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 ...
No, dear r9etb. I've been pondering that one myself.
"your above statement is factually incorrect.
No.
" The reality is that it is provable (and has been proven) that at the QM (and in some cases if set up properly macro) level, A(observed) does NOT equal A(unobserved)."
A is still A, whether it's sleeping, or not. Behavior does not determine the essence of something. Behavior simply arises out of the essence. A=A always. The statement A≠A is never true.
"The double slit exeriment is the classical (pun intended) experiment that shows this. It’s very counter-intuitive stuff."
A is described by the wavefunction Ψ, or [Ψ>. The particular state of A at some time is described by the complex conjugate of the wave function (Ψ*, or <Ψ] times the product of some relevant linear operator (ξ) times the wavefunction (ξΨ, or ξ[Ψ>). A is represented by (ξΨ, or ξ[Ψ>), not (Ψ*ξΨ, or <Ψ]ξ[Ψ>).
You did not provide a proof the figure wasn’t a square. You provided evidence it wasn’t.
But he didn't. He repeatedly used very specific terms, such as Theorem and Corollary. Either his use of the terms was intentional (albeit incorrect); in which case we can fault him on those grounds.
Or he doesn't know the proper use of the terms to begin with -- which is not helpful to his case.
I think the following meets the criteria of "some sense of the arguments...
The "argument" in the particular example you provide is explicitly a discussion of how Mr. Gitt might design such a system. It does not address the sorts of "theorems" he presents, however -- such as, information "must" be a product of a mental process.
Elsewhere, he doesn't even go that far -- he simply insults those with whom he disagrees, and then assumes away their research.
I'm still awaiting your proof that "you can not prove a negative."
It can be, but then errors are introduced into one's understanding of reality. Physical noise is represented by well defined functions and no viral code is equivalent to a noise function. A viral code is represented by a function that generates a range of unique messages which are themselves subject to noise.
Umm, that's called a "proof" in geometry.
You can wiggle and squirm all you want, but that is a logical proof of a negative.
Precisely how do you define information without using a mental process?
You're very impatient.
To me, a "beautiful" model or theory is one in which there are no extraneous elements. But it seems that Dr. Gill is building in an extraneous element from the get-go. And that would be the Shannon theory. For the life of me, I don't know why he thinks he needs it in the first place. But then, what do I know?
In any case, to me, a beautiful model or theory is a truthful one. Truth is never "cluttered up."
God bless you, dear GGG, and all your loved ones!
Nice job cppying the notation, but it does not change the fact that the act of observing something at the QM level changes it. In lay terms, the act of observation collapses the probabilty (wave) to an actuality (particle). This isn’t just semantics - physical effects result. In the case of the double slit, if the passage of electrons is detected at one slit (e.g., through detection of the electric or magnetic field at the slit), you don’t get an interference pattern. If passage of electrons through neither slit is observed, you do get an interference pattern. Hence A(observed) does NOT equal A(unobserved). Seriously, this is a fundamental concept in even the most basic QM understanding.
"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..."
This statement can not be proved and is thus not a theorem. It is simply a claim, that can not be substantiated.
The statement I made refers reality, not any logical system of representations. One can not prove a negative reality, nor provide evidence for a negative reality. All one has in this case is Occam's razor, or the KISS principle.
And berating me does not prove your case. You do not have to prove a negative. All you have to do to disprove the theorem is to show a single, repeatable instance where the theorem is untrue and the whole theorem must be thrown out.
You can’t and you know it.
Ridiculous. You gave a figure which is not an element of geometry, it's an instance of reality. You attempted to mathematically prove it was something by definition, then applied the operation of negation. That can within geometry, but not in any application of geometry to reality. The figure is a triangle, because of the evidence the figure presents, not because that evidence can be proved.
Wow.
So, in your universe, the figure I posted cannot be proven to be a triangle? Even though it fully meets every definition of the term and is quite clearly to all who see it a triangle, yet this cannot be proven?
If that's the nature of the "logic" in use in science, it's no wonder we're in such a mess.
Evidently you're still unable to grasp the fact that a theorem MUST BE PROVED, OR IT IS NOT A THEOREM.
That's correct. The figure is what it is, not because it's been proved that way. The same goes for the evidence the reality of the figure presents. Indeed, it is more than the simple characteristics of 3 sides and 3 internal angles.
"Even though it fully meets every definition of the term and is quite clearly to all who see it a triangle, yet this cannot be proven?"
All you have is evidence that consists of facts. All one can do is verify facts, they can not be proved.
"If that's the nature of the "logic" in use in science, it's no wonder we're in such a mess."
A mess results from sloppiness.
What I wrote was not copied notation.
"Hence A(observed) does NOT equal A(unobserved).
A is represented by the wavefunction Ψ, or [Ψ>, which is not an observable. You are focusing on observables, not on A itself, which is the physical entity represented by Ψ that gives rise to an observable. The observable is determined by Ψ*ξΨ and is a state of A, not A itself.
"Seriously, this is a fundamental concept in even the most basic QM understanding."
Try to grasp and understand what I wrote.
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.