Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Medium is Not the Message

Categories
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

March madness is upon us.  In that vein, I ask you to consider the following sentence:  “A basketball is round and orange.” 

You read this sentence through a medium, probably a computer screen.  This means I had an idea, and I wrote out on my computer screen a representation of the idea in symbols (Latin letters forming English words arranged together into a sentence using the rules of English grammar and syntax).  I uploaded these symbols onto the uncommondescent.com website.  You downloaded the symbols to your computer and deciphered them.  Now a representation of the idea that was once in my head is in your head.  When you read my sentence you thought about a round orange basketball.

Now consider this.  My computer, the UD server, and your computer all have physical properties that can be measured.  These properties include mass, charge, etc.  But the information in the sentence “A basketball is round and orange” is quite independent of the physical properties of the medium on which it is placed.  Indeed, none of the physical properties of your computer changed when you downloaded the information.  The physical properties of your computer were rearranged, but they did not change.  Your computer had the same mass, the same charge, the same specific gravity, etc. after you downloaded the sentence that it did before you downloaded it. 

Think of it this way.  Suppose I wrote the same sentence (“A basketball is round and orange”) on a piece of paper and handed it to you and asked you to read and memorize it.  You proceed to memorize the sentence.  I take the paper back and burn it.  Then I ask you to repeat the sentence into a tape recorder.  You dictate “A basketball is round and orange” into the tape recorder.  What just happened?  The information was in my head.  Then it was on the paper.  Then it was in your head, but not the paper.  Now it is on the tape of the tape recorder. 

What is the point of all this?  The point is that information may be transmitted on a physical medium, but it is not reducible to the medium on which it is carried, and it is independent of the medium upon which it is carried.  Information has no mass.  It has no charge.  Indeed, it has no property that can be measured by the same means we measure matter and energy.  We conclude, therefore, that information is not reducible to matter, and it is not reducible to energy, and it is not reducible to a combination of matter and energy.  Yet we know that information exists in the universe.  Therefore, we must conclude that the universe is more than matter and energy, that it is more than mere particles in motion. 

If the existence of information cannot be reduced to the properties of matter and energy, where did it come from?  Where indeed?

Comments
Warehuff you state, "Wow, I point out some errors about information in the OP and suddenly I’m stuck with three conundrums about DNA, which I never mentioned!" But warehuff you directed stated the following as a unsupported fact: "But this conclusion is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of information and is wrong. Information is reducible to arrangements of matter and energy." I merely pointed out that your assertion, which is in direct opposition to the OP, is not supported by any scientific evidence whatsoever. i.e. if what you said was actually true should you not falsify Abel's null hypothesis first? The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity: David L. Abel - Null Hypothesis For Information Generation - 2009 To focus the scientific community’s attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous metaphysical imagination bordering on “wish-fulfillment,” we propose the following readily falsifiable null hypothesis, and invite rigorous experimental attempts to falsify it: "Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut: physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration." A single exception of non trivial, unaided spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly natural process would falsify this null hypothesis. http://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/pdf http://mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/ag As for your reference to Quantum Mechanics, are you of the "hidden variable crowd? i.e. you must tell me exactly WHY does the wave collapse to its "uncertain" state without the use of "hidden variables" as you are trying to use. This following study solidly refutes the "hidden variable" argument that has been used by materialists to try to get around the Theistic implications of this instantaneous "spooky action at a distance" found in quantum mechanics. Quantum Measurements: Common Sense Is Not Enough, Physicists Show - July 2009 Excerpt: scientists have now proven comprehensively in an experiment for the first time that the experimentally observed phenomena cannot be described by non-contextual models with hidden variables. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090722142824.htm (of note: hidden variables were postulated to remove the need for “spooky” forces, as Einstein termed them—forces that act instantaneously at great distances, thereby breaking the most cherished rule of relativity theory, that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.) further note: Wheeler's Classic Delayed Choice Experiment: Excerpt: So it seems that time has nothing to do with effects of quantum mechanics. And, indeed, the original thought experiment was not based on any analysis of how particles evolve and behave over time – it was based on the mathematics. This is what the mathematics predicted for a result, and this is exactly the result obtained in the laboratory. http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/basic_delayed_choice.htm "It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness." Eugene Wigner (1902 -1995) laid the foundation for the theory of symmetries in quantum mechanics, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963 The Known Universe - Dec. 2009 - very cool video - please note the centrality of the earth in the universe in the video Warefuff http://www.youtube.com/v/17jymDn0W6U of note: The only way to "geometrically" maintain continuous 3D spherical symmetry of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation within the "3D universe", from different points of observation in the universe, is for all the "higher dimensional" quantum waves of the universe to collapse to their "uncertain" 3D particle state, universally and instantaneously, for/to each individual observer in the universe. The expanding 4-D space-time of general relativity is grossly insufficient to explain 3D centrality with the CMBR from radically different points of observation in the universe. I find it extremely interesting that quantum mechanics tells us that instantaneous quantum wave collapse to its "uncertain" 3-D state is centered on each individual observer in the universe, whereas, 4-D space-time cosmology tells us each 3-D point in the universe is central to the expansion of the universe. Why should the expansion of the universe, or the quantum wave collapse of the entire universe, even care that I exist? Proverbs 15:3 The eyes of the LORD are in every place,,, This is obviously a very interesting congruence in science between the very large (relativity) and the very small (quantum mechanics). A congruence they seem to be having a extremely difficult time "unifying" mathematically (Einstein, Penrose). The Physics Of The Large And Small: What Is the Bridge Between Them? Roger Penrose Excerpt: This, (the unification of General Relativity and the laws of Quantum Mechanics), would also have practical advantages in the application of quantum ideas to subjects like biology - in which one does not have the clean distinction between a quantum system and its classical measuring apparatus that our present formalism requires. In my opinion, moreover, this revolution is needed if we are ever to make significant headway towards a genuine scientific understanding of the mysterious but very fundamental phenomena of conscious mentality." Yet, this "unification" between what is in essence the "infinite world of Quantum Mechanics" and the "finite world of the space-time of General Relativity" seems to be directly related to what Jesus apparently joined together with His resurrection, i.e. related to the unification of infinite God with finite man: The Center Of The Universe Is Life - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3993426/the_center_of_the_universe_is_life/ The End Of Christianity - Finding a Good God in an Evil World - Pg.31 - William Dembski Excerpt: "In mathematics there are two ways to go to infinity. One is to grow large without measure. The other is to form a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero. The Cross is a path of humility in which the infinite God becomes finite and then contracts to zero, only to resurrect and thereby unite a finite humanity within a newfound infinity."bornagain77
March 24, 2010
March
03
Mar
24
24
2010
04:32 AM
4
04
32
AM
PDT
Wow, I point out some errors about information in the OP and suddenly I'm stuck with three conundrums about DNA, which I never mentioned! Which reminds me, in http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4096579/dr_quantum_double_slit_experiment_entanglement/, Dr. Quantum sort of misses something very, very important. "They put a measuring device by one slit to see which one it [the electron] went through and let it fly. But the quantum world is far more mysterious then they could have imagined. When they observed, the electron went back to behaving like a little marble. It produced a pattern of two bands, not an interference pattern of many. The very act of measuring or observing which slit it went through meant it only went through one, not both. The electron decided to act differently, as though it was aware it was being watched." Dr Quantum says "observed" and "measured" as if those acts could be done passively, but they can't. To see which slit the electron goes through, the measuring device has to interact with the electron. It either has to bounce something off of it or detect its electric charge or do something else that physically interacts with the electron. But whenever you interact with any quantum object, that object has to decohere immediately so it acts like a particle and has a position that can be measured! No consciousness is involved whatsoever, just simple interaction. This means that all arguments that consciousness is necessary for this or that quantum whatever are false and every argument built on those claims no longer has any support. I urge everybody to please adjust their arguments accordingly. P.S. If you'd like to read a really good book on this, get "Where does the weirdness go? Why quantum mechanics is strange, but not as strange as you think" by David Lindley. You will learn more about quantum mechanics from reading this one book than from watching a hundred apologetic videos. I see Amazon is selling used paperback copies for $1.45. PM me with a mailing address and I'll have one sent to you. P.O. Boxes are fine. In fact, I make this offer to the first ten people who respond, asking only that you actually read the book if I send it to you.warehuff
March 24, 2010
March
03
Mar
24
24
2010
02:40 AM
2
02
40
AM
PDT
warehuff you stated: "But this conclusion is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of information and is wrong. Information is reducible to arrangements of matter and energy." If you are merely wanting to reference the encrypted information in the DNA which I believe originally came from a mind that ordered those precise arrangements of matter and energy to be as they may, I guess you could be so unforeseen as to conclude this posit of yours (although you would have to actually show matter and energy producing not only the information in the DNA, but the abstract "information code" itself that we find to actually be considered legitimate and plausible scientifically). Biophysicist Hubert Yockey determined that natural selection would have to explore 1.40 x 10^70 different genetic codes to discover the optimal universal genetic code that is found in nature. The maximum amount of time available for it to originate is 6.3 x 10^15 seconds. Natural selection would have to evaluate roughly 10^55 codes per second to find the one that is optimal. Put simply, natural selection lacks the time necessary to find the optimal universal genetic code we find in nature. (Fazale Rana, -The Cell's Design - 2008 - page 177) The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity - David L. Abel - 2009 Excerpt: "A monstrous ravine runs through presumed objective reality. It is the great divide between physicality and formalism. On the one side of this Grand Canyon lies everything that can be explained by the chance and necessity of physicodynamics. On the other side lies those phenomena than can only be explained by formal choice contingency and decision theory—the ability to choose with intent what aspects of ontological being will be preferred, pursued, selected, rearranged, integrated, organized, preserved, and used. Physical dynamics includes spontaneous non linear phenomena, but not our formal applied-science called “non linear dynamics”(i.e. language,information). http://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/pdf Life’s Irreducible Structure Excerpt: “Mechanisms, whether man-made or morphological, are boundary conditions harnessing the laws of inanimate nature, being themselves irreducible to those laws. The pattern of organic bases in DNA which functions as a genetic code is a boundary condition irreducible to physics and chemistry." Michael Polanyi - Hungarian polymath - 1968 - Science (Vol. 160. no. 3834, pp. 1308 – 1312) The DNA Code - Solid Scientific Proof Of Intelligent Design - Perry Marshall - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4060532 Yet in a grander scope of examining the evidence we find that matter is reducible to energy (e=mc2) and energy is reducible to information: Explaining Information Transfer in Quantum Teleportation: Armond Duwell †‡ University of Pittsburgh Excerpt: In contrast to a classical bit, the description of a (photon) qubit requires an infinite amount of information. The amount of information is infinite because two real numbers are required in the expansion of the state vector of a two state quantum system (Jozsa 1997, 1) --- Concept 2. is used by Bennett, et al. Recall that they infer that since an infinite amount of information is required to specify a qubit, an infinite amount of information must be transferred to teleport. http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/duwell/DuwellPSA2K.pdf Thus warehuff you are actually stuck with three conundrums instead of one, The first one which you falsely think you have satisfactorily addressed is, Where did the information in DNA come? the second one is, Where did the information for the DNA code itself come from? and thirdly, and what I consider the most interesting question of all, Where did the infinite information come from that created energy-matter in the first place?bornagain77
March 23, 2010
March
03
Mar
23
23
2010
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT
Going back to the last paragraph of the OP: "The point is that information may be transmitted on a physical medium, but it is not reducible to the medium on which it is carried, and it is independent of the medium upon which it is carried. Information has no mass. It has no charge. Indeed, it has no property that can be measured by the same means we measure matter and energy. That last sentence is wrong. Information is embedded in the arrangement of matter and we can detect these arrangement by the same means that we measure matter with. "We conclude, therefore, that information is not reducible to matter, and it is not reducible to energy, and it is not reducible to a combination of matter and energy." But this conclusion is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of information and is wrong. Information is reducible to arrangements of matter and energy. "Yet we know that information exists in the universe. Therefore, we must conclude that the universe is more than matter and energy, that it is more than mere particles in motion." This conclusion is based on the same error and is also wrong.warehuff
March 23, 2010
March
03
Mar
23
23
2010
04:14 AM
4
04
14
AM
PDT
Upright Biped in 55: "The arrangement ‘adenine-cytosine-adenine’ is meaningful information in the context of DNA, just as the diameter of a pulley is meaningful information in the context of making a water pump. What is meaningful is not contained within their physical properties; it is derived from their usefulness in attaining a function. That is precisely the point. The meaningful information recorded in DNA manipulates and constrains matter resulting in biological function. And as Allen McNeil has shown us, meaningful information requires perception to exist." A better way to phrase that would be to say that the physical size, shape, mass, electrostatic charge and arrangement of the atoms in 'adenine-cytosine-adenine’ will, if they are embedded in a DNA string and placed into a cell, select a transfer RNA molecule which in turn will add a threonine amino acid to a protein that is being constructed. This is occurring right now is almost every cell in your body and requires no perception.warehuff
March 23, 2010
March
03
Mar
23
23
2010
04:08 AM
4
04
08
AM
PDT
Franck Barfety at 67: "While I agree with you that information is multiply realizable on material medium, information continues to exist even when the medium seizes to exist and is indeed as Barry said “independent of the physical properties of the medium on which it is placed.” For example, numbers or truths about them (or truths in general) exist whether or not there is any physical representation of them." I invite you or anybody else to show me any information that is not embedded in matter. Numbers and truths about them are part of the universe's structure, not information. "Gravity" is not information. You can learn information about gravity, such as Newton's laws. "I would disagree with you here. One might observe neurons firing as I decide to think about the statement “a basketball is round and orange” but nowehere in my brain will you find information about what it means to be round, orange or the disappointment that KU lost. My mind contains that information not the particles." The information about roundness, and orangeness are stored in your memory. Memories seem to be made of a combination of different synapse firing levels and wiring of neurons. New dendrites actually grow and connect to other neurons as you learn things. All of this is material. Disappointment is an emotion that is partly neural and partly chemical in nature. That's also material in nature. FB in 76: "Emergence is a clear departure from strict physicalism. It’s been said it is magic without a magician." Two atoms of hydrogen join to a single atom of oxygen to make a molecule of water. The property of "wetness" is an emergent property of large numbers of water molecules. There's nothing magic or immaterial about wetness or other examples of emergence.warehuff
March 23, 2010
March
03
Mar
23
23
2010
03:56 AM
3
03
56
AM
PDT
To HSR: you are right, it is incoherent.Graham1
March 23, 2010
March
03
Mar
23
23
2010
01:40 AM
1
01
40
AM
PDT
Aleta @85, & all, I would agree that some interesting things can arise or "emerge" from an aggregate of material entities. A clock, for example, may tell the observer the time of day only after it is constructed from various mechanical parts (which alone cannot tell time) such as pulleys, springs, cogwheels and pendulums. Likewise, organized material structures (such as an alloyed ferrite-carbon system) arise only after their constituent atoms bond metallically into arrays exhibiting crystal order. Information, roughly, is realized through particular arrangements of physical symbols or images relaying some type of "meaning." This meaning is perceived by the mental faculties (what makes up the mind and intellect) such as self-awareness, rationality, free-will and the ability to arbitrarily devise symbols which all allow us to make reasoned conclusions about the meaning in question. Abstract thought, as it were. Now information is relayed by symbols, which when arranged together produce some language or algebra (whether mathematical or linguistic, it makes no difference). We may derive an understanding/meaning from the information in question only if language and therefore the symbols have the property of truth. They are true if they correctly correspond to the phenomena in question, and if not, we call them false. However, this truth correspondence is not a material property precisely because it is governed by the rules of reason and logic and not by some mechanical or physical necessity arising from the combination of particles of matter. In other words, we do not need the abacus to tell us that 1 and 1 make 2. To hammer this point in, I will not find truth, of any kind, grazing in an open field. It seems you would like to suggest that the mind, defined by qualities such as self-awareness, sentience and cognition, the capability for abstract problem solving, self-reflection (the list never ends) - indeed the very idea of "I" and conceptual existence - emerge from the brain much like a mechanical system does (see clock) solely from the combination of "dead" matter, that is, subatomic particles: if the matter comprising the brain is arranged just right, then I'm able to deduce that "I" exist (or is it really “me” at all!?). In this case the brain is the organ of thought, just as information is not only conveyed through a material substrate, but is the material substrate due solely to the pattern/arrangement. How is it that by the mere buzzing of atoms - utter reduction to the sub-molecular level - arranged in patterns, can thoughts and imagined concepts arise - how would you measure them? In what physical unit? To illustrate my point, I'd like to engage in a thought experiment concerning information which I cannot take credit for. Let us suppose I have both a recording device and a written manuscript. Recorded on the tape device, in spoken word (a language you do not understand) is some manner of story you would read in a pulp novel - the subject matter makes no difference. The important thing here is that there are elements to this story that are significant: It starts slow, though some of the characters are rather thrilling and are quite 3-dimensional. There happens to be a rather exciting climax and a surprise ending no unsuspecting person would see coming. Let's say this pulpy tale is on the whole, quite sad and tragic. Now let us suppose that the same exact story is in its written/typed form (obviously as various visual symbols) on the manuscript, also in said dialect. Here we have two separate material substrates conveying information. Physically, the tape recorder generates pressurized waves which travel through the air, and the characteristics and properties of these sound waves can be measured. In fact you know all of these characteristics (loudness, amplitude and frequencies of the wave form etc) right down to the minutest detail of how the material phenomena operate. Furthermore, for the written version, you're able to obtain completely, down to the last particle, data for properties such as mass, page count, and the way the ink is arranged on the page: everything. If I know the details of the story inside and out (let’s say it’s my favorite, really), and understand what the information conveyed on both of these two separate substrates means, answer me one simple question: How does what you know, lead to what I know? How do the properties you measured (the arrangement and patterns of atoms etc.) lead to that exciting climax, and especially that surprise ending I never saw coming? Is there ANYTHING from that hypothetical data you gathered that can tell you, most importantly, what it actually all means? Aleta, Mark, Nakashima, all: I suppose my point is: how is Barry jumping to conclusions if it can be logically deduced that information is not reducible to merely matter in motion? The proposition/premise: “the material is all there is” is itself, in a circular manner, smuggled into the conclusion. At best you can say “all I perceive are material entities” but this, like you accuse Barry of, does not necessarily lead to the aforementioned conclusion, that “material is all there is.” It’s a sort of mantra. There is no empirical process that tells you this – the scientific method surely does not, and it is presumptuous to conclude that it does. It is the axiom of a philosophy, I believe – not science. I’m sorry if this seemed incoherent – I had some information in mind.HouseStreetRoom
March 23, 2010
March
03
Mar
23
23
2010
12:00 AM
12
12
00
AM
PDT
#87 I do count these truths as eternal information, meaning these truths are not time bound so I would actually consider the solution to an unsolved theorem truth or information not yet known which nonetheless exists. The truths that say the Earth is round or the Earth is suspended over nothing for example existed prior to being acknowledged. Truth cares not whether it is in material form or not. As far I can see you are saying that information is the same as facts. So while the round earth is definitely something material - the fact the earth is round is immaterial information?Mark Frank
March 22, 2010
March
03
Mar
22
22
2010
11:47 PM
11
11
47
PM
PDT
88 Nakashima Is it an eternal truth that “parallel lines never meet”? Where does this question reside in your brain or does it? How long is it and how much does it weigh? Is it nearer your left or right ear? Is it larger than the question What will I have for breakfast? Is it parallel to an area of your brain? I am truly curious what a materialist's answer is to all these questions and the exact physical processes involved in the deciding to answer them.Franck Barfety
March 22, 2010
March
03
Mar
22
22
2010
11:34 PM
11
11
34
PM
PDT
72 Nakashima
You are asserting what you have to prove.
I am asserting that nowhere in my brain will you find information about what it means to be round, orange or the disappointment that KU lost. I conclude that because mental facts are not the same as physical facts, i.e. have no shape, are not smaller than, softer than, closer to my left ear, etc., my mind contains that information not the particles.
Your mind knows “KU lost.” and this true fact is indestructible. If so, what is ‘forgetting’?
Well Physicalists seem to forget that mental states (e.g., a thought) are of or about something - perhaps the hope that IDists would come to their senses - while physical states do not have this intrinsic and irreducible intentionality. This does not invalidate the fact that information is immaterial and indestructible. Forgetting the information that say, the earth is round does nothing to invalidate its truth. Forgetting that KU lost does not make it go away.Franck Barfety
March 22, 2010
March
03
Mar
22
22
2010
11:11 PM
11
11
11
PM
PDT
Mr Barfety, The truths that say the Earth is round or the Earth is suspended over nothing for example existed prior to being acknowledged. Truth cares not whether it is in material form or not. "Suspended over nothing"? Suspended from what? Is it an eternal truth that "paralel lines never meet"?Nakashima
March 22, 2010
March
03
Mar
22
22
2010
11:03 PM
11
11
03
PM
PDT
70 Mark Frank
There are lots of facts, including mathematical truths, that no one yet knows and probably lots that no one will ever know. I assume you do not count these as information.
I do count these truths as eternal information, meaning these truths are not time bound so I would actually consider the solution to an unsolved theorem truth or information not yet known which nonetheless exists. The truths that say the Earth is round or the Earth is suspended over nothing for example existed prior to being acknowledged. Truth cares not whether it is in material form or not.Franck Barfety
March 22, 2010
March
03
Mar
22
22
2010
10:31 PM
10
10
31
PM
PDT
Well actually Aleta; We can infer many things as to "what" caused the big bang. 1. the source of the big bang had to be transcendent of time-space, matter-energy since time-space, matter energy was brought into being at the big bang. 2. the only entity that defies time-space and dominates matter energy that we know of in this universe is transcendent information in quantum teleportation and entanglement experiments. (as well a photon is shown to be reducible to "infinite" information.) 3. thus transcendent infinite information presents itself as the only causally adequate entity to explain the origination of the universe. 4. the double slit experiment shows that "quantum information waves" will not even collapse to there "uncertain" 3 dimensional material state until a conscious observer is present. 5 thus it is impossible for 3-D material reality to give rise to the consciousness it is dependent on for its own reality in the first place. 6 human consciousness is not sufficient within itself to explain the quantum wave collapse with the refutation of the hidden variable argument. 7. thus a sufficient causally adequate consciousness must precede the quantum information wave collapse apart from human consciousness. of further note: John 1:1 In the beginning was The Word,,,bornagain77
March 22, 2010
March
03
Mar
22
22
2010
07:58 PM
7
07
58
PM
PDT
As I said, the information is contained in the pattern - you use the word "organization." Virtually everything of interest in the world is "not reducible to the material properties" of the constituent parts - it's the relationships between fundamental entities that creates interesting things. But Barry said more than this. He wrote, " We conclude, therefore, that information is not reducible to matter, and it is not reducible to energy, and it is not reducible to a combination of matter and energy.  Yet we know that information exists in the universe.  Therefore, we must conclude that the universe is more than matter and energy, that it is more than mere particles in motion." It is this latter conclusion that is unwarranted. The fact that the patterns of the relationships between simple constituent parts produce things that are more than what the parts can manifest individually, and that those patterns can be passed from one medium to another (i.e., "information") does not mean "we must conclude that the universe is more than matter and energy." Barry's conclusion is wrong, in my opinion.Aleta
March 22, 2010
March
03
Mar
22
22
2010
07:28 PM
7
07
28
PM
PDT
IMO, we can stay completely agnostic toward platonism and still make sense of the subject of this thread. Allen and Aleta, you both appear to be stressing that information necessarily requires a material medium and that may be true (another claim about which I am agnostic), however it is still true that the information which is carried by the medium is independent of that medium, as explained originally by Barry. You point to the information carried in a sound wave as being the result of vocal cords which do indeed have physical properties. Yet, the specific organization of vibrations necessarily performed by those vocal cords in order to create the information in the sound wave also are not defined by the physical properties of the vocal cords. The same vocal cords can produce a rendition of a famous speech as well as incoherent babbling. The same physical properties produce both groups of sound waves. Then, sure, we can track the organization (information) required to produce a vocal rendition of a famous speech back to neurons firing -- again physical and measurable material, but also another layer where the organization required to produce the speech is not reduced to the mere material properties of the neurons. In this case, we can have a blob of neurons in a petri dish producing no functional or meaningful information or we can have a tightly orchestrated, highly improbably arranged and mediated group of neurons in a brain generating the aforementioned famous speech. But, you complain, the organization of the neurons is dependent on a more fundamental material substrate. But, of course. I don't deny that. Material is again used to transfer information, but again this layer of information is also not reducible to the material properties of the material used to transfer the information. The organization of DNA and epigenetic information required to guide the generation of a brain is also not defined by the physical properties of the nucleotides used to transfer the information. The same four nucleotides can either produce tar or they can be transcribed and translated in a complex and tightly constrained organization (another layer of information) to produce molecular machines, cellular computation, and intelligence, etc. So, although it does seem true that material is required to transfer information, it also appears true that the information is also not defined by or reducible to the physical properties of material, as Barry stated in the original post and I've expanded upon in my comment. Another example being how the organization of a computer is not defined by the physical properties of the plastics and metals utilized in the construction of a computer. IE: the laws governing the interaction between metals and plastics (based on the physical properties of those plastics and metals) do not cause computers to form. So, it appears that the functional/meaningful information being discussed here is at least as fundamental as the matter and energy which can be utilized to transfer it. This plays directly into the foundational math being developed by Dembski and Marks which naturally flows from the NFLT. The conclusion is that matter, energy and chance do not create highly improbable (beyond UPB) functional/meaningful information. Matter/energy can only transfer this information and chance (not properly confined by previous functional information) degrades function/meaning. One more thing .... Since intelligence is founded on this functional information and this functional information can indeed be generated by intelligent manipulation of matter and energy, yet this functional organization (information) is not reducible to the physical properties of matter/energy, then it may be that not only is this information fundamentally alongside matter/energy but also intelligence may be fundamental alongside matter/energy. Unfortunately, I won't be able to continue in this discussion, as school is drawing much of my attention at the time. SO, I will post some of my previous relevant postings on this subject for those who wish to delve a little deeper. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/simply-not-credible/comment-page-3/#comment-335312 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/polanyi-and-ontogenetic-emergence/#comment-337588 https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/what-is-intelligence/#comment-341828 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/id-and-common-descent/comment-page-5/#comment-345511 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/methodological-naturalism-revisionist-history-and-morphing-definitions/comment-page-9/#comment-347340CJYman
March 22, 2010
March
03
Mar
22
22
2010
07:11 PM
7
07
11
PM
PDT
Bornagain, I'm just fine with the idea that there are facts about the world we can know, and that appear to have been true since the beginning of the universe. That is different than Truth in the Platonic sense, which I don't believe in. These are different things. Also, you write, "The fact that as far as we can tell these unchanging transcendent truths came into existence at the big bang directly implies there must be a transcendent truth-giver who ordered there precise “life-enabling values to be exactly as they are." I don't agree with that at all. We don't know why the universe has the structure it does, but there are a number of different possibilities (all totally untestable metaphysical speculations), of which a transcendent creator is but one.Aleta
March 22, 2010
March
03
Mar
22
22
2010
07:10 PM
7
07
10
PM
PDT
Aleta, From your post you seem to not be aware of the fact that transcendent information, or truth, is now shown to run the show of reality in this universe. The last part of this audio has one example of many,,, Finely Tuned Big Bang, Elvis In The Multiverse, and the Schroedinger Equation - Granville Sewell - audio http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4233012 As well Aleta, you stated you do not believe in "truth", but would you agree that if truth did exist it would be unchanging? Well we now have examples of transcendent information, universal constants, or truths, arising from no known material basis, which are telling the material of the universe exactly what to be and do in a rock like "unchanging" fashion. And these transcendent truths have done so to the material ever since these "transcendent truths" came into existence at the beginning of the universe; for one example out of over 100; Testing Creation Using the Proton to Electron Mass Ratio - Nov. 2009 Excerpt: The bottom line is that the electron to proton mass ratio unquestionably joins the growing list of fundamental constants in physics demonstrated to be constant over the history of the universe. http://www.reasons.org/TestingCreationUsingtheProtontoElectronMassRatio In fact Aleta, it may be "truthfully" said that the most solid unchanging "things" in a atom are the unchanging universal constants, or unchanging truths, of the universe. The fact that as far as we can tell these unchanging transcendent truths came into existence at the big bang directly implies there must be a transcendent truth-giver who ordered there precise "life-enabling values to be exactly as they are. Anthropic Principle - God Created The Universe - Michael Strauss PhD. - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4323661 Fine Tuning Of Dark Energy and Mass of the Universe - Hugh Ross - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4007682 Fine-Tuning For Life In The Universe http://www.reasons.org/fine-tuning-life-universe etc..etc..bornagain77
March 22, 2010
March
03
Mar
22
22
2010
06:59 PM
6
06
59
PM
PDT
Information is a pattern that can be carried by different media that retain the essentials elements of the pattern. In Barry's example, the writing, the brain state that stored the memory, the sound waves that were caused by the vocal cords moving when the sentence was spoken, the stored states of matter on the tapes, are all physical states with properties such as mass, charge, etc. Since Barry is a Platonist, he jumps to the conclusion that there is some ideal, non-material representation of the pattern that exists apart from any of it's physical manifestation. He also believes in perfect circles, I imagine, and all sorts of Platonic ideals such as Truth, etc. In my non-Platonic opinion, this is confusing abstraction with true ontological reality. Does the fact that I can think of an elephant, and recognize elephant-ness in various kinds of animals mean that somehow Elephant exists as a non-material Idea someplace, and the same for every other possible idea? (Does the Platonic unicorn exist even if real ones don't, because we have the idea of one?) Anyway, I think Platonism is wrong in this regard, and adds nothing to our understanding of the world, and that it is wrong to think that somehow Information, as a Platonic ideal, exists without reference to being embodied in some physical representation.Aleta
March 22, 2010
March
03
Mar
22
22
2010
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT
In comment #43 Upright Biped asked:
"Does an of arrangement of nucleobases ‘adenine-cytosine-adenine’ in DNA mean anything?"
This is a surprisingly interesting and revealing question. To attempt to answer it, I would first like to put a limit on the question: let us consider the answer if the nucleotide sequence "adenine-cytosine-adenine" is in DNA (i.e. not RNA). If "meaningful" information is necessarily analogical, as I have suggested in comment #39, then the answer to Upright Biped's question depends upon the circumstances in which the nucleotide sequence ACA is a part. If, for example, this sequence is part of a longer sequence of nucleotides in a longer DNA molecule, then there are several possible answers: 1) the DNA nucleotide sequence ACA could be located in a single strand of DNA that is suspended in a test tube (i.e. not in a living cell) and is therefore completely biologically inert (i.e. it is not binding to a complementary strand of DNA, nor being replicated, nor transcribed, nor translated 2) the DNA nucleotide sequence ACA could be hydrogen bonded to the complementary sequence TGT (i.e. "thymine-guanine-thymine") in another strand of nucleotides that is anti-parallel with it and close enough to form hydrogen bonds between the nitrogenous bases 3) the DNA nucleotide sequence ACA could be in a strand that is being replicated by DNA polymerase, which will synthesize the complementary sequence TGT in a newly synthesized strand of DNA 4) the DNA sequence ACA could be in a strand of DNA that is being transcribed by RNA polymerase, which will synthesize the complementary sequence UGU in a newly synthesized strand of RNA 5) the DNA sequence ACA could be in a strand of DNA that has already been transcribed by RNA polymerase into the complementary sequence UGU in a strand of mRNA that is bound to a ribosome and is being actively translated into an amino acid sequence in a polypeptide 6) the DNA sequence ACA could be in a strand of DNA that has already been transcribed by RNA polymerase into the complementary sequence UGU in a strand of mRNA that is bound to a ribosome and is being actively translated into an amino acid sequence in a polypeptide inside a living cell, within which the polypeptide has a biological function (i.e. participates in those biochemical reactions that maintain the cell alive/against the depredations of the second law). In case #1 the DNA nucleotide sequence ACA has no "meaning", in that it is not analogically related to anything. It also has no Shannon information nor Kolmogorov information nor Orgel information either, as it is not in the process of being transmitted or compressed, nor is it "specifying" anything. In case #2 the DNA nucleotide sequence ACA has no "meaning" because its bonding with its complementary sequence is purely chemical, not analogical. Like the bonding together of water molecules in a snowflake (i.e. the regular crystalline solid form of water), the hydrogen bonding of the nitrogenous bases in complementary DNA sequences is wholly determined by "natural laws", and is therefore neither analogical nor meaningful. Cases 3 and 4 appear to be the same as in case 2; the relationships between the nucleotide sequences and the bonding patterns therein are entirely the result of chemistry, with no analogical nor meaningful information involved. However, in cases 5 and 6 we seem to come to a radical discontinuity. In both of these cases, there can be an analogical (and therefore "meaningful") relationship between the nucleotide sequence ACA in DNA and the corresponding amino acid sequence in a translated polypeptide, either in vitro or in a cell. What makes this difference possible (and what may make it necessary) is the analogical relationship between the nucleotide sequence and the corresponding amino acid sequence (if one exists). If the DNA sequence ACA is located in the template strand of an actively transcribed DNA sequence (i.e. a DNA sequence beginning with a promoter to which RNA polymerase can bind) and furthermore its complementary RNA analog is located in an mRNA molecule following the "start" codon AUG but not following a "stop" codon (either UAA, UAG, or UGA, assuming a three-base reading frame), then that the DNA sequence does indeed contain "meaningful" information: it is encoded in one medium, is translated into another medium, and has a function in the system of which it is a part. It is not yet clear from current research whether or not the amino acid that is "translated" from the DNA sequence ACA (i.e. from the mRNA sequence UGU, assuming that the DNA sequence ACA is in a template strand) is necessarily related to that mRNA sequence. That is, we do not know with confidence whether the relationship between mRNA codons and the amino acids for which they code is purely arbitrary (i.e. the result of a "frozen accident") or if there is some as-yet-undetected necessary (i.e. "natural") relationship between them. What we can say with reasonable assurance is that what distinguishes "meaningful" information from any other kind of information is not the material into which it is encoded, but rather the relationship between the information encoded in one physical medium and its decoded complement in a related physical medium. As Gregory Bateson pointed out many years ago, meaning is entirely in the relationship between material things; it is not the things themselves. Or, as Alfred Korzybski pointed out,
"The map is not the territory"
In the same way, meaningful information is not the medium in which it is encoded, transmitted, and decoded.Allen_MacNeill
March 22, 2010
March
03
Mar
22
22
2010
06:15 PM
6
06
15
PM
PDT
It's interesting that this conversation comes up now, at least for me. I have just been reading a novel called "Blindsight" where the narrator has half a brain, but is enhanced by computers. It explores consciousness and pretty much comes to a materialist's conclusion. We're merely meat machines with no free will, no love, joy, God or beauty. I'm glad I can come to this forum and see interesting viewpoints on the subject.Collin
March 22, 2010
March
03
Mar
22
22
2010
05:58 PM
5
05
58
PM
PDT
If not, then what exactly brings information into existence?
Mind.Franck Barfety
March 22, 2010
March
03
Mar
22
22
2010
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PDT
#74 clarification: willed induction applies to transforming information in physical form such as making a universe or an orange. Not information itself as it is itself nonmaterial.Franck Barfety
March 22, 2010
March
03
Mar
22
22
2010
05:06 PM
5
05
06
PM
PDT
39 Allen_MacNeill
EBers such as Ernst Mayr assert that it [teleology manifest in biology] is an emergent property of natural selection, whereas IDers assert that it comes from an “intelligent designer”
IDers are familiar with mind by introspection and purpose coming from mind by observation. EBers beg the question when they use words like "emergence." Emergence is a clear departure from strict physicalism. It's been said it is magic without a magician.
playing of a game of chess (regardless of whether one uses a board and pieces).
Nice illustration. Our remarkable ability to do this points to a simple uncomposed soul able to ponder our next move while consulting the entire set of rules of chess, for fragmented matter could not have this unified conscious experience much less the freedom to act on the information and make a good move.Franck Barfety
March 22, 2010
March
03
Mar
22
22
2010
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT
Mr BiPed, What is meaningful is not contained within their physical properties; it is derived from their usefulness in attaining a function. That is precisely the point. OK, but since 'information' is such an overloaded term, with people arguing precise scientific vs. casual uses, I think it would be easier to just call this 'meaning' rather than information or meaningful information. Now you're free to try to distinguish meaning from function, and let those folks arguing about information continue to do so! ;)Nakashima
March 22, 2010
March
03
Mar
22
22
2010
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT
35 Upright BiPed
If not, then what exactly brings information into existence?
Willed induction. That's what I call it anyway). If E=MC², matter is frozen energy and a free agent when exercising his will could generate energy and freeze it into the form of matter.Franck Barfety
March 22, 2010
March
03
Mar
22
22
2010
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PDT
69 bornagain77 Thank you for the link. NDEs (or out-of-body conscious experiences) and the information gained from having them remain recalcitrant to Naturalism, so intriguing statements such as:
...it was not in words it was like telepathy or something (Ericka) ...this was not speech, it was more like telepathy (Jim) ...he communicated in telepathy (Maria) ...all this dialogue was by telepathy (Alejandra)
are simply ignored or swept under the rug. A rug shared by both sides of the ID debate as many are afraid to be remembered as crackpots if they mention NDEs. Thanks for bringing them up as they do offer evidence for the immateriality of the entities that process information so effortlessly.Franck Barfety
March 22, 2010
March
03
Mar
22
22
2010
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT
Mr Barfety, My mind contains that information not the particles. You are asserting what you have to prove. Your mind knows "KU lost." and this true fact is indestructible. If so, what is 'forgetting'?Nakashima
March 22, 2010
March
03
Mar
22
22
2010
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT
Bipedal @ 7: "Information requires perception; since it doesn’t exist without it." Isn't this the ol' "if I tree falls in the woods and no is around to hear it, does it make a sound" routine? Or perhaps the "which came first information or perception" rountine? (chicken or egg) So are you saying that the world was really flat until someone percieved it not to be? and then "Poof" it went from flat to round just like that? So who was percieving the big bang right before it happened? because according to what you are saying, the ingredients for the big bang could not have even existsed unless otheriwse percieved.wagenweg
March 22, 2010
March
03
Mar
22
22
2010
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT
information continues to exist even when the medium seizes to exist and is indeed as Barry said “independent of the physical properties of the medium on which it is placed.” For example, numbers or truths about them (or truths in general) exist whether or not there is any physical representation of them. I take it that "information" is more than just a fact. There are lots of facts, including mathematical truths, that no one yet knows and probably lots that no one will ever know. I assume yo do not count these as information. If you remove current information, including mathematical truths, from all media including people's brains then it is in exactly the same state. It is just a fact which no one knows and of which there is no record.Mark Frank
March 22, 2010
March
03
Mar
22
22
2010
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply