Information Theory and Intelligent Design.

I notice that you came back and deleted your reply, and I had hoped that meant you realized that the quotations you have been putting out were simply false. From your continued posts though it appears that you do not yet realize how totally refuted your sources are.You had inserted a quote, IIRC from the Discovery Institute and used that to say that none of the examples in Message 16 were information.The error so many folk, particularly Christians make, is that they simply accept crap on authority and do not test it against reality. The ID proponents count on that trait, but in this case let's test the images in Message 16 against reality and see if they do contain information.Look at this picture.Is there information in that object?Well, it is a slice out of a tree. So first piece of information is that it is a from a tree.The color is too white to be pine, too light to be hickory and so may be Ash. Second piece of information, the tree was likely Ash.I note a series of concentric circles, alternating bands of light and dark. Third piece of information, it shows regular seasonal growth rings.I note though that the thickness of the light and dark bands varies from ring to ring, some bands being larger than those adjacent. Fourth piece of information, the tree grew better some seasons than in others.Fifth piece of information is that the differences in growth indicate that the weather during the trees life varied, some years being better for growth with a longer growing season or more favorable conditions than others.The FACT is that the people you quote have been, and continue to be refuted.Information can be created by unintelligent, natural processes.Intelligent Design is simply a scam. Its proponents count on two traits in their audience, ignorance and a blind acceptance of authority.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Percy:[qs]The common claim that information can only be created by an intelligence usually stems from a confusion of information with meaning. Information is mere bits. In fact, information is measured in terms of bits. Meaning is a human artifact and has nothing to do with information theory.Yes meaning is a component of reality... Thank you for that. The mistake in your philosophy is privatization. You are seperating relative parts of the whole. Trying to seperate disciplines and put them in isolation. And by doing so, you cannot see the effect on the counterparts within the relational structure of the Cosmos.So when a materialist (who by definition is biased) imparts meaning to bits of fact, he is attemting a leap of faith. He has moved into theos.And it doesn't hold water intellectually for it is divided against itself. Meaning exists. To say otherwise is a logical contradiction. You can't say there is no meaning, because you actully believe such a statement is meaningful. And it's meaning is proportional to the purpose (intent) of arriving at such an extrapolation from the bits (facts).Percy:Is it not telling that those lights were designed by intelligent agents to serve a purpose and add some measure of meaning (in this case security or convenience) for the intelligent agent?So many of these arguments are flawed in this way. The intelligent guidance is just missed completely.It's like Dean Kenyon doing his research on Abiogenesis (Biochemical Predestination) at Nasa Ames Reasearch Center. It didn't dawn on him until much later, that he was an intelligent agent, manipulating evidence in the courtroom, so as to show that the result could be established without the need of intelligent guidance. What is the meaning behind that? What is the motivation?And not only was his consciousness of this lacking at the time, but in his own words, "we found that these amino acids did not have the ability... to order themselves, into any significant or meaningful biological sequences."Percy, the rest of your arguments assume that information is present without intelligent agents. Like the tree ring example.But the fact that an intelligent agent can come later and use that information, means that he is imparting meaning by acknowledging that it is useful as information (means to an end).My only point is that the information itself is evidence of intelligence beforehand. Because the only thing that doesn't have meaning is 'nothing'. And as Aristotle said, 'Nothing is what rocks dream about.'And that is essentially the position you are trying to capture...Everything has a cause and therefore purpose. And that includes any attempt to dissolve entities unto meaninglessness.You'd do better to admit why you don't want there to be meaning. Because when you interpret scientific facts beyond the scope that a rock would do so, then you have a motive.And if the motive is to find the truth, there is good news. If the motive is to not find the truth, then the motive itself is untrue necessarily and implicitely.

The bad science in your quotes has been exposed by our colleagues.In response, you have made no attempt to mount a rebuttal defending the scientific merits of these statements. Instead you changed the subject at once to philosophy, emotion, and morality infused with heavy doses of bombast.You therefore concede defeat on the science.----AbE:I posted this before I saw your response to Percy. Looks like you're trying to hang in there.I'm interested in seeing if you can sustain any kind of focus. No one will put ID in a science class on the basis of rhetoric and bombast. Biology isn't a tent revival. You have to address the science. Edited by Archer Opterix, : added material.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

He did not say that there is anything non-material about the disk. It's not about the disk... He asks what the differnce in mass is, between a disk with information added(by intelligence) and a disk that is blank. The answer is zero. The addition of information adds no mass. Meyers is correct!You're assuming that mind is the same thing as matter. But that is not a scientific problem or belief. It is a metaphysical one. You are invoking meaning.You can't prove that all is material. You can only have faith that it is...

No, I am actually giving up EVC very soon. It's an unhealthy addiction to conflict. It feeds and satisfies a power craving in me.You guys are determined to impart the meaning that fits your agendas.I can't reason with you, because you reject reason. And I know that you will completely disagree with that. So what's the point?It not worth arguing. I only put it out there so that those who have eyes will see. But those with eye's likely won't come to EVC for answers, because you guys are so brutal.I hate to see the bullying going unpunished. And I forget that vengeance is not mine to minister.My apologies.You guys go ahead and comfort yourselves. This is your church not mine...

Meyer is incorrect...Again let's try this....

quote:

---

"One of the things I do in my classes, to get this idea across to students, is I hold up two disks. One is blue, and the other one is red. And I ask them, ”what is the difference in mass between these two disks, as a result of their difference in spectral absorption properties.

​

And of course the answer is, ”Zero! None! There is no difference as a result of spectral absorption properties. And that’s because spectral absorption properties are a mass-less quantity. Now, if spectral absorption properties are not a material entity, then how can any materialistic explanation account for its origin? How can any material cause explain it’s origin?

---

Does the specific physical property of spectral absorption (color) have non-materialistic explanations.What about surface texture, shape, charge, magnetic polarity.

quote:

---

He did not say that there is anything non-material about the disk.

---

Then the fact that recording something on the disk doesn't affect the mass doesn't matter, does it ?

quote:

---

He asks what the differnce in mass is, between a disk with information added(by intelligence) and a disk that is blank. The answer is zero. The addition of information adds no mass. Meyers is correct!

---

Only if by "correct" you mean "talking bullshit". You see you're not dealing with the question of how one gets from the premise (writing to the disk adds no mass) gets to the conclusion (information needs an intelligent origin). If it doesn't assume that the information on the disk is somehow non-physical how can the question of mass be even relevant ?

quote:

---

You're assuming that mind is the same thing as matter...

---

Actually that plays absolutely no part in my point so such a claim is a pure irrelevance even if it were true (which it isn't). Of course if Meyer's (unexplained) argument assumes the contrary that woudl be a fair criticism to raise of HIS point.

quote:

---

...But that is not a scientific problem or belief. It is a metaphysical one. You are invoking meaning.

---

No, I'm not. That's a simple invention on your part.

quote:

---

You can't prove that all is material. You can only have faith that it is...

---

Of course I'm not even atttempting to make such an argument. If anything Meyer is the one assuming that minds are non-physical. THus your criticisms would be better applied to the argument you are suppsoed to be defending. At least then they would be honest !

I'm not making any point at all about meaning, other than that it is not part of information theory. It is information theory that is the topic of this thread.The basic problem of information theory is one of communicating a single message from a set of messages. For example, when transmitting characters of a sentence, each character is a single message from a set of messages, where the message set is all the characters of the alphabet, including special characters like space, numbers, punctuation, etc. To transmit a sentence of 50 characters we would send 50 tiny messages of one character each. As it happens, each character is a single byte (8 bits) of information.Now once the characters are reassembled into a sentence then it is likely, or at least possible, that that sentence has meaning, but the meaning of the sentence has nothing at all to do with the basic engineering problem of communication, which is what information theory is all about.You see, the problem isn't that it is wrong to separate meaning from the formal concept of information as part of information theory. By definition, in information theory they *are* separate, and meaning isn't part of the theory. The problem is that you don't want to talk about the topic. This thread is about information theory and ID, not about meaning. Once you start talking about meaning you have left the realm of information theory and wandered outside the topic of this thread. Everything in my photocell lights example was designed, manufactured and installed by human beings, but that's not relevant to the example. The relevant question is where the information came from that the sun had set. Before replying, take a look at the top of the page again and note the topic. We're talking about information, not meaning, not consciousness, not motivation.If you'd like an example that doesn't involve people, then consider where flowers get the information that the sun has risen so they can open their petals.Ultimately information is just an encoding of what has happened. Whenever anything anywhere happens, information about that event scatters off into the ether in the form of matter and energy. Anything this matter or energy impinges upon is imparting information about what happened.In other words, information is created by anything that happens. What's unique about information and people is that we're very adept at translating information into alternative forms, and at analyzing it to identify patterns.--Percy

Is this even true?Since reading Meyers' question I am not convinced that even the basic premise is true.I could just as well do the same thing with two jotters, in one of which I had written my name, but I would be falsely claiming that the mass had not changed. The ink or graphite I used to write would have changed the mass, but not in a range easily detectable without sophisticated equipment.I think Meyers' claim is similarly dubious, I am not convinced that the changes in ferromagnetic states or the changes in optical dyes which are used in most of our modern recording media do not come with associated changes in mass/energy. These changes may not be readily measurable but that does not mean that they don't exist.TTFN,WKP.S. I could be wrong here, my physics never went beyond high school.

I don't think PaulK meant to say, "It isn't true to say that there is anything non-material about that disk." I think what he really meant to say is, "It isn't true to say that there is anything non-material about the information on that disk." Iceage makes this point very well when in Message 51 he calls your attention to physical properties like shape and magnetic polarity.Information can be represented in an infinite variety of ways. It is infinitely malleable. The fact that much of the information of this world can be represented as mere magnetic polarities in thin coatings of iron oxide on rapidly rotating disks is strong evidence that this is so. Whether it's words, sounds or pictures, they can all be translated into other forms. You can see pictures of sound waves on an oscilloscope. When we still used acoustic modems, pictures that you transmitted over the Internet were first translated into sound. Words can be bits or images of characters on a page or vibrations in the atmosphere carried to our ears.The point is that the specific manner in which any particular information is represented is not particularly relevant. When Meyer holds up two disks, one that's been recorded and one that hasn't, there *are* physical differences between the two disks. One has had magnetic polarities set onto it in a very precise manner, the other has not. Even though they have identical masses, these obvious physical differences can be easily detected by slipping the disks into a reader.If Meyer had instead held up two newspapers, one printed and one blank, there would now be a difference in information *and* mass, since the ink has mass. The newspaper with the printing has more mass than the newspaper without.And if Meyer had instead brought in two gravestones, one already carved with the decedent's information and the other still blank, then there would again be a difference in information *and* mass, except this time the gravestone with the information has less mass than the one with no information!So obviously mass is not particularly relevant to the representation of information and Meyer is wrong, clearly and unambiguously wrong. PaulK said nothing about these things, and you're drifting way off topic again.--Percy

Except for occasional molecules of iron oxide tearing away from the medium and the wear and tear on bearings and so forth, because the read/write heads never touch the surface of the rotating disk I don't think there's any change of mass associated with writing information onto rotating magnetic media. The same could not be said of magnetic tape, which experiences measurable wear every time it is played. But disregarding the wear and tear issues, I think you are right that because of mass/energy equivalence that changing the information on magnetic media might also change its mass, though very likely to an unmeasurable degree. It depends upon the balance of 1's and 0's, and whether a 1 or a 0 stores more energy.I'm not sure if the same is true of optical media since it involves an actual physical change (I believe a laser heats a tiny dot that somehow causes a physical change that affects reflectivity). Probably some physical potential energies are involved, since heating can erase the dot of information, implying an elastic property. In this case a minute change in mass would again be involved.--Percy

Well, to be technical, "writing onto" the disk will change the physical state of the disk in some way, presumably by putting the atoms in different physical states. If these different states have different energy levels, then storing information on the disk will impart (or take away) some amount of energy which, according to E-mc2, will change the mass of the disk.However, this change in mass will be negligible (literally -- I doubt it would be measurable even with the most sensitive measuring instruments). Besides, if one is having a theoretical discussion then one can posit a storage medium where the "on" and "off" state of each bit-storing element has exactly the same energy.

---

This world can take my money and time/ But it sure can't take my soul. -- Joe Ely

Sure, and Rob can posit that information can only come about as the result of intelligent intervention, we can posit all sorts of stuff.But Meyer is relating a very specific demonstration he makes, not an abstruse theoretical argument, and I think that he is fundamentally wrong in his claim.TTFN,WK

It occurs to me that we are all pursuing this in the wrong direction.Information is indeed massless. However, Meyer's demonstration is irrelevant to his proposition, as are all the other examples everyone has discussed.The real question relates not to the information, but to the medium of carrying it. For example, an abacus is framework of beads and rods. To those who can read one, the position of the beads conveys a number. The mass of the abacus doesn't vary depending on the position of the beads. However, the position of the beads determines a number.What is happening with the abacus, and all of the cases we've been discussing is that matter of some sort is conveying information, whether it's beads on rods, magnetic patterns on a disk, ink on paper, or bases in DNA. Mass is irrelevant to the information, but position is essential. Move the beads, the number changes. Shift magnetic patterns, the content of the disk changes. Print the ink differently, the message on the paper is different. Change the bases in DNA, and the organism will be different.Obviously, when understood this way, there's nothing whatsoever the least bit inconsistent with a materialistic process creating "information," because materialistic processes are more than capable of acting on material.We've all been wrong in how we've been trying to argue against Meyer, but he was wrong from the get go regardless.Edited by subbie, : No reason given.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

In this context it is worth while reading Gordon Davisson's post of the month for October, 2000, at talk.origin. The most relevant conclusions:

First: the information-theoretic entropy (or Shannon-entropy) of a physical system contributes to its thermodynamic entropy, at the rate of 1 bit of Shannon-entropy => k (Boltzmann's constant) * ln 2 = 9.57e-24 Joule/Kelvin of thermodynamic entropy.

​

Second: my first conclusion above doesn't really matter because under realistic conditions, the information contribution to thermodynamic entropy is so small that it can be safely ignored. For example, one terabyte (243 bits) of information corresponds to only 8.42e-11 J/K of thermo-entropy, which is the same as the entropy difference between 1 cc of water (about a thimblefull) at a temperature of 300 Kelvin (about room temperature) and the same amount of water at a temperature of 300.000000060 Kelvin (also pretty dang close to room temperature). This is a huge amount of information, but a negligible amount of thermo- entropy.

The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: October 2000I leave as an excercise the determination of the relativistic mass increase due to increase the temperature of a gram of water by 6 hundred millionths of a degree kelvin.I believe that physical entropy only has units of joules/degrees kelvin for convenience. Expressed in units of kilograms/meters/seconds, it is dimensionless, because temperature is a measure of energy density. That means though a mass increase is involved in this example, however, small, it need not be involved in all examples of entropy increase.If I am correct about this, that means entropy is yet another "spiritual property" (according to Meyer) which is central to the concerns of physicists.