Posted on 03/22/2009 4:12:55 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
In the Beginning was Information: The Five Levels of the Information Concept
...
Because of the philosophical bias, both information and life itself are regarded as purely material phenomena in the evolutionary view. The origin and the nature of life is reduced to physical-chemical causes. In the words of Jean B. de Lamarck (1744–1829), “Life is merely a physical phenomenon. All manifestations of life are based on mechanical, physical, and chemical causes, being properties of organic matter” (Philosophie Zoologique, Paris, 1809, Vol. 1, p. 104 f). The German evolutionist Manfred Eigen expressed a similar view [E2, p. 149]: “The logic of life originates in physics and chemistry.” His pupil, Bernd-Olaf Küppers, paved the way for molecular Darwinism, but the present author has already responded to this materialistic view [G14, p. 90–92]. All such ideas have in common that biological facts are interwoven with subjective representations which cannot be justified scientifically. The information theorems formulated in this book, should enable the reader to distinguish between truth and folly...
(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...
Chapter 1: Preliminary Remarks about the Concept of Information
Chapter 2: Principles of Laws of Nature
Chapter 3: Preliminary Remarks about the Concept of Information
John 1:1 - 5
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
Yep, that verse pretty much sums it up!
Does this mean that God was the first IT manager?
Something like that...After all, we are made in HIS image :o)
Do we have standard measure for a unit of information yet?
It delves into measurement a bit. You should read the OP, as his levels and theorems are truly fascinating!
For those who missed Chapters 1-3 of this series see: (stay tuned for Chapter 5)
Chapter 1: Preliminary Remarks about the Concept of Information
Thanks for the ping!
Hope you two will check this one out. All the best—GGG
bfl
GodGunsGuts, I'm surprised you've got the sand to post this, after I the shellacking I gave this poor Deustschman last time. Got any answers to my criticisms, or are you just gonna keep your head in the sand and pretend you've got science on your side?
If I work up the energy, I may ravage this current chapter of Dr. Walnut's scientific incompetence as magnificently as I did the previous chapter. Yet I almost feel remorse, as though I thrashed a child, for based on the dense brick of anti-erudition this article presents I have concluded that Dr. Gitt might be non compos mentis. He really seriously honest-to-God has no idea what he's talking about.
I got as far as his declaration of anything involving TOE as being entirely subjective, and the pronouncement that his theorums would lead the reader to “the truth”.
But they are just THEORIES!!!
I remember a distinction between data and information from school. If I remember right, information is data that is meaningfully arrayed. It was something like that. Meaning is in someone's mind. It is not in the object that is contemplated. This jibes with the chapter 3.2 heading "Information: A Material or a Mental Quantity."
These articles are intelligently written and deserve everyone's respect. Of course, that does not mean that everyone has to agree.
The articles receive a knee-jerk adverse reaction from some people. I think this stems from some commandment to exclude anything that might possibly have a religious element from "science." This makes sense for atheists. Many theists have been talked into the notion that they must adopt this absurd edict as well. Excluding religion from science is just another instance of excluding religion and religious influence.
Good science may be compatible with many world views. The Christian world view is very compatible with good science. Historically, Christian civilization provided the foundation for science.
I think a lot of junk science stems from an atheistic (sometimes Marxist) world view that does not value truth highly. To some "rational" individuals truth can be a hindrance. It can be inconvenient. They might even acknowledge the idea of "inconvenient truths," when faulting others. Truth may have to give way to some "higher morality" (like winning). Truth is often disparaged with scare quotes as in "absolute truth" or "The truth."
Christians (and Jews) have a commandment against lying and believe truth is a good thing. Those who think science and other endeavors (reporting, justice) are a noble quest for truth should see a friendly influence in Christianity, and perhaps some other religions.
"Forbiden Archeology" is a book written by two Hari Krishnans. They freely admit their prejudices in their preface, but rightly say that it has nothing to do with their arguments. The reasons they provide and the evidence they present stand on their own merits. I don't share their religious views, but I agree completely. It is my experience that the people who are most inclined to judge sources (individuals) and motives over reason and fact are liberals. Whether they realize it or not, I think they get this mental habit from Marxism.
I think it is perfectly natural for a Christian to want a unitary world view that incorporates their religion, internal experiences (self-consciousness, free will, moral sense, reason), and observations made of the external world. They should view any truncation of this list as self-limiting and incomplete.
I rejected Freudian psychology many years ago. I did so because I thought it inadequate, not for religious reasons. However, it strikes me that I might have rejected it sooner had I done so for religious reasons.
I reject socialism also. There have been many tomes written for and against socialism. I think the evidence is clear that is does not work well. Free market economists provide many good, but abstract, reasons why socialism should not work well.
The clearest and quickest rejection of socialism may come from religion. Socialism always gets support from those who covet the wealth of others. Socialsim is an ideology of theft. Simply remembering and applying two of the ten commandments would stop socialism in its tracks. By the way, there is no commandment against "greed."
I am very open to the idea that Christianity can provide a short cut to reject bad ideas. However, there is also great benefit to the long cut of of evaluating reason and evidence, that is thinking critically and scientifically. For a common audience (and for me), the short cut cannot be used to dispense with the long cut. I think science and Christian religion complement one another. The notion that they are at war with each other is a fallacy advanced by the left.
I should acknowledge what I believe to be another error. Some Christians advance a bible quote with the attitude "case closed." One problem with this is that the bible is a long document. Dueling bible prosecutors could conceivably cite different passages to make arguments for or against a proposition. This might be interesting. But I think it makes the point that one citation may not be sufficient by itself. Also, many quoted passages have a context that can be easily forgotten. I'm not rejecting the bible. I merely pointing out that care should be taken here, just as one one must take care in reasoning, or gathering and evaluating real world evidence. Also, I think that God gave us reasoning ability and powers of observation, so that we could use these gifts among others (for example, a sense of right and wrong, good judgment, a modicum of humility).
Again, thanks for the post. They are always mentally stimulating. They have the potential of enhancing our understanding and wisdom.
Man, if you feel like criticizing me at least have the sack to call me out by name and ping me.
Better yet, you could actually read the piece of nonsense you’re defending, and then actually read my linked reply. Then you could make real grown-up specific criticisms.
Failing those two conditions, and given that you’ve admitted you have essentially no background in information theory, maybe you could remain silent in hopes of not looking the fool, hey?
I pretty much ignored your post.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.