Shalamar
Dark Lord of the JREF
I've noticed his constant appeals to ignorance and incredulity.
I also suspect he's been putting people on ignore when he can't refute them as easily.
Creationist argument about DNA and information
- Thread starter barehl
- Start date
I've noticed his constant appeals to ignorance and incredulity.
I also suspect he's been putting people on ignore when he can't refute them as easily.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
THANKS!! This will be quick.
So you don't need Scientific Hypotheses to do Science??
Forming Testable Hypotheses:
"The key word is testable. That is, you will perform a test of how two variables might be related. This is when you are doing a real experiment. You are testing variables.
Formalized Hypotheses example: If skin cancer is related to ultraviolet light , then people with a high exposure to uv light will have a higher frequency of skin cancer.
If leaf color change is related to temperature , then exposing plants to low temperatures will result in changes in leaf color.
Notice that these statements contain the words , if and then. They are necessary in a formalized hypothesis.
Formalized hypotheses contain two variables. One is "independent" and the other is "dependent." The independent variable is the one you, the "scientist" control and the dependent variable is the one that you observe and/or measure the results.The ultimate value of a formalized hypothesis is it forces us to think about what results we should look for in an experiment.
Notice there are two parts to a formalized hypothesis: the “if” portion contains the testable proposed relationship and the “then” portion is the prediction of expected results from an experiment." An acceptable hypothesis contains both aspects, not just the prediction portion."
http://www.csub.edu/~ddodenhoff/Bio100/Bio100sp04/formattingahypothesis.htm
In Summary...
No "Independent Variables" = No Scientific Hypothesis-ee.
No Scientific Hypothesis-ee = No Science-ee. Savvy?
oy vey
Funny, your linked source says this:
Why did you leave that out?
Surely not more cherry-picking?
Yea, it's understood. The last published words of the Grand Poobah of OOL research...
"However, solutions offered by supporters of geneticist or metabolist scenarios that are dependent on “if pigs could fly” hypothetical chemistry are unlikely to help."
Orgel LE (2008); The Implausibility of Metabolic Cycles on the Prebiotic Earth, PLoS Biology.
AND....This is only referencing the Physical Molecules!
"evolution", what's that?? Please post the Scientific Theory of evolution...?
rotflol. So information can be created without Intelligent Agency, eh?? Well Go Ahead....?
Information---the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/information
Can't wait to see this!
Is this "Information"...
eyfmv sbekfl ehaftjf imyayeod fasfstllgjda kolvn evt4s3refd 42ofdwr pgjdfner yerithdnvkdkg mdskd.
??
Appeal to Ridicule Fallacy.
regards
Because my point was regarding Scientific Hypothesis TESTING and "Independent Variables", not mere Observations.
Call/email them and post 'their take' Scientific Theory of evolution....?
No, just subject focus.
If I wanna CITE a particular point from War and Peace, I don't post the entire book.
Look up Parenthetical Citations/Works Cited pages/Bibliographies.
regards
Really?? AND, like a for instance......? Do you understand the Concept of SUPPORTING what you say, by chance?
regards
Daniel, I waited ~a day to see if you'd respond to my three lengthy posts (here, here, and here).
I'll now respond to this one:
No.
However, several careers ago I was. Of ESL/EFL, focusing on technical communication, especially writing.
It's kinda ironic that, in quite a few of your posts, you talk about communication, the transmitter, the receiver, and (largely by omission) the channel. One of the things I tried to impress on my students is the importance of understanding your intended audience. And here in this very thread you seemed, at least once, to have acknowledged this. Strange, then, that the channel you have employed is so noisy.
Good to know.
For this particular receiver, you clearly failed.
And both times you failed.
Yes. Here's a few summaries (this is by no means comprehensive):
You have engaged in the intellectually dishonest practice of quote mining.
Your sources do not support the claims you have made, and in some cases directly contradict them.
You have used several logical fallacies in your presentations, some several times.
You seem to be ignorant of the subject matter that is core to your presentations, whether that be astronomy, geology, biology, chemistry, or information science. In some cases, your apparent ignorance left me gobsmacked.
I agree.
From now on I'll write about you, your apparent approach, the inconsistencies in what you present, and so on. However, I do not intend to engage in a dialog with you. But I do thank you for pointing to materials on the scientific study of information, its flow, etc in biology, especially the role played by complex organic molecules, DNA, RNA, etc. I had not appreciated just how much progress there has been in applying information science to biology, and what practical implications there are from (potential) application of this (e.g. in medicine).
One last question: my impression is that no ISF member has been convinced of the validity of any of your (apparent) core ideas; certainly none of those who have posted in this and the other thread seem to be the least bit impressed, much less convinced.
Why is that, do you think?
I'll now respond to this one:
No.
However, several careers ago I was. Of ESL/EFL, focusing on technical communication, especially writing.
It's kinda ironic that, in quite a few of your posts, you talk about communication, the transmitter, the receiver, and (largely by omission) the channel. One of the things I tried to impress on my students is the importance of understanding your intended audience. And here in this very thread you seemed, at least once, to have acknowledged this. Strange, then, that the channel you have employed is so noisy.
Good to know.
For this particular receiver, you clearly failed.
And both times you failed.
Yes. Here's a few summaries (this is by no means comprehensive):
You have engaged in the intellectually dishonest practice of quote mining.
Your sources do not support the claims you have made, and in some cases directly contradict them.
You have used several logical fallacies in your presentations, some several times.
You seem to be ignorant of the subject matter that is core to your presentations, whether that be astronomy, geology, biology, chemistry, or information science. In some cases, your apparent ignorance left me gobsmacked.
I agree.
From now on I'll write about you, your apparent approach, the inconsistencies in what you present, and so on. However, I do not intend to engage in a dialog with you. But I do thank you for pointing to materials on the scientific study of information, its flow, etc in biology, especially the role played by complex organic molecules, DNA, RNA, etc. I had not appreciated just how much progress there has been in applying information science to biology, and what practical implications there are from (potential) application of this (e.g. in medicine).
One last question: my impression is that no ISF member has been convinced of the validity of any of your (apparent) core ideas; certainly none of those who have posted in this and the other thread seem to be the least bit impressed, much less convinced.
Why is that, do you think?
Last edited:
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Nope. You cherry picked a section of a document which directly contradicts your own contention.
There is a word to describe that kind of behaviour.
AFAIK, Daniel has not responded to this.
I do not expect him to do so. Why? Because I think it's quite important to his presentation to leave 'information' vague; kinda like: present some waffle, wait for someone to respond, attack them if they say something unacceptable, repeat essentially the same waffle if asked for clarification.
I would be delighted to be shown - by Daniel - to be wrong.
I Am The Scum
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2010
- Messages
- 5,796
RussDill
Philosopher
So one of the main problems here is that you seem to assume definitions of "observer" and "knowledge" that are different than the people who wrote the things you are reading. A quantum observer is not a person, and knowledge in this context is not a person knowing something. The fact that you on one hand claim that particles cannot store knowledge, but then claim that DNA encodes knowledge seems very strange.
The fact that you think Young's double slit experiment has anything at all to do with an observer shows you haven't studied it. At all. It merely involves shining light through a diffraction grating or two very closely spaced slits. The experiment was done in 1801 and did not involve attempting to measure which slit a particle went through. That came much later with Richard Feynman's proposal.
Here you go: https://nanoelectronics.unibas.ch/education/ModernPhysics/ZeilingerFoundQuantPhys.pdf
"The decision whether or not to rotate the polarization was made by a physical
random-number generator on a time scale short compared to the flight time of the photons."
Where the flight time of the photons was over 400m, or 1.4µs. They also suggest an experiment that could allow free-will to influence the direction of the detectors, but concluded that such an experiment could only be carried out in space due to the necessary distances. All of the delayed choice quantum experiments suffer from this same problem and all delayed choice detector decisions are thus made randomly.
Actually, even we are made up of quantum particles that abide by the laws of quantum physics. The different interpretations of quantum mechanics have different answers to the above question, but they are only interpretations and it doesn't matter which one you use, the math works out the same. Many interpretations don't even bother with collapse at all.
This is actually a discussion of the experiment described in the linked paper above. Here, "long after" refers to 1.4µs. In the world of quantum mechanics, this is a very long time. In the world of humans, it is a vanishingly small amount of time, it isn't even enough time for the retina to register a photon, much less the brain perceive it.
And again, this is with a physical random number generator.
I'm actually surrounded by collections of particles that store quite a bit of knowledge. I like to call them books.
Apparently you didn't read the paper where he actually describes the measurement apparatus. The measurement apparatus is a particle detector. The measurements are stored in a computer and known by the computer.
I know definitions are not that important to you, but the word "naive" has a very general meaning. If you actually read the paper, you can see that they are rejecting Einstein Locality.
Ah, so God sees continuous wave functions without collapse, yes?
Just type their name into google and pick pretty much any result on the first page, the first three of either will do just fine.
The fact that you think Young's double slit experiment has anything at all to do with an observer shows you haven't studied it. At all. It merely involves shining light through a diffraction grating or two very closely spaced slits. The experiment was done in 1801 and did not involve attempting to measure which slit a particle went through. That came much later with Richard Feynman's proposal.
Here you go: https://nanoelectronics.unibas.ch/education/ModernPhysics/ZeilingerFoundQuantPhys.pdf
"The decision whether or not to rotate the polarization was made by a physical
random-number generator on a time scale short compared to the flight time of the photons."
Where the flight time of the photons was over 400m, or 1.4µs. They also suggest an experiment that could allow free-will to influence the direction of the detectors, but concluded that such an experiment could only be carried out in space due to the necessary distances. All of the delayed choice quantum experiments suffer from this same problem and all delayed choice detector decisions are thus made randomly.
Actually, even we are made up of quantum particles that abide by the laws of quantum physics. The different interpretations of quantum mechanics have different answers to the above question, but they are only interpretations and it doesn't matter which one you use, the math works out the same. Many interpretations don't even bother with collapse at all.
This is actually a discussion of the experiment described in the linked paper above. Here, "long after" refers to 1.4µs. In the world of quantum mechanics, this is a very long time. In the world of humans, it is a vanishingly small amount of time, it isn't even enough time for the retina to register a photon, much less the brain perceive it.
And again, this is with a physical random number generator.
I'm actually surrounded by collections of particles that store quite a bit of knowledge. I like to call them books.
Apparently you didn't read the paper where he actually describes the measurement apparatus. The measurement apparatus is a particle detector. The measurements are stored in a computer and known by the computer.
I know definitions are not that important to you, but the word "naive" has a very general meaning. If you actually read the paper, you can see that they are rejecting Einstein Locality.
Ah, so God sees continuous wave functions without collapse, yes?
Just type their name into google and pick pretty much any result on the first page, the first three of either will do just fine.
I Am The Scum
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2010
- Messages
- 5,796
I agree. I don't think we'll see him do anything other than nibble at the crust of the sandwich (even if he chews quite loudly). This is why I'm trying to keep my question as simple and to-the-point as possible.
Son of Inigo
Thinker
THANKS!! This will be quick.
So you don't need Scientific Hypotheses to do Science??
Forming Testable Hypotheses:
"The key word is testable. That is, you will perform a test of how two variables might be related. This is when you are doing a real experiment. You are testing variables.
Formalized Hypotheses example: If skin cancer is related to ultraviolet light , then people with a high exposure to uv light will have a higher frequency of skin cancer.
If leaf color change is related to temperature , then exposing plants to low temperatures will result in changes in leaf color.
Notice that these statements contain the words , if and then. They are necessary in a formalized hypothesis.
Formalized hypotheses contain two variables. One is "independent" and the other is "dependent." The independent variable is the one you, the "scientist" control and the dependent variable is the one that you observe and/or measure the results.The ultimate value of a formalized hypothesis is it forces us to think about what results we should look for in an experiment.
Notice there are two parts to a formalized hypothesis: the “if” portion contains the testable proposed relationship and the “then” portion is the prediction of expected results from an experiment." An acceptable hypothesis contains both aspects, not just the prediction portion."
http://www.csub.edu/~ddodenhoff/Bio100/Bio100sp04/formattingahypothesis.htm
In Summary...
No "Independent Variables" = No Scientific Hypothesis-ee.
No Scientific Hypothesis-ee = No Science-ee. Savvy?
oy vey
From the very link you supplied Daniel (shows at least one person in the conversation is willing to click links and digest the information presented).
http://www.csub.edu/~ddodenhoff/Bio100/Bio100sp04/formattingahypothesis.htm
~Hilited by me~
And the bit you quoted is about that specific experiment being done, not all science everywhere. From the same link as above.
~Hilited and bolded by me~
That means I don't have to have your vaunted 'Independent Variables' to do science on the ice cores, or a piece of cake.
The fact that you don't understand that not all scientific experiments are conducted in a lab under controlled conditions baffles me. If it can't be brought into the lab, then it can't be subjected to scientific study? That is ludicrous.
Also, as pointed out in my last post to you, I don't even need to "do science" on the ice core to determine the age of the ice sheet. There is not anything scientific about it. Annual dust layers forming on an ice sheet needs no scientific hypothesis. It is a proven observable fact. Science can help calibrate the count and validate the count, but counting the layers is NOT science. Recording a proven observable fact is not science, it is record keeping. The number of layers in an ice core sample = number of years.
And again, you dodge another question. How 'bout those cake layers? Is there anyway possible for you to determine how many cake layers there are in a cake you did not independently observer being baked?
The argument for 'Independent Variables' is busted. Perhaps 'Daniel' science needs them in every case to do 'Daniel' science, but not all real science being done by real scientists.
Scientifically, I remain yours, ect, ect.....
To be fair though, "information" is a slippery topic, difficult to grasp in any useful way - or rather, grasped in all sorts of useful ways, but not necessarily mapping one way onto any of the others. His best bet is the conversation killer, "it's apodictic" - something he mentioned early on. Either it's obvious to someone or not, with no deeper meaning required.
For that reason, I would be happy to get Daniel's take on the function "information" is supposed to play in his larger schema. What it actually is might be impossible to pin down, but maybe we can approach it by way of what it does (or is supposed to do).
I fear the word might simply be an attribute like "divinity." I can't really tell you precisely what that's supposed to be, but I can assert God has it and you don't.
ETA: We should still be able to ask how information is linked to DNA. For example, is the information passed to offspring, and if so, is it additive? Does shuffling DNA make new information (quantity) or just different information of the same amount? Does information have to have a real referent (an "about") - that is, is a recipe for how to roast a unicorn of the same type and ranking as how to roast a chicken? How can we measure the amount of information in some sequence of naked DNA we are presented with? To what extent does information depend on context?
That latter is one I've argued before, taking the strong position that there is no information in DNA at all, merely in the system of which DNA is a small part - a tough concept to even describe, much less defend.
Last edited:
How so....?
Lets see...
"The observer in quantum theory does more that just read the recordings. He also CHOOSES WHICH QUESTION will be put to nature: which aspect of nature his inquiry will probe. I call this important function of the observer the`The Heisenberg Choice', to contrast it with the `Dirac Choice', which is the random choice on the part of Nature that Dirac emphasized.
According to quantum theory, the Dirac Choice is a choice between alternatives that are specified by the Heisenberg Choice: THE OBSERVER MUST FIRST specify what aspect of the system he intends to measure or probe, and then put in place an instrument that will probe that aspect. In quantum theory it is THE OBSERVER who Both poses the QUESTION, and RECOGNIZES THE ANSWER. Without some way of specifying WHAT THE QUESTION IS, the QUANTUM RULES will NOT WORK: the QUANTUM PROCESS GRINDS TO A HALT." {emphasis mine}
Stapp, H; Attention, Intention, and Will in Quantum Physics; 1999, p. 21
I think I got it.
Really, then what is a Quantum Observer....?
1. Well drop your Straw Man Fallacy of your conjured claim that I said "DNA Encodes Knowledge", that would probably help.
DNA is merely The Medium...it doesn't "KNOW" anything.
2. Particles can't store KNOWLEDGE...they can store 'DATA' if Purposely Designed to do so (SEE: Computers). Data is not "Knowledge"/Information.
oh brother.
But the thousands of Experiments after it HAVE!! lol
So what? What's your point?
How/What does it Invalidate?
Well let's go through them and evaluate their VERACITY and Scientific Prowess....?
Math isn't "Science"/Physics...much like A Tape Measure isn't Carpentry. One of the main reasons is they're 2 different words.
Math is Immaterial "Abstract" and @ BEST, merely "describes"... it "EXPLAINS" exactly Squat/Nada.
Science is in the business of EXPLAINING by Validating/In-Validating "Cause and Effect" relationships between Independent and Dependent Variables via Rigorous Hypothesis TESTING.
Albert Einstein: Lecture, Prussian Academy of Sciences in Berlin 27 Jan 1921...
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."
So....?
So What....??
Yea, and WHO wrote them...Intelligent Agents, maybe?? And it sure better be in a convention that you understand, eh? I think I see where you're off the reservation...
Physical "Detectors" are merely inanimate surrogates that are DESIGNED by Intelligent Agents to detect what we inherently cannot; they only relay and elucidate "Data" (The Antecedent). Inherently, "which-path" is (The Consequent, of Reasoning) "Information". "Data" and "Information" are NOT equals sir. e.g.,
Data: aaaaaaaa from Detector 1 and bbbbbbbb from Detector 2... means what? You have no idea because we didn't "AGREE" beforehand on the convention/medium/and meaning of what these meant.
It only becomes "Information" then "Knowledge" (The Consequent) AFTER we AGREED beforehand or set up in ADVANCE the convention, medium, and meaning, THEN Reconciled by Intelligence. This is only ever ever ever accomplished by Intelligent Agency, without Exception!
What would have happened if Paul Revere never met (agreed on meaning/medium/convention) with the Patriots and sent "Signals"---"DATA" (1 Light or 2 Lights) from the Old North Church??
Ahh, not much right? Moreover, was it the Lights (medium) that coordinated the meeting?
Information is Semiotic, it's not a Physical Entity or a Physical Aspect of the Medium of Conveyance. Photons from Paul Revere's Lamps weren't physically carrying Information...the Lights were just the medium used to signal the Intelligent Agents; who then assigned the Pre-Arranged meaning.... (Information) Now Exists. It is only then, they " know "... "which-path"
Norman Weiner, Professor of Mathematics at MIT...
“Information is information, neither matter nor energy.”
Wiener, N., Cybernetics, or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine, Hermann et Cie, The Technology Press, Paris, 1948.
Physical Detectors are merely "The Medium" used for acquisition of "RAW" data, what it was "designed" for in the first place. Intelligence and Intelligence alone liberates/extracts "Meaning" (Information) from Pre-Arranged agreed upon and purposely constructed: Convention and Medium.
Essentially when you break it down, you're saying: the Ink/Paper/Glue Molecules (The Medium) is responsible for War and Peace (Information).
See everything after 'off the reservation' above.
And, I've read it many MANY times.
Ahhh, Nope.
I did, that's why I asked you to do it to SUPPORT your Ipse Dixit Baseless Assertion (Fallacy)
regards
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Daniel: Who designed the designer
!
The delusion that DNA is "Algorithmic Information Theory".
Apparently what you KNOW is how the universe acts!
The ignorance of thinking that a fantasy is a null hypothesis.
A lie abut "We surely "know" how it didn't ("Nature"/Natural Law);". I for one know abut the theories of abiogenesis.
Darwin123 points out one of the basic problems of ID. Simply put: Who designed the designer
!
9 March 2016 Daniel: Who designed the designer?
The creationist answer is that the designer is some imaginary supernatural being, e.g.one or more of the hundreds of gods, demons, etc. in mythology.
The ID answer is to show how useless ID is by emphasizing that they have no idea about the nature of the designer (ID is design with any imaginary designer that anyone can think up).
Followed by a long rant in the same style from you Daniel
!The delusion that DNA is "Algorithmic Information Theory".
Apparently what you KNOW is how the universe acts!
The ignorance of thinking that a fantasy is a null hypothesis.
A lie abut "We surely "know" how it didn't ("Nature"/Natural Law);". I for one know abut the theories of abiogenesis.
Darwin123 points out one of the basic problems of ID. Simply put: Who designed the designer
!9 March 2016 Daniel: Who designed the designer?
The creationist answer is that the designer is some imaginary supernatural being, e.g.one or more of the hundreds of gods, demons, etc. in mythology.
The ID answer is to show how useless ID is by emphasizing that they have no idea about the nature of the designer (ID is design with any imaginary designer that anyone can think up).
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Lots of your usual baseless assumptions about science, Daniel.
An irrelevant delusion: No one who knows about science thinks that math is science. No one who knows about physics thinks that math is physics. They know about the role of observations and experiment in science and physics. They know that the language of science and physics is mathematics.
An irrelevant lie by quote mining: The full lecture and context of the quote: Albert Einstein: Lecture, Prussian Academy of Sciences in Berlin 27 Jan 1921
The delusion and quote mine are irrelevant because you are replying to a comment about the well known fact that QM has different interpretations which have the same predictions. The math is mostly the same, e.g. we see the same position and momentum operators. Some interpretations add extra math.
RussDill
Philosopher
Since the papers and experiments in question do not use the word knowledge to describe quantum state, but use the terms information and data, you can't claim that it is knowledge and not data, sorry, you lose here.
And to back up, you have not even defined knowledge, much less a way to differentiate it from information.
And to back up, you have not even defined knowledge, much less a way to differentiate it from information.
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
Actually, I think Daniel has pretty much said what his definition of "information" is-To be fair though, "information" is a slippery topic, difficult to grasp in any useful way - or rather, grasped in all sorts of useful ways, but not necessarily mapping one way onto any of the others. His best bet is the conversation killer, "it's apodictic" - something he mentioned early on. Either it's obvious to someone or not, with no deeper meaning required.
For that reason, I would be happy to get Daniel's take on the function "information" is supposed to play in his larger schema. What it actually is might be impossible to pin down, but maybe we can approach it by way of what it does (or is supposed to do).
I fear the word might simply be an attribute like "divinity." I can't really tell you precisely what that's supposed to be, but I can assert God has it and you don't.
ETA: We should still be able to ask how information is linked to DNA. For example, is the information passed to offspring, and if so, is it additive? Does shuffling DNA make new information (quantity) or just different information of the same amount? Does information have to have a real referent (an "about") - that is, is a recipe for how to roast a unicorn of the same type and ranking as how to roast a chicken? How can we measure the amount of information in some sequence of naked DNA we are presented with? To what extent does information depend on context?
That latter is one I've argued before, taking the strong position that there is no information in DNA at all, merely in the system of which DNA is a small part - a tough concept to even describe, much less defend.
steenkh asked him, just two posts later,
and I think that's exactly what Daniel is doing, except what steenkh characterized as "confusing" seems more like "deliberately conflating" to me. For all Daniel's slobbering over other people "begging the question," his whole schtick here is based on just that- it's easy to "prove" that the information in DNA, as a message, must be the result of communication- "sourced"- by agency when communication by agency is the only definition you'll allow for "information." His ragged little syllogism above absolutely depends on his limiting the definition for "information," assuming as the only case what he needs as the only case, ipse-dixing what he needs to demonstrate. It's true enough that code has information and that codes have authors, but not all information is code- he simply skipped to "information has authors" without bothering to show his work defining information as always code (other than the minimum work of assertion). Messages deliberately communicated by agency-code- are a subset of "information," but not the entirety of it- information can be extracted by one agency without having to be a message from another, an author. To add to Jean Tate's examples- in the area I live (MS Gulf Coast), there's pretty intense interest every year in weather patterns that may or may not result in a hurricane. When a storm does result, hurricane hunters go out and measure things, like barometric pressure, eyewall size and strength, etc.; forecasters take that data and map it against things like wind shear, moving fronts, etc., to come up with predictions that are (believe me) pretty useful information for anybody living in an area potentially affected. All these things are information extracted, not communicated (unless you're going to argue that god steers the storm, in which case the conversation is, for any useful purpose, over).
Last edited:
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2008
- Messages
- 4,852
Daniel insists on using the word "information" in its narrowest sense. His usage requires an agreed upon code, a sender, a receiver, etc. He has the same problem with the word "selection." He fails to recognize that these anthropomorphic words have broader meaning outside of human behavior and activity and so do not require an intelligence for their action and consequences.
PHYSICS: Whether "information" is lost in black holes has been an ongoing debate among physicists.
BIOLOGY: "Selection" occurs every time an egg is fertilized.
The broader definitions of these words seem to be beyond his comprehension, resulting in the endless semantic games we are witnessing.
PHYSICS: Whether "information" is lost in black holes has been an ongoing debate among physicists.
BIOLOGY: "Selection" occurs every time an egg is fertilized.
The broader definitions of these words seem to be beyond his comprehension, resulting in the endless semantic games we are witnessing.
Last edited:
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
If I write the instructions on how to pour water out of a boot on the heel of that boot, the information exists, regardless of whether there is a mind around to interpret that information.
in fact, the odds are that the average individual mind will discover the method without having actually seen the information, and will find it only after successfully draining the boot. Science often works that way, too--you discover the method, then find the instructions--in the mathematical modeling
the same goes for many things in reality--we didn't discover how gravity works (not to be confused with what gravity actually is) until we had OBSERVED and hypothesized about it, and then discovered the maths.
Just because we hadn't "experimented"Dsci did not mean the stars, planets, and water in a boot just meandered around aimlessly--they followed the patterns and rules we simply couldn't yet describe
The great thing about science and reality: They always work, every time, whether you believe in it or not.
in fact, the odds are that the average individual mind will discover the method without having actually seen the information, and will find it only after successfully draining the boot. Science often works that way, too--you discover the method, then find the instructions--in the mathematical modeling
the same goes for many things in reality--we didn't discover how gravity works (not to be confused with what gravity actually is) until we had OBSERVED and hypothesized about it, and then discovered the maths.
Just because we hadn't "experimented"Dsci did not mean the stars, planets, and water in a boot just meandered around aimlessly--they followed the patterns and rules we simply couldn't yet describe
The great thing about science and reality: They always work, every time, whether you believe in it or not.