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 ...
Yup. You speak rubbish.
It is certainly is conceptual. Despite what you think, there is meaning in things that encode meaning. The highs and lows on a circuit line are encoding something in a computer. To the transistor that encoded something is meaningless to it. Yet the high and low voltage are semaphores to the transistor to conduct or not conduct. It is this series of meanings that each designer inserts along the line to a finished communications system which is conceptual. So each transistor along the lines of a designed communications circuit does not give a whit about anything but conducting or not conducting. The designer(s) has(have) embodied the concept into a circuit. Does that circuit do anything? Not without power, it doesn't. When powered up does it do anything? It certainly consumes power, but it is the designer whose concept is embodied in the circuit that decides whether it does anything or not. The circuit may eventually simply transmit a single unmodulated frequency which acts as a beacon. The designer could have complicated the design in order for the beacon to modulate its signal to give directional information to a receiver. etc. etc. etc.
If we look at the example of sperm meeting egg, we see a creation of new information, without a mental process involved.
What? Sperm and egg randomly materialized into a suitable location?
That is an intriguing statement. How do we then determine the "essence" of something. And what exactly is the "essence" of something?
If that is rubbish. It's high class stuff! I cannot improve on the truth that you stated. With the proviso that even the evidence is suspect.
It is not just the analysis - you get a different observable light pattern. Don’t see how you can say the underlying reality is the same in view of that.
Also, the core premise that detection does not change the underlying reality is absurd. Detection means transfer or exchange of information. Information cannot be transferred or exchanged without a transfer or exchange of energy. (You find a way around that and to heck with the Nobel - let’s talk, implement the process, and become so rich that Bill Gates looks like a pauper in comparison.) And it is axiomatic that a transfer or exchange of energy changes the underlying reality, whatever that may be.
True enough; however, where you're missing the point with regard to Shannon's work, is that it does not depend on the presence of meaning in the bits that are encoded and decoded. "Information" in his sense of the word, is about the sequence of bits only, and the accuracy with which they're decoded on the receiving end.
For the purposes of Shannon's work, "information" is nothing more or less than a specific sequence of bits, which is to be decoded. It makes no difference whether the bit sequence was encoded to convey a particular meaning, or if the bits were generated randomly. Either way, Shannon's work provide a means to assess the likelihood of reproducing that sequence of bits on the receiving end.
What? Sperm and egg randomly materialized into a suitable location?
I think you will agree that people have unique DNA -- the exact characteristics of that DNA are defined at the point where sperm and egg combine their genetic information. When that occurs, new, unique, and meaningful information is created. No "mental process" is involved in the creation of that information -- it is a strictly chemical process.
This is true, even recognizing the fact that this new information represents only a very small variation on the overall "theme" of the total DNA sequence. It's true even if the underlying "theme" was in fact the product of intelligence.
The problem, again, is that you are conflating the information (which here is transmitted by chemical means) with the manner in which the information chain is initiated.
The problem is that spunkets invokes "reality" when it suits his argument, and ignores "reality" when it doesn't. He also tends to make false distinctions between reality on the one hand; and "conceptual" things, such as logic or mathematics on the other. This despite the fact that there is quite obviously a connection between mathematics (say) and "reality" as he would typically invoke it.
It's not that he's dishonest, I just don't think he's careful.
Sigh.... You're apparently impressed by the fact that spunkets is arguing for "truth" on the basis that it is impossible to know anything.
Not much to admire in an argument like that.
I'm not missing anything in that regard. I never said that he needed "meaning" in the message he was encoding or decoding. In fact, you may look at post 85 and see what I said about the subject. That said, it is obvious that Shannon uses semaphores when he describes the workings of a system, since it is a mental construct that he is discussing. It is in his mind and he is transmitting it on paper. You and I receive that message, which hopefully has meaning, when we read the message. Is that clear?
I think you will agree that people have unique DNA
That depends on what you are talking about? It seems obvious that, as far as humans are concerned, both parents have half of the DNA of the child comprising all of what the child has. Now you can quibble and say that once a mutation occurs the child has unique DNA, put that runs the risk of allowing that a person is not themselves upon each mutation that occurs in them. In fact, each cell is probably unique in DNA content in some form or other as the cell is dynamic and the composition of the DNA varies as it is unzipped, rezipped, bonded to, and unbonded from during the performance of the living processes of the cell.
I think you will agree that people have unique DNA -- the exact characteristics of that DNA are defined at the point where sperm and egg combine their genetic information. When that occurs, new, unique, and meaningful information is created. No "mental process" is involved in the creation of that information -- it is a strictly chemical process.
And you fail to realize that the "new" information is useless until acted upon and given meaning. Extract the DNA from a newly formed zygote and let it sit in a test tube. What does it do? What information is there? To form something from this new information requires the living cell and all of the previously generated "machines" which extract the information from the DNA.
No, it is you that is missing the point. We all have to start from somewhere. That somewhere is unprovable. We accept that start as axiomatic. If you don't admit that, then you are on a fools errand with respect to logic.
Essence is a catch all for the physics of something. ie. physical composition, properties, morphology, interaction abilities and any other abilities. It's a nonspecific, all inclusive term, so that even what might not be known about the entity is referred to.
Re: Behavior does not determine the essence of something.
"How do we then determine the "essence" of something."
Behavior can be used to determine properties, or general abilities, but is does not determine what the underlying physical entity is. In the context the statement was made, the meaning of the statement is that even though behavior does change, it does not indicate, or determine the particular underlying physics. The underlying physics of the entity allow for the range of behaviors observed in the particular interaction events observed. A range in, or variation of, or differences in observations does not necessarily indicate a change in underlying physics.
The same can be said for rational beings. If an individual displays different behaviors, it does not mean the individual changes from one instance to the next. IOWs the particualr behavior doesn't determine who the individual is. The underlying values, or other references for the behavior, that are part of and are characteristic elements of the personality are what give rise to the behavior, and they are part of the essence of the person.
"With the proviso that even the evidence is suspect."
Yes, that's why due care is required.
Yes, there's a different pattern and that's indicated by the proper analysis of the underlying reality in the experimental configurations. In the case of the straight double slit, there's a sum of the waveforms from two beams involved, Σψi. In the other case, where one, or both of the beams are examined, each beam is analyzed as simply Ψ, no sum. The interference only comes in, when Ψ is a sum. ie. (Ψ=Σψi).
The reason for that can be seen if one examines the wavefunction Ψ, which is not an observable. It contains an arbitrary phase difference, eiφ, which is irrelevant with respect to the observable. If one does something during the experiment to introduce prior events, or the experiment contains prior events, either of which has the effect of eliminating that arbitrary phase factor, the sum is no longer appropriate. In that case, both beams must be represented by their own wavefunctions. In these cases, the beams are said to be correlated, or entangled.
In the case of the double slit, that prior event was the causal event for the correlation, or entanglement of the a pair(s) in separate beams. The experiment is analyzed as a single slit, because that correlated pair no longer has the arbitrary phase difference that's essential to generate the double slit pattern.
The prior event is a constraint on the system, like Brilloin zones in metals. Electrons in metals are not allowed trajectories which would allow for interference patterns to occur within the metal. In all these various cases, the mystics refer to these situations as spooky action at a distance. No such action at a distance ever occurs. The correlations occured at some earlier time when the particles were in causal contact. Causal contact in the double slit case, is when some prior "observation" event happened.
Here's some remarks on a couple of "spooky" events. In the one case, the experimentors attempted to do amazing nonsensical things in order to analyze particle behavior after they had already annihilated. In the other, particle physicists analyze the particle beam collision data that contains correlated particles. Those particle experiments appear to have spooky action at a distance, because it appears as one particle waiting for the other to decay, before the other knows what it must become. In reality the phases in their decay mechanisms were correlated when they were on prior causal contact.
In short, one must be able to recognize when to use Ψ, or Σψi for the wavefunction. Each of them represent some different underlying reality.
Amazing.
Two electrons with trajectories 180o opposed and on paths separated by 1000 meters open space pass. They deflect. How has the underlying reality of each electron changed? Do you consider all electrons to be different, because they are on different paths?
" And it is axiomatic that a transfer or exchange of energy changes the underlying reality, whatever that may be."
The minimum amount of energy to exchange one bit of info is Emin, where Emin=kTln(2) joules/bit. How has the underlying reality of the universe changed in the case of the 2 passing electrons? Is it significant?
Emphasis mine:
PART II: THE DISCRETE CHANNEL WITH NOISE
11. Representation of a Noisy Discrete Channel
We now consider the case where the signal is perturbed by noise during transmission or at one or the other of the terminals. This means the received signal is not necessarily the same as that sent out by the transmitter. Two cases may be distinguished. If a particular transmitted signal always produces the same received signal, i.e. the received signal is a definite function of the transmitted signal, then the effect may be called distortion. If this function has an inverse – no two transmitted signals producing the same received signal – distortion may be correct, at least in principle, by merely performing the inverse functional operation on the received signal.
The case of interest here is that in which the signal does not always undergo the same change in transmission. In this case we may assume the received signal E to be a function of the transmitted signal S, and a second variable, the noise N.
The noise is considered to be a chance variable just as the message was above. …
It could be thermal noise. And it could also be interference that adds to the signal.
It is a chance variable just like the message. The model is the same regardless of the content of the message or the noise.
The bottom line in this segment of the Shannon model is how to handle the situation where the received signal is not the same as the transmitted signal. That is where encoding, decoding, channel capacity, speed of transmission and redundancy come into play.
I indicated that there's a distinction between noise and interference, because it matters for anything more detailed than the most trivial model. Noise and interference are distinguishable, they have different chacteristics and effects. Any effective treatment of the received signal to eliminate errors depends on recognizing whether errors are due to noise, or interference.
HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENT: Every last one of you infuriating goofballs on this thread is assigned the first two chapters of this book. Until you understand them you have NO BUSINESS PARTICIPATING IN DISCUSSIONS ABOUT INFORMATION THEORY.
Re: The Original Post, Dr Gitt is a crazyman who is attempting to disguise a laughable mess of mystical blather, non-sequiters, and general loopy moonman logic as a scientific paper. It is a fairly regular occurence that journals get insane submissions from hairy weirdos attempting to disprove (or prove) things like the second law of thermodynamics; often they keep a few of the craziest around to laugh at. Gitt's "paper" falls in this category.
More specific criticisms of his work can be found in my post here. Let me add one question to that, for anyone still defending this nonsense: what is Dr. Gitt's definition of information?
Ah! Now I get it! You are talking about the "underlying reality of the universe." Or maybe more locally, the underlying reality of what the electrons are, right? I'm talking about the reality in terms of the state of the particles/things that are being observed. I knew we were using SOME term here in different ways from each other.
I'd say that the underlying (reality of the) state of the electrons has changed, namely their momentum as represented by a vector. Is that significant? Maybe, depends on what you mean by significant, what the electrons might affect in their environment, etc. Let's not even go there. Has that changed the "underlying reality of the universe" or even the underlying reality of what the electrons are? Nope, they are still electrons, which can express themselves aka be observed and interact with other things as waves or particles or in other ways (e.g., through electric, magnetic, and gravitational fields). Now I see what point you were making.
Ah, the limitations of language, esp. when typed...
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.