Posted on 04/02/2009 7:05:41 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
BTW, here’s a kink to the double slit experiment re observed and unobserved in case you are interested: http://www.energeticforum.com/energetic-science-ministries/163-quantum-physics-double-slit-experiment-spooky-quantum-physics.html
Oops, “have studied” should be “have not studied.” That’s not a dig, either. There’s tons of stuff I haven’t studied, either. Just too much information out there to have studied it all...
It doesn’t sutprise me that a person who posts pablum from creationism rationalization sites also finds wikipedia to be a valuable source of knowledge.
No “chafe” involved. I know that no properly formed logical theorem was intended. However, that faulty usage is merely emblematic of the overall sorry state of the discipline that is called creation science. Creation is a matter of faith and coexists with science in all fields, including evolution. Creation requires no phony science to support it, nor should it countenance the small but annoying band of guerilla-like militants touting its scientific accuracy and making the rest of Christianity appear feeble-minded by association.
I'm sure. Allow me to repost a golden oldie of mine from your earlier thread that announced the previous chapter in this series. It is just as apropos here:
Leaving aside for a moment the fact that AiG is a crackpot site for creation rationalization, the series that you post is an attempt to ascribe a nonsensical philosophical underpinning to science. In reality, science is a rational, practical process of observation, conclusion, and revision. Its conclusions and predictive capabilities are astoundingly accurate. “Philosophizing” science, i.e., claiming that its undeniable accuracy and fairness derives from anything other than practical realism, is simply an attempt by scurrilous, dishonest authors to recast science as faith.
Oh, one more thing--evolution and Christianity are perfectly compatible.
In case anyone is interested, they can read all about this creationist “information theory” hogwash at the following site as well:
http://www.harunyahya.com/refuted15.php
Who knows, perhaps Yahya’s citing of Dr. Gitt will prompt Muslim’s to purchase Gitt’s book for themelves, learn about the God of the Bible, and come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.
Well, that statement does not involve rigorous logic. I think it even delves into the region of logical fallacy.
Whatever your feelings are about creation science, information theory, even in a populist and informal form, is not creation science. Seeking an acceptable definition of information and how it is generated seems to be a valuable endeavor. Again, even in a conjectural arena.
Dr. Gitt devotes a whole chapter to the terminology used in the natural sciences, the nature of physical laws, classification of the laws of nature into theorems—e.g., Conservation theorems, Equivalence theorems, Directional theorems, Impossibility theorems, Limit theorems—and expands upon Information theorems. I don’t see any obvious holes in his proceedure. For more, you may wish to consult the following:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/itbwi/principles-of-laws-of-nature
Jeepers, I don't know where Drs. Williams and Gitt got their idea of what Shannon information theory actually is.
Crucial to information theory is the separation of the content of the message from its conduit. That is, it draws a clear distinction between the "message" and the "medium" of its conveyance. IOW, pace Marshall McLuhen, the medium is NOT the message.
Shannon theory deals only with the medium, the conduit. The conduit is mathematically described; it can carry all sorts of messages whatsoever. But you don't have "information" unless a message is successfully received by an intended receiver, and that's why the structure of the conduit is so important.
In short, if I had to say where Shannon information theory fits into Dr. Williams' autopoetic model (and it seems it must, for the Shannon model is universal; i.e., applicable to all communications), I'd simply describe it as the means whereby the "message" of the inversely-causal metainformation is timely conveyed to the various levels of the autopoetic hierarchy. Shannon information theory is totally indifferent to the actual content of the message. Again, it is the medium of its conveyance, not the message itself.
The actual source of the message is not to be found within the Shannon model. It seems to me that Williams' inversely-causal metainformation may well have an extra-mundane source. Whatever. If it is to be successfully communicated, it must go "the Shannon route."
Thank you, dearest sister in Christ, for pinging me to this interesting discussion with GGG!
Do they believe that there is such a thing as "information" absent a sender and a receiver?
Truly these are fascinating issues, GGG!
[[The theory is mathematics, plain and simple. Meaning of the message has no bearing on the communication of it. ]]
This is hte crux of hte hwole matter, and somethign I think you nailed pretty well in the previous htreads on life’s irreducible complexities.
[[If the correspondent ignores it, minimizes it or mixes other issues into it, he is hurting his own argument.]]
I’m goign to agree with htis- I think William’s response to Shannon theory kinda vrushed off one of hte most important issues of information- info is uselss without hte means to comunicate it, and hte two are of no use without hte other- while one can exist alone, it is meaningless- both must exist and work in unison to be of any use at all
But Shannon theory is not about information per se (in the sense of an intelligible message), merely about how it is conveyed. As such, it conveys both low-level and high-level information. It is perfectly indifferent to the content of the message. IOW, it is indifferent to questions of meaning altogether. That's for the receiver to figure out, once successful communication has occurred.
Are you suggesting that this is an article about information theory? Are you?
It is certainly not about making fudge.
==Do they believe that there is such a thing as “information” absent a sender and a receiver?
I don’t think so. According to Dr. Gitt, information is carried via a physical medium, but the information itself is non-physical. As such, it would seem it is only information to the sender and the receiver.
But their issues go to complexification, origin and meaning of the biological message itself - not the communication of it.
My criticism goes to their hand wave of Shannon's Mathematical Theory of Communications, which is the door opener, the strength of their argument to a secular world.
Shannon's model is mathematics, it is universal, not subject to extension or qualification (from Gitt's excerpt, emphasis mine:)
It is roughly the equivalent of saying Euclidean geometry must be qualified to accommodate the content of a plane, as if the strength of Euclidean geometry rests in its application rather than its universality.
This is an unnecessary overreach that diminishes their own arguments, it makes them look weak - like a young physicist taking a podium declaring "Einstein's theory must be extended and I'm going to tell you how things really are."
As another example, Newtonian physics stands on its own as does Relativity as does Quantum Mechanics. To obtain the most complete view of the physical world, one must entertain all three. And a theory of everything would reconcile all of them.
They are complementarities (to use one of betty boop's favorite terms) - not extensions, the one does not diminish the other.
And that is the way Gitt and Williams should have approached it.
==It is certainly not about making fudge.
LOL!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.