Evidence for God from Science

Kurieuo wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 5:02 pm

1over137 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:18 am Well, Scott,
Could you please define for me what 'information' is?

Without that I cannot even start to think about all that.

Well, we could go into information theory, but I'm not going to and you perhaps don't want that.

Simply put, I'd say an arrangement that is meaningful in a necessary way, rather than random sequence.

For example,

• This sentence is meaningful because of the way in which I've structured letters.
• Tiss scentene si aslo mfugniaenl busacee fo eht yaw in wchih Ie'v surttuerd lrtetes.

The following, while using similar alphabet, contains no real information however:

• wino.yes tvilnssc aa toyc nr ucnstnh. ao aosveef ahta InItfht Iieddisilrufc el h .rtasntrseaecmvoaf widef esref

And who decides whether something is meaningful?
There must be people to say something is meaningful.
No people, no information...... someone could say.

1over137 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2019 10:08 pm

Kurieuo wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 5:02 pm

1over137 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:18 am Well, Scott,
Could you please define for me what 'information' is?

Without that I cannot even start to think about all that.

Well, we could go into information theory, but I'm not going to and you perhaps don't want that.

Simply put, I'd say an arrangement that is meaningful in a necessary way, rather than random sequence.

For example,

• This sentence is meaningful because of the way in which I've structured letters.
• Tiss scentene si aslo mfugniaenl busacee fo eht yaw in wchih Ie'v surttuerd lrtetes.

The following, while using similar alphabet, contains no real information however:

• wino.yes tvilnssc aa toyc nr ucnstnh. ao aosveef ahta InItfht Iieddisilrufc el h .rtasntrseaecmvoaf widef esref

And who decides whether something is meaningful?
There must be people to say something is meaningful.
No people, no information...... someone could say.

I didn't say meaningful in a subjective way, but rather meaningful in a necessary way. For example, DNA can't be had in any arrangement, but very particular arrangements (no matter what anyone thinks).

In any case, I was very targeted with my second question to exclude those who don't believe information exists:

Do you believe there is information in the natural world? (i.e., whether found in matter, chemistry, biology, etc)

If a person doesn't believe information exists in the natural world (i.e., that such is merely subjective), then I personally think such are hoodwinking themselves. So that's really where our discussion ends and my second question needs no response. However,

If yes, doesn't information require intelligence?

#1:

Kurieuo wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 10:29 pm A series of questions.
Do you believe there is information in the natural world? (i.e., whether found in matter, chemistry, biology, etc)

I like Wikipedias definition of information: ”Information is the resolution of uncertainty”. If you have an eye you get information from the light whetgher it is day or night, very useful.

If yes, doesn't information require intelligence?
If not, why not?

That depends of which information you are talking about. Even lower animal can discriminate between day and night using their eyes but if you want to use the information in the light from a star which may include information about its size, distance, surface temperature, chemical composition etc, you need the intelligence to build the necessary measurement devices and knowledge of astronomy.

#28:

Kurieuo wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2019 3:43 pm
Information in the natural order however, does imply intelligence. This isn't an "intelligence" of the gap argument as I see it. Rather "information" being found in the natural order is a positive argument for a super-intelligence of sorts -- whether it is a Gaia view that the world is actually inherently conscious and so directing, or God as in Christianity and Judaism. DNA, for example, doesn't prove God, but the meaningful arrangement of adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C), and thymine (T) does prove to me an intelligence exists -- whose identity we're unaware to (at least, without any kind of extra revelation).

Information, as physical information, doesn’t imply intelligence according to the Wikipedia definition. Biological information as DNA doesn’t imply intelligence either. To decode it you need some basic biological features. To create it you need the evolutionary mechanism with mutations and selections, a slow successive trial and error.
Nils

Nils: Information, as physical information, doesn’t imply intelligence according to the Wikipedia definition.

And it isn't - information is unprocessed data - and it takes an intelligence to do so.

Nils: Biological information as DNA doesn’t imply intelligence either. To decode it you need some basic biological features. To create it you need the evolutionary mechanism with mutations and selections, a slow successive trial and error.

And the aspects one supposes of evolution - cannot come about uncaused, as the correct physical things must first come into existence, preceded by the right conditions to support them, neither of which can be self-caused. And ALL of that would have been entirely dependent upon what didn't previously exist, but in the next moment began to exist and begin organizing - again, impossible without guidance and intelligence. Evolution explains absolutely nothing about why everything it would have been dependent upon first came into existence - AND that it was the RIGHT and necessary things requiring incredible specificity. AND that whatever beyond the necessary things didn't also come into existence that would have interfered or prevented the massive orchestration that occurred Again, we're back to the impossibility that non-intelligent things - even if eternal ones - cannot see, plot, plan, anticipate, seek, or any of that - as they have absolutely none of the required attributes to acquire or begin using intelligence.

Philip wrote: [...] information is unprocessed data - and it takes an intelligence to do so.

Does a plant need intelligence to turn toward sunlight?

Philip wrote: Evolution explains absolutely nothing about why everything it would have been dependent upon first came into existence [...]

Correct - for the same reason chemistry doesn't explain why atoms exist.

Nils wrote: ↑Sat Mar 30, 2019 11:35 am #1:

Kurieuo wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 10:29 pm A series of questions.
Do you believe there is information in the natural world? (i.e., whether found in matter, chemistry, biology, etc)

I like Wikipedias definition of information: ”Information is the resolution of uncertainty”. If you have an eye you get information from the light whetgher it is day or night, very useful.

Nils, you state you like Wikipedia's definition, indeed I have no complaints. It even answers Hana's question perhaps re: the relationship of information to persons, which it identified as only applying to "knowledge" of information and not the "information" itself.

Information is the resolution of uncertainty; it is that which answers the question of "what an entity is" and is thus that which specifies the nature of that entity, as well as the essentiality of its properties. Information is associated with data and knowledge, as data is meaningful information and represents the values attributed to parameters, and knowledge signifies understanding of an abstract or concrete concept.[1] The existence of information can be uncoupled from an observer, which refers to that which accesses information to discern that which it specifies; information exists beyond an event horizon for example. In the case of knowledge, the information itself requires a cognitive observer to be accessed. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information)

Further down on that same Wikipedia page it has:

Information is any type of pattern that influences the formation or transformation of other patterns.[8][9] In this sense, there is no need for a conscious mind to perceive, much less appreciate, the pattern. Consider, for example, DNA. The sequence of nucleotides is a pattern that influences the formation and development of an organism without any need for a conscious mind. One might argue though that for a human to consciously define a pattern, for example a nucleotide, naturally involves conscious information processing.

As for your next sentence, "If you have an eye you get information from the light whetgher it is day or night, very useful." No bloody idea where this came from mate, where in Wikipedia's definition such is being said?

Nils wrote:Even lower animal can discriminate between day and night using their eyes but if you want to use the information in the light from a star which may include information about its size, distance, surface temperature, chemical composition etc, you need the intelligence to build the necessary measurement devices and knowledge of astronomy.

I'd say there is no information content in such a scenario, rather it is a combination of the subject (observer) in relation to the natural world that inferences (and information as such) is being drawn. Very different to something like DNA which has information inherently.

Philip wrote: ↑Sat Mar 30, 2019 1:20 pm

Nils: Information, as physical information, doesn’t imply intelligence according to the Wikipedia definition.

And it isn't - information is unprocessed data - and it takes an intelligence to do so.

That is correct but the processing can be quite simpler than intelligens, for instance Morny’s plant example.

Nils: Biological information as DNA doesn’t imply intelligence either. To decode it you need some basic biological features. To create it you need the evolutionary mechanism with mutations and selections, a slow successive trial and error.

And the aspects one supposes of evolution - cannot come about uncaused, as the correct physical things must first come into existence, preceded by the right conditions to support them, neither of which can be self-caused. And ALL of that would have been entirely dependent upon what didn't previously exist, but in the next moment began to exist and begin organizing - again, impossible without guidance and intelligence. Evolution explains absolutely nothing about why everything it would have been dependent upon first came into existence - AND that it was the RIGHT and necessary things requiring incredible specificity. AND that whatever beyond the necessary things didn't also come into existence that would have interfered or prevented the massive orchestration that occurred Again, we're back to the impossibility that non-intelligent things - even if eternal ones - cannot see, plot, plan, anticipate, seek, or any of that - as they have absolutely none of the required attributes to acquire or begin using intelligence.

Evolution isn’t self-cause, that’s correct and you are also correct that evolution “cannot see, plot, plan, anticipate, seek, or any of that”, but what is the problem? If you understand evolution you would also understand that nothing of that sort is needed. Evolution is trial and error. The trial is a random process where mutations is created randomly, for instance by cosmic radiation. The error part is that most mutations are annihilated because the individuals that got these mutations don’t survive. If you do this thousands of thousands of thousands year you get astonishing results. You miss that this is done in many small small steps, your reasoning above indicates that you are thinking of big steps. It has been described in detail how for instance the eye could have developed in thousands of small steps.

Nils

Kurieuo wrote: ↑Sat Mar 30, 2019 6:50 pm

Nils wrote: ↑Sat Mar 30, 2019 11:35 am #1:

Kurieuo wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 10:29 pm A series of questions.
Do you believe there is information in the natural world? (i.e., whether found in matter, chemistry, biology, etc)

I like Wikipedias definition of information: ”Information is the resolution of uncertainty”. If you have an eye you get information from the light whetgher it is day or night, very useful.

Nils, you state you like Wikipedia's definition, indeed I have no complaints. It even answers Hana's question perhaps re: the relationship of information to persons, which it identified as only applying to "knowledge" of information and not the "information" itself.

Information is the resolution of uncertainty; it is that which answers the question of "what an entity is" and is thus that which specifies the nature of that entity, as well as the essentiality of its properties. Information is associated with data and knowledge, as data is meaningful information and represents the values attributed to parameters, and knowledge signifies understanding of an abstract or concrete concept.[1] The existence of information can be uncoupled from an observer, which refers to that which accesses information to discern that which it specifies; information exists beyond an event horizon for example. In the case of knowledge, the information itself requires a cognitive observer to be accessed. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information)

Further down on that same Wikipedia page it has:

Information is any type of pattern that influences the formation or transformation of other patterns.[8][9] In this sense, there is no need for a conscious mind to perceive, much less appreciate, the pattern. Consider, for example, DNA. The sequence of nucleotides is a pattern that influences the formation and development of an organism without any need for a conscious mind. One might argue though that for a human to consciously define a pattern, for example a nucleotide, naturally involves conscious information processing.

As for your next sentence, "If you have an eye you get information from the light whetgher it is day or night, very useful." No bloody idea where this came from mate, where in Wikipedia's definition such is being said?

Nils wrote:Even lower animal can discriminate between day and night using their eyes but if you want to use the information in the light from a star which may include information about its size, distance, surface temperature, chemical composition etc, you need the intelligence to build the necessary measurement devices and knowledge of astronomy.

I'd say there is no information content in such a scenario, rather it is a combination of the subject (observer) in relation to the natural world that inferences (and information as such) is being drawn. Very different to something like DNA which has information inherently.

I agree that Wikipiedia isn’t very explicit on information channels which is astonishing as this is what Shannon’s information theory 1948 was about. Wikipedia mentions this in passing “In terms of communication, information is expressed either as the content of a message or through direct or indirect observation. That which is perceived can be construed as a message in its own right, and in that sense, information is always conveyed as the content of a message. “
In my example about day and night the light is a communication channel with the messages “on” and “off”. In the star example the communication channel is more complex.
Nils

Kenny wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2019 1:24 pm

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2019 12:06 pm

Kenny wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2019 11:33 am

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2019 8:50 am And where did this ability come from?

I would guess the result of evolution.

Evolution requires that the properties for the change be present in the cells, correct?

I don't know. But if we assume you are correct, I'm curious where you're going with this.

So, a random mutation does NOT create properties in a cell ( that would be creation and not evolution), it mutates existing ones ( change) BUT that means that what is mutated MUST have the existing properties of the change, yes?
AB become C or C is lost from ABC making only AB.

Correct?

So, for something to be intelligent it must have all the properties of intelligence either in actuality ( it is intelligent) or in potential ( it CAN become/be intelligent).
Yes?

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2019 9:25 am

Kenny wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2019 1:24 pm

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2019 12:06 pm

Kenny wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2019 11:33 am

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2019 8:50 am And where did this ability come from?

I would guess the result of evolution.

Evolution requires that the properties for the change be present in the cells, correct?

I don't know. But if we assume you are correct, I'm curious where you're going with this.

So, a random mutation does NOT create properties in a cell ( that would be creation and not evolution), it mutates existing ones ( change) BUT that means that what is mutated MUST have the existing properties of the change, yes?
AB become C or C is lost from ABC making only AB.

Correct?

So, for something to be intelligent it must have all the properties of intelligence either in actuality ( it is intelligent) or in potential ( it CAN become/be intelligent).
Yes?

Makes sense to me!

Kenny wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2019 11:22 am

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2019 9:25 am

Kenny wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2019 1:24 pm

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2019 12:06 pm

Kenny wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2019 11:33 am
I would guess the result of evolution.

Evolution requires that the properties for the change be present in the cells, correct?

I don't know. But if we assume you are correct, I'm curious where you're going with this.

So, a random mutation does NOT create properties in a cell ( that would be creation and not evolution), it mutates existing ones ( change) BUT that means that what is mutated MUST have the existing properties of the change, yes?
AB become C or C is lost from ABC making only AB.

Correct?

So, for something to be intelligent it must have all the properties of intelligence either in actuality ( it is intelligent) or in potential ( it CAN become/be intelligent).
Yes?

Makes sense to me!

So, where did these properties come from?

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2019 12:08 pm

Kenny wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2019 11:22 am

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2019 9:25 am

Kenny wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2019 1:24 pm

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2019 12:06 pm

Evolution requires that the properties for the change be present in the cells, correct?

I don't know. But if we assume you are correct, I'm curious where you're going with this.

So, a random mutation does NOT create properties in a cell ( that would be creation and not evolution), it mutates existing ones ( change) BUT that means that what is mutated MUST have the existing properties of the change, yes?
AB become C or C is lost from ABC making only AB.

Correct?

So, for something to be intelligent it must have all the properties of intelligence either in actuality ( it is intelligent) or in potential ( it CAN become/be intelligent).
Yes?

Makes sense to me!

So, where did these properties come from?

I thought we agreed the properties were already a part of the cells!

Kenny wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2019 1:09 pm

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2019 12:08 pm

Kenny wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2019 11:22 am

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2019 9:25 am

Kenny wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2019 1:24 pm

I don't know. But if we assume you are correct, I'm curious where you're going with this.

So, a random mutation does NOT create properties in a cell ( that would be creation and not evolution), it mutates existing ones ( change) BUT that means that what is mutated MUST have the existing properties of the change, yes?
AB become C or C is lost from ABC making only AB.

Correct?

So, for something to be intelligent it must have all the properties of intelligence either in actuality ( it is intelligent) or in potential ( it CAN become/be intelligent).
Yes?

Makes sense to me!

So, where did these properties come from?

I thought we agreed the properties were already a part of the cells!

Right, so where did they come from?
If they were in the cell, which they would have to be, how did they get there?

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 6:43 am

Kenny wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2019 1:09 pm

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2019 12:08 pm

Kenny wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2019 11:22 am

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2019 9:25 am

So, a random mutation does NOT create properties in a cell ( that would be creation and not evolution), it mutates existing ones ( change) BUT that means that what is mutated MUST have the existing properties of the change, yes?
AB become C or C is lost from ABC making only AB.

Correct?

So, for something to be intelligent it must have all the properties of intelligence either in actuality ( it is intelligent) or in potential ( it CAN become/be intelligent).
Yes?

Makes sense to me!

So, where did these properties come from?

I thought we agreed the properties were already a part of the cells!

Right, so where did they come from?
If they were in the cell, which they would have to be, how did they get there?

If cells had always existed, and those properties were a part of the cells, that would mean those properties had always existed; right?

Kenny wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 8:44 am

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 6:43 am

Kenny wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2019 1:09 pm

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2019 12:08 pm

Kenny wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2019 11:22 am
Makes sense to me!

So, where did these properties come from?

I thought we agreed the properties were already a part of the cells!

Right, so where did they come from?
If they were in the cell, which they would have to be, how did they get there?

If cells had always existed, and those properties were a part of the cells, that would mean those properties had always existed; right?

Sure, but are you saying that cells have always existed?