: there is no relationship whatsoever between the complexity of a string and its probability of occurrence.

And in regards to your references to classical information theory.
In some situations a noise source is intentionally observed, in which case it becomes an information source.

Hugo said...

@Makarios and Ginx
Hello, long time no see...

I missed the start of this conversation but from what I can read here, it seems like Rod is trying to show why an intelligent mind must be behind life, especially human life I guess... correct?

The argument is that:
- Information comes from a thought that is based in an intelligent mind
- specified and formulated complexity (i.e. information) is what we have in DNA instructions and the processing ability of the receptive proteins
- Conclusion: DNA (human life in general) must have been designed by an intelligent mind

This kind of argument shows a lack of understanding of how evolution works, or, to be more precise, a backward approach to the issue of complexity.

The problem Rod is that you need to see DNA not as a manual for doing things, but as a memory of what was done before.

In other words, what happens is that as life forms evolved, the complexity and diversity of their DNA evolved as well (note that it's not necessarily getting more and more complex, but always changing).

When the first cells started to replicate themselves, they simply copied the "information" they add over and over again. This "information" meant absolutely nothing, and it still means absolutely nothing nowadays, as it only describes what the cell looked like.

After multiple self-copies, errors occurred, and cells started to mutate. Cells that were better suited for their environment thrived while others went extinct; natural selection anyone?

Now let's jump a few billion years, allowing this process enough time, and you eventually get all the life forms we have today. The "information" that Makarios talk about is nothing more than the result of a very slow evolutionary process that started some 3 billion years ago.

So to use the analogy of the DNA letters, in the natural world, "lk nwoie ntlkmc amoint lin mnoiensot " does not have a more meaningful value than "I love you"; they would simply represent different life forms. "I love you" could describe a human being while "lk nwoie ntlkmc amoint lin mnoiensot" could describe a simple worm...

Was that clear?

JD Curtis said...

in the natural world, "lk nwoie ntlkmc amoint lin mnoiensot " does not have a more meaningful value than "I love you"; they would simply represent different life forms. "I love you" could describe a human being while "lk nwoie ntlkmc amoint lin mnoiensot" could describe a simple worm
The key word here is could. It could also be nothing more than premordial goop that signifies nothing, nevermind a worm. One sequence works and the other one doesnt.

Hugo said...

The key word here is could. It could also be nothing more than premordial goop that signifies nothing, nevermind a worm. One sequence works and the other one doesnt.

Yes, that's the point, it could be something useless, very primitive, a worm, or a virus maybe, or it could be a full thinking human being. It could be of no signification to us, but it's never going to be nothing, it always yield something.

I am surprised that you agree with me JD, sounds good, you accept the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection now, great!
... lol

Makarios said...

Hugo - How was your trip? Glad you made it back safely.

Hugo said...

Thanks for asking, New Zealand was great; high mountains, fjords, galciers, volcanos, beaches, and so much more!

Makarios said...

Mmm, I wish I had the time and the money to go there. I'm jealous. Glad you had a good time.

Hugo said...

Mak:"Mmm, I wish I had the time and the money to go there. I'm jealous. Glad you had a good time."

Yep, I am extremely lucky, but it's also a question of choice. But anyway, I do praise God everyday for being so lucky!
And no, it's not sarcasm, it's just that "God" in such sentence does not refer to any existing supernatural being of course...

Makarios said...

You're in interesting person, Hugo. Enjoy.