???
Figure 17
- All squares have 4 sides of equal length and 4 equal interior angles.
- Figure 17 does NOT have 4 sides of equal length, nor 4 equal interior angles.
- Therefore, Figure 17 is NOT a square.
Posted on 04/02/2009 7:05:41 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Information in Living Organisms
Theorem 28: There is no known law of nature, no known process, and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter...
(for remainder, click link below)
(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...
PS I’m still failing to see what is bothering you about Dr. Gitt et al wanting to take Information Theory into what constitutes the meaning of the message. Is there some other theory that depends on Dr. Shannon’s information theory that is being threatened by Dr. Gitt’s work?
==Indeed, he does it again to Manfred Eigen declaring his work useless because it does not consider what he wants it to consider.
Dr. Gitt was simply quoting other authorities to demonstrate where he thinks Dr. Shannon’s theory comes up short. He did, btw, credit Dr. Shannon with the following:
“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.”
But then Dr. Gitt goes on to explain the disadvantages of Dr. Shannon’s theory:
“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).”
In other words, in Gitt’s opinion, Shannon’s theory is a start, but there are many aspects of information that his theory does not explain, which is precisely what Gitt attempts to do in his book. I view such attempts as a positive development.
Likewise, pi is universal - the size and composition of the circle has no bearing on the formula. Complaints that it should would discredit anything else the speaker might have to say about circles.
Information is not the message, it is the successful communication of it, i.e. the receiver becomes (action) "informed."
I realize I probably sound like a purist - and perhaps I am - but as they say "if you want to complain about a farmer, don't speak with your mouth full."
Oh he can take "information theory" anywhere he wants to for his purposes; the point is, the Shannon model of information theory is completely blind to the content of messages. So why would he choose this model to make any point whatever about the content or meaning of messages?
==I realize I probably sound like a purist - and perhaps I am - but as they say “if you want to complain about a farmer, don’t speak with your mouth full.”
LOL...Good one!
I think Dr. Gitt is making a distinction between information, and what information is carried on (the medium). Whereas Dr. Shannon treats the material medium as measurable information. I think on this point, they may disagree. I will try to read Gitt more carefully this weekend to see if I can sort it out.
All the best—GGG
I think he’s trying to say that the medium is not the information itself. However, the medium does carry the information, which collectively constitutes the message. As such there is definite overlap, but it appears to me now that there is bit of disagreement over what constitutes information as well. As I mentioned to Alamo-Girl, I am going to try and find the time to read Gitt’s book (i.e. that part of it that is available on the internet) more closely over the weekend to see if I can sort this thing out.
God bless you and yours!—GGG
Okay. Nothing wrong with what you say from the viewpoint of someone seeking a rigorous argument. But even Feynman was not always rigorous when he was teaching, which is something teachers do.
DNA is not information. It is a message. It is dead as a doornail.
Take a live bird and a dead bird to the top of a tower and throw them both off. They both have the same DNA, the same message. But the one that flew away had information. The other went *splat.*
It is important that the message actually be a message, because a distinction is made between messages and noise.
“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, ... describes information from a statistical viewpoint only....”
Dr. Shannon was not concerned about "the actual contents and impact of messages." He was only interested in the "mechanics" of successful communication of any message, not what it "means," let alone how it shapes behavior. So why is Dr. Gitt "picking on him" for failing to do something that was completely removed from Shannon's own concern and intent?
In other words, in Gitt’s opinion, Shannon’s theory is a start, but there are many aspects of information that his theory does not explain, which is precisely what Gitt attempts to do in his book. I view such attempts as a positive development.
Of course there are "many aspects of information that his theory does not explain." But Shannon never sought to explain all aspects of information, only the more limited problem of how it is successfully communicated.
As Alamo-Girl has already pointed out, Dr. Gitt unfairly makes a strawman out of Dr. Shannon. Shannon and Gitt are/were not even working on the same problem.
[Dr. Shannon passed away in 2001, in Medford, Massachusetts — so sadly, of complications of Alzheimers disease. May God rest his soul.]
After you've learned what a theorem is, you can work on your logic. A negative can not be proved.
For instance, as applied to molecular biology, viruses can be seen as noise.
And "noise" does not necessarily mean harmful - noise could be a broadcast (or bleeding) as compared to an autonomous communication.
Thank you so very much for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!
OTOH, I don't think Dr. Fenman would introduce "theorems" into his teaching without making sure that they were a) actually theorems, and b) offered some sense of the arguments by which those theorems would be proved.
Mr. Gitt fails to do that.
Would it be ghoulish of me to point out the horrific irony of such a man, dying such a death?
Perhaps your own logic bears some inspection as well.
I challenge you to prove your assertion that "a negative can not be proved."
Spunkets, I believe that you are correct. A theorem has not been posited. But take this word out of his challenge, and he makes a solid point. Read Phil Johnson’s “Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds”, and he includes a thorough explanation of the mystery of information. Blessings, Bob
For a), I think you might be happier if he used the word "hypothesis". For b), I think the following meets the criteria of "some sense of the arguments...
We now discuss the question of devising a suitable coding system. For instance, how many different letters are required and how long should the words be for optimal performance? If a certain coding system has been adopted, it should be strictly adhered to (theorem 8, par 4.2), since it must be in tune with extremely complex translation and implementation processes. The table in Figure 19 comprises only the most interesting 25 fields, but it can be extended indefinitely downward and to the right. Each field represents a specific method of encoding, for example, if n = 3 and L = 4, we have a ternary code with 3 different letters. In that case, a word for identifying an amino acid would have a length of L = 4, meaning that quartets of 4 letters represent one word. If we now want to select the best code, the following requirements should be met:
—The storage space in a cell must be a minimum so that the code should economize on the required material. The more letters required for each amino acid, the more material is required, as well as more storage space.
—The copying mechanism described above requires n to be an even number. The replication of each of the two strands of DNA into complementary strands thus needs an alphabet having an even number of letters. For the purpose of limiting copying errors during the very many replication events, some redundance must be provided for (see appendix A 1.4).
—The longer the employed alphabet, the more complex the implementing mechanisms have to be. It would also require more material for storage, and the incidence of copying errors would increase.
???
Figure 17
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.