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
The General Definition of Information: GDI) σ is an instance of information, understood as semantic content, if and only if: GDI.1) σ consists of n data, for n ≥ 1; GDI.2) the data are well formed; GDI.3) the well-formed data are meaningful. Information: A Very Short IntroductionMung
March 20, 2014
March
03
Mar
20
20
2014
08:35 PM
8
08
35
PM
PDT
Mung's point is, of course, that information is neither matter nor energy. Matter and energy are mediums for information.Joe
March 20, 2014
March
03
Mar
20
20
2014
08:19 PM
8
08
19
PM
PDT
Eric @59: Rather than employ extensive quoting i will just refer to the relevant post above. Basically I am now repeating earlier arguments in an attempt to drive home the point. By virtue of the fact that the information (message) must be encoded on to a medium (the DVD) doesn't it more or less follow that the DVD does not contain the information itself but rather a representation of "the information" that when properly interpreted/decoded by a knowledgeable receiver only then becomes information about the original message? If you could re-write your post at 59 in the light of the above question how would you re-write it? I think the confusion is not so much over "information about an object and information contained in an object" than it is over failing to distinguish between information and it's representation. Can we learn anything about information from this? Is it immaterial? In a physical medium, do we have at best a representation of information and not actual information itself? Must information always be encoded in a medium as a representation of the information if the message is to be stored or transmitted? Is it therefore never the information itself that is contained in or stored or transmitted but rather only it's representation?Mung
March 20, 2014
March
03
Mar
20
20
2014
07:26 PM
7
07
26
PM
PDT
Do Saturn's rings contain information about the sort of body that Saturn is? ;)Mung
March 20, 2014
March
03
Mar
20
20
2014
06:50 PM
6
06
50
PM
PDT
To Shannon meaning was irrelevant. As he said systems have to be able to transmit and receive all possible selections, not just the ones chosen that may convey meaning.Joe
March 20, 2014
March
03
Mar
20
20
2014
06:49 PM
6
06
49
PM
PDT
Eric:
That information, however, was produced by the observer. It can be stored, translated, transmitted and re-transmitted completely independently of the rock. The only information that exists is information about the rock that the observer has created. And that information is itself represented in or instantiated in or contained in some medium — a language, a mathematical formula, a sequence of binary numbers. That is where the information is contained. Not in the rock.
So back to my earlier comment about whether "contains" information is a figure of speech. Is it the information that is stored or transmitted, or rather a representation of the information? Is it a distinction without a difference or an important distinction?
It [information] can be stored, translated, transmitted and re-transmitted completely independently of [what that information is about]...
I hope I've accurately generalized your point. Are you speaking metaphorically? Is it the information itself that is transmitted and stored, etc? Or is it a representation? This is a great discussion. Some very basic and fundamental issues are being raised and addressed. Thanks again Eric.Mung
March 20, 2014
March
03
Mar
20
20
2014
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PDT
Allen MacNeill:
I have posted on this before: the important distinction, which several commentators mentioned but did not emphasize, is the difference between Shannon information and meaningful information.
Hi Allen, Yes, I recall those former posts and you were wrong then as well. =P To say "meaningful information" is to be redundant. To say "meaningless information" is to be oxymoronic. An arrangement of symbols can represent something meaningful, or not. Not to be confused with whether they "contain" information. And certainly a meaningless arrangement of symbols should not be claimed to be "meaningless information." Do you not see the distinction? If you do see it, do you think it not important?Mung
March 20, 2014
March
03
Mar
20
20
2014
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PDT
Mung @58: Thanks.
"There is no “meaningless information."
I think I would probably agree with that.
Even Shannon information is information about something.
Well, if we mean the resulting bit value produced by running a Shannon calculation on a particular medium, then, yes, it is information, every bit (no pun intended) as much as the information in DNA or the dictionary. It is information about the carrying capacity of the medium. Information produced by the observer by using the proper tools and mathematical concepts. Information that can then be encoded, say in English, and stored in a medium of its own. On the other hand, if we mean that the actual bit sequence that was measured with the Shannon metric is itself information (as you mention above, it must be a "meaningful sequence "about" something), then that is not necessarily the case.Eric Anderson
March 20, 2014
March
03
Mar
20
20
2014
06:26 PM
6
06
26
PM
PDT
Eric:
I trust we’ll have a chance to discuss Shannon information in a later post, so more then.
Righto! I'll try not to take this current thread off any more into that topic then, though there have been some interesting posts which bring up the issues over Shannon info.Mung
March 20, 2014
March
03
Mar
20
20
2014
06:20 PM
6
06
20
PM
PDT
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.Graham2
March 20, 2014
March
03
Mar
20
20
2014
06:14 PM
6
06
14
PM
PDT
Eric:
Once information is produced by an agent it exists, and as long as that information is represented somewhere it continues to exist, even if a recipient is not available at a particular moment to take advantage of the information.
An interesting and perhaps relevant distinction. One way to put it is that there is a difference between the representation (the medium) and what it is that is represented (the message). Only by way of a figure of speech does the medium "contain" the message.
But that doesn’t mean the information in the hieroglyphics is anything like the alleged information in Saturn’s rings or other physical objects by their mere existence.
There is no information in the hieroglyphics you backslider! :) And there's no information in a cake either. What exists are human minds which "contain" knowledge about cakes from which deductions and inferences can be made. Yum.Mung
March 20, 2014
March
03
Mar
20
20
2014
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT
seventrees @44:
If I use this logic, it goes thus: Translation of all the information contained in DNA is possible, which distinguishes it from the information collected by experiences.
Not quite. Let me see if I can clarify. Information is produced by an observer as a result of the observer's capabilities, tools, mental ability, and so on. The observer encodes that information in some medium. At that point the medium -- whatever it is: a binary code, the English language, mathematical formulae, pits on a DVD -- contains information. Pretty straight-forward at this stage. Next, it is also the case that the medium, let's say it is a DVD, could be observed by another observer, and that observer could in turn (with his own knowledge, tools, and mental ability) produce information about the DVD, perhaps its precise size, how many pits, whether it is double sided, whether it is single-layered or multi-layered, etc. This is information about the DVD. But the DVD also contains information. Information different from and unrelated to the information about the DVD. My point is that if we do not carefully distinguish between information about an object and information contained in an object, then we (i) make the concept of information meaningless, because everything everywhere is filled with information, and (ii) we could fall into the intellectual trap that some anti-ID proponents have fallen into of thinking that information in a rock, or a star, or Saturn's rings is no different than the information in DNA. That is a bit of a long answer, but perhaps to recap: once an observer observes an object and produces information about an object, that is information just as much as the information in DNA is. It can then be stored in a medium. The key is that a physical object by its mere existence does not contain information in the way DNA does, notwithstanding that we can learn about an object through our efforts and produce information about what we have learned.Eric Anderson
March 20, 2014
March
03
Mar
20
20
2014
06:12 PM
6
06
12
PM
PDT
Eric:
Information is representative of something, typically something other than itself.
Agree. As Jan Kahre writes in The Mathematical Theory of Information:
A fundamental, but somehow forgotten fact, is that information is always information about something.
Even Shannon information is information about something. There is no "meaningless information." Eric:
Every time someone gives an example of a physical object “containing” information by its mere existence, when asked to pin down in detail what information they claim is contained in the object it will invariably turn out that the information: (i) is information produced by an observer as a result of mental activity when observing the object, and (ii) is information about the object.
Succinct. Thanks.Mung
March 20, 2014
March
03
Mar
20
20
2014
05:57 PM
5
05
57
PM
PDT
Graham2 @42:
Similar to the jstanley01 question about Egyptian hieroglyphics, does a coded message contain information even if we cant read it ? They certainly contained information once, do they still ?
Yes and yes. My post tomorrow will address this specific issue.Eric Anderson
March 20, 2014
March
03
Mar
20
20
2014
05:54 PM
5
05
54
PM
PDT
Joe @40: Thanks. I said "It is not clear that the cake contains all the information needed to make it." You seem to be saying that at a minimum that much information is contained in the cake; meaning there could well be more. I'm not sure why you think there is a disconnect. In any event, it is not at all clear that a cake contains all the information needed to make it. An observer of the cake -- someone who already knows: (i) what a cake is, (ii) how cakes are made generally, (iii) what kinds of utensils and tools are used, (iv) the important order of mixing ingredients, (v) a great deal about sophisticated molecular analysis techniques -- that kind of observer could perhaps, with his own significant and detailed prior background knowledge, with the right tools, and his own mental activity produce all the information needed to make the cake, much of the information of which obviously did not come from the cake itself. Regardless, if someone insists that everything in the universe "contains" the information required to completely and fully describe itself, then the concept applies to everything and becomes meaningless.Eric Anderson
March 20, 2014
March
03
Mar
20
20
2014
05:50 PM
5
05
50
PM
PDT
I will start with a declared bias of looking and thinking about information from a human perspective. I will avoid using the term "information" - at least initially - for any other context but only within living creatures - and particularly human context. Later I would consider to what degree the human-centric defined information may apply to other living creatures. A human receives on a continuous basis SIGNALS from his environment. These signals are of different physical nature: - light - that for the basis for perception of images - sound - form audio perception - chemical vapors - to form olfactory (smell) perceptions - mechanical (wind, vibrations, ground shakes) - to form equilibrium/balance perceptions Human posses specialized organs: eyes, ears, nose, tactile sensors that are specialized in converting these signals in special input (signals, impulses) sent to the brain. The human brain has the capacity to create and maintain dynamic, multidimensional cognitive SCENES that keep us - on a continuous basis - in touch with various aspects of our environment: the visual, auditive, olfactive aspect, etc. The overall result of conjugated capabilities of our sense organs and the mind is that we acquire continuously background INFORMATION from our environment. To summarize we can say that the human is endowed with capabilities to "in-form" the mind, on a continuous basis with what happens in our environment. This is a highly sophisticated capability which is one of the foundation for the high intelligence of the human species. We may say that the "raw material" from which these multi-aspect "scenes" are made up is "information". This raw mental material resides in our mind and we can rightfully called information. The Mind "landscape" that hosts information is the place were the Mind operates with its other "tools": memory, reasoning, abstraction, face and scene recognition, pattern recognition, decision-making, etc. We can think of information as the native raw-material of these and other mental processes. On this established background for our analysis, let's consider several scenarios. a. I am picking a book from the shelf and start reading it. The image on the page is translated in the eye visual sensors, through optical nerve, through the brain in images of a sequence of letters, and then into higher and higher "mind constructs"; words, phrases, meaning. These elements can rightfully be considered information extracted through the book reading. b. In my environment appears my friend Jack and he starts talking with me. His words are initially just audio signals that are converted through my ears, nervous system, brain and mind into mental words, information and meaning. My mind processes this information and prepares somehow response information that materializes into the sounds produced by my vocal chords and heard by Jack. My words follows a similar path to become information in Jack's mind. These two scenarios show that beyond the background information feed to the mind from signals from the environment, there are over-imposed specific streams of signals (when reading a book, or talking with someone) that translate in specific streams of information for where the mind is focused at a particular moment. Let's try now to do synthesis and formulate some speculative statements following our preceding analysis. A. Information is Native to the Mind Genuine, highest level of information, exists only in the human mind were it has the proper mental context and tools to achieve meaning and to inform mind cognition, reasoning and trigger action. The information in the human mind deserves a special name or statute for the following reasons: - it is achieved through concerted contribution of human perception organs that convert environment signals into highly formed "mental staff" that is easily connected with the mental tools, state and context appropriate for accepting, integrating the "new staff" that may trigger new mental state and body action. - Only in the human mind information exists in a proper cognitive context were it is matched with the mind cognitive, meaning, reasoning capabilities and achieve meaning. B. Information in the Other Living Creatures We speculate that since many (but not all) living creatures have in various degrees: - similar visual, auditive, olfactory perception organs and capabilities - similar but lower level brain capabilities - show ability to form some kind of brain (mental?) representation of their environment and to properly react to changes in their environment we can consider that some lower form of information is constructed in their brains - good enough to help them live, reproduce and survive in their environments. C. Can we talk about INFORMATION outside the MIND? Here are some speculative statements S1. The Mind is the SINGLE NATIVE environment for INFORMATION, where information is seamlessly connected with the mind cognitive abilities S2. WE can think of information outside the mind as a "desiccated information", a skeleton, a minimum derivation of genuine mental information. The information outside the mind HAS MEANING ASSOCIATED BY CONVENTION ONLY. Examples: the text in an English Novel; the DNA elements; the 64 bit words of the in-memory representation of a computer program S3. It is a little difficult to justify the HAS MEANING ASSOCIATED BY CONVENTION formula when considering the "candidate information" associated with a photography or with the information on an audio CD. In both of these cases we can consider that the two objects (the photo and the CD) carry information with meaning associated only through convention. Both these objects are practical, specific means to store and re-play for the human perception organs and mind a SNAPSHOT of a real-world image or a 10 minutes interval re-playing of captured audio signal. In both cases the visual or audio human experience is exercised by reproducing an original perception experience. And the Convention here is associated with the intrinsic, constant ability of our perception organs and brain/mind to perform the same/similar conversion of similar signals. S4. I am trying to find a separate name for INFORMATION OUTSIDE THE MIND. What about Desiccated Information? Maybe not. Let's call it for the time being D-Information. Or POTENTIAL INFORMATION: has the potential to become information only when it "reaches" a human mind (observer). S5. Is there information in the Saturn Rings? Tend to agree - based on previous analysis - that, like in Quantum Mechanics - we can talk about information only in the presence of a Human Observer (as in Eric Anderson's thesis in this blog). When a human observes the Saturn Rings through a telescope or from a photography the Potential Information (P-Info) in the image becomes genuine Information in the mind of the human observer. S6. Besides the POTENTIAL INFORMATION we can name a different variety of Non-Mind Resident Information: MANUFACTURED INFORMATION. Manufactured information is desiccated information produced (directly or indirectly) by humans in order to save (materialize) Information for later reuse. Taking a photography creates Manufactured Information (M-Information) on a Digital Card, on a Film or on Photographic Paper. Writing a letter by hand on paper creates Manufactured Information intended as Potential Information for the intended reader. Printing books is a process of mass-production of M-Information that becomes P-Information when consumed by the readers. S7. A computer program is M-Information that uses a specific convention for associating meaning (embedded in the definition of the programming language, compiler, interpreter, the computer microprocessor) to the statements of the program. The convention is shared by the producer of the program - a human and the machinery (compiler, computer) that executes the program. S8. The results of the Execution of a Program is Potential Information: becomes information when read by a Human. We have a Delicate question here: can a computer program produce information? On a logical plane we can consider that it produces just text or images on a paper or on a computer screen. S9. In general Information Outside the Mind does not have meaning in the rich mental sense. It may have "storage" usage (photo, audio CD) with potential to become genuine Information when consumed by a mind. M-Information in a computer program has meaning associated through the programing language definition convention. The computer program has Operational Information in the sense that "operates" (dictates) the behavior of a computer in order to produce results - but in the process no other real understanding of the program can be associated to the computer where the program is executing. S10. The Diagram below represents the "Circulation of Information in Nature" Environ. --> P-Info --> Human[Info] --> M-Info --> P-Info --> Human[Info] Info = (Genuine) Information (in the mind only) P-Info = Potential Information M-Info = Manufactured Information Both P-Info and M-Info are D-Info = Desiccated Information S11. Only in the Mind Information has Meaning Outside the Mind the Information (D-Info) has meaning only associated through convention.InVivoVeritas
March 20, 2014
March
03
Mar
20
20
2014
05:22 PM
5
05
22
PM
PDT
GBDixon #32:
But note that in the previous sentence he states the communication problem: to distinguish a valid message from other valid messages, or an invalid one. This is the sense of meaning we use in communications…a valid message, received correctly, is the only instance when information is transferred. Gibberish messages (that is, messages that have no meaning in this sense) do not qualify as a valid message and there is no information transfer. A random collection of bits, DNA, die throws, etc. contain no Shannon information because they do not qualify as valid messages.
Thanks for the thoughts. It sounds like this is an interesting issue, though likely primarily a definitional one. I'm hoping to do a full post on Shannon information, but it is about 4th in line right now. :(Eric Anderson
March 20, 2014
March
03
Mar
20
20
2014
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PDT
DennisM: Thanks for your thoughts and for 'unlurking' momentarily. :) If you don't mind, I'll make a mental note to add the star's spectrum to my personal list of examples.Eric Anderson
March 20, 2014
March
03
Mar
20
20
2014
05:06 PM
5
05
06
PM
PDT
Allen_MacNeill @25: Good thoughts on the importance of meaning. Hopefully we can explore that in more detail in a future post. With respect to whether a recipient is necessary for information to exist, I have a post that hopefully will get put up tomorrow on that issue.Eric Anderson
March 20, 2014
March
03
Mar
20
20
2014
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT
Allen_MacNeill@25 stated
nenen ytawoi jll sn mekhdx nnx
Wow! Brilliant, meaningful poetry! nenen = "Not everything new enhances nature;" ytawoi = "Yet to all with observant intellects," jll = "Just leaving litter" sn = "should never" mekhdx = "make enterprises kindle human dread!" nnx = "Not now!" Thanks so much for sharing! ;-) -QQuerius
March 20, 2014
March
03
Mar
20
20
2014
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PDT
seventrees- Humans with great taste and knowledge, ie existing information, may be able to do it, but we also have analyzers that could tease out the chemicals in better detail. From that we match the ingredients. Reverse engineering is extracting the information from the existing design. The information was put there by the original designers. Cakes are no different.Joe
March 20, 2014
March
03
Mar
20
20
2014
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT
Eric, you wrote: "However, only in the latter case is any meaning or understanding conveyed by the rocks themselves. That information was not produced by the observer, but by some other agent, and exists independently of that particular observer." I'm not sure about this point. The word 'HELP!', as an element of communication, requires a sender, and a receiver, and a prior agreement between them about what this precise sequence is intended to communicate. These 3 elements are essential to all communication. Someone else, discussing Shannon information, already pointed oout that Shannone information is necessarily concerned with the minimum requirement to represent communication betweeen sender and receiver. If there is no receiver (no observer), then no communication has taken place, and thus no information has been transferred, but it is still there.. Once sombeody observes the random rocks, or the rings of Saturn, that somebody not only gains information about the rocks. The rocks tell the observer things about their environment. The rings of Saturn tell us about the mass of Saturn, for example. If we measure their orbit, velocity, mass, etc, then we can deduce further information about Saturn, and Saturn's moons, and etc. There absolutely IS (imho) information contained in the rings of Saturn, but it is not contained in them as an artefact of their mere existence but as an artefact of the state, or condition. Nonetheless, the vital issue in my view is not information but communication, which is the transfer of information. And here the cell becomes much more interesting. For in the cell, a sender transmits various pieces of information encoded in proteins, and other parts of the same cell, ot other cells, successfully interpret this information and use it to construct our bodies. Every minute, this process is operating on our planet to produce the most complex structure of which we are aware - the human brain - and the information that must be successfully transferred (i.e. must have been sent, received, and understood) in order to make that happen is staggering in both it's scale and it's complexity. The design inference is appropriate in such a case. Natural objects may contain information, but only intelligence communicates. Only intelligence can derive information from the mere existence and/or condition of Saturn's rings. Only an English speaker can help Robinson Crusoe. THAT seems to me to be the crucial distinction. To give one final example; if I find a hammer in the jungle, I KNOW it didnt grow there. Because I already know some other things. Being only moderately intelligent, they are few, but they are enough. I know that man makes hammers. I know that trees do not. We know that only intelligence communicates. We know that random undirected material does not. Therefore, when we see communication taking place, of such enormous, elegant, beautiful, and intricate scale as occurs in living things on this planet, we are warranted in making the inference to design. So it seems to me. This is my first toe in the waters here, so I apologise if this was not clear.ScuzzaMan
March 20, 2014
March
03
Mar
20
20
2014
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT
Well, just to complicate things even more, I think information (in the biological context, at least) exists in both in the organism and and in the observer. On the one hand, information must exist in the organism as a code in order to act as a cause and produce an effect. Our experience and understanding can apprehend that effect, but cannot produce it. On the other hand, it must also exist in the observer (albeit in a different way) in terms of experience and understanding. The organism cannot produce our experience and understanding. It can only provide the input. Taking it one step further, I am not sure that a general definition of information is possible: First, there are so many aspects to it, including entropy, organization, chaos, functionality, intentionality, communication, language, meaning, codes, subjectivity, objectivity, semiotics, etc. Tt would seem that the best approach is to provide an operational definition for the context being discussed. Second, cosmology is different from biology, which makes it very difficult to transfer concepts or take a unified approach.StephenB
March 20, 2014
March
03
Mar
20
20
2014
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT
GBDixon @24: Glad we coaxed you out of lurking. Thanks for the good thoughts!Eric Anderson
March 20, 2014
March
03
Mar
20
20
2014
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT
CuriousCat @22:
What if (though of course I do not belive in such a thing :)) Saturn’s rings carries a message written by the shape, color and form of the rings, but in a way we haven’t figured out yet?
That is certainly possible (logically speaking), though exceedingly unlikely. But, regardless, that is not an issue for what I am laying out. We are regularly discovering information that was not previously known, such as the example of the hieroglyphics jstanley01 brought up or your cave drawings example. If such information ever were discovered in Saturn's rings, then, of course, we could say the rings "contain" information in the same way that hieroglyphics or DNA do.
What I would like to emphasize is that it is difficult (or maybe impossible) to determine which parts of the nature carries this type of information and which parts do not.
Not really. It is usually incredibly easy. So easy that in 99% of the cases it is not even a close call. For example even in your example of Saturn's rings above you said you "of course" do not believe such a thing. Why? Because it is obvious that the rings don't contain such information. We could probably find a few corner cases where it is difficult to tell, but in most instances it is extremely straight-forward and easy to tell.Eric Anderson
March 20, 2014
March
03
Mar
20
20
2014
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT
jstanley01 @21:
Did Egyptian hieroglyphics still contain information after everyone who knew what they meant died out? And was that information then recoverable by any means analogous to recovering the alleged information contained in the rings of Saturn? And if not — if the recovery of that information were still impossible, absent the Rosetta Stone — aren’t information and alleged information two different things?
Thanks. Hieroglyphics are an interesting example. Once information is produced by an agent it exists, and as long as that information is represented somewhere it continues to exist, even if a recipient is not available at a particular moment to take advantage of the information. But that doesn't mean the information in the hieroglyphics is anything like the alleged information in Saturn's rings or other physical objects by their mere existence. In fact, the hieroglyphics are a great example of the distinction that needs to be drawn. Prior to their deciphering, scholars had studied the hieroglyphics for a long time and had observed and documented -- meaning the scholars had produced a lot of information -- about the hieroglyphics: how many, different forms, different styles, where they were found, and on and on. Lots of information about the hieroglyphics. Just the same as an observer can, through mental activity and careful study, produce lots of information about Saturn's rings or any other physical object. But it was only when a code was understood, when a mental breakthrough occurred, that scholars learned the information that was contained in the hieroglyphics. This is precisely the kind of difference we need to appreciate.Eric Anderson
March 20, 2014
March
03
Mar
20
20
2014
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT
Joe at 40: I was also thinking of that. People with good taste buds can somehow tell the ingredients of certain recipes. Semi O/T: To me, the definition of artifacts you provided together with your cake example seems to justify those who believe that beauty they see in the world plus the laws governing matter and energy cannot just come up by chance. Please, point out where I have misunderstood you.seventrees
March 20, 2014
March
03
Mar
20
20
2014
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT
Greetings. Eric at 38,
I can easily give someone an instruction: “Please take the first paragraph on Wikipedia about Saturn’s rings [note: information about the rings] and translate it into Spanish or Russian or into binary or otherwise.” In contrast, if I say: “Please translate the information contained in Saturn’s rings into Spanish or binary,” I will, justifiably, get strange looks. Only after fumbling around a bit will the poor soul realize that what was meant is to translate the information about Saturn’s rings into Spanish — the information contained in the Wikipedia article.
If I use this logic, it goes thus: Translation of all the information contained in DNA is possible, which distinguishes it from the information collected by experiences. Using your terms, "Information 1" is not translatable, while "Information 2" is translatable. Correct me if I understood you correctly. If so, I hope the discussion will continue from here.seventrees
March 20, 2014
March
03
Mar
20
20
2014
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT
Graha,2- As long as the sender & intended receiver knows/knew the information, that is all that counts. To us it would be something for us to figure out- as unintended receivers.Joe
March 20, 2014
March
03
Mar
20
20
2014
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT
Similar to the jstanley01 question about Egyptian hieroglyphics, does a coded message contain information even if we cant read it ? They certainly contained information once, do they still ?Graham2
March 20, 2014
March
03
Mar
20
20
2014
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply