UB writes: UB, only way thread, 164: >>My apologies to Origenes, he had asked for my comment, but I was away . . . . I am no expert of course, but thank you for asking me to comment. Frankly you didn’t need my opinion anyway. When you ask “What is the error in supposing Read More…
Anton Zeilinger: “In conclusion it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows.”
The revelation of the quantum nature of physical reality is consistent with the understanding that information may be more fundamental than matter and energy.
Bacterial growth patterns toss off a code for sending abstract ideas and only a “powerful AI” can crack it. So we live in a world of information, not matter.
Information makes things happen but, curiously, it erases its own history. You’ve read a book in order but can’t know if it was written in that order. Maybe the author started with pivotal Chapter 5, then wrote Chapter 1. Design of any kind does not come with a history included.
Tucker’s dilemma is easier to interpret if we keep in mind something Bill Dembski stressed in Being as Communion (2014) about the nature of information: it is connective, not causal, and using it wisely is an act of the will.
Author and design theorist, Eric Anderson, clarifies the limitations of randomness in producing biological novelty.
The researchers found that, from an information theory perspective, human brains engage in less redundant and more synergistic processing than macaques. So information theory supports human exceptionalism where Darwinism doesn’t?
The authors of the open-access paper, marine researcher Rasmus Skern-Mauritzen and forester Thomas Nygaard Mikkelsen make clear that they understand information to be immaterial.
Eric Holloway looks at Richard Dawkins’ famous Darwinian evolution-only Weasel program in light of epigenetic information.
The question of the significance of human existence comes sharply into focus as we consider the origin of life itself. Do the laws of nature support the origin of life from nonlife, or do they argue against it?
Hossenfelder: …. no one can tell which solution is correct in the sense that it actually describes nature, and physicists will not agree on one anyway. Because if they did, they’d have to stop writing papers about it.
This Phys.Org press release isn’t about a particularly interesting scientific paper. However, what the authors tells us about how this paper came to be is very interesting. And, I may add, very revealing. Listen to what they have to say about their “aha” moment: Inside some of the data that a standard mapping algorithm normally Read More…
Rob Sheldon notes that the more real-world information we have, the less the bits weigh until, at very large amounts of information, they weigh almost nothing.
Holloway: If [Melvin] Vopson is correct we now have a mystery because his theory is in tension with the conservation of energy. The only solution is that the system is not closed. So where is the opening in the system? If the system is physically closed, then the influx of information must come from outside the physical realm.