Total Posts:181|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

DNA and information

Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,584
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 8:17:15 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
I've been reading about the details of how DNA is used to eventually manufacture proteins and doing some rudimentary programming experiments to help me understand it better.

As I explore this the more impressive it all looks, and I can now see that DNA is not "just" a means for encoding protein molecules' structure.

It turns out a gene (the representation of a specific protein, delimited by a STOP codon) actually consists of three different (data) structures, the coding, non-coding and the regulatory sequences.

While the coding sequence describes the amino acid sequence for a protein the regulatory part actually influences when, where and how much protein to produce.

There are also things called "enhancers" existing at various place within a gene.

These it seems provide conditional functionality that control transcription speed as well as being conditional on other factors.

Writing exploratory code (in a functional language) is conveying more and more how this is incredible evidence of design, everything I'm reading looks like design, it has a huge amount in common with human crafted information based systems.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,584
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 9:10:26 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
Actually that was a small subset of the gene - click "Whole Sequence" in upper right corner to see the full monty.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 9:12:50 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
Information is simply a term we use to describe certain types of patterns; i.e. that display a sufficient degree of consistence in terms of syntax as to allow us to assign meanings to them. It isn't a magical property that things are imbued with.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,584
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 9:25:38 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 9:12:50 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
Information is simply a term we use to describe certain types of patterns; i.e. that display a sufficient degree of consistence in terms of syntax as to allow us to assign meanings to them. It isn't a magical property that things are imbued with.

Strawman - unless you can show me where I said it was a magical property that things are imbued with?

Information indicates intelligence - at least in all my experiences. Take a real-time 3D first person shooter. The "world" that you are immersed in with its buildings, sky, rivers, weapons, monster, secret passages etc is information, quite a lot of information.

It is only present because some human beings used their intellect to create the information.

Information is something produced by creating, it is one way to recognize creative activities have taken place.

Corrupt the information and you move toward increasing entropy - information and entropy are in fact closely related.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 9:37:42 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 9:25:38 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/30/2016 9:12:50 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
Information is simply a term we use to describe certain types of patterns; i.e. that display a sufficient degree of consistence in terms of syntax as to allow us to assign meanings to them. It isn't a magical property that things are imbued with.

Strawman - unless you can show me where I said it was a magical property that things are imbued with?

That's the whole basis for the ID argument regarding information. It's a total fabrication. If you're just saying "wow, DNA sure is complex!" then yes, it is. That doesn't mean it was designed though.

Information indicates intelligence - at least in all my experiences.

Nope. It's just that anything you're capable of making sense of can be described in terms of information. It has an order, a structure to it. You can get that out of chaos, which is about as far from design as you can get.

It is only present because some human beings used their intellect to create the information.

In those instances, yes. However, not in all instances. Saying "some complex systems that I am able to make sense of are the creation of intelligent beings" is a very long jump from "all complex systems that I can ever make sense of must be the creation of an intelligent being".

Information is something produced by creating, it is one way to recognize creative activities have taken place.

Nope, it's not. Information is simply something we can assign to certain patterns. Those patterns could be random and we'd still be able to 'see' information 'in' them. We could read 'heads' as 0 and 'tails' as 1; if I then toss a load of coins in the air, is the subsequent mix of heads and tails intelligently created information? No. It just has enough structure that we are able to read it as such if we combine it with certain abstract rules. But not if we use others.

Corrupt the information and you move toward increasing entropy - information and entropy are in fact closely related.

And here's the leap into the ID argument I knew was coming. An increase in entropy is NOT synonymous with a loss of information. In fact, there is arguably MORE information encoded in a higher entropy system (because its description is more complex) than there is a lower entropy one. We can encode less information in a singularity - the ultimately ordered state - than we can in a huge, chaotic mess of a highly entropic universe.

Basically, you're buying into a load of fraudulent new-age religious pseudo-science. Best of luck to you.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 9:49:56 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
Because, FYI, entropy in physics is not quite the same as information in information theory. I assume you've been reading Dembski. Never a good decision.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 10:50:55 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 8:17:15 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I've been reading about the details of how DNA is used to eventually manufacture proteins and doing some rudimentary programming experiments to help me understand it better.

As I explore this the more impressive it all looks, and I can now see that DNA is not "just" a means for encoding protein molecules' structure.

It turns out a gene (the representation of a specific protein, delimited by a STOP codon) actually consists of three different (data) structures, the coding, non-coding and the regulatory sequences.

While the coding sequence describes the amino acid sequence for a protein the regulatory part actually influences when, where and how much protein to produce.

There are also things called "enhancers" existing at various place within a gene.

These it seems provide conditional functionality that control transcription speed as well as being conditional on other factors.

Writing exploratory code (in a functional language) is conveying more and more how this is incredible evidence of design, everything I'm reading looks like design, it has a huge amount in common with human crafted information based systems.

I can't hear you over the sound of how circular your argument is.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,584
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 5:09:18 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 9:37:42 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/30/2016 9:25:38 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/30/2016 9:12:50 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
Information is simply a term we use to describe certain types of patterns; i.e. that display a sufficient degree of consistence in terms of syntax as to allow us to assign meanings to them. It isn't a magical property that things are imbued with.

Strawman - unless you can show me where I said it was a magical property that things are imbued with?

That's the whole basis for the ID argument regarding information. It's a total fabrication. If you're just saying "wow, DNA sure is complex!" then yes, it is. That doesn't mean it was designed though.

But I didn't say that.

Information indicates intelligence - at least in all my experiences.

Nope. It's just that anything you're capable of making sense of can be described in terms of information. It has an order, a structure to it. You can get that out of chaos, which is about as far from design as you can get.


I said in all MY experiences. Order and structure - Well the string "1010101010101010" has order, it has structure but how much information? Answer, this much: append "10" 8 times, not that much actually.

Information that can be consumed to do something is what we're talking about. Try generating random data in the hope you'll make your own blockbuster MPEG movie, can you do that without intelligence?

All my life information I've encountered that can be used for some practical benefit has always been created and that creating has always been done by intellect.

Every time, be it radio designs, program compilers and interpreters, digital or analog electronics, drugs, music, art, computers, calculators, cars - all of these are assembled structures and the assembly process consumes information.

Which of these does not require intelligence? any? perhaps you know of one that you can show to us did not require intelligence?

It is only present because some human beings used their intellect to create the information.

In those instances, yes. However, not in all instances. Saying "some complex systems that I am able to make sense of are the creation of intelligent beings" is a very long jump from "all complex systems that I can ever make sense of must be the creation of an intelligent being".


No, I said all and I mean't all - that I've ever encountered.

Information is something produced by creating, it is one way to recognize creative activities have taken place.

Nope, it's not. Information is simply something we can assign to certain patterns. Those patterns could be random and we'd still be able to 'see' information 'in' them. We could read 'heads' as 0 and 'tails' as 1; if I then toss a load of coins in the air, is the subsequent mix of heads and tails intelligently created information? No. It just has enough structure that we are able to read it as such if we combine it with certain abstract rules. But not if we use others.


But random streams of bits won't magically enable you to assemble a car, a radio or a new drug, else we'd need humans no more.

Corrupt the information and you move toward increasing entropy - information and entropy are in fact closely related.

And here's the leap into the ID argument I knew was coming. An increase in entropy is NOT synonymous with a loss of information. In fact, there is arguably MORE information encoded in a higher entropy system (because its description is more complex) than there is a lower entropy one. We can encode less information in a singularity - the ultimately ordered state - than we can in a huge, chaotic mess of a highly entropic universe.


Entropy is a measure of disorder - so says Boltzman. You're confusing data with information. Data is the sum total of the probability space, but information is some subset that has the property of being able to drive some process toward some outcome.

As for a higher entropy system, the higher the entropy the greater the randomness yes? If so we can describe the information by simply saying "just random data" - that is a sufficient encoding is it not? not much information there at all is there really?

Basically, you're buying into a load of fraudulent new-age religious pseudo-science. Best of luck to you.

You mean information for assembling living beings just came about all by itself? that kind of fairy tale? that claim is vapor, you can give no example of information generated by non-intelligent processes that is capable of driving the assembly of some system.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,584
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 5:10:21 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 9:49:56 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
Because, FYI, entropy in physics is not quite the same as information in information theory. I assume you've been reading Dembski. Never a good decision.

Neither is assuming things, if you want know something about me or what I wrote why not just ask me?
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,584
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 5:11:05 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 10:50:55 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/30/2016 8:17:15 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I've been reading about the details of how DNA is used to eventually manufacture proteins and doing some rudimentary programming experiments to help me understand it better.

As I explore this the more impressive it all looks, and I can now see that DNA is not "just" a means for encoding protein molecules' structure.

It turns out a gene (the representation of a specific protein, delimited by a STOP codon) actually consists of three different (data) structures, the coding, non-coding and the regulatory sequences.

While the coding sequence describes the amino acid sequence for a protein the regulatory part actually influences when, where and how much protein to produce.

There are also things called "enhancers" existing at various place within a gene.

These it seems provide conditional functionality that control transcription speed as well as being conditional on other factors.

Writing exploratory code (in a functional language) is conveying more and more how this is incredible evidence of design, everything I'm reading looks like design, it has a huge amount in common with human crafted information based systems.

I can't hear you over the sound of how circular your argument is.

Try taking your fingers out of your ears.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 6:06:09 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 5:09:18 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/30/2016 9:37:42 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/30/2016 9:25:38 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/30/2016 9:12:50 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
Information is simply a term we use to describe certain types of patterns; i.e. that display a sufficient degree of consistence in terms of syntax as to allow us to assign meanings to them. It isn't a magical property that things are imbued with.

Strawman - unless you can show me where I said it was a magical property that things are imbued with?

That's the whole basis for the ID argument regarding information. It's a total fabrication. If you're just saying "wow, DNA sure is complex!" then yes, it is. That doesn't mean it was designed though.

But I didn't say that.

Sure. Never even considered it, right?


Information indicates intelligence - at least in all my experiences.

Nope. It's just that anything you're capable of making sense of can be described in terms of information. It has an order, a structure to it. You can get that out of chaos, which is about as far from design as you can get.


I said in all MY experiences. Order and structure - Well the string "1010101010101010" has order, it has structure but how much information? Answer, this much: append "10" 8 times, not that much actually.

You could put any sequence of 1s and 0s in place of that and equally reasonably come to either conclusion.

Information that can be consumed to do something is what we're talking about. Try generating random data in the hope you'll make your own blockbuster MPEG movie, can you do that without intelligence?

No, that's one of the Dembskiite sidesteps that make a nonsense of your whole argument. Information and entropy have well defined meanings in the contexts of physical science and information theory. Learn them and use them.


All my life information I've encountered that can be used for some practical benefit has always been created and that creating has always been done by intellect.

I'm well aware of what your claim is.

Every time, be it radio designs, program compilers and interpreters, digital or analog electronics, drugs, music, art, computers, calculators, cars - all of these are assembled structures and the assembly process consumes information.

Which of these does not require intelligence? any? perhaps you know of one that you can show to us did not require intelligence?

In absence of any evidence to the contrary, I'd lile to present exhibit A: the known universe.


It is only present because some human beings used their intellect to create the information.

In those instances, yes. However, not in all instances. Saying "some complex systems that I am able to make sense of are the creation of intelligent beings" is a very long jump from "all complex systems that I can ever make sense of must be the creation of an intelligent being".


No, I said all and I mean't all - that I've ever encountered.

That's great. I had a sandwich for lunch.


Information is something produced by creating, it is one way to recognize creative activities have taken place.

Nope, it's not. Information is simply something we can assign to certain patterns. Those patterns could be random and we'd still be able to 'see' information 'in' them. We could read 'heads' as 0 and 'tails' as 1; if I then toss a load of coins in the air, is the subsequent mix of heads and tails intelligently created information? No. It just has enough structure that we are able to read it as such if we combine it with certain abstract rules. But not if we use others.


But random streams of bits won't magically enable you to assemble a car, a radio or a new drug, else we'd need humans no more.

Not magically, no. Just ordinary old statistically so. Out of enough chaos, vast amounts of order will emerge.

Corrupt the information and you move toward increasing entropy - information and entropy are in fact closely related.

And here's the leap into the ID argument I knew was coming. An increase in entropy is NOT synonymous with a loss of information. In fact, there is arguably MORE information encoded in a higher entropy system (because its description is more complex) than there is a lower entropy one. We can encode less information in a singularity - the ultimately ordered state - than we can in a huge, chaotic mess of a highly entropic universe.


Entropy is a measure of disorder - so says Boltzman. You're confusing data with information. Data is the sum total of the probability space, but information is some subset that has the property of being able to drive some process toward some outcome.

No, I just know how the terms are used in respective fields. Just to be sure, I checked up before posting. The power of research, eh? Entropy in IT is not a measure of disorder, no. You then strawman about data, which is lovely but irrelevant to the fact you've demonstrated your ignorance at a fundamental level.


As for a higher entropy system, the higher the entropy the greater the randomness yes?

In physics, the greater the number of posdible arrangements of the system. In information theory, something else. I suggest you do the tiny amount of research to discover what that something else is.

If so we can describe the information by simply saying "just random data" - that is a sufficient encoding is it not? not much information there at all is there really?

What is "random data"? How much of it? How are we parsing it? Do we mean information according to a single defined syntax or as a totality of syntaxes? What about meta-combinational outputs across multiple syntactic "grammars"?


Basically, you're buying into a load of fraudulent new-age religious pseudo-science. Best of luck to you.

You mean information for assembling living beings just came about all by itself? that kind of fairy tale? that claim is vapor, you can give no example of information generated by non-intelligent processes that is capable of driving the assembly of some system.

I'm saying that complex systems can emerge from sufficiently stable-yet-dynamic environments. And I can point to the universe. To DNA. Until you support your godthesis with independent evidence, the null hypothesis stands firm.

You know incredibly little on this topic amd are very clearly being led by the nose. In the age of the internet, that's inexcusable and can only be willful ignorance. You could learn the flaws with your own argument in a matter of minutes, if you ever honestly tried.
keithprosser
Posts: 1,947
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 6:12:52 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 8:17:15 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I've been reading about the details of how DNA is used to eventually manufacture proteins and doing some rudimentary programming experiments to help me understand it better.
Writing exploratory code (in a functional language) is conveying more and more how this is incredible evidence of design, everything I'm reading looks like design, it has a huge amount in common with human crafted information based systems.

I think what you are seeing is complexity. There is no denying that what goes inside a cell is incredibly complicated - each cell is a high-tech chemical factory with layers of activity and processing that unless you take time to learn about you wouldn't believe.

I think anyone who is not awed by the internal operation of a cell needs to learn more about it. https://www.youtube.com...

But is all that complexity evidence of design? I think it depend what you mean by 'evidence'! I think such complexity is indeed evidence of design, but it's deceptive.
It could be said that all that complexity is evidence against design because it is over-complicated. If it was designed, then the designer was Heath Robinson or Rube Goldberg.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 6:25:44 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 5:11:05 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/30/2016 10:50:55 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/30/2016 8:17:15 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I've been reading about the details of how DNA is used to eventually manufacture proteins and doing some rudimentary programming experiments to help me understand it better.

As I explore this the more impressive it all looks, and I can now see that DNA is not "just" a means for encoding protein molecules' structure.

It turns out a gene (the representation of a specific protein, delimited by a STOP codon) actually consists of three different (data) structures, the coding, non-coding and the regulatory sequences.

While the coding sequence describes the amino acid sequence for a protein the regulatory part actually influences when, where and how much protein to produce.

There are also things called "enhancers" existing at various place within a gene.

These it seems provide conditional functionality that control transcription speed as well as being conditional on other factors.

Writing exploratory code (in a functional language) is conveying more and more how this is incredible evidence of design, everything I'm reading looks like design, it has a huge amount in common with human crafted information based systems.

I can't hear you over the sound of how circular your argument is.

Try taking your fingers out of your ears.

Let me get this right.

Despite everyone pointing out that the basis for your assertions of intelligence or design are grounded in arbitrary, undemonstrable, unprovable conjecture for which you used inappropriate analogies and arguing that as there are similarities between two things they must for some reason share the same cause.

Despite your inability to actually justify, argue or provide any meaningful explanation of what properties or features of something allows you to definitively constitute it's cause was intelligent and instead your root justification for pretty much everything is "well, it's obvious, isn't it?"

And despite me repeatedly explaining all these things to you explaining why your position and argument is inherently flawed and circular; only to simply be met with the same sort of regurgitated assertion that seems to be the way you function here....

I am the one who has to take my fingers out of my ears?

Seriously Harry; if you didn't invoke "It's obvious" as an argument, or you chose not to use "X is like A in some ways, therefore X is A" as an argument; you would have no argument at all.

That should speak volumes.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,584
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 7:02:15 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 6:06:09 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/31/2016 5:09:18 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/30/2016 9:37:42 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/30/2016 9:25:38 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/30/2016 9:12:50 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
Information is simply a term we use to describe certain types of patterns; i.e. that display a sufficient degree of consistence in terms of syntax as to allow us to assign meanings to them. It isn't a magical property that things are imbued with.

Strawman - unless you can show me where I said it was a magical property that things are imbued with?

That's the whole basis for the ID argument regarding information. It's a total fabrication. If you're just saying "wow, DNA sure is complex!" then yes, it is. That doesn't mean it was designed though.

But I didn't say that.

Sure. Never even considered it, right?


Information indicates intelligence - at least in all my experiences.

Nope. It's just that anything you're capable of making sense of can be described in terms of information. It has an order, a structure to it. You can get that out of chaos, which is about as far from design as you can get.


I said in all MY experiences. Order and structure - Well the string "1010101010101010" has order, it has structure but how much information? Answer, this much: append "10" 8 times, not that much actually.

You could put any sequence of 1s and 0s in place of that and equally reasonably come to either conclusion.

No that's simply false - a random sequence cannot be represented that way, the sequence as-is, is the best you can do.

Information that can be consumed to do something is what we're talking about. Try generating random data in the hope you'll make your own blockbuster MPEG movie, can you do that without intelligence?

No, that's one of the Dembskiite sidesteps that make a nonsense of your whole argument. Information and entropy have well defined meanings in the contexts of physical science and information theory. Learn them and use them.


I have a degree in electronics and telecommunications and have been dealing with these kinds of issues and questions for over 40 years, I've seen more signals, coders, decoders, translators, computers, devices, and information processing machines than most people you're likely to meet, this may not impress you but I do think it's relevant.


All my life information I've encountered that can be used for some practical benefit has always been created and that creating has always been done by intellect.

I'm well aware of what your claim is.

Every time, be it radio designs, program compilers and interpreters, digital or analog electronics, drugs, music, art, computers, calculators, cars - all of these are assembled structures and the assembly process consumes information.

Which of these does not require intelligence? any? perhaps you know of one that you can show to us did not require intelligence?

In absence of any evidence to the contrary, I'd lile to present exhibit A: the known universe.

How did you categorically establish that this arose without intelligence?



It is only present because some human beings used their intellect to create the information.

In those instances, yes. However, not in all instances. Saying "some complex systems that I am able to make sense of are the creation of intelligent beings" is a very long jump from "all complex systems that I can ever make sense of must be the creation of an intelligent being".


No, I said all and I mean't all - that I've ever encountered.

That's great. I had a sandwich for lunch.


Information is something produced by creating, it is one way to recognize creative activities have taken place.

Nope, it's not. Information is simply something we can assign to certain patterns. Those patterns could be random and we'd still be able to 'see' information 'in' them. We could read 'heads' as 0 and 'tails' as 1; if I then toss a load of coins in the air, is the subsequent mix of heads and tails intelligently created information? No. It just has enough structure that we are able to read it as such if we combine it with certain abstract rules. But not if we use others.


But random streams of bits won't magically enable you to assemble a car, a radio or a new drug, else we'd need humans no more.

Not magically, no. Just ordinary old statistically so. Out of enough chaos, vast amounts of order will emerge.

No it doesn't. You assert that it does but that's not very convincing for me. It flies in the face of reality, doesn't this concern you?


Corrupt the information and you move toward increasing entropy - information and entropy are in fact closely related.

And here's the leap into the ID argument I knew was coming. An increase in entropy is NOT synonymous with a loss of information. In fact, there is arguably MORE information encoded in a higher entropy system (because its description is more complex) than there is a lower entropy one. We can encode less information in a singularity - the ultimately ordered state - than we can in a huge, chaotic mess of a highly entropic universe.


Entropy is a measure of disorder - so says Boltzman. You're confusing data with information. Data is the sum total of the probability space, but information is some subset that has the property of being able to drive some process toward some outcome.

No, I just know how the terms are used in respective fields. Just to be sure, I checked up before posting. The power of research, eh? Entropy in IT is not a measure of disorder, no. You then strawman about data, which is lovely but irrelevant to the fact you've demonstrated your ignorance at a fundamental level.


Calm down and tell me what specifically did I write that you disagree with?


As for a higher entropy system, the higher the entropy the greater the randomness yes?

In physics, the greater the number of posdible arrangements of the system. In information theory, something else. I suggest you do the tiny amount of research to discover what that something else is.

If so we can describe the information by simply saying "just random data" - that is a sufficient encoding is it not? not much information there at all is there really?

What is "random data"? How much of it? How are we parsing it? Do we mean information according to a single defined syntax or as a totality of syntaxes? What about meta-combinational outputs across multiple syntactic "grammars"?


Random data is data produced by a non-deterministic process.

I'm saying that complex systems can emerge from sufficiently stable-yet-dynamic environments. And I can point to the universe. To DNA. Until you support your godthesis with independent evidence, the null hypothesis stands firm.


No I don't think this is true - repeatedly asserting your claim isn't how one establishes something as true or false. You keep implying that I'm ignorant for holding the view that I do, but why? My view is very reasonable. Even if I am in fact wrong, my reasoning is not that of a fool but a skeptic, I am very very skeptical of these claims that design can arise out of chaos. My personal experience is that this does not and cannot happen.

You it seems have chosen to not be skeptical of these claims, you've chosen to believe.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 7:54:45 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 7:02:15 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/31/2016 6:06:09 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/31/2016 5:09:18 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/30/2016 9:37:42 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/30/2016 9:25:38 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/30/2016 9:12:50 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
Information is simply a term we use to describe certain types of patterns; i.e. that display a sufficient degree of consistence in terms of syntax as to allow us to assign meanings to them. It isn't a magical property that things are imbued with.

Strawman - unless you can show me where I said it was a magical property that things are imbued with?

That's the whole basis for the ID argument regarding information. It's a total fabrication. If you're just saying "wow, DNA sure is complex!" then yes, it is. That doesn't mean it was designed though.

But I didn't say that.

Sure. Never even considered it, right?


Information indicates intelligence - at least in all my experiences.

Nope. It's just that anything you're capable of making sense of can be described in terms of information. It has an order, a structure to it. You can get that out of chaos, which is about as far from design as you can get.


I said in all MY experiences. Order and structure - Well the string "1010101010101010" has order, it has structure but how much information? Answer, this much: append "10" 8 times, not that much actually.

You could put any sequence of 1s and 0s in place of that and equally reasonably come to either conclusion.

No that's simply false - a random sequence cannot be represented that way, the sequence as-is, is the best you can do.

No, you really could. Why do you think it impossible? What rule prevents it?

I have a degree in electronics and telecommunications and have been dealing with these kinds of issues and questions for over 40 years, I've seen more signals, coders, decoders, translators, computers, devices, and information processing machines than most people you're likely to meet, this may not impress you but I do think it's relevant.

Don't really care. You clearly know little to nothing in the relevant theoretical sciences.

In absence of any evidence to the contrary, I'd lile to present exhibit A: the known universe.

How did you categorically establish that this arose without intelligence?

I explained that in the quoted text. Try reading it.

Not magically, no. Just ordinary old statistically so. Out of enough chaos, vast amounts of order will emerge.

No it doesn't. You assert that it does but that's not very convincing for me. It flies in the face of reality, doesn't this concern you?

It is entirely consistent with axiomatically proven mathematics. So now you're arguing with maths. At what point will you start to question why that is? There are countless proofs, papers, examples and demonstrations of it. So I think you'll need to reassess whose argument flies in the face of reality.

Calm down and tell me what specifically did I write that you disagree with?

Perfectly calm, thanks. What don't you understand about what I wrote? As that answers your question.

What is "random data"? How much of it? How are we parsing it? Do we mean information according to a single defined syntax or as a totality of syntaxes? What about meta-combinational outputs across multiple syntactic "grammars"?

Random data is data produced by a non-deterministic process.

Er... so supernatural processes??

No I don't think this is true - repeatedly asserting your claim isn't how one establishes something as true or false.

I agree. Do you dispute the existence of the natural world? No? Then you accept evidence of the existence of my proposed mechanism. Your turn to present evidence for your mechanism.

You keep implying that I'm ignorant for holding the view that I do, but why?

No, I keep explicitly stating that you're ignorant because you consistently misuse terms and lack basic knowledge in the relevant fields of study.

My view is very reasonable.

I disagree, but that's beside the point. It is your methods and reasoning that I take issue with.

I am very very skeptical of these claims that design can arise out of chaos. My personal experience is that this does not and cannot happen.

Order. Not design. We know - as a mathematical proof - that order emerges from chaotic systems. For a fact.

You it seems have chosen to not be skeptical of these claims, you've chosen to believe.

No, I've studied them quite carefully. I assert no entities in my explanation beyond mathematics and the existence of the natural world. That's far more minimalist than your view, which proposes an additional, more complex element. So of the two of us, I am the more skeptical. I've not chosen to believe anything, nor do I claim special knowledge of transcendent reality.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,584
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 10:13:14 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 6:25:44 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/31/2016 5:11:05 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/30/2016 10:50:55 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/30/2016 8:17:15 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I've been reading about the details of how DNA is used to eventually manufacture proteins and doing some rudimentary programming experiments to help me understand it better.

As I explore this the more impressive it all looks, and I can now see that DNA is not "just" a means for encoding protein molecules' structure.

It turns out a gene (the representation of a specific protein, delimited by a STOP codon) actually consists of three different (data) structures, the coding, non-coding and the regulatory sequences.

While the coding sequence describes the amino acid sequence for a protein the regulatory part actually influences when, where and how much protein to produce.

There are also things called "enhancers" existing at various place within a gene.

These it seems provide conditional functionality that control transcription speed as well as being conditional on other factors.

Writing exploratory code (in a functional language) is conveying more and more how this is incredible evidence of design, everything I'm reading looks like design, it has a huge amount in common with human crafted information based systems.

I can't hear you over the sound of how circular your argument is.

Try taking your fingers out of your ears.

Let me get this right.

I'll try to help as best I can.

Despite everyone pointing out that the basis for your assertions of intelligence or design are grounded in arbitrary, undemonstrable, unprovable conjecture for which you used inappropriate analogies and arguing that as there are similarities between two things they must for some reason share the same cause.

Despite your inability to actually justify, argue or provide any meaningful explanation of what properties or features of something allows you to definitively constitute it's cause was intelligent and instead your root justification for pretty much everything is "well, it's obvious, isn't it?"

And despite me repeatedly explaining all these things to you explaining why your position and argument is inherently flawed and circular; only to simply be met with the same sort of regurgitated assertion that seems to be the way you function here....

I am the one who has to take my fingers out of my ears?


Seriously Harry; if you didn't invoke "It's obvious" as an argument, or you chose not to use "X is like A in some ways, therefore X is A" as an argument; you would have no argument at all.

That should speak volumes.

In fact prior to this post all you posted in response to my first post was:

"I can't hear you over the sound of how circular your argument is."

This is the sum total of "explaining" you've done in this thread so far. If you take issue with anything I said in post #1 then all you need do is address what I said and state what you disagree with and why.

So read post # 1 again and comment upon what I wrote not what you think I wrote, what you want to pretend I wrote and so on.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,584
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 10:21:56 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 7:54:45 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/31/2016 7:02:15 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/31/2016 6:06:09 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/31/2016 5:09:18 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/30/2016 9:37:42 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/30/2016 9:25:38 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/30/2016 9:12:50 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
Information is simply a term we use to describe certain types of patterns; i.e. that display a sufficient degree of consistence in terms of syntax as to allow us to assign meanings to them. It isn't a magical property that things are imbued with.

Strawman - unless you can show me where I said it was a magical property that things are imbued with?

That's the whole basis for the ID argument regarding information. It's a total fabrication. If you're just saying "wow, DNA sure is complex!" then yes, it is. That doesn't mean it was designed though.

But I didn't say that.

Sure. Never even considered it, right?


Information indicates intelligence - at least in all my experiences.

Nope. It's just that anything you're capable of making sense of can be described in terms of information. It has an order, a structure to it. You can get that out of chaos, which is about as far from design as you can get.


I said in all MY experiences. Order and structure - Well the string "1010101010101010" has order, it has structure but how much information? Answer, this much: append "10" 8 times, not that much actually.

You could put any sequence of 1s and 0s in place of that and equally reasonably come to either conclusion.

No that's simply false - a random sequence cannot be represented that way, the sequence as-is, is the best you can do.

No, you really could. Why do you think it impossible? What rule prevents it?

Kolmogorov complexity prevents it.


I have a degree in electronics and telecommunications and have been dealing with these kinds of issues and questions for over 40 years, I've seen more signals, coders, decoders, translators, computers, devices, and information processing machines than most people you're likely to meet, this may not impress you but I do think it's relevant.

Don't really care. You clearly know little to nothing in the relevant theoretical sciences.

In absence of any evidence to the contrary, I'd lile to present exhibit A: the known universe.

How did you categorically establish that this arose without intelligence?

I explained that in the quoted text. Try reading it.

Not magically, no. Just ordinary old statistically so. Out of enough chaos, vast amounts of order will emerge.

No it doesn't. You assert that it does but that's not very convincing for me. It flies in the face of reality, doesn't this concern you?

It is entirely consistent with axiomatically proven mathematics. So now you're arguing with maths. At what point will you start to question why that is? There are countless proofs, papers, examples and demonstrations of it. So I think you'll need to reassess whose argument flies in the face of reality.

I'd like you to direct me to the mathematical arguments that prove vast amounts of order arise out of chaos.


Calm down and tell me what specifically did I write that you disagree with?

Perfectly calm, thanks. What don't you understand about what I wrote? As that answers your question.

What is "random data"? How much of it? How are we parsing it? Do we mean information according to a single defined syntax or as a totality of syntaxes? What about meta-combinational outputs across multiple syntactic "grammars"?

Random data is data produced by a non-deterministic process.

Er... so supernatural processes??

Do you disagree with my answer?


No I don't think this is true - repeatedly asserting your claim isn't how one establishes something as true or false.

I agree. Do you dispute the existence of the natural world? No? Then you accept evidence of the existence of my proposed mechanism. Your turn to present evidence for your mechanism.

You keep implying that I'm ignorant for holding the view that I do, but why?

No, I keep explicitly stating that you're ignorant because you consistently misuse terms and lack basic knowledge in the relevant fields of study.

My view is very reasonable.

I disagree, but that's beside the point. It is your methods and reasoning that I take issue with.

I am very very skeptical of these claims that design can arise out of chaos. My personal experience is that this does not and cannot happen.

Order. Not design. We know - as a mathematical proof - that order emerges from chaotic systems. For a fact.

Can you elaborate?


You it seems have chosen to not be skeptical of these claims, you've chosen to believe.

No, I've studied them quite carefully. I assert no entities in my explanation beyond mathematics and the existence of the natural world. That's far more minimalist than your view, which proposes an additional, more complex element. So of the two of us, I am the more skeptical. I've not chosen to believe anything, nor do I claim special knowledge of transcendent reality.

Well I recently read God's Undertaker by Prof. John Lennox, he is somewhat knowledgable about mathematics, have you read his book? it's not very long, perhaps he too is reasoning very badly?

https://www.theguardian.com...
keithprosser
Posts: 1,947
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 5:03:56 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 5:09:18 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
Information that can be consumed to do something is what we're talking about. Try generating random data in the hope you'll make your own blockbuster MPEG movie, can you do that without intelligence?

Is that a rhetorical question? I'm going to answer it anyway!

Of course you can generate a blockbuster randomly. Just imagine you have a dodgy disc duplicator that introduces random errors. If you make enough copies of copies then with a bit of generation control to backtrack to a previous version eventually you will produce your film.

It wouldn't be a very efficient way to do it, but we aren't talking about producing DVDs that way, we are talking about producing DNA (or living things in general). It's not obvious to me that it is impossible to generate DNA or living thing 'randomly' (assisted by natural selection of course) given there are billions of years to work with.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 8:25:03 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 10:21:56 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I said in all MY experiences. Order and structure - Well the string "1010101010101010" has order, it has structure but how much information? Answer, this much: append "10" 8 times, not that much actually.

You could put any sequence of 1s and 0s in place of that and equally reasonably come to either conclusion.

No that's simply false - a random sequence cannot be represented that way, the sequence as-is, is the best you can do.

No, you really could. Why do you think it impossible? What rule prevents it?

Kolmogorov complexity prevents it.

Kolmogorov complexity has nothing to do with my point. A 16-bit string can contain any combination of 0s and 1s and still be interpreted as either containing useful information or not. You've moved from information content (meaningful aspects of a data set) to level of complexity (how compressible that data set is). I am talking about the fact that any 16-bit (or any other non-0 length) string can be read in a multiple of ways. The information isn't inherent to the string. There are lots of different ways we can read it. Depending on the rule(s) we approach it with, we may find it to either be meaningful or not even when reading the same sequence of 0s and 1s.

As a complete tangent, Kolmogorov complexity does have a vague tie an argument that I think could be used to leave the door open to rational, non-evidence-based, faith in an unspecified deity. It has nothing to do with ID though and there are a few other caveats attached.

No it doesn't. You assert that it does but that's not very convincing for me. It flies in the face of reality, doesn't this concern you?

It is entirely consistent with axiomatically proven mathematics. So now you're arguing with maths. At what point will you start to question why that is? There are countless proofs, papers, examples and demonstrations of it. So I think you'll need to reassess whose argument flies in the face of reality.

I'd like you to direct me to the mathematical arguments that prove vast amounts of order arise out of chaos.

Can arise out of chaos. Or even good old fashioned randomness. Given a large enough set of data, patterns will start to appear. Take Pi, for example; any suitably large chunk of it will contain patterns. The larger the chunk, the more patterns you'll find and the greater their potential complexity.

So unless you're aware of a mathematical proof that forbids patterns emerging from chaotic systems or just large random data sets, I'd like you to acknowledge my point here. My reference to "proofs, papers, examples and demonstrations" was the validity of mathematics as a whole and the enormous stupidity of your arguing with such a monolithic entity.

Random data is data produced by a non-deterministic process.

Er... so supernatural processes??

Do you disagree with my answer?

I'm a hard determinist, so take a swing at an answer.

I am very very skeptical of these claims that design can arise out of chaos. My personal experience is that this does not and cannot happen.

Order. Not design. We know - as a mathematical proof - that order emerges from chaotic systems. For a fact.

Can you elaborate?

See my previous point about the digits of Pi. A slightly different (since we seem to be hopping between 'chaotic' and 'random' here) would be fractal self-similarity emerging from recursive functions in complex systems.

No, I've studied them quite carefully. I assert no entities in my explanation beyond mathematics and the existence of the natural world. That's far more minimalist than your view, which proposes an additional, more complex element. So of the two of us, I am the more skeptical. I've not chosen to believe anything, nor do I claim special knowledge of transcendent reality.

Well I recently read God's Undertaker by Prof. John Lennox, he is somewhat knowledgable about mathematics, have you read his book? it's not very long, perhaps he too is reasoning very badly?

https://www.theguardian.com...

That's smashing, but not really relevant - I assume you're jumping on the parsimony link? Just FYI, I distance myself from the likes of Dawkins et al for some of the same reasons. He's may be a brilliant biologist, but he's an absolute spud when it comes to philosophy and theology. I don't actually think that science and religion are at loggerheads at all and I never have done.

Lennox is entitled to his argument from incredulity, but until he presents an argument that the universe could not exist without a god, he's just punting a guess like the rest of us. We simply don't know the conditions - if any - from which to begin calculating the odds of it happening 'without design'. If he wants to believe on faith then that's fine. My argument is with intellectually dishonest arguments such as Dembski's mangled misrepresentation of others' work.

But yes, to an extent it does sound like he's reasoning badly on this. Why do you think he can describe unknown conditions and their impact on the odds of an at-best partially understood event occurring better than any of the rest of us? Argument from authority? Personal credulity and confirmation bias? He doesn't and can't. Nor can you. Nor can I. However, I freely admit it while you claim some privy wisdom on the matter and seem to be extending it to Lennox. Why is that?
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 1:15:34 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 10:13:14 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/31/2016 6:25:44 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/31/2016 5:11:05 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/30/2016 10:50:55 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/30/2016 8:17:15 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I've been reading about the details of how DNA is used to eventually manufacture proteins and doing some rudimentary programming experiments to help me understand it better.

As I explore this the more impressive it all looks, and I can now see that DNA is not "just" a means for encoding protein molecules' structure.

It turns out a gene (the representation of a specific protein, delimited by a STOP codon) actually consists of three different (data) structures, the coding, non-coding and the regulatory sequences.

While the coding sequence describes the amino acid sequence for a protein the regulatory part actually influences when, where and how much protein to produce.

There are also things called "enhancers" existing at various place within a gene.

These it seems provide conditional functionality that control transcription speed as well as being conditional on other factors.

Writing exploratory code (in a functional language) is conveying more and more how this is incredible evidence of design, everything I'm reading looks like design, it has a huge amount in common with human crafted information based systems.

I can't hear you over the sound of how circular your argument is.

Try taking your fingers out of your ears.

Let me get this right.

I'll try to help as best I can.

Despite everyone pointing out that the basis for your assertions of intelligence or design are grounded in arbitrary, undemonstrable, unprovable conjecture for which you used inappropriate analogies and arguing that as there are similarities between two things they must for some reason share the same cause.

Despite your inability to actually justify, argue or provide any meaningful explanation of what properties or features of something allows you to definitively constitute it's cause was intelligent and instead your root justification for pretty much everything is "well, it's obvious, isn't it?"

And despite me repeatedly explaining all these things to you explaining why your position and argument is inherently flawed and circular; only to simply be met with the same sort of regurgitated assertion that seems to be the way you function here....

I am the one who has to take my fingers out of my ears?


Seriously Harry; if you didn't invoke "It's obvious" as an argument, or you chose not to use "X is like A in some ways, therefore X is A" as an argument; you would have no argument at all.

That should speak volumes.

In fact prior to this post all you posted in response to my first post was:

"I can't hear you over the sound of how circular your argument is."

This is the sum total of "explaining" you've done in this thread so far. If you take issue with anything I said in post #1 then all you need do is address what I said and state what you disagree with and why.

So read post # 1 again and comment upon what I wrote not what you think I wrote, what you want to pretend I wrote and so on.

You've done this before, Harry; in that you have pretended as if the posts and threads you have made in the past have little or no relevance to a new post you've made.

You may act as if this is a totally different thread; but it's really just an identical premise, massaged a little to the previous threads you have made and are currently at the top of this forum.

Like it or not, your positions on things, and the trends in your arguments are represented by the things you say; and they don't magically disappear if you create a new thread to make the same argument.

Hence, in all these other threads, you have outlined your position in detail, and it's flawed and circular, and it's been pointed out. Now, you're simply creating a new thread on the same premise, and I'm pointing that out.

You're not 3 years old; just because you don't see your previous arguments and previous positions do not mean they don't exist, especially if you made them, over the last couple of days.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 2:15:41 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 9:12:50 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
Information is simply a term we use to describe certain types of patterns; i.e. that display a sufficient degree of consistence in terms of syntax as to allow us to assign meanings to them. It isn't a magical property that things are imbued with.

Information is a metaphysical concept. "Do you have any information about our new boss?" Everybody that doesn't have some axe to grind knows what information is, at a general level.

"Information theory" is the science of transmitting information using some finite set of discrete symbols. So that's where pattern comes in, though there's not a one-to-one correlation there (pattern may not be at all obvious in compressed or encrypted information)

So all that is to say - information never arises from the medium. It must, by definition, be applied by some external agent. So when the evolutionist talks about information, he must say that DNA contains something that looks like information, but isn't really. The term information is often used metaphorically, or as a shorthand for the code itself, but information proper is, and must be, a metaphysical concept.
This space for rent.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 2:22:02 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 2:15:41 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/30/2016 9:12:50 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
Information is simply a term we use to describe certain types of patterns; i.e. that display a sufficient degree of consistence in terms of syntax as to allow us to assign meanings to them. It isn't a magical property that things are imbued with.

Information is a metaphysical concept. "Do you have any information about our new boss?" Everybody that doesn't have some axe to grind knows what information is, at a general level.

Does it seem likely to you that I'm referring to the colloquial use you give here? No? Good. So it being obvious what a non-technical use of the word might look like is thoroughly irrelevant.

"Information theory" is the science of transmitting information using some finite set of discrete symbols. So that's where pattern comes in, though there's not a one-to-one correlation there (pattern may not be at all obvious in compressed or encrypted information)

Yes, the technical use of the term is different. Thanks for highlighting the irrelevance of your previous comment.


So all that is to say - information never arises from the medium. It must, by definition, be applied by some external agent. So when the evolutionist talks about information, he must say that DNA contains something that looks like information, but isn't really. The term information is often used metaphorically, or as a shorthand for the code itself, but information proper is, and must be, a metaphysical concept.

Whilst I disagree with the specific use of "metaphysical", I'm otherwise pleased to see you seem to have understood my comments well enough to repeat them back to me with slightly different wording. Very well done you!
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 2:31:24 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 5:03:56 AM, keithprosser wrote:
At 10/31/2016 5:09:18 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
Information that can be consumed to do something is what we're talking about. Try generating random data in the hope you'll make your own blockbuster MPEG movie, can you do that without intelligence?

Is that a rhetorical question? I'm going to answer it anyway!

Of course you can generate a blockbuster randomly. Just imagine you have a dodgy disc duplicator that introduces random errors. If you make enough copies of copies then with a bit of generation control to backtrack to a previous version eventually you will produce your film.


Really? You seriously think this could actually happen? Forget 'dodgy disc duplicator', do file copies. This can be tested fairly easily. Take an mpeg file and copy it repeatedly while using /dev/random to pick a random bit or bits to invert during each copy. I'll tell you what will happen - you may get a few copies with sparkles in them, but most likely macroblocks (8x8 squares) will drop out, like you see when you get a rainstorm with satellite TV. Quite quickly, and maybe with the first copy, you will damage the mpeg framing and the file won't play at all. This will definitely happen before long, and the more copies you make the more certain you can be that you have a pile of junk - a completely useless file.

You will NEVER get a new scene from a new blockbuster out of it. Not in 4.5525 Billion years. I'll bet my house on it.

And if you now would like to introduce intelligence so you insure that copies continue to be valid mpeg files - still not going to get you anywhere. You'll probably produce some simulation of old fashioned TVs that couldn't get a signal. something like that. No, I've gotta think even you realize that a valid movie scene can ONLY come from intelligent design. No amount of time and random processing power could ever do the job, because that's just no what random processes do. Diffusion, collapse, [go into] solution, melt , freeze - we know what random processes do.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 2:34:16 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 2:22:02 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 11/1/2016 2:15:41 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/30/2016 9:12:50 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
Information is simply a term we use to describe certain types of patterns; i.e. that display a sufficient degree of consistence in terms of syntax as to allow us to assign meanings to them. It isn't a magical property that things are imbued with.

Information is a metaphysical concept. "Do you have any information about our new boss?" Everybody that doesn't have some axe to grind knows what information is, at a general level.

Does it seem likely to you that I'm referring to the colloquial use you give here? No? Good. So it being obvious what a non-technical use of the word might look like is thoroughly irrelevant.


Nope. Full Stop. Information theory refers to information. Just think about it - what was Bell Labs trying to send over telephone wires if not the stuff that their human customers work with?
This space for rent.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 2:42:15 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 2:34:16 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 11/1/2016 2:22:02 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 11/1/2016 2:15:41 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/30/2016 9:12:50 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
Information is simply a term we use to describe certain types of patterns; i.e. that display a sufficient degree of consistence in terms of syntax as to allow us to assign meanings to them. It isn't a magical property that things are imbued with.

Information is a metaphysical concept. "Do you have any information about our new boss?" Everybody that doesn't have some axe to grind knows what information is, at a general level.

Does it seem likely to you that I'm referring to the colloquial use you give here? No? Good. So it being obvious what a non-technical use of the word might look like is thoroughly irrelevant.


Nope. Full Stop. Information theory refers to information. Just think about it - what was Bell Labs trying to send over telephone wires if not the stuff that their human customers work with?

Equivocation. There are several definitions of "information". Which I'd have expected you to know if you were even 1% as informed as you claim.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 3:15:29 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 2:42:15 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 11/1/2016 2:34:16 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 11/1/2016 2:22:02 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 11/1/2016 2:15:41 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/30/2016 9:12:50 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
Information is simply a term we use to describe certain types of patterns; i.e. that display a sufficient degree of consistence in terms of syntax as to allow us to assign meanings to them. It isn't a magical property that things are imbued with.

Information is a metaphysical concept. "Do you have any information about our new boss?" Everybody that doesn't have some axe to grind knows what information is, at a general level.

Does it seem likely to you that I'm referring to the colloquial use you give here? No? Good. So it being obvious what a non-technical use of the word might look like is thoroughly irrelevant.


Nope. Full Stop. Information theory refers to information. Just think about it - what was Bell Labs trying to send over telephone wires if not the stuff that their human customers work with?

Equivocation. There are several definitions of "information". Which I'd have expected you to know if you were even 1% as informed as you claim.

Ok. I get where you're at, but I'm not trying to put you down or anything like that.
This space for rent.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,584
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 3:18:38 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 5:03:56 AM, keithprosser wrote:
At 10/31/2016 5:09:18 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
Information that can be consumed to do something is what we're talking about. Try generating random data in the hope you'll make your own blockbuster MPEG movie, can you do that without intelligence?

Is that a rhetorical question? I'm going to answer it anyway!

Of course you can generate a blockbuster randomly. Just imagine you have a dodgy disc duplicator that introduces random errors. If you make enough copies of copies then with a bit of generation control to backtrack to a previous version eventually you will produce your film.


How can the generated data be described as random when the input data is already a movie, created by human intelligence?

It wouldn't be a very efficient way to do it, but we aren't talking about producing DVDs that way, we are talking about producing DNA (or living things in general). It's not obvious to me that it is impossible to generate DNA or living thing 'randomly' (assisted by natural selection of course) given there are billions of years to work with.

That's a fair point, and I agree that these things are not obvious, whichever route we go. But I would say that it is not obvious to me how a sophisticated system that really does look like it's been very skillfully designed can arise without any designer.

I used to be a vocal adherent of materialism and evolution until I realized that I was assuming rather a lot. So as I delved in and used my own intellect to try and satisfy myself about these ideas, I thought it would all be rather academic.

But it was not, it was the opposite - fact is nobody can show to my satisfaction that these kinds of system can indeed spontaneously arise from the physical and chemical laws that we understand.

There is just so much faith in those who truly believe in evolution and abiogenesis, this isn't obvious either until one really begins to probe and ask awkward questions and demand concrete evidence.

This whole "science" of life has got to the stage where it's now acceptable to adopt beliefs without concrete evidence, it's no longer seen as diligence to ask probing questions, insist on evidence - no to do so these days is called being a loon, a Bible thumper, it's all very uncivilized.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,584
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 3:37:44 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 8:25:03 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/31/2016 10:21:56 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I said in all MY experiences. Order and structure - Well the string "1010101010101010" has order, it has structure but how much information? Answer, this much: append "10" 8 times, not that much actually.

You could put any sequence of 1s and 0s in place of that and equally reasonably come to either conclusion.

No that's simply false - a random sequence cannot be represented that way, the sequence as-is, is the best you can do.

No, you really could. Why do you think it impossible? What rule prevents it?

Kolmogorov complexity prevents it.

Kolmogorov complexity has nothing to do with my point. A 16-bit string can contain any combination of 0s and 1s and still be interpreted as either containing useful information or not. You've moved from information content (meaningful aspects of a data set) to level of complexity (how compressible that data set is). I am talking about the fact that any 16-bit (or any other non-0 length) string can be read in a multiple of ways. The information isn't inherent to the string. There are lots of different ways we can read it. Depending on the rule(s) we approach it with, we may find it to either be meaningful or not even when reading the same sequence of 0s and 1s.


I said that "1010101010101010" has little information because it can be represented as simply "10" 8 times. You then said that was true irrespective of the sequence and I disagreed and pointed out a random string cant be simplified, you again disagreed and asked why, I then told you about Kolmogorov complexity, reread our discourse if this isn't clear.

The rest of your remark is not something I've contested.

As a complete tangent, Kolmogorov complexity does have a vague tie an argument that I think could be used to leave the door open to rational, non-evidence-based, faith in an unspecified deity. It has nothing to do with ID though and there are a few other caveats attached.


I never said Kolmogorov complexity had anything to do with ID.

No it doesn't. You assert that it does but that's not very convincing for me. It flies in the face of reality, doesn't this concern you?

It is entirely consistent with axiomatically proven mathematics. So now you're arguing with maths. At what point will you start to question why that is? There are countless proofs, papers, examples and demonstrations of it. So I think you'll need to reassess whose argument flies in the face of reality.

I'd like you to direct me to the mathematical arguments that prove vast amounts of order arise out of chaos.

Can arise out of chaos. Or even good old fashioned randomness. Given a large enough set of data, patterns will start to appear. Take Pi, for example; any suitably large chunk of it will contain patterns. The larger the chunk, the more patterns you'll find and the greater their potential complexity.


But the decimal digits representing of Pi are a man made construct, they do not arise from randomness but from the expansion of an infinite sequence using rules of arithmetic, all of this is man made - intelligent.

So unless you're aware of a mathematical proof that forbids patterns emerging from chaotic systems or just large random data sets, I'd like you to acknowledge my point here. My reference to "proofs, papers, examples and demonstrations" was the validity of mathematics as a whole and the enormous stupidity of your arguing with such a monolithic entity.


I've asked you to show me proof (you were the one who mentioned mathematics) that information (e.g DNA code with 3.5 billion base pairs) can spontaneously emerge over time from otherwise inert matter, it seems you cannot.

Random data is data produced by a non-deterministic process.

Er... so supernatural processes??

Do you disagree with my answer?

I'm a hard determinist, so take a swing at an answer.

I am very very skeptical of these claims that design can arise out of chaos. My personal experience is that this does not and cannot happen.

Order. Not design. We know - as a mathematical proof - that order emerges from chaotic systems. For a fact.

Can you elaborate?

See my previous point about the digits of Pi. A slightly different (since we seem to be hopping between 'chaotic' and 'random' here) would be fractal self-similarity emerging from recursive functions in complex systems.


So the complexity of the Mandelbrot set is proof that life (lengthy digital code tables) can emerge out of inert matter? I don't see the connection here.

No, I've studied them quite carefully. I assert no entities in my explanation beyond mathematics and the existence of the natural world. That's far more minimalist than your view, which proposes an additional, more complex element. So of the two of us, I am the more skeptical. I've not chosen to believe anything, nor do I claim special knowledge of transcendent reality.

Well I recently read God's Undertaker by Prof. John Lennox, he is somewhat knowledgable about mathematics, have you read his book? it's not very long, perhaps he too is reasoning very badly?

https://www.theguardian.com...

That's smashing, but not really relevant - I assume you're jumping on the parsimony link? Just FYI, I distance myself from the likes of Dawkins et al for some of the same reasons. He's may be a brilliant biologist, but he's an absolute spud when it comes to philosophy and theology. I don't actually think that science and religion are at loggerheads at all and I never have done.

Lennox is entitled to his argument from incredulity, but until he presents an argument that the universe could not exist without a god, he's just punting a guess like the rest of us.

He does, and unless you make the effort to hear him out I don't see how you can attack his position other than through pre conceived bias.

We simply don't know the conditions - if any - from which to begin calculating the odds of it happening 'without design'. If he wants to believe on faith then that's fine. My argument is with intellectually dishonest arguments such as Dembski's mangled misrepresentation of others' work.


Again you attack his position before you even know what he says!

But yes, to an extent it does sound like he's reasoning badly on this. Why do you think he can describe unknown conditions and their impact on the odds of an at-best partially understood event occurring better than any of the rest of us? Argument from authority? Personal credulity and confirmation bias? He doesn't and can't. Nor can you. Nor can I. However, I freely admit it while you claim some privy wisdom on the matter and seem to be extending it to Lennox. Why is that?

What specifically has he said that you disagree with?
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 3:44:38 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 3:18:38 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 11/1/2016 5:03:56 AM, keithprosser wrote:
At 10/31/2016 5:09:18 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
Information that can be consumed to do something is what we're talking about. Try generating random data in the hope you'll make your own blockbuster MPEG movie, can you do that without intelligence?

Is that a rhetorical question? I'm going to answer it anyway!

Of course you can generate a blockbuster randomly. Just imagine you have a dodgy disc duplicator that introduces random errors. If you make enough copies of copies then with a bit of generation control to backtrack to a previous version eventually you will produce your film.


How can the generated data be described as random when the input data is already a movie, created by human intelligence?


I don't think it matters though. Randomized copies will quickly deteriorate to noise, so you're copying from noise anyway. Starting with a movie doesn't help, in other words. Analogous to the code issue - without a sophisticated copy recipe you can't do any sort of meaningful descent-with-modification. Static data isn't of any use without algorithms that do something with the data.
This space for rent.