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
re Frank #67: this NDE study by Dr. Pim Van Lommel might interest you: A Reply to Shermer Medical Evidence for NDEs Excerpt: In trying to understand this concept of mutual interaction between the “invisible and not measurable” consciousness, with its enormous amount of information, and our visible, material body it seems wise to compare it with modern worldwide communication.,,,, http://www.nderf.org/vonlommel_skeptic_response.htmbornagain77
March 22, 2010
March
03
Mar
22
22
2010
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT
It is obvious that Shannon Information has nothing to do with these discussions of ID related information. In fact, Shannon Information has nothing to do with information; the content and much of the context is abstracted away and thus renders it irrelevant to ID. Unless you have just returned from a very long vacation absent Wifi hotspots, why bring it up into the mix?computerist
March 22, 2010
March
03
Mar
22
22
2010
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT
#10 warehuff 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. Not only is information nonmaterial and realizable in multiple ways but is indestructible. Truth is indestructible.
information is encoded in... neurons in your brain.
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.Franck Barfety
March 22, 2010
March
03
Mar
22
22
2010
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT
65 Of course, I disagree for the reasons I've already stated. If you are making a theological statement, then I'll leave you to it.Upright BiPed
March 22, 2010
March
03
Mar
22
22
2010
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT
Upright BiPed #4 & #7 Saying "material (or matter) is all there is" is self-defeating as information contained in that statement is nonmaterial. Information does not requires perception. Not only is it immaterial it is also eternal.Franck Barfety
March 22, 2010
March
03
Mar
22
22
2010
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT
Barry Arrington
"a representation of the idea that was once in my head is in your head... Then it was in your head, but not the paper."
If as you say "we must conclude that the universe is more than matter and energy, that it is more than mere particles in motion" then the head or the brain does not have information in it. Information is nonmaterial. A Designer for example could be thinking that "a basketball is round and orange" without a head or a brain. In fact while he's at it he could also be thinking about the whole game of basketball, its obscure rules, outstanding teams, good and bad players without needing a head or a brain and be just fine while doing it. It would be more accurate to say "a representation of the idea that was once in my mind is now also in your mind... Then it is in your mind, but not the paper."
If the existence of information cannot be reduced to the properties of matter and energy, where did it come from? Where indeed?
From mind, as mind or consciousness is the bearer of information. Apart from a larger mind (a Designer) nothing is able to explain the popping-up of consciousness elsewhere in the universe and the innate ability to process nonmaterial information.Franck Barfety
March 22, 2010
March
03
Mar
22
22
2010
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT
Allen MacNeill (#39): You write:
This means that meaningful information is necessarily teleological, as "functions" are semantically equivalent to "goals" which are semantically equivalent to "ends". So, teleology must exist in any functional relationship, including those in biology.... What is still a matter of dispute is where meaningful information "comes from": does it arise as an emergent property of natural processes (such as natural selection), or must it be "read into nature" from some non-natural source?
Your question gets right to the heart of the matter. I would also like to thank you for openly acknowledging the fact that teleology pervades nature, even beyond the realm of biology. However, I would respectfully submit that meaningful information cannot be "an emergent property of natural processes." For if "meaningful information is necessarily teleological," as you write, then it is prescriptive, as opposed to merely descriptive. However, the language commonly used by scientists to talk about "natural processes" (especially at the lower levels) is descriptive. Trying to derive a prescription from a description is the ultimate "rabbit from a hat" trick. It can't be done. Indeed, I would suggest that the prescriptive-descriptive problem goes even deeper, right down to the very laws of nature themselves. There are two possibilities: either the laws of nature are prescriptive or they are purely descriptive. If "laws of nature" are taken to be prescriptive statements of how some class of natural entities should behave in a given set of circumstances, then we have to ask where the "should" comes from. Minds are the only things that can generate norms. And while mindless objects can behave in accordance with a norm, one would not expect them to do so unless a mind set them up that way. Or in the words of Sir James Jeans:
The stream of human knowledge is impartially heading towards a non-mechanical reality. The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter. We are beginning to suspect that we ought rather to hail it as the creator and governor of this realm. [The Mysterious Universe (1930), chapter 5.]
But if, on the other hand, if "laws of nature" are taken to be nothing more than descriptive statements of how some class of natural entities has always behaved in a given set of circumstances, then: (a) they are utterly powerless to furnish any explanation of teleological norms; (b) we have no way of distinguishing between mere regularities that have always held in the past (e.g. all lumps of gold have a volume of less than 1 cubic kilometer) and scientific laws such as "All lumps of uranium-235 have a volume of less than 1 cubic kilometer." Both statements may be true, yet scientists consider only the latter statement to be a genuine law (or more precisely, a corollary of a law), as they know that a lump of uranium-235 that large would start a chain reaction. Lastly, I would like to point out that the attempt to derive the meaningful information we find in organisms from lower-level "natural processes" is doomed to failure. For even if these natural processes are regarded as prescriptive and not merely descriptive, they are still incapable of generating the vast amount of information encoded in a living cell - or even a protein - without exhausting the probabilistic resources of the observable universe. For a good explanation of why, I'd invite you to have a look at these pages, which relate to work by Dr. David Abel: http://www.scitopics.com/Prescriptive_Information_PI.html http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2662469/pdf/ijms-10-00247.pdfvjtorley
March 22, 2010
March
03
Mar
22
22
2010
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT
Again, I think you've both got a point. Information might be used to measure a real kind of complexity, but as a concept it's invented. You may measure a football pitch at 105m x 68m, but it would be silly to say that metres are a property of the universe.composer
March 22, 2010
March
03
Mar
22
22
2010
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT
Upright Biped, It was (bad) humor, extending your mention of earthworms. I thought you were proposing an argument for God from information, as a First Perceiver. If information is inherent in the universe, and information requires (and has always required) a perceiver, then the universe requires (and has always required) a perceiver. But I missed your #7, where you seem to suggest that information is not a property inherent in the universe at all. So, my apologies; I misunderstood where you were going.composer
March 22, 2010
March
03
Mar
22
22
2010
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT
Collin, I think a machine designed and equipped to use information to avoid walls is doing exactly what it was designed and equipped to do with information.Upright BiPed
March 22, 2010
March
03
Mar
22
22
2010
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT
Upright, Would you say that a robot that sees the wall and avoids it is also perception? Do you know if any experiments show quantum collapse when observed by a robot?Collin
March 22, 2010
March
03
Mar
22
22
2010
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT
hrun, can you tell me of any information that was not first perceived?
That is very difficult to answer. Would you like me to use your definition of information (That which informs us)? In that case, no, all information must be percived in order to exist.hrun0815
March 22, 2010
March
03
Mar
22
22
2010
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT
composer, I don't think I can attain the level of intelligence to parse apart what you mean. Or how you culd have arrived there. Or, that was humour. Either way, I do apologize.Upright BiPed
March 22, 2010
March
03
Mar
22
22
2010
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT
Upright BiPed, I think I see: are you making an argument for a First Earthworm who must have preceded information?composer
March 22, 2010
March
03
Mar
22
22
2010
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT
Hello Nakashima, 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. Hello composer, Information existed prior to mathematics. We may impose mathematics upon it in an effort to manipulate it, but its existence is not contingent upon math.Upright BiPed
March 22, 2010
March
03
Mar
22
22
2010
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT
hrun, can you tell me of any information that was not first perceived?Upright BiPed
March 22, 2010
March
03
Mar
22
22
2010
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT
Because earthworms perceive their surroundings. Their faculty may be modest, best suited their existence, but they don't wander onto a concrete sidwalk and just stay there.Upright BiPed
March 22, 2010
March
03
Mar
22
22
2010
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT
Upright said, "Perception is not a product of humanity; it’s a faculty of an agent (earthworm or astronaut)." I'm not saying you're wrong, but how do you know it about the earthworm?Collin
March 22, 2010
March
03
Mar
22
22
2010
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT
Re #44: That is not correct. You are misinterpreting me. I am simply pointing out what Upright BiPed believes and how that clashes with what people on this blog (notably Dembsky) believe. In addition, I am challenging Upright BiPed to support his plain assertions like the one made in #2. It is not intuitive. It runs counter to what many people believe. Yet, nobody challenges it. Weird!hrun0815
March 22, 2010
March
03
Mar
22
22
2010
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT
Re #41: I did not define informations and made claims about it. You did. I simply showed where exactly those definitions lead.
So you don’t think information can be recorded after its perceived?
I didn't say anything about what I think. I showed specifically where it leads if what you think is actually true. Information gets created and destroyed depending on whether or not somebody is around to perceive it. Obivously, according to you, the law of conservation of information is wrong. That's all there is to it.hrun0815
March 22, 2010
March
03
Mar
22
22
2010
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT
Inside joke for you Allen: The double slit experiment is so strong as to the discriminating of how reality is constructed, it should be called the "I Am" experiment.bornagain77
March 22, 2010
March
03
Mar
22
22
2010
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT
Allen states: "What is still a matter of dispute is where meaningful information “comes from”: does it arise as an emergent property of natural processes (such as natural selection), or must it be “read into nature” from some non-natural source?" Whether materialists admit it or not, the "dispute" is settled; Dr. Quantum - Double Slit Experiment & Entanglement - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4096579 Leading atheist Richard Dawkins has called people who believe in God delusional. Yet, people who are delusional resolutely deny reality. Then the truth is that materialists, such as Richard Dawkins, are the ones who are delusional, in the purest sense of the word, since quantum mechanics has revealed, in no uncertain terms, that reality is a “consciousness centered” reality that precedes the 3 dimensional “material” reality in the first place. i.e. It is impossible for a 3 dimensional material reality to independently give rise to that which it is absolutely dependent on for its own reality in the first place. Consciousness must, of logical necessity, originally arise from the "infinite transcendent information realm" revealed by Quantum Mechanics. So Allen, I would like for you to explain why materialists continue insist, after Aspect's falsification of hidden variables, that consciousness arises from a 3-D material basis when “uncertain” 3-D material particles do not even collapse from the “quantum information waves” in the first place until a conscious observer is present. Please explain how in the world something can give rise to that which is a necessary condition for its own reality in the first place. Why Quantum Theory Does Not Support Materialism - By Bruce L Gordon: Excerpt: Because quantum theory is thought to provide the bedrock for our scientific understanding of physical reality, it is to this theory that the materialist inevitably appeals in support of his worldview. But having fled to science in search of a safe haven for his doctrines, the materialist instead finds that quantum theory in fact dissolves and defeats his materialist understanding of the world. http://www.4truth.net/site/c.hiKXLbPNLrF/b.2904125/k.E94E/Why_Quantum_Theory_Does_Not_Support_Materialism.htm As well Allen, the following would seem to present an insurmountable problem to the materialists/naturalists. If consciousness is required for the "materialization" of even the smallest of material particles how in the world are you going to, as a "naturalist", separate that into a non-teleological process at whatever level you choose, even if information were found to be generated by "natural processes" which it isn't. of note: material processes are under the second law to such extent that they have never been shown to generate functional information. 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/agbornagain77
March 22, 2010
March
03
Mar
22
22
2010
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT
hrun0815 and Upright BiPed, I think you may both have a point. Is the information in a sentence in French determinable? Does the measure differ depending on whether you know, or don't know French? Imagine a dialogue on information between a music studio engineer (played by hrun0815) and a librarian (played by Upright BiPed). For the librarian, "information" is tangled up with concerns like "information literacy." The studio engineer just wants to compress the most data into the smallest file size.composer
March 22, 2010
March
03
Mar
22
22
2010
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT
Mr BiPed, Does an of arrangement of nucleobases ‘adenine-cytosine-adenine’ in DNA mean anything? Only in some context. They only inherent meaning of ACA is ACA.Nakashima
March 22, 2010
March
03
Mar
22
22
2010
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT
I don't understand the importance this assertion. Information is non-material only in the sense that is a mathematical concept. But so what? All math is non-material in the sense that it's conceptual. Do we say that the very existence of mathematics proves something other than materialism? Bertrand Russell once thought so, but he soon outgrew that kind of idealism. The passage in Russell's autobiography where he abandons Hegelian idealism is amusing and instructive.composer
March 22, 2010
March
03
Mar
22
22
2010
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT
hrun,
Yes you are. That’s why it is so curious that you can simply make such statements without any challenge and factual support.
I already stated that I am. As far as support, can you tell me of any information that was not first perceived?
That is not true per your previous answer. Even if said information was instantiated by the author, if nobody was around to perceive that information, it would, according to you, not exist.
So you don't think information can be recorded after its perceived? Can't help you there.Upright BiPed
March 22, 2010
March
03
Mar
22
22
2010
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT
Does an of arrangement of nucleobases ‘adenine-cytosine-adenine’ in DNA mean anything?Upright BiPed
March 22, 2010
March
03
Mar
22
22
2010
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT
I’m quite okay that you think the definition is stupid. Perhaps you think that the definition of a word derived from another word should not include the word it was derived from.
If it includes such a word, then that word should also be defined. Do you have a definition of 'informs us'?
There are particles of information that exist in a carbon atom? [...]
I didn't say there were particles. You made that up.
I think I may a bit of an outsider around here with my insistence that information requires perception to exist.
Yes you are. That's why it is so curious that you can simply make such statements without any challenge and factual support.
Once the information contained in the book is instantiated in matter by the author, then it contains that amount of information regardless.
That is not true per your previous answer. Even if said information was instantiated by the author, if nobody was around to perceive that information, it would, according to you, not exist. Reread what you wrote!
I am certainly willing to get schooled.
And this doesn't require schooling from me. It's right there in what you wrote. You answers run counter to the conservation of information. I didn't make this up. You did.hrun0815
March 22, 2010
March
03
Mar
22
22
2010
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT
As for the second law, it seems clear to me from what I know about biology (the only natural science that deals with meaningful information) that both encoding and decoding meaningful information requires the transformation of energy from a condition of lower to higher entropy. This is always the case when meaningful information is "transformed", whether one is referring to the replication of DNA, the transcription of DNA into RNA, the translation of mRNA into polypeptides, the catalysis of biochemical reactions via enzymes, the transduction of changes in the physical environment into action potentials in the sensory nervous system, the transduction of action potentials in the motor nervous and musculoskeletal systems into behaviors, or the playing of a game of chess (regardless of whether one uses a board and pieces).Allen_MacNeill
March 22, 2010
March
03
Mar
22
22
2010
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT
So, Shannon information, Kolomogorov information, and Orgel information need not be perceived to exist, but meaningful information does.Allen_MacNeill
March 22, 2010
March
03
Mar
22
22
2010
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply