Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Information Is a Fundamental Entity (does it = nonmaterial foundation for all biological systems?)
AiG ^ | Dr. Werner Gitt

Posted on 03/12/2009 12:23:35 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts

3.1 Information: A Fundamental Quantity

The trail-blazing discoveries about the nature of energy in the 19th century caused the first technological revolution, when manual labor was replaced on a large scale by technological appliances—machines which could convert energy. In the same way, knowledge concerning the nature of information in our time initiated the second technological revolution where mental “labor” is saved through the use of technological appliances—namely, data processing machines. The concept “information” is not only of prime importance for informatics theories and communication techniques, but it is a fundamental quantity in such wide-ranging sciences as cybernetics, linguistics, biology, history, and theology. Many scientists, therefore, justly regard information as the third fundamental entity alongside matter and energy.

Claude E. Shannon was the first researcher who tried to define information mathematically. The theory based on his findings had the advantages that different methods of communication could be compared and that their performance could be evaluated. In addition, the introduction of the bit as a unit of information made it possible to describe the storage requirements of information quantitatively. The main disadvantage of Shannon’s definition of information is that the actual contents and impact of messages were not investigated. Shannon’s theory of information, which describes information from a statistical viewpoint only, is discussed fully in the appendix (chapter A1).

The true nature of information will be discussed in detail in the following chapters, and statements will be made about information and the laws of nature. After a thorough analysis of the information concept, it will be shown that the fundamental theorems can be applied to all technological and biological systems and also to all communication systems, including such diverse forms as the gyrations of bees and the message of the Bible. There is only one prerequisite—namely...

(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: claudeeshannon; creation; define; ernstvonweizscker; evolution; fundamental; information; intelligentdesign; karlsteinbuch; nature; shannon; theorem; theory; warrenweaver

1 posted on 03/12/2009 12:23:35 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: metmom; DaveLoneRanger; editor-surveyor; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; MrB; GourmetDan; Fichori; ...

ping!


2 posted on 03/12/2009 12:24:29 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Thanks for the ping!


3 posted on 03/12/2009 12:25:52 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: All

For those interested in following this series on the concept of information, part I and part II follow:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/itbwi/preliminary-remarks-concept-information

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/itbwi/preliminary-remarks-concept-information


4 posted on 03/12/2009 12:32:22 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Information is an objectively real but non-material entity (thus disproving the notion that only matter/energy exists). Information can be stored in a matter/energy medium, but it is not the medium itself. Otherwise it would require a nuclear reaction (along the lines of E=mc^2) every time you read a book, to transfer the information from the ink on the page into light photons and on into your neurons!

Since information is not a property of the energy/matter it rides on, naturalistic theories for the origin of information will inevitably fail. Thus, for example, you will never account for the information in a book by studying the laws of chemistry and physics that affect ink and paper. Such laws can explain the presence of patterns of ink blots (for example, dripping from a quill pen at a certain height and splashing on paper below it), but they will utterly fail to explain a sentence in an independently existing pre-specified language.

5 posted on 03/12/2009 12:43:02 PM PDT by Liberty1970 (Democrats are not in control. God is. And Thank God for that!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

This comes from one of my favorite books. I had the privilege of having lunch with the author a couple of years ago. What a wonderful man...and a fantastic book!


6 posted on 03/12/2009 12:48:29 PM PDT by LiteKeeper (Beware of socialism in America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Ooops, double posted the same link. Here goes again...

For those interested in following this series on the concept of information, part I and part II follow:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/itbwi/preliminary-remarks-concept-information

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/itbwi/principles-of-laws-of-nature


7 posted on 03/12/2009 12:49:33 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Liberty1970; LiteKeeper

Excellent reply. Which just goes to show that reductionistic material science falls woefully short of explaining the informational foundation of biological systems.


8 posted on 03/12/2009 12:59:55 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Liberty1970
"Information is an objectively real but non-material entity (thus disproving the notion that only matter/energy exists)."

Ridiculous! You can not make a conclusion from a statement.

"Information can be stored in a matter/energy medium, but it is not the medium itself."

The storage is a configuration of energy. It's the configuration that has effect. Without any configuration of energy, there is nothing.

"Otherwise it would require a nuclear reaction (along the lines of E=mc^2) every time you read a book, to transfer the information from the ink on the page into light photons and on into your neurons!"

The whole process involves E=mc2. All elements of the process involve energy expendatures which are reductions in mass.

"Since information is not a property of the energy/matter it rides on, naturalistic theories for the origin of information will inevitably fail."

Information requires particular energy configurations, without which there is nothing.

9 posted on 03/12/2009 1:53:08 PM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: spunkets

What you seem to be missing is the origin of the information. It is not derived from matter...it is not a property of matter. It can only originate in a Mind. Period!


10 posted on 03/12/2009 3:13:01 PM PDT by LiteKeeper (Beware of socialism in America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper
"What you seem to be missing is the origin of the information."

Origin doesn't matter. If there's no physical representation at any point, then there's nothing to distinguish any particulars at all. IOWs, there's nothing there w/o the configuration in some physics.

"It can only originate in a Mind."

A mind is a machine that requires some physics to be realized.

11 posted on 03/12/2009 3:31:08 PM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: spunkets

You have a very interesting worldview!


12 posted on 03/12/2009 4:00:37 PM PDT by LiteKeeper (Beware of socialism in America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper
Information is material, sorry to tell you..

Basically, our brain is designed mainly to pick patterns out of signal noise. This is why we see faces in trees/rocks/colored moths.. because our brain realizes the pattern and diverts our attention to them. Our brain can be scanned to find out what we are looking at.. There is even a new video game controller that rests on your head and uses your thinking power to move a video game!
Information does not exist independently of the mind unless it is recorded, and even then, if the reader of the information has no knowledge of the script used to write it, now then they have no knowledge of the information written!


From a science article:

"Kamitani starts by getting someone to look at a selection of images made up of black and white squares on a 10 by 10 square grid, while having their brain scanned. Software then finds patterns in brain activity that correspond to certain pixels being blacked out. It uses this to record a signature pattern of brain activity for each pixel.The person then sits in the scanner and is shown fresh patterns. Another piece of software then matches these against the list to reconstruct the pixels on a 10 by 10 grid.
The quality of images that were recreated is quite crude. However, the word "neuron" and several numbers and shapes that people were indeed being shown (see image, top right) could be observed in the reconstructed images. It is an important proof of principle, says Haynes.
As fMRI technology improves, Kamitani adds that an image could potentially be split into many more pixels, producing much higher quality images, and even colour images."


Try to explain the color blue to a blind person who has never seen color and then tell me thought exists independently of the brain! We use our senses and language (one of the greatest gifts from God himself) to put meaning (or a reference of a memory, much like a computer pointer) to thought. Without a way to record a thought, it is meaningless to anyone but you. Period.

If information was immaterial, according to what that article says, people would retain it even if they receive massive non-fatal head trauma.. right?
13 posted on 03/12/2009 11:20:04 PM PDT by leonid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper
One thing I forgot, Every word we know is a symbol.. When we read, we just look at the word shape. We can sound the words out because we know what each individual letter should sound like because we memorized those letters as symbols.
The only things we know to be true are what our body tells us.. And even sometimes, it can go whacky (nerve problems, etc..). Thanks to our sensory organs and electromagnetic energy (light)/mass (pressed wood fibers and black ink in a book) sound propagation, braille, et.. we can convey information to other people in many different ways

There have been quite a few feral children found in remote areas that live with animals and no know language. I don't know about you, but when I think in my head, I am talking in English! I cannot imagine a thought without language, can you? These feral children think things like "I need food" or "I'm tired" because all they know is what their body is telling them. They can't make logical deductions because formal logic is mediated through language. When programmers write programs, they think of logical structuring in English and sometimes even think in the programming language they're using (with English words of course!).. Just something to think about :)
14 posted on 03/12/2009 11:29:01 PM PDT by leonid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: leonid
I don't know about you, but when I think in my head, I am talking in English!

Even with you, I'm sure there are exceptions to this rule.

I cannot imagine a thought without language, can you?

Yes.

These feral children think things like "I need food" or "I'm tired" because all they know is what their body is telling them. They can't make logical deductions because formal logic is mediated through language.

Language is not required to make logical deductions or even to use formal logic. Even animals make some logical deductions. A feral child of sufficient age who is hungry is still likely to be able to make some logical plans on how to obtain food.

15 posted on 03/12/2009 11:47:44 PM PDT by wideminded
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

I get the feeling that I may be responsible for this post.
:-D


16 posted on 03/13/2009 12:02:56 AM PDT by oldmanreedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
"The main disadvantage of Shannon’s definition of information is that the actual contents and impact of messages were not investigated."

Totally wrong and insane. This is the main advantage of Shannon's mathematical formalism: it applies to any 'message' that meets its hypotheses, regardless of content.

Since the concept of information is so complex that it cannot be defined in one statement...We will formulate various special theorems which will gradually reveal more information about the “nature” of information, until we eventually arrive at a precise definition..."

hahahahahha, you're going to prove theorems about something before defining it? Does this joker even know what a theorem is?

"Ernst von Weizsäcker [W3]: “The reason for the ‘uselessness’ of Shannon’s theory in the different sciences is frankly that no science can limit itself to its syntactic level."

This is either insane or hideously out of context. So Shannon's noisy channel coding theorem is useless, huh? I tried to find the cite for this, but I don't think Doc Werner Gitt has given it. Can you find it for me GGG?

"Theorem 1: The fundamental quantity information is a non-material (mental) entity. It is not a property of matter, so that purely material processes are fundamentally precluded as sources of information."

Okay, this answers my earlier question: clearly this guy has no idea what a theorem is. THIS IS NOT A THEOREM. It's a vague assertion about completely undefined concepts ('non-material', 'entity', 'property of matter', etc), backed up by nothing more than a few (unsourced?) quotes.

"What is the causative factor for the existence of information? What prompts us to write a letter, a postcard, a note of felicitation, a diary, or a comment in a file? The most important prerequisite is our own volition, or that of a supervisor. In analogy to the material side, we now introduce a fourth fundamental entity, namely “will” (volition), W."

Well this sure sounds scientific! As a Jew, Germans talking about 'will' makes me kinda nervous. Is he going to start talking about the Volk next?

"Information and volition are closely linked, but this relationship cannot be expressed in a formula because both are of a nonmaterial (mental, intellectual, spiritual) nature."

So 'information', which he hasn't defined, and 'volition', which he also hasn't defined, are 'closely linked'. He provides zero proof for this assertion, zero explanation of what 'linked' means, and zero explanation of what 'closely linked' means as opposed to 'weakly' or 'loosely' linked. And then he concludes this nonsensical relationship between two nebulous concepts that exist mostly in his imagination can't be written down as a formula? Surprising, that.

Based on the preceding hippy stew of made-up concepts, baseless assertions, and unnervingly Nazi-like mysticism, Dr. Walnut concludes:

"Theorem 2: Information only arises through an intentional, volitional act."

I call him Dr. Walnut because I like to imagine 'Werner' means 'walnut' in German, and because I've concluded he is a complete nutcase. The following words in this 'theorem' are undefined by Doc Walnut: 'information', 'intentional', 'volitional', 'act'. Since there are only eight total words in the 'theorem', this yields a nonsense-word-to-sensible-word ratio of 1 : 1. In other words, I have mathematically proven that at least 50 percent of this sentence is total bull.

Oh yeah, and this is still NOT A THEOREM. Did Doc Walnut's dementia set in gradually, or is there some doctorate-granting institution in Germany that should be really, really ashamed of itself?

"Theorem 3: Information comprises the nonmaterial foundation for all technological systems and for all works of art."

STILL NOT A THEOREM, HERR DOKTOR. Just in case anyone is curious for a comparison here is what a real theorem looks like. Here's another. Notice how both of those theorems carefully define their terms, express their assertions in compact, precise mathematical language, and provide a clear, logical proof. Notice how Doc Walnut's 'theorems' do none of this.

Summary: This is rambling mystical hokum intended for the mental defective or the easily duped, and a moments' consultation of any vaguely authoritative source on information theory will establish the intergalactic gulf between the actual mathematics contained therein and Doc Walnut's vague mumblings. Is this really the best AiG can do? It has lowered my already incredibly low opinion of their standards.

17 posted on 03/13/2009 1:23:18 AM PDT by oldmanreedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: leonid

Information is immaterial, but requires codes/symbols which consist of matter to transmit. I can get the same “information” listening to an audio book as I can reading the book on paper...same information, different matter. If the information was a property of the matter, that would be impossible!


18 posted on 03/13/2009 9:03:41 AM PDT by LiteKeeper (Beware of socialism in America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper

Thanks.


19 posted on 03/13/2009 7:26:11 PM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson