Where's your proof? If you don't have any proof, it's not a theorm.
==Where’s your proof? If you don’t have any proof, it’s not a theorm.
The proof is there is no *known* law of nature, and no *known* process, and no *known* sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter. If you are aware of information originating by itself in matter, please share it now.
Name a single instance where it is untrue.
I think in this case we need to be careful with terminology. A generally acceptable definition of a "theorem" is as follows:
A theorem is a statement that can be demonstrated to be true by accepted mathematical operations and arguments. In general, a theorem is an embodiment of some general principle that makes it part of a larger theory. The process of showing a theorem to be correct is called a proof.
The mathematical standard of proof can be stated as follows:
"A rigorous mathematical argument which unequivocally demonstrates the truth of a given proposition. A mathematical statement that has been proven is called a theorem."
With those in hand, we can look at what are stated as "theorems" in the article.
One immediately sees that they are not really "theorems" at all -- at least, not according to the definitions above.
Instead, they are merely (mainly negative) assertions, proof of which would seem to be intractable according to the requirement for rigorous mathematical argument.
For example, look at "Theorem 26: The information present in living beings must have had a mental source."
"Theorem 26," as stated, does not appear to be a theorem at all.
How does one rigorously prove that information "must have a mental source?" How does one even mathematicize "mental source" to the point of being able to describe it mathematically? The authors conveniently leave out all relevant information....
For some reason, the authors spend an awful lot of time on "biological information," despite the fact that earlier they present "Theorem 25: Biological information is not an exceptional kind of information...."
So what they're really saying is, "All information (of whatever type) must have a mental source."
But as Alamo-Girl points out, "information" is a word that must be handled with great care -- it has a specific mathematical meaning, and a great deal of theory (and theorems!) to back it up.
Mr. Witt's commentary is unfortunately very short on "proofs," and very long on silly gems such as the following:
Scientists who submit themselves to such a mental corset and support it uncritically, degrade themselves to mere vassals of a materialistic philosophy. Science should, however, only be subservient to the truth, and not to pre-programmed folly. Evolutionary theory bans any mention of a planning Spirit as a purposeful First Cause in natural systems, and endeavors to imprison all sciences in the straightjacket called the “self-organization of matter.”
Cut the crap, Dr. Witt.
You really need to prove that random processes cannot create "information," according to some clear definitions of "random process" and "information."