Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

How is Bill Dembski’s Being as Communion doing?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Currently (9:00 am EST) in the top 100 in the Kindle store, despite the sweetheart deals offered this summer, for buying the book.

For a thing to be real, it must be able to communicate with other things. If this is so, then the problem of being receives a straightforward resolution: to be is to be in communion. So the fundamental science, indeed the science that needs to underwrite all other sciences, is a theory of communication. Within such a theory of communication the proper object of study becomes not isolated particles but the information that passes between entities. In Being as Communion philosopher and mathematician William Dembski provides a non-technical overview of his work on information. Dembski attempts to make good on the promise of John Wheeler, Paul Davies, and others that information is poised to replace matter as the primary stuff of reality. With profound implications for theology and metaphysics, Being as Communion develops a relational ontology that is at once congenial to science and open to teleology in nature. All those interested in the intersections of theology, philosophy and science should read this book.

Here’s part of a review a reader sent:

Dembski leaves nothing to chance, not even chance itself. He is also a mathematician, so he looks at chance from the perspective of probability theory. He sees chance events through the law of large numbers and probability distribution. When looking at any event, we may prematurely assume—taken in isolation—that the event is (strictly speaking) random; however, in looking at all events aggregately, the probability distribution of those events will begin to show a pattern. He writes:

“For instance, as a coin is tossed repeatedly, the proportion of heads will tend to ½. This stable pattern to coin tossing is justified both theoretically (various probabilistic laws of “large numbers” confirm it) and practically (when people flip coins a large number of times, they tend to see roughly the same proportion of heads and tails).”

Information, Dembski writes, “is produced when certain possibilities are realized to the exclusion of others within a matrix of possibility…. It follows that information can be measured.”

See also: Brief excerpt from Being as Communion

Also How is Steve Meyer’s Darwin’s Doubt doing? (Continues to lead, and Christians defending Darwin continue to detract.)

Thought: Will Christians defending Darwin actually read Being as Communion first? Detract later?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
Descartes currently in #9 spot in Logic & Language. Don't turn around Rene, Dr D is breathing down your back. He's already passed kindle Plato.ppolish
November 12, 2014
November
11
Nov
12
12
2014
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT
Dr Dembski up to #26 (Logic & Language) Bill Nye now at #12 (Religion & Spirituality) Per current Official Kindle stats. Proper Kindle stats.ppolish
November 12, 2014
November
11
Nov
12
12
2014
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT
Sparc: "According to Novelrank Amazon sold one (1) copy of the paperback and two (2) copies of the kindle edition of Dembskis’s “Being as communion” since yesterday." I hope that Dembski wasn't relying on the sales of this book to supplement his income.centrestream
November 12, 2014
November
11
Nov
12
12
2014
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT
But I doubt it will ever be a Kindle Top 100 ever again:)
It never actually was in the proper Top 100, just in this category: Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Nonfiction > Politics & Social Sciences > Philosophy > Logic & Language”… As Dieb pointed out in #2. The News Desk does not appear to want to correct this factual error. As KF might say, that seems rather telling.roding
November 12, 2014
November
11
Nov
12
12
2014
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT
Bill Nye's new book is an Amazon best seller. Not a single original thought in that one I bet. Hardly a page goes by in Dr Dembski's new book without an original thought or profound insight. But I doubt it will ever be a Kindle Top 100 ever again:) Although it may tie for Top Book for a second...ppolish
November 12, 2014
November
11
Nov
12
12
2014
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT
sparc, That's an interesting site, thanks for the information. So much more detailed and significant information than simply, and falsely, claiming that it's "in the top 100 in the Kindle store."Learned Hand
November 12, 2014
November
11
Nov
12
12
2014
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT
According to Novelrank Amazon sold one (1) copy of the paperback and two (2) copies of the kindle edition of Dembskis's "Being as communion" since yesterday.sparc
November 11, 2014
November
11
Nov
11
11
2014
08:27 PM
8
08
27
PM
PDT
Denyse, A reminder.keith s
November 11, 2014
November
11
Nov
11
11
2014
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT
Mung
Why bring up Shannon at all?
Because you asked about measuring information.
No, I asked about measuring information in the Dembski sense. I've been earning a living for forty years working with information in the Shannon sense, so understand it's concepts quite well. But I was asking for clarification in the Dembski sense. I don't have a problem if you consider these to be overlapping sets, but discussion gets nowhere if use the word "information" without elaboration to mean either or both. So let's agree to use the terms "Demski information" and "Shannon information" to avoid confusion. The maximum Shannon information in a human genome is about 750Mbytes. How much Dembski information is there?
Mung
Interesting. You contend Dembski defines “information” by the Shannon metric which considers message length only and specifically excludes any meaning the message may carry.
That is incorrect.
Which bit are you contesting Mung? The (correct) definition of the Shannon metric, or your view on Dembski's opinion?
Mung
Information, Dembski writes, “is produced when certain possibilities are realized to the exclusion of others within a matrix of possibility…. It follows that information can be measured.”
How is that not a description of Shannon’s metric?
Because Shannon precisely defined a way of measuring information, the fact that it can measured does not follow from anything Dembski (or Dawkins, I'm not taking sides here) defines. If Dembski is postulating something beyond Shannon information that is fine, but the what he is actually saying is "It follows that Dembski information can be measured. I was simply asking how to do this. Simple thought experiment. Take an ovum and let it split into three identical cells, as would normally produce identical triplets. We have three identical cells, let's call them Mung, Tamara and Barry. Genetically engineer Tamara by duplicating a gene 256k base pairs long, but insert a 256k base-pair random sequence at the same locus in Mung. Leave Barry untouched as a disinterested moderator. Mung will gain 64kbytes of Shannon information, but Tamara gets virtually no extra Shannon information. (Think change-in-size of their respective ZIP files in memory as a pretty good measure of the change of their Shannon information). How much does their Dembski information change? Or even can you arrange the three of them order, highest to lowest. And suppose these three cells are allowed to grow into mature organisms. Mung and Barry would effectively be identical twins, but Tamara would be a mutant with an extra copy of a gene. I'm not a biologist, but my understanding is that this extra copy could either: a) Make Tamara "better" than her siblings because her cells produce more of a good thing b) Make Tamara "worse" than her siblings because her cells produce too much of a good thing c) Give Tamara a redundant spare copy of a gene (which can of course subsequently mutate without detriment). How does Tamara's Dembski information change in these three scenarios?Tamara Knight
November 11, 2014
November
11
Nov
11
11
2014
04:12 AM
4
04
12
AM
PDT
Denyse, A reminder.keith s
November 11, 2014
November
11
Nov
11
11
2014
12:32 AM
12
12
32
AM
PDT
I've added both editions to novelrank.com. You may check the development of sales there: paperback edition kindle edition (to my best knowledge counting only starts from today)sparc
November 10, 2014
November
11
Nov
10
10
2014
09:07 PM
9
09
07
PM
PDT
Reality:
Have you read “the book”?
Given your obvious interest in this book it's a shame that you're not aware of the threads here at UD about it in which I have stated my progress in reading it. Reality:
If so, will you please provide some of Dembski’s best points in it and on what pages those points can be found?
Why?Mung
November 10, 2014
November
11
Nov
10
10
2014
06:00 PM
6
06
00
PM
PDT
Mung, have you and Joe ever been seen in the same room at the same time? Have you read "the book"? If so, will you please provide some of Dembski's best points in it and on what pages those points can be found?Reality
November 10, 2014
November
11
Nov
10
10
2014
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT
"Without readers, a book is a bundle of cellulose sheets with meaningless ink stains. Likewise, a text in the metabolic library needs to be read to reveal its meaning: the metabolic phenotype that determines which fuels an organism can use, and which molecule it can manufacture" Arrival of the Fittest- Andreas Wagner pg 83, my current page. After reading Being as Communion, I'm guessing Dr Dembski would agree with Dr Wagner. Although I suspect Dr Wagner will soon careen of the path and end up in the materialist "chance and necessity" rut.ppolish
November 10, 2014
November
11
Nov
10
10
2014
04:20 PM
4
04
20
PM
PDT
Dick: "I’m not sure why you think it noteworthy that people “admit” that BAC is not science. Why does it have to be? The book is written as a critique of materialism – a metaphysical hypothesis – and as such it is itself a metaphysical argument." Dick, I was just confused because the book is being flogged on UD, a blog that "supports the intelligent design community". Given the assertion that ID is a science, and that Dembski is one of its founders, I naturally (and erroneously) jumped to the conclusion that this book was about science. But knowing that this is a book about metaphysics and religion, and not about science, will temper any future comment I have about it. I offer my most sincere mea culpa.centrestream
November 10, 2014
November
11
Nov
10
10
2014
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT
Some of us have actually cracked open the book and peeked inside before mouthing off about it. Imagine that.Mung
November 10, 2014
November
11
Nov
10
10
2014
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT
Tamara Knight:
But the clip I commented on seems to bear no relationship to the Shannon sense.
Really? That's simply bizarre. Here's what you clipped;
Information, Dembski writes, “is produced when certain possibilities are realized to the exclusion of others within a matrix of possibility…. It follows that information can be measured.”
How is that not a description of Shannon's metric? Is it the absence of realization? Is it the absence of a matrix of possibilities? Did you read the paper Joe linked? Seriously people. You're like the Kansas City Royals trying to get a win against Madison Bumgarner.Mung
November 10, 2014
November
11
Nov
10
10
2014
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT
centrestream: I'm not sure why you think it noteworthy that people "admit" that BAC is not science. Why does it have to be? The book is written as a critique of materialism - a metaphysical hypothesis - and as such it is itself a metaphysical argument.Dick
November 10, 2014
November
11
Nov
10
10
2014
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT
Mung: "Next stupid question?" Well, it is nice that ID and UD are willing to be honest enough to admit that this book is not about science. My respect for both has increased.centrestream
November 10, 2014
November
11
Nov
10
10
2014
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT
Adapa:
Interesting. You contend Dembski defines “information” by the Shannon metric which considers message length only and specifically excludes any meaning the message may carry.
That is incorrect. Try again.Mung
November 10, 2014
November
11
Nov
10
10
2014
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT
Tamara Knight:
But only in response to my request for instructions about how to measure it in the Dembski sense. Why bring up Shannon at all?
Because you asked about measuring information. Next?Mung
November 10, 2014
November
11
Nov
10
10
2014
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT
centrestream:
Can someone explain to me why this cutting-edge science book is being published as one of the Ashgate Science and Religion series?
From the Preface:
By contrast, Being as Communion attempts to paint a metaphysical picture of what the world must be like for intelligent design to be credible...
Next stupid question?Mung
November 10, 2014
November
11
Nov
10
10
2014
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT
Can someone explain to me why this cutting-edge science book is being published as one of the Ashgate Science and Religion series? Maybe it is because the editors are well recognized in the field of science. "Roger Trigg, Emeritus Professor of Philosophy, University of Warwick and Kellogg College, University of Oxford, UK and J. Wentzel van Huyssteen, Princeton Theological Seminary, USA"~/I> OK, maybe not.centrestream
November 10, 2014
November
11
Nov
10
10
2014
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT
Adapa: "The human genome has about 3.2 billion base pairs. The marbled lungfish (Protopterus aethiopicus) genome has 130 billion base pairs." Does that mean that the lungfish is 40x more likely to be designed that humans? It seems like a logical conclusion given that ID's entire argument is based on probabilitycentrestream
November 10, 2014
November
11
Nov
10
10
2014
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT
TK, Dembski has provided a measure of information in his previous work. This book leans more philosophical, thus my reason for designating it a prequel. You can read some of it here: Being As Communion - A Metaphysics of Information Although, I would recommend you also read the work of Luciano Floridi to get a good idea of how their views differ. You can find his work here: Luciano Floridi I also recommend you read Szostak and Hazen's work, if you haven't already. You can find that here: Functional information and the emergence of biocomplexity Enjoy, -MMario A. Lopez
November 10, 2014
November
11
Nov
10
10
2014
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT
Yes, and the lungfish only awaits the correct set of circumstances to activate that information. Are you prepared for your lungfish overlords, Adapa?Edward
November 10, 2014
November
11
Nov
10
10
2014
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT
Joe No, I was talking about how to MEASURE it. Please try again. The human genome has about 3.2 billion base pairs. The marbled lungfish (Protopterus aethiopicus) genome has 130 billion base pairs. You say that makes the fish have 40X more information than a human?Adapa
November 10, 2014
November
11
Nov
10
10
2014
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT
Joe
Adapa: You contend Dembski defines “information” by the Shannon metric
No, I was talking about how to MEASURE it. Please try again.
But only in response to my request for instructions about how to measure it in the Dembski sense. Why bring up Shannon at all?
Joe
Tamara Knight: How much information is in a human genome?
More than blind and unguided processes can account for.
More than a little irony in that response Joe. In the Shannon sense it can be calculated very easily. Two bits per base pair for 3 billion base pairs is 750Mbytes of raw information, but in the real world that can be compressed. However the structured information in a genome will typically compress more than a totally random string. In the Dembski sense I await some figure on which to comment.Tamara Knight
November 10, 2014
November
11
Nov
10
10
2014
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT
Adapa:
You contend Dembski defines “information” by the Shannon metric
No, I was talking about how to MEASURE it. Please try again.Joe
November 10, 2014
November
11
Nov
10
10
2014
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT
Tamara Knight:
How much information is in a human genome?
More than blind and unguided processes can account for.Joe
November 10, 2014
November
11
Nov
10
10
2014
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply