Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Intelligent Design Basics – Information

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

First of all I want to thank the Uncommon Descent moderators for allowing me to post, with a particular hat tip to StephenB.  As I indicated on a prior thread, I am not sure how often I will take the time to create a new thread, but hopefully I can occasionally post something of interest.  Kudos to gpuccio for a wonderful first thread, relating to the basic definition of “design”.

—-

Intelligent Design Basics – Information

In this post I want to consider a fundamental aspect of intelligent design theory: the concept of “information”.

This is centrally relevant to the intelligent design concept of “complex specified information”.  Attempts have been made by ID critics to derail ID by critiquing each of these three words: complexity, specification and information.  Indeed, it is not uncommon to see long, drawn-out, battles over these terms in an attempt to avoid getting to the central issue of whether design can be detected.

With respect to information, I have seen complaints against the very concept of “information”, lengthy side roads pursued regarding so-called “Shannon information” (which is really not information at all, but that is a topic for a subsequent post), and – the issue I wish to discuss today – the assertion that there is lots of information contained throughout the physical universe and so, the thinking goes, there is nothing particularly special about the fact that living organisms contain DNA or other sources of information as well.  I have addressed this issue in various comments on UD from time to time, but would now like to bring the issue to the forefront in a single post.

This particular misunderstanding of the concept of information and the mistaken idea that information is contained in naturally-occurring physical phenomena is quite common.  One of the examples occasionally put forward is that of Saturn’s rings.  Other examples of natural phenomena allegedly “containing” information include quasars, pulsars, and the like, but the issue is identical in all such cases and I will use Saturn’s rings for the present discussion.

Do Saturn’s Rings Contain Information?

Saturn’s rings are not only complex (they are), but they contain a lot of information, the argument goes.  Indeed, if we were to completely map and describe the size, position, and trajectory of each boulder, block of ice and dust speck making up the rings, it would be many written volumes of information.

At first glance, the argument seems persuasive.  After all, it is quite true that if we were to map all of the particles in the rings of Saturn it would be a tremendous amount of information.  When faced with this kind of example, many people, including some ID proponents, struggle to explain the difference between the information contained in Saturn’s rings and the information contained in, say, a stretch of DNA.

Everyone intuitively seems to know that the information in DNA is somehow different from the information allegedly contained in Saturn’s rings.  Yet we sometimes have a harder time putting our finger on and articulating exactly what the difference is.  As a result, the attempts of ID proponents to respond to such arguments occasionally end up going down the wrong path or run off track on esoteric disputes about the possible difference between the one and the other.

The purpose of this post is to make explicit what that difference is in order to (i) enable ID proponents to understand the proper response to such arguments, and (ii) help ID critics understand why the idea of information being “contained” in physical objects like Saturn’s rings is neither a valid objection to the concept of CSI nor a good counterexample to the existence of information contained in DNA.

An Object Does Not Contain Information By Its Mere Existence

In order to cut to the chase, I will give the answer first and then backtrack to provide the supporting detail.

When someone argues that there is information “contained” in a pulsar or the waves on the seashore or in the rings of Saturn, the correct response is not “Yes, but there is more information in DNA or different information in DNA.”  (Potentially true as those statements may be.)

The correct response to “There is information contained in Saturn’s rings.” is “No there isn’t.”

And this is the key – a key that will help to address this issue regardless of whether we are talking about Saturn’s rings or any other naturally-occurring phenomenon: an object does not contain information just by its mere existence.

It is true we can use instruments to take measurements about a physical object like the rings of Saturn — their size, location, rotational speed, dissipation/formation rate, particle makeup, etc. — and those measurements are now information.  As a result of the observer’s careful observations and mental activity we now have information about the rings; but the information was not contained in the rings.

And, like all information, those measurements and the related details can now be stored and conveyed in a medium.  So the observer in observing the physical phenomenon and in taking measurements creates information, which can then be stored and conveyed.  But that is very different than saying the rings themselves “contain” the information.  Physical objects don’t contain information in any meaningful sense of the word by their mere existence.

This can be easily contrasted with DNA, for example, which clearly contains information.  To be sure, we can also study the structure of DNA, as we did Saturn’s rings, and as a result of that study we could also produce information about DNA — its diameter, its length, the number of nucleotide bases, the helix structure, etc.  And here is the fun part: we could then store that information in DNA.  This is possible because DNA not only exists as a physical object, but has the ability to store large amounts of information.  So we can study DNA and generate information about DNA, just like we could with any physical object; yet DNA also contains separate information within it.

In summary

A description of a physical object is information; but the information is not contained in the physical object.  Rather, the information is created when an intelligent agent observes the object and creates a description of that object using a language or a code or a mathematical formula.  And like all information, that description of the physical object can now be translated into different languages, or stored in different media, or transmitted via various forms of transmission.

And that leads us to consider characteristics of information that are clearly not “contained” in a physical object like Saturn’s rings: meaning, message, function, translatability, transmitability.  Characteristics for discussion perhaps another time.

—–

Finally, let me anticipate and nip a rhetorical objection in the bud:

Many people are confused (or are purposely obtuse) about what is meant by “information” and will continue to quibble and argue that the information about Saturn’s rings is somehow “contained” in the rings themselves.  It isn’t.  The information is produced by an intelligent agent in its research and study of the physical object.  But we can head this argument off in a different way because such an argument is really a distraction for two reasons.

First, it is clear to any objective observer that the kind of information found in DNA differs both in quantity and quality from any alleged information found in Saturn’s rings.

Second, and more importantly, the claim of information being contained in Saturn’s rings is nothing more than a semantic game.  If someone insists that Saturn’s rings “contain information,” then we can just define the kind of information that each object in the universe “contains” about itself as “Information 1.”  We can then define the kind of information contained in DNA, in a digital code, or in a written language, as “Information 2.”  Then we can proceed to have a rational discussion using the term “Information 2″ and it will be obvious that the kind of information “contained” in Saturn’s rings is not Information 2.

Furthermore, it should be evident that if a physical object, by its mere existence, “contains” information, then everything does.  Which makes the concept of containing information meaningless.  In addition, we would still need a way to distinguish between that kind of “information” and the information that is contained in DNA or a book or a computer program.

So even if someone mistakenly thinks there is some kind of meaningful information contained in Saturn’s rings, it does not in any way address the kind of information contained in DNA or the issues we are discussing in the context of intelligent design.

Again, for the kind of information we are discussing — complex specified information — there is a critical distinction between information about a physical object and information contained in a physical object.

 

Comments
Eric: I'm looking at this post again. You never responded to the last entry--which is, of course, quite understandable as it comes over a year-and-a-half later than the original post. Now I would like to add perspective to my remark that I didn't think the Explanatory Filter would deem the 500 H's, or the HTHT repeat pattern going on for 500 places, as the result of 'law' or 'necessity.' What 'law', or what kind of 'necessity' will cause 500 coin flips to all be 'heads,' or to oscillate between 'heads' and 'tails'? There is no such 'law' or 'necessity.' We're dealing with 'random' coin flips here, are we not? And, if we are, then you will NEVER see either of those two patterns! They're way to improbable. The only thing that can make those 'patterns' appear is the human imagination, fueled by intelligence as it is. These patterns will never show up: unless, of course, the system is rigged. But, of course, if the system is rigged, then intelligence is the only explanation for 'rigging,' and we're back to design.PaV
December 6, 2016
December
12
Dec
6
06
2016
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT
Eric: I am just now reading your response. I'm glad you did respond. You wrote: Incidentally, this is one of the weaknesses with the coin flip examples if we are not careful. Sure, 500 heads in a row or HTHTHT repeated for 500 positions each form an easily recognizable pattern — in precisely the simple way that our kindergartners are taught to recognize patterns. Everyone can see that there is a “pattern.” Yet, in both of these cases the most likely answer, and certainly the one that will be spit out by the Explanatory Filter, is that it was law/necessity, not design, that produced the pattern. I'm not sure I understand why the Explanatory Filter would spit these out as due to "law/necessity." If you happen to read this, maybe you could respond. As to "pattern" versus "function," I think you would still have problems. For example, the Caputo case that Dembski uses: what "function" is involved in the pattern? As I briefly look over my comments, I see that I conclude with what here seems critical: viz., "To close the loop on all of this, we only have to take this one additional step: We state that only 'intelligent' beings can produce 'meaning.'” When it comes to "patterns," their recognition can only be made by intelligent beings, while, likewise, the origin of "meaningful patterns" is also intelligent beings. But, yes, it's always hard to explicate the obvious.PaV
January 28, 2016
January
01
Jan
28
28
2016
02:45 AM
2
02
45
AM
PDT
I’m new to CSI and have a couple questions/comments:
I have been reading this site and posting here since 2006 and I have never seen a good definition of CSI. They are all either esoteric or vague. Generally it means that there is something found in the world that refers to/points to something completely separate from itself. All sorts of complexity exists in nature but little of it points to something completely separate from itself. A thunder storm is natural and very complex but the information in the thunder storm which is very complex does not refer to or specify something else. Some DNA points to something else completely separate from itself, namely proteins (we are learning this is just the tip of the iceberg). Nothing else in the natural world, complex or otherwise, points to something outside of itself like this. It is quite common to find examples whereby some information points to something else, language, computer programs, art etc. These are all due to an intelligence. The only example I have ever seen where nature creates something that points to something else is where some object, can be a live organism but does not have to be, leaves an impression in the earth somehow and this impression indicates that this other object (a rock, tree, fossil) was present there at some time in the past. For example, there is a whole section of paleontology that looks at trace fossils. These are patterns in the strata that indicate some organism was there by the various indentations in the rocks. A lot of pre Cambrian fossils are trace fossils usually indicating some type of worm was there. Here is a discussion that took place 7 years ago on this site and illustrates the lack of clarity of CSI. Sometimes, I don't think we are any further along. There is a concept called FSCI or FCSI which is very simple and clear and has been around since 2007 here under that acronym. The "F" refers to functional as in functional specified complex information. DNA, computer code, language, art etc all meet this definition and only appears as a result of an intelligence. Kairosfocus came up with this particular acronym here but the idea is discussed in the OP below as a way of solving the vagueness of the CSI concept. It is quite long so you may want to search for the term "CSI" to shorten your reading. https://uncommondescent.com/biology/michael-egnor-responds-to-michael-lemonick-at-time-online/ Hope this helps. I am not sure how entropy helps but it may.jerry
April 12, 2014
April
04
Apr
12
12
2014
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT
I'm new to CSI and have a couple questions/comments: It seems to me that CSI is essentially relative entropy. To use statistical entropy as an example, what I mean is that we have some known macro-state, say a DNA molecule. Say there are T possible microstates in a closed system, where each microstate is the position,velocity,etc. of each atom in the system. Let M be the number of microstates that can create DNA. The relative entropy would then be ~log(M/T). What CSI calls complexity is proportional to T, and what they call specified is proportional to M. Are there additional constraints beyond this that CSI requires for something to be considered designed (other than the result being scaled by some very small number)? Or is this the crux of it? Secondly, I had this CSI-like idea I labelled "efficiency". Given a functional specification, we can compare two functional units. The one that has lower entropy (less information required to characterize it) is better designed. For example, say your functional spec is to inflate a balloon. Compare the wind, a human, and an air compressor. Take the Kolmorgorov complexity (i.e. amount of information required to describe each system) and compare them to each other. The wind is highly entropic so is the worst designed for this function. Humans are low entropy relative to their complexity but still high entropy for blowing up a balloon. The air compressor is a fairly low entropy system and would thus be the best 'designed' to meet our spec. Obviously humans do more than blow up balloons so not saying humans aren't well designed. I wonder if this sort of logic could be applied to molecular systems (or if it has already), and if there might be some reasonable ratio above which we might be able to assume design. Thanksbgaide
April 12, 2014
April
04
Apr
12
12
2014
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT
EA @ 96, I understand perfectly! But wasn't the internet supposed to give us all information anywhere anytime!? It doesn't affect anything you've said, I was just hoping to add some references to my own library, lol. If you do ever come across something on the web or in a written text please do post it!Mung
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PDT
Mung @94: Unfortunately, I have not kept track of everywhere I have seen these kinds of arguments (shame on me, I know, BA77). I have seen this argument several times in debates and discussions I have been involved with, and there were a couple of other examples given by other readers above (I think someone mentioned a rock rolling down a hill, someone else mentioned a rainbow, etc.) As for the "information everywhere" wording, that is my wording and my explanation of the logical conclusion that must follow from the idea that there is information in a rainbow or in the rings of Saturn, and so on. Part of my point is that if one argues there is information in these natural objects then, by definition, there is information in everything and everywhere, which makes the idea utterly useless (independent of the fact that I also think it is arguably incorrect substantively).Eric Anderson
March 30, 2014
March
03
Mar
30
30
2014
05:17 PM
5
05
17
PM
PDT
PaV: Apologies for getting back to this late. You have obviously put some careful thought into this issue and make some interesting proposals/observations. Well worth everyone re-reading comments 86-93 above. ---- Just a quick thought on one minor point (I realize this doesn't cut against anything in what you wrote; it is just that a particular term was mentioned tangentially and it reminded me of something.) The word "pattern" often comes up when discussing CSI. I am fully aware of what is meant in the context of CSI and what Dembski and others mean by it. However, I'm not sure the word does a good job of conveying the concept to people generally. Specifically, we are taught to recognize "patterns" very early in life. There is a whole set of exercises in school that kids go through involving pattern recognition. However, in nearly all cases, the complexity is low (the degrees of freedom are low). For example, there will usually be a series of shapes or colors or numbers, with some members of the series missing, and the task is to fill in the missing members. I certainly recognize that the concept of "pattern" can be broader than that. Indeed, we could say that we recognize a "pattern" in the sounds that form spoken English. Yet it feels and seems (perhaps is?) different than the kinds of patterns that we've been taught to recognize our whole life. Indeed, in so very many cases law/necessity is what produces the kinds of repetitive patterns we often see in nature. As a result, I think this contributes to the confusion that sometimes abounds. People see something "ordered", like the colors of the rainbow someone mentioned in the comments above, and realize they see a "pattern". Or we have the oft-cited example of crystals as a naturally-occurring "pattern." In each of these instances, the ID proponent who started talking about "patterns" is then required to undertake a challenging task -- almost a re-education of the individual -- to explain that this kind of pattern is not really what we are talking about (indeed, it is most likely the result of law/necessity), and that we have some other idea of "pattern" in mind. What makes it more challenging still is that the latter "pattern" is usually something more vague, or at least harder to describe. Take a machine like the bacterial flagellum. Does it correspond to a "pattern"? Well, in a very broad sense of the word we could say that it does, in that it corresponds to a class of objects that look kind of like X and do such-and-such. But, again, that takes us away from what the ordinary man on the street thinks of when he thinks of a "pattern." And it probably makes more sense to talk of something like the bacterial flagellum in terms of function, rather than its adherence to a "pattern." Incidentally, this is one of the weaknesses with the coin flip examples if we are not careful. Sure, 500 heads in a row or HTHTHT repeated for 500 positions each form an easily recognizable pattern -- in precisely the simple way that our kindergartners are taught to recognize patterns. Everyone can see that there is a "pattern." Yet, in both of these cases the most likely answer, and certainly the one that will be spit out by the Explanatory Filter, is that it was law/necessity, not design, that produced the pattern. In summary, I am not sure I have a better word to propose, but I do think we have to be careful when talking about ID to say that we are looking for a "pattern". The mere recognition of a pattern does not lead us to design. Indeed, in many (most?) cases, it leads us away from design -- certainly in the simple, repetitive-type patterns we have all been taught since our early years. As a result, any "pattern" we are talking about for purposes of ID is really a departure from the general, everyday concept of patterns and is something more ephemeral and less concrete. Something that is perhaps better described in terms of functionality or purpose or meaning, rather than "pattern."Eric Anderson
March 30, 2014
March
03
Mar
30
30
2014
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PDT
- the issue I wish to discuss today – the assertion that there is lots of information contained throughout the physical universe and so, the thinking goes, there is nothing particularly special about the fact that living organisms contain DNA or other sources of information as well.
Hi Eric, Do you have any sources you can cite that take this "information everywhere" view? I am not being argumentative, just wondering. That said, Meyer makes a good case that "the information in DNA" is off a different kind altogether from whatever else might be found "out there." Concerning my view on "the containment of information" consider the mind-brain issue. If the mind is immaterial, and the brain is material, in what sense does or even can the brain "contain" the mind?Mung
March 25, 2014
March
03
Mar
25
25
2014
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PDT
If you take what I wrote in the last post and convert it into the NFL version of Dembski's CSI, the "independence" would represent "tractability", and the CDF would represent the "pattern" perceived. One would then need to perform an 'entropy' calculation as Dembski does with his "improbability" formula. Where this differs from Dembski's presentation is that the 'improbability' he calculates relies on being able to identify the means by which the 'pattern' was produced, and then using the probabilities associated with 'pattern production' to develop a 'rejection region.' Here, we're dealing with something that is "scalable." That is, we're dealing with 'degrees of freedom', but we're dealing only with 'relevant' degrees of freedom based on the SCALE at which "reflection" is taking place. So, e.g., with the stones forming an "SOS," we're dealing with the PCDF of the stones themselves. Forensic methods may need to be employed to determine the 'relevant' PCDF, but this happens all the time in various sciences across the board. These PCDF can be reasonably determined without assigning any type of probability distribution to our analysis. Same thing with the "Methinks it is a weasel," example; the PCDF involved are keystrokes, and the only thing that needs to be determined are the actual mechanisms being employed to produce the keystrokes. No probability distribution is needed other than that associated with a typewriter. And, onto to the realm of biology: All we need to do is to argue that the PCDF of nucleotide triplets are being "reflected" into the PCDF of amino acids, which are 'independent' of each other (physically they are different, and the "reflection" takes place with the nucleotides and the amino acids being separated), which indicates that "meaning" is involved. Then we can calculate the entropy in a straightforward way without having to know what the mechanism was that gave rise to the nucleotide sequences, which is now demanded by critics of ID. To close the loop on all of this, we only have to take this one additional step: We state that only "intelligent" beings can produce "meaning." [Of course this only means that we will get into different kinds of arguments with materialists. Yet, it might succeed in putting them more on the defensive. Hope we get to see that.]PaV
March 25, 2014
March
03
Mar
25
25
2014
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PDT
Let's apply the ICDF/PCDF distinction at work when it comes to language. Remember we're dealing with "constrained" degrees of freedom (DF=CDF). What happens with any spoken language? The first thing that happens is that certain "sounds", vibrations of the atmosphere audible to the human ear, are assigned "meaning." A "sound" produced by humans represents a constraint on the degrees of freedom involved with exhalation and tension within the vocal chords. Between all of this, mainly due to the tension of the chords, and the particular construction involved in various types of vocal chords, to say nothing of controlled exhalation (=duration of the sound), a huge amount of DFs are "constrained" by the human producing a particular 'sound.' Humans then 'assign' a 'sound' (or 'sounds') to an 'object' or an 'action' (nouns and verbs). The human being that aurally detects the vibration being produced by another human can then be directed to 'associate' this vibration/s with this 'object'/'action.' According to what I'm proposing, the total set of possible vibrations that humans can produce, along with their duration, inflection, etc, represent PDF (physical degrees of freedom). Any human language represents a subset of these PDF, and represent the CPDF for that language/language group. The 'assignation' of 'meaning' to a particular 'pattern' of audible vibrations, including duration, inflection, etc, represent the ICDF of that language group. Via the set of ICDF for any particular language, 'meaning' is imparted---from one 'mind' to another 'mind.' The ICDF of any language can be, of course, transfered via written symbols, into a written language, with the symbols either being entirely symbolic---as in ancient languages---or as a system that assigns 'vibrations' and such to elemental symbols (letters) to which 'sounds' are 'assigned.' Looked at in this way, an important distinction can now be made: viz., INFORMATION is 'embodied' in a particular configuration of PCDF (we're dealing with 'configuration space' at this point, and a 'constraint' or delimitation of this set of physical degrees of freedom), while MEANING involves the 'assignation' of 'content' to the PCDF now being subsumed into the ICDF of 'language.' This would apply also to computer language, as well as biological language. If "actor A" can reflect a "mental state" to "actor B" via human language, then MEANING has been communicated, and this MEANING uses ICDF to "reflect" 'actor A's 'mental state' to 'actor B.' In the cell, if "physical state A" can "reflect" its own "physical state" to "physical state B," then this "physical state" can be assumed to possess MEANING! I'm beginning to think there is something rather handy here. Here's what I mean: ICDF/PCDF, along with the notion of "reflection" seems to enable us to analyze some difficult, entangled real-life situations. So, e.g., are we dealing with PCDF? Then we're dealing with "information" as a function of matter obeying physical forces, which science can interpret and manipulate. Are we dealing with ICDF? Then we're dealing with "intelligent information" as a function of 'mental activity' (ideas) obeying the powers of the human mind, which the human mind can then interpret and manipulate. Are we dealing with CDF of either type that can "reflect" itself into an independent configuration of physical or mental reality (either another physical form, or a mental image in another mind)? Then we're dealing with "meaning." One could then state a law which says that unless there is 'independence' between the producer of the CDF and the recipient of the CDF, then "reflection" CANNOT take place, and, so, there can be no MEANING.PaV
March 25, 2014
March
03
Mar
25
25
2014
04:30 PM
4
04
30
PM
PDT
Just a little bit more: The example of the stones fitted together to form an "SOS" pattern quite nicely points out the difference between ICDF's and PCDF's. The rocks, as macroscopic objects, have 3 degrees of freedom. However, when they rest in place at some part of the earth, they effectively have 0 degrees of freedom. So, they can't 'move' on their own. Now agents (animals and birds and such, even us humans) are able to 'move' these rocks/stones about. So for 'agents', these rocks/stones have available degrees of freedom: IDF's intelligently available degrees of freedom. When they are formed into a 'pattern' then we recognize the pattern as being formed by some human agent (could animals and birds do such a thing?) who "constrained" the IDF's of these stones/rocks so as to form the 'pattern'. So, as we look at the "SOS", we infer that the 'pattern' represents ICDF's. One last comment: it seems as though a helpful way of viewing "intelligence" (def.: intelligence='meaningful information') is that "intelligence" is always conveyed via ICDF's, which is to say, that "intelligence" must always be "reflected" by some sort of "physical" (material) reality.PaV
March 25, 2014
March
03
Mar
25
25
2014
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT
Eric:
I presume you would still agree that DNA contains a representation of information?
According to Wikipedia:
Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a molecule that encodes the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms and many viruses.
I would probably not phrase it in terms of containment but would rather say that DNA consists of sequences of symbols... No materialist could agree.Mung
March 22, 2014
March
03
Mar
22
22
2014
07:59 PM
7
07
59
PM
PDT
We are modifying our everyday perspective on the ultimate nature of reality, that is, our metaphysics, from a materialist one, in which physical objects and processes play a key role, to an informational one.
Information: A Very Short Introduction, p. 12
The infosphere will not be a virtual environment supported by a genuinely 'material' world behind; rather, it will be the world itself that will be increasingly interpreted and understood informationally, as part of the infosphere. At the end of this shift, the infosphere will have moved from being a way to refer to the space of information to being synonymous with reality. This is the sort of informational metaphysics that we may find increasingly easy to embrace.
Information: A Very Short Introduction, p. 17Mung
March 22, 2014
March
03
Mar
22
22
2014
07:33 PM
7
07
33
PM
PDT
I think PCDF and ICDF are better acronyms: physically constrained degrees of freedom and intelligently constrained degrees of freedom, respectively.PaV
March 22, 2014
March
03
Mar
22
22
2014
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT
(Part Two) Here’s where my focus on “degrees of freedom” needs to be better understood----distinctions need to be made---and where it can possibly become useful. My thesis so far says that “information” is the byproduct of ‘constraints’ being imposed on ‘physical’ ‘degrees of freedom.’ One more step is now needed. We now need to distinguish between ‘physical’ constraints and ‘intellectual’ constraints. And implicit to this distinction is the idea of “physical degrees of freedom” and “intellectual degrees of freedom.” What, then, is to be the basis of making the distinction between CPDF ( constrained physical degrees of freedom) and CIDF (constrained intellectual degrees of freedom)? Optimus gave this example in an early post above. Two strings of letters: - Four score and seven years ago - nenen ytawoi jll sn mekhdx nnx The CPDF is the “same” for both strings! (Let’s forget for the moment all the ways in which typed letters deviate from an uniform distribution) But the CIDF is quite high for the first sentence, and extremely low for the second (we do have space marks as in normal English sentences). The CPDF of both strings requires the right kind of pressure to be applied to a keyboard (which can be supplied either by and adult who knows English, or by a two-year old child, or a monkey) The keys are independent of one another, so choosing to type one character does not ‘constrain’ any of the preceding or following characters. So the only “constraint” is effectively a downward pressure on a particular character of the keyboard. The CIDF has, of course, all of the constraints from above, but then it has additionally all the “constraints” imposed by use of the English language. Now we have entered the area of “intellectual constraints.” Dembski’s fundamental idea is that the human mind is able to detect the presence of these ‘imposed’ intellectual constraints, and that should the entropy of IDF decrease to sufficiently low levels, and surpass the UPB, then one can virtually presume that a designer is involved. And his assertion is that the human mind, via the discovery of a “meaningful” pattern (there’s that word again), can deduce that the needed constraints employed to produce the perceived pattern can be attributed to intelligent agency---the work of the mind. [This presume, of course, that this intelligence is able to effect constraints--an argument that ID critics employ: who is the Designer?] When we look at DNA in the cell, we know that there is a code. This is simply a language of life (we know of several languages now, not just what we call the genetic code]. We could call it DNAese instead of Chinese. Prescinding from proteins, certain nucleotide combinations “code” for, or represent, or “constrain the production of,” certain amino acids in the mRNA transcript. Allen MacNeill wrote:
So, the central question in the disagreement between evolutionary biologists and intelligent designers is where and when the meaning comes from. I am working on a monograph on the concept of purpose in which I argue that for something to be purposeful its meaning must be encoded in some form before that something is manifested.
I think we would all argue that this is exactly what we see happening in the cell. First comes the nucleotide combinations, and then, on cue, the right amino acid. But I’ve gotten ahead of myself here. Let’s look at things according to what I have laid out here. We have TWO strings. The first is DNA, and is made up of a string of nucleotides. There doesn’t seem to be any “physical” means of “constraining” the nucleotides: i.e., they are ‘free’ to be whatever they want to be. IOW, they are independent.[*] The second is a string of amino acids that form the messenger-RNA transcript. We know that, using a mathematical term, there is a “mapping” of the sequence of the nucleotides and the string of amino acids. They are correlated. And yet the ‘forces’ that “constrain” the nucleotides (i.e., the chemical bonds associated with polynucleotides) are different forces (chemical bonds) than which constrain the amino acids. The “translator” here is the code for transfer-RNA. When it sees a particular triplet of nucleotides, it “signals’ the start of ‘translation’, and then selects amino acids based on the particular triplet it encounters, all of this, of course, mediated via quantum/chemical forces. The “constraint” arises because of a particular “pattern.” The t-RNA “sees” the pattern. Here the t-RNA is acting like an “intelligent agent.” If we think of analogies to non-human “intelligent agency” in our world, we think of computers and robots. E.g., you can use Google Translate to translate any sentence you write in English into one of any number of foreign languages. The computer “sees” the patterns in English (the t-RNA “sees” the patterns in “nucleotides”) and then translates the pattern into, let’s say German (t-RNA “translates” into amino acids), so we go from “nucleotide language” to “protein language.” How do we account for these CIDF? How do we account for the cell’s translation mechanism being able to choose 1 a.a. out of 22 possible a.a.s at each spot along the protein length? Physical forces are out since causation by physical forces alone would mean only one way of putting together these various aminos acids. And, of course, all independence is lost, and the constraint is complete. And everything can be said to constitute CPDF alone. But we see independence. And we see function being produced by specific arrangements of a.a.s. So we can only conclude that CIDF is involved. This, of course, then raises the question of where this CIDF came from. If we inspect computer code, we’ll find CIDF all over the place. And we know where it comes from. Etc., etc. We all know the arguments. Under this scenario, I want to say that ‘design’ involves ‘fine-tuning’ the “initial conditions” of a system so as to bring about certain specified “final conditions.” IOW, the “constraints” of CIDF come from a delimitation of the ‘initial conditions’ of a system (whether it is a language, a code, a set of equations, a mechanical device, etc.). Just by way of illustration, we can look at all of this backwards. I.e., we can fix, or ‘constrain’, the “final conditions” and thus force the “initial conditions” to be specified. So, e.g., let’s say we take a Roulette wheel and we want the tiny ball to always land on the number 17. This is the ‘final condition.’ Well, given the accepted mechanics of a Roulette wheel, this would mean that the tiny ball would have to start at a certain position, with a certain initial momentum, and the wheel would have to be spinning at a certain angular velocity. Once we select the position where the ball will start and be at rest, then we need to choose a means of accelerating the ball to a final velocity. This acceleration, coupled with the initial location, constitutes a final point of entry into the ‘wheel’ itself. One then can determine the velocity at which the ‘wheel’ needs to be spinning, and the exact location where the ball will ‘enter’ the ‘wheel.’ Tricky business; but it could be done. And we would say that it was designed. [ And if you went to Monaco, and the ball ended up in the same location over and over again, you would know that it would have to have occurred by design.] In philosophical language, we would say that the formal cause (how things are configured) is the same as the final cause (teleos), since the whole point of the adventure was to continuously end up with the ball in the 17 chamber. If a sufficiently large enough degrees of freedom of any system are constrained initially, and the mode of constraint cannot be traced to physical forces that have been arranged via natural laws alone, then CIDF is present, and, “design” can be deduced. It is the “knowledge” of the “mind=intelligence” that examines the system which determines whether the “initial conditions” have been “constrained,” or not. In the example of the typewritten letters above, a native Chinese speaker, who has no knowledge of English whatsoever (perhaps an elderly peasant), might not be able to detect the “constraints” that a native English speaker would see. A native English speaker would determine that the first string of letters was highly constrained, but not via “physical” forces, and, so would “see” CIDF, and possibly [is the UPB been reached?] conclude “design.” I think this is enough for starters. [*]The argument that Stephen Meyer makes in The Signature in the Cell is methodical, wherein he methodically illustrates that the genetic code is built with nucleotides that, for all intents and purposes, enjoy almost the same PDF, and are found in the cell in just about equal proportions, so that the CPDF cannot be assigned to “physical” forces, or laws of nature. Darwinists would say that there must be some kinds of hidden forces at work within the cell that are responsible for the constraints, and we just haven’t discovered them yet.PaV
March 22, 2014
March
03
Mar
22
22
2014
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT
(Part One) Allen_MacNeill:
Shannon’s theory of information is about how one can maintain the fidelity of an encoded message, but the object/process encoded in the message may itself be meaningless. Indeed, as the quote from Shannon’s own work confirms, the “meaningfulness” of the content of the message is completely irrelevant to his theory. What matters is the fidelity of its encoding/transmission/decoding by the sender/transmitter/receiver of the message.
This is well-stated, and I, for one, would hope that we could just put the whole issue of Shannon information to rest. Shannon's job was one of 'tuning into' a signal. In biology, it would amount to eliminating frame shifts within DNA. gpuccio stated above he wanted to offer . . . a few disordered reflections; I'd like to do the same. First, I wonder if we shouldn't start out by agreeing to make a distinction between "physical" information---that which is found in our world and existing under some form of matter or energy---from that kind of information which is "intellectual"---the property of minds, and that can be, and is, transferred from one mind to another using "physical" means (i.e., matter and energy). As Allen MacNeill has pointed out, all our 'ideas' are of necessity connected with matter and energy, and so exist as part of the "physical" world; yet, the independence of 'ideas' (thoughts) from “physical” constraints is also true, except for strict materialists [although I've recently read where they have the capacity, or are on the verge of having this capacity, to impose thoughts onto thinking persons.] If we’re concerned with fostering a more clear and focused discussion of 'information' I just think it is much easier to keep these two 'realms' or 'categories' separate; otherwise, we'll keep stepping on one another's understanding of 'information.' Second, if we want to have a real gritty, brass tacks, kind of discussion regarding ‘information’, then we have to get down to the microscopic essentials. And THE 'real essential' when it comes to "information" is the "degree of freedom." This is what we always come up against in trying to define or specify what is, and what isn't "information", and what is, or isn't "meaningful" information as Allen has couched it. If you take the rings of Saturn, or an ordinary snow flake, the atoms involved are arranged in some order. These atoms have---without exaggeration---’infinite’ degrees of freedom. But these "degrees of freedom" only exist at the quantum level---at the Planck scale: tiny, indeed, and beyond our direct detection. At the level of what we’re able to physically inspect and measure, we’re dealing with a ‘finite’ degrees of freedom. If a snowflake condenses out from water vapor in a cold and airy environment, various “laws of nature” are at work whose net effect is to limit the number of degrees of freedom of water molecules. So, this means entropy decreases (Shannon’s definition of “information”), and gaseous water molecules condense (liquify) and then crystalize. How these “infinite degrees of freedom” become constrained by the laws of nature results in any one, particular snowflake. And since the initial conditions of these ‘infinite degrees of freedom’ are ever so slightly different, each snowflake is “unique”: complex, but not specified in any way. Further, since the gaseous water molecules’ degrees of freedom have been restricted, or “constrained,” “information” is present. But, of course, this is what we would hopefully accept as nothing more than “physical” information. Dembski’s definition of the “explanatory filter” trades in distinguishing the ‘complexity’ that the laws of nature bring about---this lowered entropy, or ordering, due to “constraints” being imposed---and the complexity that is proper to “design,” when the “constraints” being imposed are the effect of human agents. Examples like the following are often offered as a way to convey the ‘meaning’ (no pun intended) of the “specified complexity” proper to “design” and that of the complexity that the laws of nature might bring about: you walk into a room and you see a ball attached to a pendulum, and it is swinging in a wide arc, back and forth. The conclusion that is reached is that the only way that the ball could have been put into motion is via human intervention (let’s say there are no pets around). Now, you can shoot all kinds of holes into this conclusion---a false positive---but the intent here is simply to point out the implicit, tacit means by which humans reach this conclusion. We start by reasoning that a ball that is moving back and forth in a wide arc has greater degrees of freedom than a ball that is simply hanging straight down from where the string attaches itself up above. Looking around the room (remember, no pets), every object there is restricted by gravitational forces to remain in its own place. IOW, each object has virtually NO degrees of freedom. Unless some force is applied, then it basically has zero degrees of freedom. This is tantamount to a water molecule in the gaseous phase, able to move around through space, having once been ‘frozen into place’, and the flake having hit the ground, also has, roughly speaking, zero degrees of freedom. It is constrained; as are all the objects in the room we’ve walked into. The only “physical object” that is able to impel the ball on the string is a human (again, no pets or animals around). Moving things forward a bit, we now can consider the rolling of a pair of dice. If we’re at a table in Las Vegas, and someone is inordinately rolling “sevens” and winning a bundle, the dice are going to be inspected. Why? Because, given its ‘physical’ composition and construction, a ‘fair’ die with six faces, rolled 120 times, should have each ‘face’ showing up around 20 times each. If they roll that die and this doesn’t happen, then they know that its degrees of freedom (here we can consider each ‘face’ of the die as a ‘degree of freedom’ of a ‘rolled’ die) aren’t obeying the normal ‘laws of nature.’ Somehow, its “six” degrees of freedom have been reduced to “five” or “four”, or even “three” or “two”. Since nature’s laws preclude this “constraint” in the degrees of freedom, and, so, human agency is suspected. According to the view of “information” I’m presenting, “information” is the direct result of constraints being imposed upon physical objects. I’m proposing two classes of information. So, how do we distinguish between them? Well, basically, we use Dembski’s method and rely on its use of the Universal Probability Bound. So, we’re dealing with extremely “low” (or “high”) probability, and so it seems that we’re simply back to Shannon information.PaV
March 22, 2014
March
03
Mar
22
22
2014
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT
Mung @82:
The material cannot “contain’ the immaterial as containment is itself a material/physical concept. DNA consists of symbols. Symbols are representations. Representations are not the “thing” represented.
Thanks, Mung. So it sounds like your hangup/objection is to the use of the word "contained." I understand (and agree with) your point about symbols representing, and that they are not the thing represented. That said, I presume you would still agree that DNA contains a representation of information? That is what is meant when we say "contains." Even in the professional literature it is standard fair to refer to the information "contained in DNA." In the English language we also regularly refer to information contained in a technical manual, or on a DVD, or on a hard drive. I don't begrudge the recommendation that perhaps we should say DNA "contains a representation of information" rather than saying DNA "contains information." I'm even amenable to that approach. That said, I'm not sure I'm willing to, or interested in, trying to change the ubiquitous use of terminology as it currently exists in the professional literature and in our everyday language. Maybe I'm just too lazy. :) BTW, in my more recent post (in the nota bene at the end) I reference the issue of whether information can be said to exist wholly in the immaterial form (at the point of conception by an intelligent being), or at the point of encoding. I take it your view would be the former. Perhaps we can discuss that in more detail in a future thread.
I utterly appreciate your posts, don’t get me wrong. I may sound dogmatic at times, but I merely seek to offer up thought-provoking items for consideration and to continue in dialogue. I always try to keep an open mind and hope that what I currently think can be revised in light of new understanding.
Thanks. I appreciate your input and thought-provoking comments.
(Granted, I’m not too receptive to the idea that the earth is only 6k years old. It would probably take a literal miracle to change my mind about that.)
Presumably this has nothing to do with what I wrote, but OK.Eric Anderson
March 22, 2014
March
03
Mar
22
22
2014
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT
Allen MacNeill:
To sum up (to this point, at least): meaning comes into existence in the act of encoding/transmission/decoding.
This is just silly. What sort of intelligent agent encodes meaningless whatever it is you think exists prior to the encoding of the meaningless nonsense? Normally, people ENCODE information into a symbolic representation precisely BECAUSE it has meaning BEFORE it is encoded. The meaning exists PRIOR to the encoding. So while you assert that this is your summation, I don't find the ARGUMENT from you which would lead one to reach the conclusion you have reached. For example:
when one translates a passage Chinese ideograms into English (I’ve done this), one is attempting to represent the same “meaningful bits” in the English passage as are contained in the Chinese ideograms. However, the number of ideograms/letters will be very different, as the “bit rate” in Chinese ideograms is much more “condensed” than it is in English orthography. IOW the same “meaningful bits” (i.e. the meaningful content in the Chinese ideograms) will be encoded into very different “transmission bits” (i.e. the letters in the English translation), which will be decoded by the reader into approximately the same “meaningful bits” (i.e. the “meaningful bits” represented by the Chinese ideograms).
How does it follow from this that meaning does not come into existence until it is encoded? Forget about translation for a moment, unless it is somehow critical to your argument. What do the Chinese ideograms represent? You ask us to believe that what they represent has no meaning until what is represented is actually encoded into the ideogram. Why should we believe that? Where's your argument, Allen?Mung
March 21, 2014
March
03
Mar
21
21
2014
07:44 PM
7
07
44
PM
PDT
Allen MacNeill: ...the crux of the issue here is encoding, by which one means (pun intended, of course) representing an object/process using energy/matter that is not that same object/process. Shannon’s theory of information is about how one can maintain the fidelity of an encoded message, but the object/process encoded in the message may itself be meaningless. Allen is wrong yet again. The sequence of symbols produced by the source may not consist of a meaningful sequence of symbols, and whether they do or not is irrelevant to the communications problem addressed by Shannon's theory. One cannot (should not) from this infer or conclude that any object or process is or can be meaningless.Mung
March 21, 2014
March
03
Mar
21
21
2014
07:29 PM
7
07
29
PM
PDT
Eric:
Mung, do you think there is information in DNA or not? Yes or no.
I do not. Information is not material. The material cannot "contain' the immaterial as containment is itself a material/physical concept. DNA consists of symbols. Symbols are representations. Representations are not the "thing" represented. I utterly appreciate your posts, don't get me wrong. I may sound dogmatic at times, but I merely seek to offer up thought-provoking items for consideration and to continue in dialogue. I always try to keep an open mind and hope that what I currently think can be revised in light of new understanding. (Granted, I'm not too receptive to the idea that the earth is only 6k years old. It would probably take a literal miracle to change my mind about that.)Mung
March 21, 2014
March
03
Mar
21
21
2014
07:16 PM
7
07
16
PM
PDT
Eric Anderson @ 73:
The nuance of this post is directed toward the anti-ID obfuscatory talking point that there is information in all kinds of things — Saturn’s rings, a rainbow, a rock rolling down a hill — and, therefore, there is nothing special about the information contained in living organisms. Everyone knows there is a difference, but these claims sometimes live on longer than they should because they are not properly countered. The OP proposed two possible approaches to the anti-ID talking point, one substantive and one rhetorical.
It bears keeping in mind that the entire goal of obfuscators is to veer discussions off into whatever semantic swamp seems handy. Too often, in my humble opinion, this leads defenders to add unneeded adjectives. So the simple and unambiguous noun "information" becomes "functional information" in an attempt at greater precision in the face of the objectors' cavils. The problem is, adding unneeded adjectives doesn't add precision to the noun, but rather, waters it down. And the last thing needed when mired in a swamp is more water. Meanings are derived by the in-bred human convention that invests words with definitions via common usage over time. Nothing is set in stone. But to me, it's a sin against the English language when individuals dumb words down to score mere debate points. "Information" is the noun, of which the verb form is "to inform." So information means, quite simply, "that which informs." Now a rock rolling down a hill might be said to contain data about its weight, trajectory, acceleration, etc. But that data is not -- it CANNOT BE -- information until it is observed and recorded. Thank you Eric, for sticking to your guns about what information is. Whew, okay. Now that that is settled, please carry on. Lol... :Djstanley01
March 21, 2014
March
03
Mar
21
21
2014
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT
Thank you for the kind comments, Eric. BTW, I appreciate the fact that you address content, rather than the person posting the content. I will not ever respond to any comment which contains any reference to my person (or anyone else's). You have touched on this point several times, as have I: the crux of the issue here is encoding, by which one means (pun intended, of course) representing an object/process using energy/matter that is not that same object/process. Shannon's theory of information is about how one can maintain the fidelity of an encoded message, but the object/process encoded in the message may itself be meaningless. Indeed, as the quote from Shannon's own work confirms, the "meaningfulness" of the content of the message is completely irrelevant to his theory. What matters is the fidelity of its encoding/transmission/decoding by the sender/transmitter/receiver of the message. Your example of the 100 rocks is quite illustrative of this distinction. Exactly the same number of rocks (i.e. "bits") are present in a random collection of 100 rocks washed up on a beach as are present in 100 rocks spelling out the English/Latin letters "SOS." Both sets of rocks have the same number of "rockbits," but the SOS rocks have something that the random rocks don't. They represent something else: an appeal for help/a warning of danger, etc. The "bits" of information contained in the SOS are completely separate from and not in the same domain of information as the "rockbits." It is the representation of (or "standing for") something else that makes the SOS an example of meaningful information, which the random set of rocks does not have. The same thing happens when you translate a passage from one language into another one, especially one that does not use the same orthography. for example, when one translates a passage Chinese ideograms into English (I've done this), one is attempting to represent the same "meaningful bits" in the English passage as are contained in the Chinese ideograms. However, the number of ideograms/letters will be very different, as the "bit rate" in Chinese ideograms is much more "condensed" than it is in English orthography. IOW the same "meaningful bits" (i.e. the meaningful content in the Chinese ideograms) will be encoded into very different "transmission bits" (i.e. the letters in the English translation), which will be decoded by the reader into approximately the same "meaningful bits" (i.e. the "meaningful bits" represented by the Chinese ideograms). The same thing also happens when the nucleotide sequence in a DNA molecule is translated into a corresponding amino acid sequence in a polypeptide. A specific sequence of DNA nucleotides is encoded into a corresponding sequence of RNA nucleotides, which is then translated into a corresponding sequence of amino acids that comprise a polypeptide. This simple analogy is complicated by the fact that, for a DNA sequence to be meaningful (i.e. transmissible and translatable) it must also include (at a minimum) a promoter sequence to which an RNA polymerase molecule must bind to transcribe the DNA sequence and a ribosome to which the mRNA and tRNAs (with specific amino acids attached) must bind and polymerize the specified polypeptide. Without the promoter sequence and/or the ribosome, the nucleotide sequence is literally (pun intended again) meaningless. To sum up (to this point, at least): meaning comes into existence in the act of encoding/transmission/decoding. A necessary corollary to this is that, absent encoding/transmission/decoding there is no meaning. This is why the rings of Saturn by themselves, (i.e. their ding an sich have no meaning at all. If the mass, charge, location, gravitational force, etc. of the "rockbits" of which the rings are composed are encoded into a symbolic representation (i.e. a "message") that message will have meaningful information that the "rockbits" that comprise the rings lack.Allen_MacNeill
March 21, 2014
March
03
Mar
21
21
2014
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT
seventrees: Maybe think of it this way: There is nothing in the rings themselves that is translatable. How do I translate a bunch of blocks of ice into binary or into Spanish? There is nothing to translate. In contrast, once an observer has created information about the rings -- through the observer's mental activity -- then that newly-created information about the rings can be translated at will.Eric Anderson
March 21, 2014
March
03
Mar
21
21
2014
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT
Mung:
Matter and energy, inasmuch as they are material/physical do not and cannot “contain” information itself.
Of course matter and energy contain information. What do you think makes matter matter and energy energy? Neither would exist without information.Joe
March 21, 2014
March
03
Mar
21
21
2014
03:53 AM
3
03
53
AM
PDT
Greetings. Thanks for your answer at 60, Eric. I said earlier that
Using your terms, “Information 1? is not translatable, while “Information 2? is translatable
to see if I understood you correctly. It does seem like not all 'stuff' that falls under "Information 2" is translatable, but all things which fall under "Information 1" cannot be translated due to the fact that they merely exist. I think maybe the characteristics which distinguish “Information 1? and “Information 2? need to be shown. It might bring out more clearly why these are different.seventrees
March 21, 2014
March
03
Mar
21
21
2014
03:30 AM
3
03
30
AM
PDT
Graham2:
This discussion doesnt bode well for ID. Its shtick is that ‘information’ cant be created by natural processes (or whatever), and this is used over and over to hammer evolution. Yet, as is clearly demonstrated above, no-one seems to be able to agree on even the fundamentals.
No. The opposite is true. People in the ID field are trying to discuss and clarify extremely important concepts which have remained ambiguous and ill defined in recent thought, and to deal with them objectively and quantitatively. That is one of the great merits of ID as a general paradigm of scientific knowledge. Moreover, ID is supported by people who think for themselves, and there is no party line. That is another great merit of ID. Who can deny that meaning and the informational resources necessary to convey it are very important concepts? Ah, yes, I forgot. Neo darwinists can deny that. It's more comfortable for them to deny or elude a problem, if the problem is likely to demonstrate that they are wrong. It's better to deny the existence of meaning, because, if meaning exists, hoe could they justify defending a theory which means nothing?gpuccio
March 21, 2014
March
03
Mar
21
21
2014
12:53 AM
12
12
53
AM
PDT
Mung @72:
Matter and energy are mediums for representations of information. Matter and energy, inasmuch as they are material/physical do not and cannot “contain” information itself.
This is deep. Yin-yang deep. One is tempted to ask, what gives a particle of matter its properties? It it something that is intrinsic to the particle or extrinsic?Mapou
March 20, 2014
March
03
Mar
20
20
2014
10:42 PM
10
10
42
PM
PDT
Mung, do you think there is information in DNA or not? Yes or no.Eric Anderson
March 20, 2014
March
03
Mar
20
20
2014
09:18 PM
9
09
18
PM
PDT
Graham @61:
This discussion doesnt bode well for ID. Its shtick is that ‘information’ cant be created by natural processes (or whatever), and this is used over and over to hammer evolution. Yet, as is clearly demonstrated above, no-one seems to be able to agree on even the fundamentals.
Your assessment goes a bridge too far and demonstrates that you are not appreciating the nuances. I haven't seen any ID proponent on this post object to the central concept that the information contained in living organisms, for example in DNA, is fundamentally different from what is contained in a rock or a rainbow or some other physical object. The nuance of this post is directed toward the anti-ID obfuscatory talking point that there is information in all kinds of things -- Saturn's rings, a rainbow, a rock rolling down a hill -- and, therefore, there is nothing special about the information contained in living organisms. Everyone knows there is a difference, but these claims sometimes live on longer than they should because they are not properly countered. The OP proposed two possible approaches to the anti-ID talking point, one substantive and one rhetorical. Yes, we are having a spirited discussion about the exact nature of the information, if any, contained in physical objects by their mere existence. But no-one is confused over the fact that even if such information does exist, it is fundamentally different from what we find in living organisms.Eric Anderson
March 20, 2014
March
03
Mar
20
20
2014
09:17 PM
9
09
17
PM
PDT
Joe:
Mung’s point is, of course, that information is neither matter nor energy. Matter and energy are mediums for information.
Close. Matter and energy are mediums for representations of information. Matter and energy, inasmuch as they are material/physical do not and cannot "contain" information itself. Saying that they do is akin to saying that Jesus' material/physical body contained God. That's my story ad I'm sticking to it! Until it changes.Mung
March 20, 2014
March
03
Mar
20
20
2014
08:42 PM
8
08
42
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply