Creationist argument about DNA and information

[JeanTate]

Building on this:

Actually, I think Daniel has pretty much said what his definition of "information" is-


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).

<snip>

In his latest exercise in multiple logical fallacies and pointless semantics (here, in response to RussDill's patient attempt to explain the key parts of physics to him), Daniel has expanded on what, in Danielscience, "knowledge" is. The parallels with his use of "information" are clear.

There's a corollary (well, at least one): by using his own, private and idiosyncratic, definition of these key terms (might as well add "code" too), he has rendered moot his cited sources (not that they were, mostly, irrelevant anyway; quote mining etc).

To see this, take any of those sources, explore its full content (and context), and you will quickly see that using Daniel's definitions makes those works at best unintelligible. To say nothing of the fact that the various authors clearly did not intend "information" and "knowledge" to have the meanings Daniel ascribes to them ("code" may be somewhat of an exception).

One thing that continues to puzzle me: Why Daniel is doing this?

I mean, it doesn't take very much checking of his sources, logic, and claims to see that it lacks consistency (and even coherence, at times, e.g. the, um, nonsense he wrote about GR). Also, his audience - here in ISF - has told him, repeatedly, that he has failed to communicate his message to them ... yet he continues to dig himself deeper into the hole he himself created.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Are there any other side topics we haven't covered yet? Global warming? Responsible gun owners? Reptilians?

 

[Reality Check]

They use terms like "Which-Path Information". To Know something you have to have a MIND

Endlessly repeating semantic nonsense does not make your argument correct even with emphasis, Daniel.

(Slightly Abbreviated), "A Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser"---Yoon Ho Kim et al.

Lying about an "Slightly Abbreviated" description of a paper, Daniel, is bad !
You have written your own description in weird format (UPERRCASE, bold, underline, "scare quotes") and with the creationist delusion that information means mind as in the OP.

A Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser by Yoon-Ho Kim, R. Yu, S.P. Kulik, Y.H. Shih, Marlan .O. Scully Phys.Rev.Lett.84:1-5,2000

This paper reports a “delayed choice quantum eraser” experiment proposed by Scully and Dru¨hl in 1982. The experimental results demonstrated the possibility of simultaneously observing both particle-like and wave-like behavior of a quantum via quantum entanglement. The which-path or both-path information of a quantum can be erased or marked by its entangled twin even after the registration of the quantum.

The paper has no mention of the word know! The actual term used is "which-path information". There are no observers in the paper. There are only detectors that detect photons without any minds observing the process.
Which-path information is obtained by adding a detector to the apparatus that detects which path eek a photon follows. This is similar to what happens in single electron double slit experiments - turn on a SQUID detector to detect each electron as it goes through the slits and the interference pattern vanishes. The observer has no knowledge of which path the electrons go through which slits. The observer con leave the room, go on a round trip to Timbuktu and there will still be no interference pattern when they return. Needs a

 

[Daniel]

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.

Thanks for the Op-Ed.

If I write the instructions on how to pour water out of a boot...

Where'd you learn the convention?

in fact, the odds are that the average individual mind will discover the method without having actually seen the information

Does that Preclude the fact that there is Information Existing?

Science often works that way, too--you discover the method, then find the instructions--in the mathematical modeling

As mentioned, Math isn't "Science"/Physics...much like A Tape Measure isn't Carpentry. One of the main reasons is they're 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."

and then discovered the maths

Do the "maths" cause Gravity, or just merely "describe" it's effects?


Is this Information...

eyfmv sbekfl ehaftjf imyayeod fasfstllgjda kolvn evtgsyrefd kkofdwr pgjdfner yerithdnvkdkg mdskd. ??


regards

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

...Snipped wasted bytes...

Is this Information...

eyfmv sbekfl ehaftjf imyayeod fasfstllgjda kolvn evtgsyrefd kkofdwr pgjdfner yerithdnvkdkg mdskd. ??


regards

Yes it is. And it proves that information does not need any sort of intelligence behind it.

 

[Daniel]

Is this Information...

eyfmv sbekfl ehaftjf imyayeod fasfstllgjda kolvn evtgsyrefd kkofdwr pgjdfner yerithdnvkdkg mdskd. ??

Yes it is.

And....? errr, what's the message....?


regards

 

[I Am The Scum]

Is this Information...

eyfmv sbekfl ehaftjf imyayeod fasfstllgjda kolvn evtgsyrefd kkofdwr pgjdfner yerithdnvkdkg mdskd. ??




And....? errr, what's the message....?


regards

Translate a strand of DNA into English for me.

 

[Daniel]

Translate a strand of DNA into English for me.

Why

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

Is this Information...

eyfmv sbekfl ehaftjf imyayeod fasfstllgjda kolvn evtgsyrefd kkofdwr pgjdfner yerithdnvkdkg mdskd. ??




And....? errr, what's the message....?


regards

What on earth makes you think information has to carry a message?

It is information, because I can infer a lot from it. I can tell for instance that there are no real words formed, which is useful for understanding the intended irony in your post.

 

[Reality Check]

Davies, P., Brown, J.R.; The Ghost in the Atom; Cambridge University Press, p. 73-74

Daniel lies by cherry picking. The Ghost in the Atom: A Discussion of the Mysteries of Quantum Physics

Anybody who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it. Niels Bohr's dictum bears witness to the bewildering impact of quantum theory, flying in the face of classical physics and dramatically transforming scientists' outlook on our relationship with the material world. In this book Paul Davies interviews eight physicists involved in debating and testing the theory, with radically different views of its significance.

(my emphasis added)
The opinions that Daniel is cherry picking are from Rudolf Peierls and can be found in Google Books.
Rudolf Peierls 5 June 1907 – 19 September 1995) was interviewed when he was about 80 after a career as a nuclear physicist - not a expert in quantum mechanics.

Another bit of cherry picking is the age of the book - first published 1986 then reissued in 1993. More about QM has been learned since 1986.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Why

For the same reason you asked Maurice to do so.

Go ahead. Show me the message in DNA.

 

[Reality Check]

As mentioned, Math isn't "Science"/Physics...

Iirrelevant replies and quote mining make your arguments ridiculous, Daniel.
We already have: 9 March 2016 Daniel: An irrelevant delusion and lie by quote mining in reply to QM interpretations.
Now we have
9 March 2016 Daniel: The same irrelevant delusion and lie by quote mining in reply to "Science often works that way, too--you discover the method, then find the instructions--in the mathematical modeling"

 

[Daniel]

What on earth makes you think information has to carry a message?

1. Because INFORMation..."Informs"/instructs for the purpose of communication.

2. And Information doesn't "Carry Anything" (it's neither matter or energy) it's that which "Is Assigned" (Semiotic) to a Medium by a Pre-Arranged agreement to communicate.

You have the wrONG emPHAsis on the wrONG syLLAble.

It is information, because I can infer a lot from it. I can tell for instance that there are no real words formed, which is useful for understanding the intended irony in your post.

1. How can there be 'Information' if "you" can't liberate any instruction. Isn't it just noise, to you?

2. What you "infer"/dream up/conjure, is not "Information"...there is no "communication". Communication requires a Transmitter and a Receiver.

2. There's a message in "The String" with REAL WORDS, what are you missing to understand the communication

Here's a hint...

CODES:
"We repeatedly consider the following scenario: a sender (say, A) wants to communicate or transmit some information to a receiver (say, B). The information to be transmitted is an element from some set X . It will be communicated by sending a
binary string, called the message. When B receives the message, he can decode it again and (hopefully) reconstruct the element of X that was sent. To achieve this, A and B NEED TO AGREE on a code or description method BEFORE communicating." {emphasis mine]
Grunwald, P., Vitanyi, P ; Algorithmic Information Theory; p. 10, 14 Sept 2005


regards

 

[Daniel]

For the same reason you asked Maurice to do so.

Say what?? I asked Maurice to translate a strand of DNA into English?? I'm pretty sure, like with 100% Certitude, that I asked no such thing.

Go ahead. Show me the message in DNA.

Here's one...

The Amazing Kinesin (and yea, it's walking, with a "Labeled" Package rotflol)...

Got another 100,000 or so more.


regards

 

[Perpetual Student]

1. Because INFORMation..."Informs"/instructs for the purpose of communication.

...




1. How can there be 'Information' if "you" can't liberate any instruction. Isn't it just noise, to you?

2. What you "infer"/dream up/conjure, is not "Information"...there is no "communication". Communication requires a Transmitter and a Receiver.

2. There's a message in "The String" with REAL WORDS, what are you missing to understand the communication

Here's a hint...

CODES:
"We repeatedly consider the following scenario: a sender (say, A) wants to communicate or transmit some information to a receiver (say, B). The information to be transmitted is an element from some set X . It will be communicated by sending a
binary string, called the message. When B receives the message, he can decode it again and (hopefully) reconstruct the element of X that was sent. To achieve this, A and B NEED TO AGREE on a code or description method BEFORE communicating." {emphasis mine]
Grunwald, P., Vitanyi, P ; Algorithmic Information Theory; p. 10, 14 Sept 2005


regards

You insist on using the word "information" in its narrowest (most anthropomorphic) sense. So, for you, information requires an agreed upon code, a sender, a receiver, etc. You have the same problem with the word "selection." You fail 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 your comprehension, resulting in the endless semantic games we get from you. Focus on the science; semantic arguments are useless.
__________________

 

[Sideroxylon]

If Daniel took a historical evolutionary persepective on both human cognition and language - the very tools with which we must analyse and discuss this subject - he might be less prone to equivocation. Instead he seems to cling to common sense meanings of terms with their messy long socially constructed origins.

 

[Shalamar]

If Daniel took a historical evolutionary persepective on both human cognition and language - the very tools with which we must analyse and discuss this subject - he might be less prone to equivocation. Instead he seems to cling to common sense meanings of terms with their messy long socially constructed origins.

He wants that 'GOTCHA' moment where he can prove that everything is wrong, therefore god.

 

[Sideroxylon]

He wants that 'GOTCHA' moment where he can prove that everything is wrong, therefore god.

Well he knows he cannot make a coherent argument for a 10,000 year old cosmos ex nihilo, including a recent massive extinction event with all life respawning around a point in the Middle East. That idea is rendered absurd by many observations. The only thing he can do is focus on misrepresenting and dismissing as unknowable our best (by pragmatic predictive measures) origin narratives.

 

[Lowpro]

Well he knows he cannot make a coherent argument for a 10,000 year old cosmos ex nihilo, including a recent massive extinction event with all life respawning around a point in the Middle East. That idea is rendered absurd by many observations. The only thing he can do is focus on misrepresenting and dismissing as unknowable our best (by pragmatic predictive measures) origin narratives.

But hey, he just gave an example of a protein (a kinesin!) which is derived from a sequence in DNA, thus this must mean DNA is information and through mental gymnastics he equivocated Information Theory which assumes any information string meant to be a message must have a certainty (it can't be noise otherwise it's not a message...) which means there must be Message Writer who wrote the sequence of DNA, and his proof that DNA has a certainty is the "output" of proteins. It's an extension of the Watchmaker fallacy, only the false equivocation of information theory is a contemporary addition. It's cute. Wrong, but cute nonetheless.

I mean look that cellular garden, with all these flowers unique and functional to be pleasing to the eye, and must have been cultivated and seeds sewn in a discretionary arrangement to get that result, the gardener must be proud (except when he wants to drown his people in a flood or kill their firstborn because he's a dick). But this isn't an arranged garden, it's an entire forest, with canopies that block sunlight and apply selection pressure for forest floor fauna, and over time an appearance of order can be interpreted; a gestalt impression of a master gardener's handiwork, but really it's just physics. The assertion of a message writer in order to equivocate information theory with the sequence of DNA is merely superstition due to ignorance; seeing the face of Jesus in a pancake.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

I wonder sometimes...

I wonder what type of home, school or church allows a kid to think this is how you treat people. Skeptics and atheists are not the spawn of the devil. They are people.

A christian kid barges in somewhere and starts telling everyone they’re stupid; yells the same crap over and over, never listening to a word anyone says, except to pick out a word here and there to play word games with. Is that behaviour encouraged or even taught?

I’m not going to say I’m a model of virtue, or that I'm never aggressive online, but I’m glad I was raised better than that.

If that’s what I should expect from a fundie christian upbringing, I'm not impressed.