In the Beginning was Information: Three Kinds of Transmitted Information (Ch 8)

AiG ^ | April 16, 2009 | Dr. Werner Gitt

[GodGunsGuts]

Conclusions: It should now be clear where the follies of evolutionary views lie. If someone presents a model for explaining the origin of life, but he cannot say where the creative information characteristic of all life-forms came from, then the crucial question remains unanswered. Somebody who looks for the origin of information only in physical matter ignores the fundamental natural laws about information; what is more, he scorns them. It is clear from the history of science that one can ignore the laws of nature for a limited time only...

[GodGunsGuts]

For those who missed Chapters 1-7 of this absolutely fascinating series see:

Chapter 1: Preliminary Remarks about the Concept of Information

Chapter 2: Principles of Laws of Nature

Chapter 3: Information Is a Fundamental Entity

Chapter 4: The Five Levels of the Information Concept

Chapter 5: Delineation of the Information Concept

Chapter 6: Information in Living Organisms

Chapter 7: The Three Forms in which Information Appears

(stay tuned for Chapter 9)

 

[GodGunsGuts]

Ping!

[tumblindice]

The answer to all your questions can be found in Olivia Newton John’s song (from the album of the same name):
‘Let’s Get Metaphysical’

[LiteKeeper]

Thanks for posting this. This has been my favorite book for several years. I had the distinct privilege of having lunch with Dr Gitt several years ago...and yes we discussed this book.

I considered it the silver bullet that stops evolution in its tracks!!!

[GodGunsGuts]

I tend to agree. I haven’t read the book as deeply as I would like, but what I have been able to digest so far is DEVASTATING to evolution.

[LiteKeeper]

If you go back to the web site, there is a link for videos. Dr Gitt gives about a 53 minute video summary of this book...great stuff! And fun to hear the author present his own material!!

[windcliff]

Bump

[DevNet]

Errors in Werner Gitt’s work with Information Theory

http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/gitt/

[AndrewC]

Errors in Werner Gitt’s work with Information Theory

Yeah, right. Here is the final point in that article.

• 6. No information chain can exist without a mental origin.

This is demonstrated to be incorrect by the Ev program.

Yeah, and the EV program wrote itself.

[DevNet]

Any comments about the rest of that article?

[GodGunsGuts]

LOL!

[LiteKeeper]

Try chewing on Einstein's Gulf

[AndrewC]

Well, yes. But when links link to more links, it becomes time consuming to check out the information(no pun intended). Here the author admits to commenting without reading.

When I first wrote this page (2005 May 5) I had not read it, but noted that the comments at Amazon indicate that it is full of holes.

Over a year later, he admits he still hadn't read it.

A quick glance through indicates that it is indeed really seriously full of holes. I'll report on them later.

Next he attacks an observation made by Gitt as a mistake. He did not read the word "paradoxically".(or he misinterpreted it)

• Yes, paradoxical though it may sound, considered from the point of view of information theory, a random sequence of letters possesses the maximum information content, whereas a text of equal length, although linguistically meaningful, is assigned a lower value.

Here Gitt falls into a standard misunderstanding Information Is Not Entropy, Information Is Not Uncertainty! That is, he forgets to subtract.

Well, the author accepts this unfounded and unsupported definition of "information" from the link he includes as support.

Information is always a measure of the decrease of uncertainty at a receiver (or molecular machine).

Who says so? First what is a receiver? I assume the author uses Shannon's definition of uncertainly but that implies a standard to which something is compared in order to generate the uncertainty(Shannon does so, but by definition that does involve a mental origin.)

Furthermore, the author is quite a bit picky since he used the above defintion as a "disproof" of Gitt and in, figuratively, the next breath criticizes Gitt for:

This is a definition, not a theorem. Gitt does not prove it.

[GodGunsGuts]

The more I look into theorems, the more it appears that Dr. Gitt is using them correctly within his field of science. From Wikipedia:

‘There are also “theorems” in science, particularly physics, and in engineering, but they often have statements and proofs in which physical assumptions and intuition play an important role; the physical axioms on which such “theorems” are based are themselves falsifiable.’

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theorem

[GodGunsGuts]

Excellent!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[oldmanreedy]

And the creationist Illiad of unreason nudges one step closer to completion.

You know, I have yet to see you engage any of the substantive criticisms of this tripe. If you care to refresh your memory, here is mine. DevNet's link is also pretty devastating.

So are you ever going to defend your postings, or are you content to remain an intellectual coward?

[LiteKeeper]

It is interesting to me that contributors to this forum consider themselves more qualified to discuss information theory than a German engineering professor emeritus who has spent a good part of his career researching it.