Good work A Ha
I am deeply ashamed that I didn't accept evolution until a few years ago...
by ILoveTTATT2 113 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
A Ha
Thanks! I'm going to have to read his book I guess.
Here is a link to something he's written on the topic, and I believe there are PDFs available for download on his website.
To me that definition sounds more along the line of linguistics (i.e. What constitutes a living language) than about the encoding and transfer of information, which can be almost completely one sided in terms of anything we would call intelligence.
I'm not an information theory or linguistics expert by any means, but that's how it seems to me, as well. Information is mathematical; it's a quantity (decrease in uncertainty) expressed as bits.
But that doesn't get you to God, so he has turned it into this linguistic thing so he can focus on intentionally sending information. Expressed mathematically, we have intelligence on the receiving end (we can examine tree rings to gather information about the tree and the environment in past years, which lowers our uncertainty) but not necessarily on the sending end (the environment is the sender in the case of tree rings).
-
Vidqun
Vidqun: Yes, TD I believe you’ve hit the nail on the head. Gitt and associates base their findings on their study of language and computer code. I agree with Gitt, one could and should classify information as information and Universal Information.
I believe Gitt is in error when he classifies the DNA information system as a mere language. It’s much more than a language. It’s a coded operating system with an error correcting system and a two way communication system all thrown in. We can only surmise how energy is distributed and the role of enzymes to speed things up. Remember, the DNA gives instructions and receives instructions: Structural protein is needed. Structural protein is manufactured. The process is stopped when a saturation point has been reached. Yes, the cell is a little microcosm with far reaching consequences. It originates life, sustains life and reproduces life.
That brings me to one of Gitt’s questions:
Biological systems are more complex than technological systems. Should there not be a specific definition of information from biological systems?
Gitt: It is true that biological systems are far more complex than our technological inventions. It is also possible that there may be other-than-UI forms of information encoded within the DNA molecules. If and when other-than-UI forms of information are discovered, these must be unambigiously defined. In the mean time, the definition of UI, derived from human natural and machine languages, perfectly characterizes the ‘information’ that is present in the DNA of all organisms-specifically within the DNA/RNA Protein Synthesizing System (DPRSS). Therefore, at least for the DRPSS, the definition of UI is appropriate and scientific laws that govern its domain can be applied. “Without Excuse,” p. 247.
Vidqun: Deduction (take note, this he deducts or infers from what was previously stated).
Universal Information can only be created by an intelligent sender.
The ‘information’ conveyed by the DPRSS qualifies as UI.
Therefore, UI in the DNA RNA Protein Synthesis System must have been created by an intelligent sender.
This brings me to two relevant questions, especially for you A Ha. I was in error. An intelligent sender is not a prerequisite for his definition as UI. I assumed it was. I was wrong:
Does the sender also belong to your definition of Universal Information? If that were true then the conclusion would be, of course, that the sender exists.
Gitt: The sender is not part of nor a prerequisite for the definition of Universal Information. In either case it would be a circular argument. All scientific laws are established by observation and experimentation and not prejudiced by assumptions or prerequisites. When we investigate an unknown system we have to determine whether all four distinguishing attributes of Universal Information are present. If so, then we can apply the Scientific Laws of Universal Information to reach the conclusion that the UI in the unknown system must have been created by an intelligent author. “Without Excuse,” pp. 248, 249.
Vidqun: Remember the Enigma Machine of the Germans. It was designed and built by German scientists in WW II. The English could only break its code if they had one in their possession. Now, the Enigma Machine is crude in comparison to the code of the DNA information system.
The criteria for information seem to be mostly subjective.
Gitt: Yes, the criteria for information may seem subjective because there are several ‘definitions’ for ‘information.’ However our criteria for Universal Information are based on careful observation of human natural and machine languages. We began by observing and establishing a hierarchy of five levels, the lowest being statistical with progressively higher levels, i.e., cosyntic, semantic, pragmatic and apobetic. Further study revealed that the upper four levels are distinguishing attributes that together unambigiously define Universal Information. Therefore the definition of Universal Information (UI) is: A symbolically encoded, abstractly represented message conveying the expected action(s) and the intended purpose(s). “Without Excuse,” p. 242. [Cursive script his.]
-
A Ha
This is long and rambly, so here's a TL;DR: He does assume an intelligent sender and he still needs an intelligent receiver.
An intelligent sender is not a prerequisite for his definition as UI. I assumed it was. I was wrong:
Does the sender also belong to your definition of Universal Information? If that were true then the conclusion would be, of course, that the sender exists.
Gitt: The sender is not part of nor a prerequisite for the definition of Universal Information. In either case it would be a circular argument.Based on his answer, I think perhaps you misunderstood the question, as did I when I first read it. My claim is that he assumes an intelligence in UI, but he seems to be answering whether the intelligence is included in the definition, as in, "Does [the identity of] the sender also belong to your definition..." I agree that his definition doesn't specify which intelligence is behind any particular UI (he calls it God, but that's not in the definition), but it absolutely does include the idea that some intelligence must be involved, and it it not deduced, but assumed.
There is no doubt that his definitions depend on and declare an intelligent source for information. As you say in your most recent post, "Deduction (take note, this he deducts or infers from what was previously stated)... Universal Information can only be created by an intelligent sender."
So he has avoided the circular argument of assuming God to prove God, and instead used the circular argument of assuming an intelligent source to prove an intelligent source... called God.
The definition he gives for information is, "A symbolically encoded, abstractly represented message conveying the expected action(s) and the intended purpose(s)." Much of this strongly implies or requires intelligence. What else but an intelligence expects action and has intended purpose?
He mentions the "Scientific Laws of Universal Information," which I assume are the same as found in his creation.com article. (He got these terms from his good friend Dr. Bob Compton. Dr. Compton lists a bunch of "Scientific Laws" which are not laws in the scientific sense, but besides being, I'm sure, a fantastic Veterinarian (that's his PhD), he's also a member of creation.com, so let's not get bogged down in pesky scientific rigor.)
Snark aside, his SLI are (I've bolded the important ones):
SLI-1: A material entity cannot generate a non-material entity
SLI-2: Universal information is a non-material fundamental entity
SLI-3: Universal information cannot be created by statistical processes
**SLI-4: Universal information can only be produced by an intelligent sender** (He says the intelligent sender: is conscious; has a will of its own; is creative; thinks autonomusly, acts purposefully.)
SLI-4a: Every code is based upon a mutual agreement between sender and receiver
SLI-4b: There is no new universal information without an intelligent sender
SLI-4c: Every information transmission chain can be traced back to an intelligent sender
SLI-4d: Attributing meaning to a set of symbols is an intellectual process requiring intelligence
So if he wants to claim he's not assuming an intelligence in his definition of UI (he is), then he needs to explain why it's being assumed in his SLI, which is consulted to determine if something is UI.
Obviously SLI-4 is where his biggest problems are. He just declares that this is some inviolable law without a shred of evidence, because he has defined UI as coming from an intelligence.
If he is going to marry these SLI with UI, then my counter is that DNA does not qualify as UI because it does not meet SLI-4a--4d. He needs to demonstrate the intelligent sender of DNA before he can use it to prove that DNA is UI. He can't just declare that DNA is UI then use it to conclude an intelligent sender.
A further problem is if he managed to demonstrate this intelligent sender, he is still undone by the absence of an intelligent receiver. The same SLI he consults as his litmus test for UI stipulate there must be an intelligent receiver able to understand the coded message. It must meet the same definition he gives the sender: is conscious; has a will of its own; is creative; thinks autonomusly, acts purposefully.