Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Medium is Not the Message

Share
Facebook
Twitter
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
Darn the blockquotes. Re #7: By the way, I don't think your question even makes sense. Maybe you should read it again and then restate it in a better way.hrun0815
March 21, 2010
March
03
Mar
21
21
2010
10:34 PM
10
10
34
PM
PDT
Uh, yes! hrun that is correct. Information requires perception; since it doesn’t exist without it.
You are just restating what you said earlier.
Can we look inside a atom of carbon and find amongst the particles of matter this thing we call information? I don't know if you would find it inside a carbon atom. I guess, as I have said before, it depends-- just as I said earlier-- on which definition of information you use. Of course, as I predicted, you did not define how you use information.
Please be unequivocably precise in your answer. Thanks!
Funny. You want me to be unequivocal, but you are unwilling to define information (without which your whole statement is impossible to sort out). How about you define what you mean by information. Then we can sort out if you original statement is correct and I will answer your question in #7.
hrun0815
March 21, 2010
March
03
Mar
21
21
2010
10:33 PM
10
10
33
PM
PDT
#5 Uh, yes! hrun that is correct. Information requires perception; since it doesn't exist without it. Can we look inside a atom of carbon and find amongst the particles of matter this thing we call information? When it comes to understanding the material world we live in, does information regarding the material world exist IN matter (as in measurable protons, nucleus, and orbits) or, is it ABOUT matter (as in an abstraction of reality)? Please be unequivocably precise in your answer. Thanks!Upright BiPed
March 21, 2010
March
03
Mar
21
21
2010
10:13 PM
10
10
13
PM
PDT
In [1] Graham uses information to deny the existence of information. Self refute much? In answer to composer's question in [3], I did not say that information cannot be measured. I said it cannot be measured in the way matter and energy can be measured, because it has neither mass nor energy.Barry Arrington
March 21, 2010
March
03
Mar
21
21
2010
10:02 PM
10
10
02
PM
PDT
Re #1: So if all of a sudden all perception would, let's say, die, then all information would suddenly disappear? I guess that, as always, it depends on which definition of information you are using. But, to make your sentence impossible to fact-check, most likely you will not want to provide a cogent definition of what information you speak of.hrun0815
March 21, 2010
March
03
Mar
21
21
2010
07:39 PM
7
07
39
PM
PDT
Actually, your example would have only been more demonstrative if the phrase passed about was "material is all there is".Upright BiPed
March 21, 2010
March
03
Mar
21
21
2010
07:34 PM
7
07
34
PM
PDT
I don't get this. If information "has no property that can be measured by the same means we measure matter and energy," what's Dr. Dembski doing all that math for? Isn't a lot of that about measuring information?composer
March 21, 2010
March
03
Mar
21
21
2010
07:29 PM
7
07
29
PM
PDT
Barry All information is an abstraction. It requires perception to exist.Upright BiPed
March 21, 2010
March
03
Mar
21
21
2010
07:24 PM
7
07
24
PM
PDT
Its what they call an abstract noun. Each of us creates it anew in our head. It doesnt 'exist' just as a circle, happiness etc dont exist. They are concepts, not objects.Graham
March 21, 2010
March
03
Mar
21
21
2010
07:19 PM
7
07
19
PM
PDT
1 3 4 5

Leave a Reply