Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 8:54 am

Nils wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 8:19 am Re #58

Again:
If we take a piece of information created by the execution of the program, for instance "LRRL", this piece of information can not be found anywhere in the code and is not known by the programmer.
Is this correct? Yes or No?

So when you trace this piece of information back to a source you have to stop at the program execution.
Is this correct? Yes or No?

If we agree on this we can continue.
Nils

I'm not a computer programmer, and I'm trying to understand what you're saying.

Are you saying that a piece of information(LRRL) that was created by the program, was never actually programmed to be created?

The program was programmed to find the actual path to the middle of a labyrinth based on the data about the labyrinth. So which path was found (which piece of information was found/created) depended on which labyrinth data was input to the computer/program. The programmer didn't know which of the millions of different possible paths the program would find so what it actually found e.g. "LRRL" wasn't presumed in any way by the program. That piece of information was new to the program. But, of course, the program was programmed to find the path of the input labyrinth, whichever it was.

Hope this is clarifying.
Nils

Nils wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 9:31 am

RickD wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 8:54 am

Nils wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 8:19 am Re #58

Again:
If we take a piece of information created by the execution of the program, for instance "LRRL", this piece of information can not be found anywhere in the code and is not known by the programmer.
Is this correct? Yes or No?

So when you trace this piece of information back to a source you have to stop at the program execution.
Is this correct? Yes or No?

If we agree on this we can continue.
Nils

I'm not a computer programmer, and I'm trying to understand what you're saying.

Are you saying that a piece of information(LRRL) that was created by the program, was never actually programmed to be created?

The program was programmed to find the actual path to the middle of a labyrinth based on the data about the labyrinth. So which path was found (which piece of information was found/created) depended on which labyrinth data was input to the computer/program. The programmer didn't know which of the millions of different possible paths the program would find so what it actually found e.g. "LRRL" wasn't presumed in any way by the program. That piece of information was new to the program. But, of course, the program was programmed to find the path of the input labyrinth, whichever it was.

Hope this is clarifying.
Nils

Yes, that clarifies it. Thanks.

I'm still not sure how you're conclusion follows. Even though the programmer didn't know which specific path the program would find, the programmer's program allowed for any of the millions of different paths.

We're still getting back to the source being the programmer, right?

RickD wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 10:32 am

Nils wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 9:31 am

RickD wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 8:54 am

Nils wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 8:19 am Re #58

Again:
If we take a piece of information created by the execution of the program, for instance "LRRL", this piece of information can not be found anywhere in the code and is not known by the programmer.
Is this correct? Yes or No?

So when you trace this piece of information back to a source you have to stop at the program execution.
Is this correct? Yes or No?

If we agree on this we can continue.
Nils

I'm not a computer programmer, and I'm trying to understand what you're saying.

Are you saying that a piece of information(LRRL) that was created by the program, was never actually programmed to be created?

The program was programmed to find the actual path to the middle of a labyrinth based on the data about the labyrinth. So which path was found (which piece of information was found/created) depended on which labyrinth data was input to the computer/program. The programmer didn't know which of the millions of different possible paths the program would find so what it actually found e.g. "LRRL" wasn't presumed in any way by the program. That piece of information was new to the program. But, of course, the program was programmed to find the path of the input labyrinth, whichever it was.

Hope this is clarifying.
Nils

Yes, that clarifies it. Thanks.

I'm still not sure how you're conclusion follows. Even though the programmer didn't know which specific path the program would find, the programmer's program allowed for any of the millions of different paths.

Yes, but the program makes the choice and that creates information. "Abstractly, information can be thought of as the resolution of uncertainty" (from Wikipedia about Information theory)

We're still getting back to the source being the programmer, right?

Yes, but only in a very indirect way. The actual information comes from the program execution which is independent of the programmer. The programmer is the source of the program code but the program code isn't the source of the information; it's when the code is executed knowledge/information is created.

To give an analogy. Assume you are a clever engineer (which as far as I know, you may be). You take some copper wires, a magnet, and same mechanics to get an electrical generator which you attach to a waterwheel and you manage to produce electricity. Who or what is the source of the electricity? I think few would say that you are the source of the electricity. They will say that the running generator you built or perhaps the running water is the source. In the same way it is the running/executing program that is the source of the information, not the programmer. You as an engineer has no ability to generate electricity. You are able to build a machine that generates electricity, the same with the programmer who is able to write program code that generates information.

Nils
Nils

The hardware and software engineers create a machine with capabilities that did not previously exist, and their creations (both the hardware and the code) have both capabilities and hard parameters which are otherwise impossible to be useful - and are only so and recognizable as such to other intelligent beings. No human creators - then there is NO possibility of what is otherwise possible with intelligent creators of designed gardware and software. This speculation is beyond absurd!

Nils wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 8:19 am Re #58

Again:
If we take a piece of information created by the execution of the program, for instance "LRRL", this piece of information can not be found anywhere in the code and is not known by the programmer.
Is this correct? Yes or No?

Yes

So when you trace this piece of information back to a source you have to stop at the program execution.
Is this correct? Yes or No?

No
Because the computer algorithms and code that take the input and produce the information represent the thought processes of an intelligent mind.

That is the gaping flaw in your argument.
You just chose to arbitrarily stop at the program execution, even though the program execution itself represents the algorithms and design of an intelligent mind.

DBowling wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 1:46 pm

Nils wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 8:19 am Re #58

Again:
If we take a piece of information created by the execution of the program, for instance "LRRL", this piece of information can not be found anywhere in the code and is not known by the programmer.
Is this correct? Yes or No?

Yes

So when you trace this piece of information back to a source you have to stop at the program execution.
Is this correct? Yes or No?

No
Because the computer algorithms and code that take the input and produce the information represent the thought processes of an intelligent mind.

I don't understand what you mean by 'represent' here. Please explain.

That is the gaping flaw in your argument.
You just chose to arbitrarily stop at the program execution, even though the program execution itself represents the algorithms and design of an intelligent mind.

You think that the piece of information "LRRL" shall be traced backwards to processes that don't contain the information "LRRL". To me it seems curious to say that there is a trace to a process in which there is no trace.
Nils

Nils wrote:
Yes, but only in a very indirect way. The actual information comes from the program execution which is independent of the programmer. The programmer is the source of the program code but the program code isn't the source of the information; it's when the code is executed knowledge/information is created.

Nils,

The underlined is where your argument fails.

How can you claim that the program execution is independent of the programmer?

Didn't the programmer program the computer to execute the way that it did?

Nils wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 2:17 pm

DBowling wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 1:46 pm

So when you trace this piece of information back to a source you have to stop at the program execution.
Is this correct? Yes or No?

No
Because the computer algorithms and code that take the input and produce the information represent the thought processes of an intelligent mind.

I don't understand what you mean by 'represent' here. Please explain.

The computer program is a series of electronic decision trees that represent algorithms and designs from an intelligent mind.

So the program executable is a representation of intelligently designed algorithms that a computer is then able to execute.

That is the gaping flaw in your argument.
You just chose to arbitrarily stop at the program execution, even though the program execution itself represents the algorithms and design of an intelligent mind.

You think that the piece of information "LRRL" shall be traced backwards to processes that don't contain the information "LRRL".

Absolutely...
Especially when the information that is generated is output from a process that is driven by algorithms developed by an intelligent mind.
You can't arbitrarily choose to ignore the intelligence generated algorithms that are the critical component of the program and then claim that the information cannot be traced back to those algorithms.

RickD wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 3:41 pm

Nils wrote:
Yes, but only in a very indirect way. The actual information comes from the program execution which is independent of the programmer. The programmer is the source of the program code but the program code isn't the source of the information; it's when the code is executed knowledge/information is created.

Nils,

The underlined is where your argument fails.

How can you claim that the program execution is independent of the programmer?

Didn't the programmer program the computer to execute the way that it did?

It is not difficult to write a program that will output a series of numbers and you, the programmer, don't have any idea of which numbers if will output. More important is that the input data contains information in an intrinsic form and what the program does is finding that information. The programmer doesn't know the information of the input data so in this sense the program execution and its result is independent of the programmer. In the case with the electric generator the process of electricity generation is in some way independent of the engineer. It will continue even if he disappears.

The important part of what you cited above isn't about the definition of dependency but the third sentence concerning information.
Nils

DBowling wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 3:52 pm

Nils wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 2:17 pm

You just chose to arbitrarily stop at the program execution, even though the program execution itself represents the algorithms and design of an intelligent mind.

You think that the piece of information "LRRL" shall be traced backwards to processes that don't contain the information "LRRL".

Absolutely...
Especially when the information that is generated is output from a process that is driven by algorithms developed by an intelligent mind.
You can't arbitrarily choose to ignore the intelligence generated algorithms that are the critical component of the program and then claim that the information cannot be traced back to those algorithms.

I don't "arbitrarily choose to ignore the intelligence generated algorithms". I just notice that they don't contain the piece of information we are talking about and that implies that it isn't possible to trace the information to them. I don't understand how you can defend the idea that you can trace something to a place where you know this something isn't.
The program is a tool to find the information in the input data. That doesn't mean that the information is within the tool. It's like saying that the information of the shape of the statue originally was in the hammer the sculptor used.
Nils

Nils wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 1:17 am

DBowling wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 3:52 pm

Nils wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 2:17 pm

You just chose to arbitrarily stop at the program execution, even though the program execution itself represents the algorithms and design of an intelligent mind.

You think that the piece of information "LRRL" shall be traced backwards to processes that don't contain the information "LRRL".

Absolutely...
Especially when the information that is generated is output from a process that is driven by algorithms developed by an intelligent mind.
You can't arbitrarily choose to ignore the intelligence generated algorithms that are the critical component of the program and then claim that the information cannot be traced back to those algorithms.

I don't "arbitrarily choose to ignore the intelligence generated algorithms". I just notice that they don't contain the piece of information we are talking about and that implies that it isn't possible to trace the information to them. I don't understand how you can defend the idea that you can trace something to a place where you know this something isn't.

I don't see how you can defend the premise that information produced by the computer program can't be traced back to the source of the program and algorithms that produced it.
The input that the computer processes may be unknown to the programmer.
But the algorithms and program that process the input to generate the new information were designed by the programmer.

To me you are trying to defend a position that is obviously fallacious.

The algorithms that process the input to generate the information can be traced back to an intelligent mind.
This shouldn't be difficult to understand.

Nils wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 1:10 am

RickD wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 3:41 pm

Nils wrote:
Yes, but only in a very indirect way. The actual information comes from the program execution which is independent of the programmer. The programmer is the source of the program code but the program code isn't the source of the information; it's when the code is executed knowledge/information is created.

Nils,

The underlined is where your argument fails.

How can you claim that the program execution is independent of the programmer?

Didn't the programmer program the computer to execute the way that it did?

It is not difficult to write a program that will output a series of numbers and you, the programmer, don't have any idea of which numbers if will output. More important is that the input data contains information in an intrinsic form and what the program does is finding that information. The programmer doesn't know the information of the input data so in this sense the program execution and its result is independent of the programmer. In the case with the electric generator the process of electricity generation is in some way independent of the engineer. It will continue even if he disappears.

The important part of what you cited above isn't about the definition of dependency but the third sentence concerning information.
Nils

Well, we're back to square one.

Maybe you'd like to try again, to find an example of information being created without intelligence doing the creating.

RickD wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 4:52 am

Nils wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 1:10 am

RickD wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 3:41 pm

Nils wrote:
Yes, but only in a very indirect way. The actual information comes from the program execution which is independent of the programmer. The programmer is the source of the program code but the program code isn't the source of the information; it's when the code is executed knowledge/information is created.

Nils,

The underlined is where your argument fails.

How can you claim that the program execution is independent of the programmer?

Didn't the programmer program the computer to execute the way that it did?

It is not difficult to write a program that will output a series of numbers and you, the programmer, don't have any idea of which numbers if will output. More important is that the input data contains information in an intrinsic form and what the program does is finding that information. The programmer doesn't know the information of the input data so in this sense the program execution and its result is independent of the programmer. In the case with the electric generator the process of electricity generation is in some way independent of the engineer. It will continue even if he disappears.

The important part of what you cited above isn't about the definition of dependency but the third sentence concerning information.
Nils

Well, we're back to square one.

Maybe you'd like to try again, to find an example of information being created without intelligence doing the creating.

An example of information being created without intelligence doing the creating? Nil's posts.

Kurieuo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 6:00 am

RickD wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 4:52 am

Nils wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 1:10 am

RickD wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 3:41 pm

Nils wrote:
Yes, but only in a very indirect way. The actual information comes from the program execution which is independent of the programmer. The programmer is the source of the program code but the program code isn't the source of the information; it's when the code is executed knowledge/information is created.

Nils,

The underlined is where your argument fails.

How can you claim that the program execution is independent of the programmer?

Didn't the programmer program the computer to execute the way that it did?

It is not difficult to write a program that will output a series of numbers and you, the programmer, don't have any idea of which numbers if will output. More important is that the input data contains information in an intrinsic form and what the program does is finding that information. The programmer doesn't know the information of the input data so in this sense the program execution and its result is independent of the programmer. In the case with the electric generator the process of electricity generation is in some way independent of the engineer. It will continue even if he disappears.

The important part of what you cited above isn't about the definition of dependency but the third sentence concerning information.
Nils

Well, we're back to square one.

Maybe you'd like to try again, to find an example of information being created without intelligence doing the creating.

An example of information being created without intelligence doing the creating? Nil's posts.

Please stick to Fosters, kangaroos, and Vegemite, and leave the sarcasm to me.

K: An example of information being created without intelligence doing the creating? Nil's posts.

They are also clear examples of his complete desperation to believe in obviously impossible and illogical things - to continue deluding himself and buttress his unbelief. And yet, it HAS been useful for people around the world reading these posts to see a logical analysis that exposes the folly he's engaged in.

And, as I'm fond of saying, his evolutionary arguments of what he thinks is possible without a creative and guiding Intelligence is just a slight of hand distraction from his even greater problem - of a universe, a full 12+ billion years BEFORE there were even any simple life forms to evolve - instantly coming into existence, and within minutes, extraordinary building blocks of breathtaking designs appeared and began brilliantly organizing on a scale we cannot fathom, while obeying laws of great precision. This ALL takes extraordinary intelligence beyond anything man can conceive! So the unguided evolution argumentation is simply akin to a magician's misdirection obscuring to what SHOULD be his far-greater focus and problem. But a person committed to unbelief can persuade themselves of almost anything - they'll not let impossibilities and powerful logic get in the way! And their argument ALWAYS boils down to: "Just because we don't yet know how it all happened, doesn't mean their aren't many possibilities that in no way require a God to make it happen." So, his is truly a BLIND faith in the unsubstantiated and logically impossible - but a powerful, though unmerited, faith it certainly is.