Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Intelligent Design Basics – Information

Categories
Design inference
ID Foundations
Informatics
rhetoric
specified complexity
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
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
ARTIFACTS contain information, as in specified information. Not all physical objects.Joe
March 20, 2014
March
03
Mar
20
20
2014
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT
Eric:
It is not clear that the cake contains all the information needed to make it.
True, but that isn't what I said. Read it again, slowly: A cake, for example, would, AT A MINIMUM, contain all the information in the recipe used to make it.
(ii) More importantly, the information allegedly “in” the cake is, like any other physical object, information that is produced by an observer as a result of mental activity in observing the cake.
OK. My point is someone can come along take the cake and figure out its ingedients and then reproduce it. That is they can extract information from the existing cake to produce another one: information- the attribute inherent in and communicated by [one of two or more] alternative sequences or arrangements of something [(as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program)] that produce specific effects A cake is an arrangement of something that produces specific effects. It is communicated by the baker to the consumers. artifact:
The causal tie between an artifact and its intended character — or, strictly speaking, between an artifact and its author’s productive intention — is constituted by an author’s actions, that is, by his work on the object.
Joe
March 20, 2014
March
03
Mar
20
20
2014
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT
Thank you, Eric, for this most interesting post. I appreciated your cake example. I think everyone here must concede there has to be some way of saying "This is not information". Otherwise, if Shannon information is not dependent on content, everything that exists (and that doesn't, perhaps) would qualify as information. That sounds too much like Darwinism: no way to disprove it! So whether or not something is information depends on the meaning it has in the eyes of the receiver (as in the cake example). Here is another example. The Ethernet receiver in our computer that we know and love even though we never think about it, is trained to recognize valid Ethernet packets. If the datastream has the right source and destination IP address, CRC, framing signals and length, etc., the receiver accepts the packet as information. To this receiver this is Shannon information. The receiver is always accepting bits, most of which it discards as not part of a valid packet. These bits are not information to the Ethernet receiver. The receiver does not care what is in the packet as long as its own criteria for a valid message has been met. . The payload of the Ethernet packet happens to be a short digitized signal from the Aceribo observatory, pointed to deep space. It is sent to the computer's running program: SETI@HOME. The program assembles many such packets then processes them through a filter designed to detect unusual signals. In this case, the program does not detect anything and discards the packets, simply reporting to the coordinating server that it processed that data and found nothing. The SETI@HOME program is also a receiver, and in this case has decided there is no information in the signal. There is no Shannon information. So whether a collection of data is information or not depends on how the receiver attaches meaning to it. Because we have two receivers, there are two interpretations of Shannon information: both are correct but the same data qualified as information in one case, but noise in the next. In DNA, sequences that are used to create things the cell needs are clearly Shannon information. DNA in isolation with nothing to interpret it is not.GBDixon
March 20, 2014
March
03
Mar
20
20
2014
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT
Box @20:
The information in DNA is about something else (e.g. proteins). By contrast the alleged information in Saturn’s rings only refers to Saturn’s rings.
Yes. Information is representative of something, typically something other than itself. It is also immaterial and is not confined to a particular medium (unlike Saturn's rings, or the rocks on the beach, or the cake that was baked, each of which exists only in the particular medium of which it is made). As a result, information can be coded, translated, decoded, and transmitted in different media. 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. We've seen several examples on this thread of arguments people have run into besides Saturn's rings, things like rocks rolling down hills, rainbows, and so on. This is the crux: 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.Eric Anderson
March 20, 2014
March
03
Mar
20
20
2014
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT
Thank you everyone for lots of great thoughts and comments. I'll get to as many as I can off and on throughout the day. Joe @18:
Information flows from artist to art, ie from designer to the thing being designed. Therefor any object a designer designs would contain the information required to make it. A cake, for example, would, at a minimum, contain all the information in the recipe used to make it.
Great question, but I think it falls in the same categories I layed out. Two issues with the cake example: (i) It is not clear that the cake contains all the information needed to make it. There is a tremendous amount of background information that the observer still has to know and learn, independently of the cake. Things like how to measure the precise molecular content, what an oven is, what a mixer is, where to get the ingredients and so on. Contrast this with a self-reproducing organism, which not only can be observed by an outside observer to learn about the organism, but contains within itself (let's assume for purposes of discussion that this is fully the case) the actual instructions for its own reproduction. (ii) More importantly, the information allegedly "in" the cake is, like any other physical object, information that is produced by an observer as a result of mental activity in observing the cake. Once the observer has produced that information we then have information about the cake; but the information was not contained in the cake itself. Contrast that with an example of a large cake that has the entire recipe carefully spelled out in frosting letters on the top. In that case an observer could of course observe the cake (like any other physical object) and draw up information about the cake, but the cake itself would also contain information -- information that, as always, is represented by some kind of language or code or formula, in this case an English-language recipe. In any event, as I described in my response to anticipated objections, if someone insists that physical objects by their mere existence "contain" information, then everything -- every single particle -- in the universe does. Fine. We can deal with that rhetorical (although substantively incorrect) stance. What they are talking about is Information1. What we are interested in is Information2. The first cake in your example has only Information1. The last cake in my example has Information1 and Information2. Then, since everything in the universe has Information1, we can ignore it. It is not a distinguishing feature. It tells us precisely nothing about why some things in the universe also have Information2 and others don't. It becomes an entirely useless and pointless exercise to even talk about Information1.Eric Anderson
March 20, 2014
March
03
Mar
20
20
2014
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT
Graham2 @11:
If I measure something and write the answer on a piece of paper, presumably the paper contains information.
Yes.
If I then burn the piece of paper, has the information been destroyed ? Does it still exist in my brain ? If I get confused and muddle up the value in my brain, has the information been changed ? Is it new information ? Is it information at all ?
Information can be destroyed. I have had the unfortunate experience of sending in three different hard drives to three different vendors this past year (thankfully all still under warranty). Amusingly, one vendor (if I recall, it was Seagate) sent me back a larger capacity drive, because it was less trouble for them then tracking down the older smaller capacity drive I had returned. There are myriad pieces of information that have disappeared over the ages. Information about ancient civilizations, orders Caesar Augustus gave on a particular day, the price of grain in the Egyptian market at a particular time, some of Leonardo da Vinci's writings, letters, minutes of meetings, drafts of a presentation I gave several years ago . . . On the flip side, tomorrow there will be millions of pieces of information created that did not exist today. Yes, information is regularly created and destroyed.* But one of the basic characteristics of information is that it can be easily reproduced, translated, transmitted, copied and so forth. As a result, it is very common to have multiple copies of the same exact piece of information. If I burn my copy of "The Design Inference" that information is lost to me individually until I locate another copy, but it still exists in the world -- objectively so and readily available should I wish to access it. In contrast, I know that somewhere in a box in my room are numerous unique cards and letters from friends and family I have received over the years. Should that box of correspondence be lost, burned, or otherwise destroyed, it is gone forever. ----- * Please, dear readers, let's not get into a discussion of whether God (who by some definitions, knows all things) possess all information in his head and that, therefore, no information is ever completely destroyed. That line of discussion is unhelpful for present purposes because (i) it is a theological/philosophical argument, and (ii) for intelligent design we are interested in the information we can see here and now -- what we have access to in the real world.Eric Anderson
March 20, 2014
March
03
Mar
20
20
2014
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT
Srry that was in reference to comment number 17Optimus
March 20, 2014
March
03
Mar
20
20
2014
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT
Joe @ 6 If you reread the last part of my post at 15, it should be clear that I am not arguing that Shannon information never has content or meaning. In fact, I have never argued that to be the case. In my earlier post that Mung objected to, it simply says that an apparently nonfunctional sequence can properly be described as possessing Shannon information. Shannon information is a broad category that subsumes both functional and nonfunctional sequences.Optimus
March 20, 2014
March
03
Mar
20
20
2014
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT
Eric: Hi, and congratulations for your first OP. I have been very busy, so I have read it only now. Very, very stimulating (and we can already see the results in the discussion, including Barry's new post). So, what do I think? I must confess that I am a little confused by the word itself. "Information" seems to be one of those words which can mean many things, and which imply many other things. So, I will try to offer here a few disordered reflections, hoping that they may contribute to the discussion. I absolutely agree with you about the basic point: information is about intelligent observers, and does not exist out of conscious events. So, information is never in things, but us a conscious way of looking at things. Information is a cognitive dimension. And cognition is an experience of meaning. So, in a sense, all information is meaning. And it is not contained in objects, but can be experienced by observing objects. The object itself, however, is very important as a source of possible experiences, and its objective properties and form are a specific constraint to our cognitive experiences about that object. In that sense, all objects can be a source of information, because all objects can be cognized by an intelligent observer. As you correctly point out, we can define an object, measure it, give it a symbolic meaning, and so on, In all those cases, we derive an informational experience from the object, and that experience is in some way constrained by the object's properties. Now, at this point we have to trace the difference between different kinds of "information experience" that objects give us. The most basic seems to be: a) Data. All objects can be a source of data. In that sense, all objects contain some kind of that basic information power. We can derive data form the rings of Saturn as much as from a stone. b) Higher level information about regularities and laws. That is much more interesting. An apple falling from a tree can give us (if we are intelligent :) ) a definite hint of a very important laws of nature. c) Meaning and function. This is even better. Here the experience is symbolic, it is about meta-experiences of consciousness (experiences which are at a meta-level in respect to the object itself, and of the possible laws which act on it). Meaning and function can be viewed as the same thing, or as different aspects of the same thing. They are strongly related concepts, but we can look at them as partially separate: c1) Meaning is a definite cognitive experience induced by the object, but which is abstract in respect to the object itself (related to other objects, or to other non material experiences). So, the word "tree" evokes in us the representation of a tree. The word "fear" evokes in us a specific feeling. A drawing of a house evokes in us the representation of a real house. And so on. c2) Function is a definite feeling about the possible results of an object in a context. "Functional" means ( :) ) "capable to generate a desirable (or undesirable) result". The idea of function is always connected to a judgement (an inner feeling) about a result. However we define all these things, a simple fact remains: information, in all its forms, requires material objects which can evoke the necessary conscious experience, and the specific form and properties of those objects are the basic constraint connected to the conscious informational experiences we can derive from them. Now, here comes the very interesting point. Some quantities can be connected to specific types of information. I like very much Dembski's fundamental concept, quoted by Barry in his post: "information is about realizing possibilities by ruling out others." But I like very much also Joe's comment on that: "Umm if there aren’t any intelligent agencies around to determine if alternatives exist, do they exist and does it even matter?" So, just to stay simple, let's go to examples of digital information. Eric, you would say that there is no digital information unless we see it in a material system which has been designed to convey it, and you are right. But let's see that we just observe an object, or a material system, and we wonder: can I derive a digital string of values in some alphabet from that object? In many cases, the answer is yes. Even the rings of Saturn can be transformed into some digital string, probably (or in many different digital strings). But let's say that we give a value of = to all days in a year when the temperature in our city is below a certain value, and a value of 1 to all days when it is higher than that threshold. We get a series of binary values, a string of 365 bits in one year. Now, is that information? Yes. First of all, it is data. Second, it can give us hints about weather laws. But has it symbolic meaning and function? I would say that the string itself does not evoke any meaning or function beyond the data aspect and law inference aspect. It cannot be interpreted as a piece of language, or as a functional string. But, if we want to express a definite meaning or function, using definite material objects as bits (let's say a series of ordered stones, small ones counting as 0s, bigger ones counting as 1s), we will need different numbers of stones according to the meaning or function we want to convey. So, if our series of stones, correctly coded, gives us as a sequence: "Four score and seven years ago" We cannot convey the full meaning of that phrase with less stones. And is the sequence is: "nenen ytawoi jll sn mekhdx nnx" we have conveyed nothing, as far as we can judge, but we have used the same amount of stones. That's where the concepts of Shannon information (and Kolmogorov information) are truly important: they are a way to count the necessary stones. That's where the concept of specified information (in all its variant) is fundamental: it is the only way to count how many bits are necessary to convey a meaning or a function. IOWs, the "complexity" of that meaning or function. Note that the complexity has nothing to do with the deep value or meaning of the information, but only with the number of stones we have to use to convey it. For example, let's consider these two examples, both from Wikipedia: 1) A circle is a simple shape of Euclidean geometry that is the set of all points in a plane that are at a given distance from a given point, the centre. 2) Facebook is an online social networking service. Its name comes from a colloquialism for the directory given to students at some American universities. Facebook was founded on February 4, 2004 by Mark Zuckerberg with his college roommates and fellow Harvard University students Eduardo Saverin, Andrew McCollum, Dustin Moskovitz and Chris Hughes. The founders had initially limited the website's membership to Harvard students, but later expanded it to colleges in the Boston area, the Ivy League, and Stanford University. It gradually added support for students at various other universities before it opened to high-school students, and eventually to anyone aged 13 and over. Facebook now allows anyone who claims to be at least 13 years old to become a registered user of the website. We can argue that the definition of a circle is probably more important and fundamental than the definition of Facebook, and yet the second definition is more complex, simply because it requires more "stones". Shannon information is very important to understand these quantitative concepts. In the fundamental Durston paper, "Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins": http://www.tbiomed.com/content/4/1/47 Shannon's information is brilliantly used to measure the functional space of protein families, by estimating the reduction in uncertainty determined by the function versus the random state. So, to sum up, the kind of information which is relevant to ID theory is information which conveys meaning and function, and to be relevant to the ID core idea (design detection) that information must be quantifiable, in terms of bits necessary to convey the meaning or the function, using Shannon's concepts.gpuccio
March 20, 2014
March
03
Mar
20
20
2014
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT
Thank you, BiPed #29 I can see how Shannon's remarks might be interpreted as some here do. What he is actually saying is that from the communication theory standpoint the content of a valid message can be anything chosen to be valid by the sender and receiver, and it doesn't change the communication problem. 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.GBDixon
March 20, 2014
March
03
Mar
20
20
2014
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT
Allen MacNeill:
Arguing about Shannon information (and Kolmogorov information) is therefore pointless. Information without meaning is indeed gibberish, and biology is all about meaningful information.
That's the whole point of specified information- to differentiate between function/meaning and mere Shannon information.Joe
March 20, 2014
March
03
Mar
20
20
2014
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT
Allen_MacNeill #25
AMN: Meaning cannot simply “float in the spaces between the star” but must be encoded in the energy/matter that comprises the “contents” of the phenomenological universe of our experience. Yes, ideas seem disembodied to us, but they aren’t.
I beg to differ. Ideas are immaterial and only need embodiment when expressed into the material world – like our texts.
AMN: (…) the evanescent flickerings of action potentials that comprise our minds.
How can “evanescent flickerings of action potentials” be ideas or even have ideas?Box
March 20, 2014
March
03
Mar
20
20
2014
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT
I’m trying to get a handle on why so many here seem to think meaning is not part and parcel of Shannon information. Many are very assertive…where did this idea come from?
From Clauge Shannon's theory. Paragraph 2, Sentence 3. The fundamental problem of communication is that of reproducing at one point either exactly or approximately a message selected at another point. Frequently the messages have meaning; that is they refer to or are correlated according to some system with certain physical or conceptual entities. These semantic aspects of communication are irrelevant to the engineering problem.Upright BiPed
March 20, 2014
March
03
Mar
20
20
2014
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT
Hi, I'm trying to get a handle on why so many here seem to think meaning is not part and parcel of Shannon information. Many are very assertive...where did this idea come from? I remind readers that all of communication theory deals with separating messages that have meaning from those that don't. Error detection, error correction, retransmission, etc. are all designed to make this separation process more robust. But the exercise is meaningless and no information is transferred until something meaningful is extracted from the process.GBDixon
March 20, 2014
March
03
Mar
20
20
2014
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT
Greetings from a longtime lurker, only my second time posting, I think. When I encountered this type of objection -- ie that information is contained in all objects, therefore DNA is not special -- the example offered was a star's spectrum, which can be used to reveal the various elements contained in the star and was not a trivial amount of information. (His previous example was a red sky, which conveyed information about impending weather.) I granted the presence of "information" in the spectrum, but it was only a limited kind, similar to the OP's suggestion of "Information 1". The spectrum could only give the composition of that particular star. Nothing in the spectrum or in the star itself store or convey the composition of any other star, much less anything about human beings or even my dog's name. However, all of that can be stored and transmitted using DNA, as an example of "Information 2". He wasn't persuaded, of course, but perhaps he thought about it later.DennisM
March 20, 2014
March
03
Mar
20
20
2014
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT
Arguing about Shannon information (and Kolmogorov information) is therefore pointless. Information without meaning is indeed gibberish, and biology is all about meaningful information.Allen_MacNeill
March 20, 2014
March
03
Mar
20
20
2014
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT
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. Optimus in #25 gets close: the two strings - Four score and seven years ago - nenen ytawoi jll sn mekhdx nnx have exactly the same amount of Shannon information, but only the first string has meaningful information. Furthermore, the meaningful information in the first string does not depend on the bits/characters of which it is composed, because if it did its “meaning” would still be there if no one could read it, as jstanley01 pointed out in #21. However, this is clearly not the case. For information to be meaningful, it must have meaning. That is, it must be encoded and symbolic: the bits/characters must stand for something else. That “encoding/translation” relationship between the symbol and the thing it represents is its meaning. This is why the rings of Saturn and the grains of sand on the beach and the stars in the night sky may have Shannon information, but they do not have meaningful information. The kind of information that we are all interested in (evolutionary biologists and intelligent designers) is meaningful information. That is, information that is encoded, can (must?) be transmitted from a sender to a receiver, and decoded for its meaning to be manifested. Without a decoding receiver it’s like linear B before it was translated: meaningless gibberish. 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. To use Ernst Mayr’s terminology, purposeful/teleological (i.e. teleonomic) phenomena must be programmed; the program must pre-exist the object/process it makes manifest. Viewed from the perspective of the physical sciences, this also entails the assumption that such programs must have some material referent. Meaning cannot simply “float in the spaces between the star” but must be encoded in the energy/matter that comprises the “contents” of the phenomenological universe of our experience. Yes, ideas seem disembodied to us, but they aren’t. They exist in our minds and/or in the objects and processes we perceive that we recreate in the evanescent flickerings of action potentials that comprise our minds. A brain without ideas is dead matter, but ideas without an energy/material vehicle are undetectable and therefore pointless (and probably non-existent).Allen_MacNeill
March 20, 2014
March
03
Mar
20
20
2014
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT
Hi All from a lurker... I work with the Shannon channel capacity, etc. Shannon defined information as the set of possible received messages that have meaning to the sender and receiver. These messages are compared to the set of all possible messages that can be received through a noisy channel. The messages that have no meaning (usually a much larger set) contain no information. A sequential toss of 100 heads in a row on a coin has meaning to the receiver: "the coin is rigged, it has two heads, or the person tossing the coin is very skilled". This outcome has information when compared to a random head-tail sequence, which conveys no meaning and has no information in this context. In DNA, the set of sequences that produce something useful (proteins and their assembly sequences, for example) would be considered information while all the other sequences (which produce nothing useful) would be the set of sequences that contain no information. In a cell, then, DNA is rich with information because many of the DNA sequences produce useful things needed for the cell to function and divide. By making a list of all sequences that everyone agrees produce something useful, we can calculate, using Shannon's formula, a lower bound on information contained within the cell. Using this lower bound for a cell's information content, one can then discuss and speculate on how this information came to be. I would try not to confuse the ability of a medium to convey information with the information itself. A long DNA sequence found in isolation has no information. Coupled with the machines in the cell, the useful sequences become meaningful and have rich information content.GBDixon
March 20, 2014
March
03
Mar
20
20
2014
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT
This is what Meyer uses in SITC p 86:
information- the attribute inherent in and communicated by [one of two or more] alternative sequences or arrangements of something [(as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program)] that produce specific effects
Whereas Shannon didn't give a hoot about meaning nor function, to ID information is all about meaning and function, producing specific effects.Joe
March 20, 2014
March
03
Mar
20
20
2014
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT
That was a very good article Eric. One point I'm not sure I agree with you is the following statement:
One of the things that helps us understand information is to consider whether any meaning or understanding has been imparted. What meaning or understanding is imparted by the rock rolling down the hill (or in Saturn’s rings)?
Here, "meaning" (or understanding) is, I believe, subjective. 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? If you see a set of lines drawn in a cave, would you take them as randomly drawn lines carrying no information, or a paragraph written in a foreign language (though we cannot figure out the alphabet) carrying information. 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. What if, inspired from Saturn rings, an artist comes up with a painting, or a physicist comes up with an equation? If Saturn rings weren't there, those paintings and equations would not be created! Still, would we argue that Saturn rings carry no information? I think classifying the processes in nature as randomly occuring and information carrying events separately is the crucial point in ID discussion. We try to define the concept of "random" by examining the universe around us. However, if nothing in that universe is random (but everything carrying information), we are doomed in this classification from the very beginning!CuriousCat
March 20, 2014
March
03
Mar
20
20
2014
05:58 AM
5
05
58
AM
PDT
Here's a couple or three questions (he said, with a deadpan look on his face): 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?jstanley01
March 20, 2014
March
03
Mar
20
20
2014
05:44 AM
5
05
44
AM
PDT
Excellent article Eric! I'm looking forward to your further explorations of information. On the distinction between information 1 & 2: The information in DNA is about something else (e.g. proteins). By contrast the alleged information in Saturn’s rings only refers to Saturn’s rings.Box
March 20, 2014
March
03
Mar
20
20
2014
04:55 AM
4
04
55
AM
PDT
If I measure something and write the answer on a piece of paper, presumably the paper contains information. If I then burn the piece of paper, has the information been destroyed ? Does it still exist in my brain ? If I get confused and muddle up the value in my brain, has the information been changed ? Is it new information ? Is it information at all ?
Remembering back to what I learned in an undergraduate anthropology class, it appears that among people groups without written languages, information about historic events lasts about fifty years, give or take. That is, more or less, the length of a generation. Events such as, eighty years ago the group lived on the other side of the mountain, but no one in the group knows it. Of course, it has been thirty years since I sat in that class and my notes are long gone. So I could have what was taught all bollixed up. :Djstanley01
March 20, 2014
March
03
Mar
20
20
2014
04:42 AM
4
04
42
AM
PDT
OK Eric what about: Information flows from artist to art, ie from designer to the thing being designed. Therefor any object a designer designs would contain the information required to make it. A cake, for example, would, at a minimum, contain all the information in the recipe used to make it. Agree or disagree?Joe
March 20, 2014
March
03
Mar
20
20
2014
04:19 AM
4
04
19
AM
PDT
Optimus- Shannon didn't care about meaning.That oesn't mean Shannon information never has any.Joe
March 20, 2014
March
03
Mar
20
20
2014
04:15 AM
4
04
15
AM
PDT
Saturn's rings, tree rings, sediments and the like are data recorders. It takes intelligent agencies to take that data and make information out of it. (Q beat me to it)Joe
March 20, 2014
March
03
Mar
20
20
2014
04:14 AM
4
04
14
AM
PDT
Mung @ 10
Shannon information cannot properly be described as “non-functional gibberish,” and “non-functional gibberish” cannot properly be described as Shannon information. The sooner the ID community abandons it’s mistaken ideas about Information in general and about Shannon Information in particular, the better off it will be.
My understanding of Shannon information is admittedly limited, but I'm not really sure what your objection is. So I'll write and you can tell me where the mistake is. Shannon's theory of information (as I understand it) concerns the ability of a string of characters to carry information, that is, it measures information carrying capacity (using the formula I = -log2p). Information carrying capacity is, of course, distinct from actual information content (which in varying contexts might be described as 'meaning,' 'function,' etc.). So two sequences that are of equal length and utilize constituents from the same character set will possess an equivalent amount of Shannon information - information carrying capacity - though one may be meaningful/functional and the other may not. On page 90 of SITC Meyer uses this example: - Four score and seven years ago - nenen ytawoi jll sn mekhdx nnx Both sequences possess an equivalent amount of information carrying capacity (Shannon information), but only the former satisfies the additional criterion of meaning/functionality. But even though the latter does not appear functional (at least as far as I can tell), rendering it a fair example of "gibberish", it surely possesses at least the capacity to carry information.Optimus
March 19, 2014
March
03
Mar
19
19
2014
11:00 PM
11
11
00
PM
PDT
Nice job, Eric. Very persuasive. It reminds me of the old saying that Data is not information, Information is not knowledge, And knowledge is not wisdom. I'm also reminded of the part in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, where The Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything is calculated by the supercomputer, Deep Thought, as 42, demonstrating the inadequacy of a numeric value outside of any context. -QQuerius
March 19, 2014
March
03
Mar
19
19
2014
10:42 PM
10
10
42
PM
PDT
One more example, before the sandman calls: This one is more for fun (and took me a bit of work, so I hope you appreciate it). :) Let’s suppose that I were to observe Saturn’s rings and produce some information, say in the English language, about the physical object I observed. I might say (courtesy the first paragraph from Wikipedia):
The rings of Saturn are the most extensive planetary ring system of any planet in the Solar System. They consist of countless small particles, ranging in size from micrometres to metres, that orbit about Saturn. The ring particles are made almost entirely of water ice, with a trace component of rocky material.
Now the above paragraph contains information, in the English language, about Saturn’s rings. The paragraph consists of three sentences, 52 words, three commas and three periods. This paragraph contains information about the prior paragraph. Information that I created by carefully observing the prior paragraph, by using conventions of math, and by representing the information, again, in the English language – all by my conscious activity and choice. This paragraph also consists of three sentences. It also contains 52 words, three commas and three periods, just like the paragraph about Saturn’s rings. This information could be produced by any observer and represented in the language of choice, but in this case the information is also contained in the paragraph itself.Eric Anderson
March 19, 2014
March
03
Mar
19
19
2014
10:41 PM
10
10
41
PM
PDT
Here is another example that might help: A hundred rocks randomly scattered on the beach vs. a hundred rocks arranged on the beach in the English letters SOS. What is the difference between the two? In both cases an observer could come along and carefully map the position and size of each rock. That would be information that the observer created as a result of mental activity directed toward observing a physical object. The observer could even go crazy, calculating the positions to the nth degree, measuring with ever finer and finer accuracy the precise location, size and so on. The observer could add color to the description. The observer might include details about the precise shape, the type of rock, the shadows that were cast by each rock at a particular time of day. The observer could go on and on with ever-increasing levels of detail and accuracy. And all of that constitutes information. Information produced by the observer. Information that can be coded, translated, transmitted, stored and retransmitted at some much later date, long after the actual physical object no longer exists. The information about the rocks is a nonphysical representation of and exists independently of the rocks themselves. The same holds true for both groups of rocks. In both cases an observer can produce information about the rocks. 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. In both cases we, as an observer, are capable of producing information about the rocks. But only in one case is information contained in and transmitted by the rocks.Eric Anderson
March 19, 2014
March
03
Mar
19
19
2014
10:24 PM
10
10
24
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply