Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

Creationist Information Theory Is Too Vague

SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2012 1:42:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think "information" should be more clearly defined. I personally like "structural complexity".

Your thoughts?
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2012 8:20:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/10/2012 4:37:41 PM, Wnope wrote:
If you're talking Dembski, he uses Shannon's definition of information I believe.

I'm not sure who Dembski is, or Shannon. What was Shannon's definition of information?
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 12:37:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/10/2012 8:20:30 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 2/10/2012 4:37:41 PM, Wnope wrote:
If you're talking Dembski, he uses Shannon's definition of information I believe.

I'm not sure who Dembski is, or Shannon. What was Shannon's definition of information?

Dembski's take on information theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

To see why the math is entirely bogus, here's a good link: http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov...

General Information Theory
http://en.wikipedia.org...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 5:01:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/10/2012 1:42:25 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
I think "information" should be more clearly defined. I personally like "structural complexity".

Your thoughts?

its always going to be vague. this makes it unable to refute. e.g. what is there definiton of intellenge....????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Let say they make up one now. right? Then what the hell having they been talking about this whole time!!! watch its going to end up being supernatural..

why because intellegence is human made expression.?
we could never give a non-human expression because we are not non-human.

What does supernatural mean. its natural.. with the property of Superness!! lol

Just like Superman is like a man. but just more super he has the quality of superness. And he is real so why not other super entities. yaaaay thats super ;)

so creationism is like science. but you just more super. its like superscience in that it doesnt even need experiments for it to be a thoery and no hypotheses, and no falsification criteria. and have no predicting power for us to manipulate the world around us. Not even that but is the Universe as it always has been all things that exist. So is god exist he must be in the universe. if there there are other universes and god we could just say okay then all thing that exist if the ultimate universe which represents all existing things.. but oh oh .. then who create the Ulimate universee.. a god but like with superness he all ready has the superness. problem for somebody. somebody special . we could never be wrong to say that the universe is all things that exist.. rememeber a faith based god is suppost to only created the earth. And heaven is really suppost to be in the sky.. if we talked to the people at the time that is exactly what they meant.. because didnt know that in the future we would learn better. so heaven keeps getting backed up to where now it have its own special world . so no can prove wrong. Somehow god pops out of existence of all existence which makes him non-existence. to be the cause of all existing things.. hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhm

Yeah that sound about right ;) its a great explanations.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 8:04:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Do not be deterred by Winopes criticism link.
Rather than a wikipedia article, here are direct articles from Dembski that refutes the refutations of his work.

His book The Design Inference was both peer reviewed and Editorially reviewed by Cambridge Press.

http://www.designinference.com...

Brilliant man that really puts the logical part in the Teleological argument and has great groundwork for the Intelligent Design movement within mathematics.

Dembski holds two doctorates, one in Mathematics and one in Philosophy.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 8:59:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 8:04:37 PM, Gileandos wrote:
Do not be deterred by Winopes criticism link.
Rather than a wikipedia article, here are direct articles from Dembski that refutes the refutations of his work.

His book The Design Inference was both peer reviewed and Editorially reviewed by Cambridge Press.

http://www.designinference.com...

Brilliant man that really puts the logical part in the Teleological argument and has great groundwork for the Intelligent Design movement within mathematics.

Dembski holds two doctorates, one in Mathematics and one in Philosophy.

Princeton Theological Seminary (M.Div.) he is no Philospoher, he is a theologin!!
A philosophy poser...lol
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 10:40:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 8:04:37 PM, Gileandos wrote:
Do not be deterred by Winopes criticism link.
Rather than a wikipedia article, here are direct articles from Dembski that refutes the refutations of his work.

His book The Design Inference was both peer reviewed and Editorially reviewed by Cambridge Press.

http://www.designinference.com...

Brilliant man that really puts the logical part in the Teleological argument and has great groundwork for the Intelligent Design movement within mathematics.

Dembski holds two doctorates, one in Mathematics and one in Philosophy.

Would you mind pointing to me to which of the articles you refer to?

Also, do you think Dembskis Law of Conservation of Information is in the least bit valid?
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 10:47:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 10:40:19 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 2/11/2012 8:04:37 PM, Gileandos wrote:
Do not be deterred by Winopes criticism link.
Rather than a wikipedia article, here are direct articles from Dembski that refutes the refutations of his work.

His book The Design Inference was both peer reviewed and Editorially reviewed by Cambridge Press.

http://www.designinference.com...

Brilliant man that really puts the logical part in the Teleological argument and has great groundwork for the Intelligent Design movement within mathematics.

Dembski holds two doctorates, one in Mathematics and one in Philosophy.

Would you mind pointing to me to which of the articles you refer to?

Also, do you think Dembskis Law of Conservation of Information is in the least bit valid?

Here is his 2006 update to the Law of Conservation of Information.
http://www.designinference.com...

"In light of Rolston's remarks, the Conservation of Information Theorem
pushes us in either of two directions: (1) We explain the information in the
universe as the creative act of an intelligence that needs no information in turn
to explain it. (2) We explain the information in the universe as the mechanical
outworking of the physical laws and processes by which the universe operates
and in which this information has always resided (even if concealed from our
eyes).
Rolston's point is that empirical evidence does not support (2). Accordingly,
he regards adherence to (2) not as a scientific inference but as an act of speculative faith. On the other hand, he leaves open the possibility that empirical
evidence might support (1). The Conservation of Information Theorem provides
conceptual space within which to marshal and assess such evidence.
Acknowledgment. I'm indebted to Robert Marks for the notion of added
information developed in this paper."
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 10:51:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 8:59:12 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 2/11/2012 8:04:37 PM, Gileandos wrote:
Do not be deterred by Winopes criticism link.
Rather than a wikipedia article, here are direct articles from Dembski that refutes the refutations of his work.

His book The Design Inference was both peer reviewed and Editorially reviewed by Cambridge Press.

http://www.designinference.com...

Brilliant man that really puts the logical part in the Teleological argument and has great groundwork for the Intelligent Design movement within mathematics.

Dembski holds two doctorates, one in Mathematics and one in Philosophy.


Princeton Theological Seminary (M.Div.) he is no Philospoher, he is a theologin!!
A philosophy poser...lol

He has a doctorate in Philosophy and a doctorate in mathematics and ALSO a Masters in Divinity.

He has 3 degrees two are doctorates.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 10:57:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 10:51:52 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 2/11/2012 8:59:12 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 2/11/2012 8:04:37 PM, Gileandos wrote:
Do not be deterred by Winopes criticism link.
Rather than a wikipedia article, here are direct articles from Dembski that refutes the refutations of his work.

His book The Design Inference was both peer reviewed and Editorially reviewed by Cambridge Press.

http://www.designinference.com...

Brilliant man that really puts the logical part in the Teleological argument and has great groundwork for the Intelligent Design movement within mathematics.

Dembski holds two doctorates, one in Mathematics and one in Philosophy.


Princeton Theological Seminary (M.Div.) he is no Philospoher, he is a theologin!!
A philosophy poser...lol

He has a doctorate in Philosophy and a doctorate in mathematics and ALSO a Masters in Divinity.

He has 3 degrees two are doctorates.

ITs not the degree that validates that he practices philosophy as appose to Theology.

all PHD Stands a Doctor of philosopy. religion/philosophy = theology

it has always been for all time unitil latley
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 11:34:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 10:57:33 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 2/11/2012 10:51:52 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 2/11/2012 8:59:12 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 2/11/2012 8:04:37 PM, Gileandos wrote:
Do not be deterred by Winopes criticism link.
Rather than a wikipedia article, here are direct articles from Dembski that refutes the refutations of his work.

His book The Design Inference was both peer reviewed and Editorially reviewed by Cambridge Press.

http://www.designinference.com...

Brilliant man that really puts the logical part in the Teleological argument and has great groundwork for the Intelligent Design movement within mathematics.

Dembski holds two doctorates, one in Mathematics and one in Philosophy.


Princeton Theological Seminary (M.Div.) he is no Philospoher, he is a theologin!!
A philosophy poser...lol

He has a doctorate in Philosophy and a doctorate in mathematics and ALSO a Masters in Divinity.

He has 3 degrees two are doctorates.

ITs not the degree that validates that he practices philosophy as appose to Theology.

all PHD Stands a Doctor of philosopy. religion/philosophy = theology

it has always been for all time unitil latley

Why can't a philosopher publish works on theology?? I mean they are two completely separate things.

Theology: presupposes God's existence, tries to explain how God works
Philosophy: does not presuppose God's existence, tries to explain how man works
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 8:36:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 11:34:55 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 2/11/2012 10:57:33 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 2/11/2012 10:51:52 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 2/11/2012 8:59:12 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 2/11/2012 8:04:37 PM, Gileandos wrote:
Do not be deterred by Winopes criticism link.
Rather than a wikipedia article, here are direct articles from Dembski that refutes the refutations of his work.

His book The Design Inference was both peer reviewed and Editorially reviewed by Cambridge Press.

http://www.designinference.com...

Brilliant man that really puts the logical part in the Teleological argument and has great groundwork for the Intelligent Design movement within mathematics.

Dembski holds two doctorates, one in Mathematics and one in Philosophy.


Princeton Theological Seminary (M.Div.) he is no Philospoher, he is a theologin!!
A philosophy poser...lol

He has a doctorate in Philosophy and a doctorate in mathematics and ALSO a Masters in Divinity.

He has 3 degrees two are doctorates.

ITs not the degree that validates that he practices philosophy as appose to Theology.

all PHD Stands a Doctor of philosopy. religion/philosophy = theology

it has always been for all time unitil latley

Why can't a philosopher publish works on theology?? I mean they are two completely separate things.

Theology: presupposes God's existence, tries to explain how God works
Philosophy: does not presuppose God's existence, tries to explain how man works

you see that is the problem. You have been fed so much garbage you don't even know what philsohpy is. because that you have thier is a theologin revisoin of the defininion. you are right on the presuppossing part but wrong on the explanation of man part. I have know idea how you got that from. it is explaning the world with out supernatural explanation. But they have twist the world around to keep you believing. but its not done honestly they trying to make you avoid real philsohpers.. I dont what else to say to you. but start thinking for youself use your own reason dont' trust what they say.. go read other great philospher pre post modern. and the old stuff is good. remember these theologins are only recognized in pockets of unitedstats the don't have any real credibity in the world. All I can say is think aside the box. there are false explation. if you cant predict something with it there is something wrong. try that as a measure of its worth.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 12:02:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 10:47:25 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 2/11/2012 10:40:19 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 2/11/2012 8:04:37 PM, Gileandos wrote:
Do not be deterred by Winopes criticism link.
Rather than a wikipedia article, here are direct articles from Dembski that refutes the refutations of his work.

His book The Design Inference was both peer reviewed and Editorially reviewed by Cambridge Press.

http://www.designinference.com...

Brilliant man that really puts the logical part in the Teleological argument and has great groundwork for the Intelligent Design movement within mathematics.

Dembski holds two doctorates, one in Mathematics and one in Philosophy.

Would you mind pointing to me to which of the articles you refer to?

Also, do you think Dembskis Law of Conservation of Information is in the least bit valid?

Here is his 2006 update to the Law of Conservation of Information.
http://www.designinference.com...

"In light of Rolston's remarks, the Conservation of Information Theorem
pushes us in either of two directions: (1) We explain the information in the
universe as the creative act of an intelligence that needs no information in turn
to explain it. (2) We explain the information in the universe as the mechanical
outworking of the physical laws and processes by which the universe operates
and in which this information has always resided (even if concealed from our
eyes).
Rolston's point is that empirical evidence does not support (2). Accordingly,
he regards adherence to (2) not as a scientific inference but as an act of speculative faith. On the other hand, he leaves open the possibility that empirical
evidence might support (1). The Conservation of Information Theorem provides
conceptual space within which to marshal and assess such evidence.
Acknowledgment. I'm indebted to Robert Marks for the notion of added
information developed in this paper."

The problem here is the assumptions behind Conservation of Info he uses aren't realistic. You'll notice he cites Rolston (Algorithmic Complexity). The specific paper pertained to a weakness in Turing tests. Under formal mathematical operations and, subsequently, computer operations, the law of information conservation holds. Thus, artificial intelligence can be defeated with the simple introduction of a new mathematical axiom. This problem was solved when AI went beyond that simplistic thinking and generated information (http://www.cs.uwaterloo.ca...).

Natural selection acts on a branch mapping from one to many due to replication. It prunes these back down to a few based on differential reproductive abilities (i.e. fitness). These two basic mechanisms: increasing and reductional mapping of information sets, are the key to evolution.

However, these are entirely absent in Dembski's model. Instead, he only applies it to simple mathematical functions. That's not even remotely close to reality. He's essentially leaving out BIRTH AND DEATH.

Instead, Dembski appeals to the fact that theorems of mathematics cannot contain more information than in contained in their axioms (assuming he is actually citing Rolston's paper on Algorithmic since there doesn't seem to be any other place he mentions Rolston other than the Genes, Gensis and God quote).

Notice Dembski keeps saying variations of "if information is the mechanical outworking of pre-existing information." That's exactly what Rolston was talking about.

I find it very strange that Dembski quotes Rolston's book Genes, Gensis, and God.

I say this because in Rolston book specifically argues for common descent and evolutionary theory (while critiquing some concepts like self-gene theory). He also believes ethics come from our evolutionary natural history.

Very, very unimpressive rebuttal. He doesn't address the core critique of his concept: it only works when you aren't modeling natural selection and variation (reductional and increasing mapping).