Information doesn't exist independent of the physcal machinery that gives rise to it, or holds it as a configuration of physical reality. One can not define the underlying physics out of any instance of reality. Any and every instance of information requires an underlying physical reality to support it. Without that underlying reality to support the instance, there can be no instance.
"In a computer, as information theory shows, the content is manifestly independent of its material substrate. No possible knowledge of a computer’s materials can yield any information whatsoever about the actual content of its computations. In the usual hierarchy of causation, they reflect the software or ‘source code’ used to program the device; and, like the design of the computer itself, the software is contrived by human intelligence.
Information theory relies on a generalized physical machine. You wrote down a diagram of that generalized physical machine, which is required for any and every instance of information to exist. The only independence there is here, is from any particular instance(s) of the underlying supporting physical machinery.
Note there's no point in mentioning that an examination of the computer's materials won't allow one to uncover any instance of information. The physical machinery of the computer can be examined though, and any instance of information that exists on it uncovered. The same goes for the machinery of mind that created the computer and any instantiaiton of software that exists, because of either machine.
"The failure of purely physical theories to describe or explain information reflects Shannon’s concept of entropy and his measure of ‘news.’
Physical theory covers the required underly pohysics of the machinery that makes possible any and every instance of information. Without the underlying physics, there can be no information.
"Information is defined by its independence from physical determination: If it is determined, it is predictable and thus by definition not information."
Reality can't be defined out of reality. If information is determined, it's simply determined. That says nothing about predictability.
" Yet Darwinian science seemed to be reducing all nature to material causes.” — George Gilder, “Evolution and Me,” National Review, July 17, 2006, p. 29f. "
The particulars of Biology covers the function, appearence and development of the physical machinery of the various organisms. All that's needed to know and understand Biology is contained in the underlying physics.
[[” Information is further defined by its independence from physical determination:
Information doesn’t exist independent of the physcal machinery that gives rise to it,]]
That’s not what is being stated- it is beign stated that info exists independent of outside determinations- it exists without being acted upon
[[”The failure of purely physical theories to describe or explain information reflects Shannon’s concept of entropy and his measure of ‘news.”
Physical theory covers the required underly pohysics of the machinery that makes possible any and every instance of information. Without the underlying physics, there can be no information.]]
Again, it is NOT the contqianment issue the statements refer to- the containment doesn’t act upon the information- it simply contains it- it takes outside infromaiton acting upon contained info to activate that info- Nature can not explain how either info can arise however, and htis is the cenrtral issue- not whether there needs to be a containment or not.
[[All that’s needed to know and understand Biology is contained in the underlying physics.]]
That’s a fien and noble undertaking, but it doesn’t explain how info can arise- especially hte metainfo being discussed.
So, what are you yelling at me about, spunketts??? I thought I made it very clear that I think life has a physical basis, or it couldn't exist in this world.
The problem is, however, that the information at the level of physics and chemistry cannot account for life. That's the Level (iii) "hit the wall" problem in a nutshell, right there.
It is the action, the reduction of uncertainty. It is not the message to be sent or the information content in the channel or the information content of noise in the channel or the message received.
For example, the data recorded on one's hard drive is not information under Shannon - it is merely information content, a message received or to be sent. Ditto for a file cabinet full of records or any record in the file cabinet. Ditto for things you have on your mind before you pick up the phone to call someone.
Like the DNA remains of a deceased person is inactive, the data recorded on one's hard drive does not become "information" until it has been communicated, reducing the Shannon entropy of the receiver.
Over the years, in casual conversation, "information" has developed a very broad meaning and is thrown around in our discussions here as if it is equivalent to the information content or message itself. And that can cause a great deal of confusion.
Or to put it another way, one risks looking at an element of the model and thinking he is talking about the model itself when he is not.