Now this in no way corresponds with the physics I know and love. So what is it that the evolutionists are talking about? First let’s examine information theory as they are using the term. There is a computing theorem that some evolutionists use, called the Kolmogorov Information Theory. This is in no way related to the Shannon communication information equations, and in fact could be considered orthogonal to it. Shannons’ information concept started with the concept that information contained meaning, and that due to entropic causes - noise, loss of signal strength, etc. – that other means for ensuring the delivery of the meaning content of the information need to be taken.
None of this is true in Kolmogorov Information Theory. For Kolmogorov Complexity, there is no concept of meaning in the character string it is analyzing . The purpose of the analysis is to define a minimum string length:
”More formally, the Algorithmic "Kolmogorov" Complexity (AC) of a string x is defined as the length of the shortest program that computes or outputs x , where the program is run on some fixed reference universal computer. “A related concept is the Solomonov Probability which computes the likelihood of a given string being output from a random program:
” A closely related notion is the probability that a universal computer outputs some string when fed with a program chosen at random.”Note that both of these concepts have preconceptions. First that a universal computer exists; second that it is compatible with some code; third that compatible code exists; that a mechanism for properly feeding the code into the machine exists; that a mechanism for outputting the computation product exists, and that there is no “meaning” involved in the classical sense of information.
The most important preconception to note is that information in this mathematical sense has no relation to information in the classical sense; in other words mathematical information has no meaning attached to it, while classical information is completely about the meaning content, independent of the carrier or the modulation types. So these two concepts are totally divorced from each other.
Yet their conflation is used by evolutionists.
In addition, evolutionist preconceptions include: first that thecomputer pre-exists and is functionally ready to accept and run code; that the pre-existing computer is biological; that the code is biological; that both the input and output mechanisms of delivery for the code are biological and that the output contains some sort of instruction (meaning) for the host organism in terms of physical change which is required for access by Natural Selection.
The evolutionists deny any meaning at this point; for them, the information has no meaning, and the change has no meaning, it just is. This interpretation is a bastardization of the meaning of the word, “meaning”. If the output of the universal computing machine produces a useful product that, in turn, produces a change in the organism, then the output has meaning. What the output means to the organism is: change yourself according to this data. It is an instruction, and instructions are sentences with meaning.
What we see here is the mechanism by which evolutionists claim that information in the classical sense is created accidentally by information in the strictly mathematical sense. So meaning is created out of meaninglessness, or randomness. The trick is one that they play on themselves first, and then on the casual observer: information is created from non-information. Of course it is false, a Black and White Fallacy, a conflation of terms with mutually exclusive definitions.
The claim that information is created from non-information or randomness is in no way supported or substantiated by Kolmogorov / Solomonov theories; it is a fallacy and an extrapolation that is not supported by either the mathematics nor by any empirical study.
Finally, Meyer's book apparently uses "information" as having a meaning content, an idea met with sneers and derision from the Atheist camp, specifically Shallit and PZ. However, they provide no more evidence than the reference to Kolmogorov, which they either haven't read and understood, or they think that no one else has.
4 comments:
If meaning can be created from meaningless, then couldn't we use Occam's Razor to show that there is only meaninglessness? (The claim of meaning coming from meaning wouldn't be parsimonious--)
You've done it... You have proved Nietzsche's entire philosophy!
Meaningless - all is meaningless!
Oh wait... Occam's Razor can't have meaning either, if that's true. If it's true that there's no meaning, then nothings true, but if Occam's razor is meaningless then meaning exists, meaning that Occam's razor has meaning... wait, how was that again?
I love logic loops! I'll add this to my collection. I'll call it Sonic's Meaningless Meaning Paradox.
Your whole post was useless the very moment you said this:
Evolutionists claim emphatically that information can, indeed, be created out of nothing whatsoever.
This is false altogether. No serious evolutionist, not a single one who understand how evolution works says such a ridiculous thing.
1. We have high-quality energy coming from the sun.
2. Life has been described, by Erwin Schrödinger, as a system that feeds on negative entropy. We stuff we eat to keep ourselves alive contains the energy necessary for this feat.
3. Likewise, evolution is compatible and actually entropic if you see the whole system, rather than concentrate on the organisms as if they were isolated from their environment.
4. Why did you have to start with a straw man I would ask?
I know why. You don't care to know what we think. Only what you can easily ridicule.
G.E.
You have either not understood the post, and have conflated energy input with information, or you have not read the post at all.
There is no classical (useful) information contained in the energy sources that you call out, and that obviously are required for life. But that is about entropy, not information. This post is about information.
The subject of entropy is entirely separate, except in the sense that information is also entropic, yet not in the case of living things, where information is partially entropic and partially non-entropic.
I don't think you even read the post, but merely stopped by to call out "straw man". If you wish to discuss the content, which is information, and which is based on actual premises, then let's do so.
Your turn, go ahead.
Post a Comment