Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

History of Everything.

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 3 of 3
 [ 55 posts ] 
History of Everything.
Author Message
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3164Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: History of Everything.

Rhed wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:Thus, non-life to life is intelligence and beyond the natural. I think Visaki said it best already; "That's a nice claim. Got any evidence for it?" Oh, and please do not fall for the trap of person incredulity.


We always have experienced and observed life coming from life. If you feel differently due to scientific observation of non-life to life then present it. The burden of proof is on your side.


Burden shifting with a mix of incredulity (and I warned you about the incredulity). Remember, you are the one that claimed non-life to life is supernatural, I am simply asking how you know that to be the case. A thousand years ago, if you were to say "lightening is supernatural" and I asked "how do you know that?" Shifting your burden to say "prove that it is not supernatural" as you just did gets us nowhere. Our incredulity about this subject does not make an argument for it being supernatural, it just means we do not know. However, you claimed it as supernatural, meaning you have the burden to justify it; and incredulity is not going to cut it.

Rhed wrote:It's like experiencing the fact that windows shatter and break. The window could of shattered because of natural causes (wind, earthquake, etc.) or by a person. If I see that the same window is fixed I wouldn't ask you to prove to me that a person fixed it.


We already know humans exist, humans make windows, and humans would rather have windows instead of broken one. You see how different that is from your claim of non-life to life being supernatural? We have no indication that there is a supernatural, let alone that the supernatural can produce life from non-life. Keep this in mind when you start trying to justify your claim that non-life to life is supernatural.

Dragan Glas wrote:It's still just chemistry - what you wrongly call "information" is nothing more than chemistry, albeit more complex in that it involves larger molecules.


One wonders how Rhed defines information.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Sun Nov 27, 2016 2:20 am
YIM WWW
RhedUser avatarPosts: 260Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:01 amLocation: Currently on the sofa Gender: Male

Post Re: History of Everything.

Nesslig20 wrote:"The transcription machinery is not interchangeable, therefore, it isn't only chemistry involved."

Uhm no again, that doesn't follow at all. I don't think you know what qualifies something as chemistry.



Okay, I hate to ask but what then is chemistry?
If evolution was in the newspaper, it would be in the funnies
Sun Nov 27, 2016 3:58 am
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2204Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: History of Everything.

Variation in the frequency of nucleons and the behaviour of electrons.
Sun Nov 27, 2016 11:55 am
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 210Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: History of Everything.

Rhed wrote:
Nesslig20 wrote:"The transcription machinery is not interchangeable, therefore, it isn't only chemistry involved."

Uhm no again, that doesn't follow at all. I don't think you know what qualifies something as chemistry.



Okay, I hate to ask but what then is chemistry?


For the basics:
Wikipedia wrote:Chemistry is a branch of physical science that studies the composition, structure, properties and change of matter. Chemistry includes topics such as the properties of individual atoms, how atoms form chemical bonds to create chemical compounds, the interactions of substances through intermolecular forces that give matter its general properties, and the interactions between substances through chemical reactions to form different substances.


For more advanced explanation:
http://www.livescience.com/45986-what-is-chemistry.html
Chemistry is the study of matter, its properties, how and why substances combine or separate to form other substances, and how substances interact with energy. Many people think of chemists as being white-coated scientists mixing strange liquids in a laboratory, but the truth is we are all chemists.

Doctors, nurses and veterinarians must study chemistry, but understanding basic chemistry concepts is important for almost every profession. Chemistry is part of everything in our lives.

Every material in existence is made up of matter — even our own bodies. Chemistry is involved in everything we do, from growing and cooking food to cleaning our homes and bodies to launching a space shuttle. Chemistry is one of the physical sciences that help us to describe and explain our world.

Five branches

There are five main branches of chemistry, each of which has many areas of study.

Analytical chemistry uses qualitative and quantitative observation to identify and measure the physical and chemical properties of substances. In a sense, all chemistry is analytical.

Physical chemistry combines chemistry with physics. Physical chemists study how matter and energy interact. Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics are two of the important branches of physical chemistry.

Organic chemistry specifically studies compounds that contain the element carbon. Carbon has many unique properties that allow it to form complex chemical bonds and very large molecules. Organic chemistry is known as the “Chemistry of Life” because all of the molecules that make up living tissue have carbon as part of their makeup.

Inorganic chemistry studies materials such as metals and gases that do not have carbon as part of their makeup.

Biochemistry is the study of chemical processes that occur within living organisms.


So rule of thumb, if the system you are talking has units of atoms that combine into molecules and molecules interacting which each other by chemical forces or changing due to chemical reactions, you have chemistry.

That pretty much describes what happens in every living cell in a nutshell. Sure it doesn't describe everything about the processes that happens in living systems, the chemistry of life is very complex, but it is still inherently chemistry.

Your entire body is made of chemical compounds that is mostly Hydrogen, Oxygen, Carbon and Nitrogen (the most abundant atoms in the universe with the exception of helium, which is chemically inert, thus life cannot use it as part of its chemistry) and a couple other elements such as Calcium, Phosphorus, Potassium, Sulfur, Sodium, Chlorine and Magnesium as well as trace elements too many to name here.

And every one of those compounds interact with each other according to the principles of chemistry. Even the process that you would say has "information" in it, DNA being translated into RNA and RNA transcribed into protein, also happens according to chemical interaction.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Sun Nov 27, 2016 12:20 pm
RhedUser avatarPosts: 260Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:01 amLocation: Currently on the sofa Gender: Male

Post Re: History of Everything.

he_who_is_nobody wrote:One wonders how Rhed defines information.


Anything that has instructions, the ability to transmit those instructions, a receiver able to translate and read the instructions, and finally execution of those instructions. This is basically how programs, software, and have a conscious mind works. This is what I mean by information, which isn't only chemistry. It's another dimension to the chemistry involved.
If evolution was in the newspaper, it would be in the funnies
Sun Nov 27, 2016 1:18 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 2799Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: History of Everything.

Greetings,

Rhed wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:One wonders how Rhed defines information.


Anything that has instructions, the ability to transmit those instructions, a receiver able to translate and read the instructions, and finally execution of those instructions. This is basically how programs, software, and have a conscious mind works. This is what I mean by information, which isn't only chemistry. It's another dimension to the chemistry involved.

Everything is information.

You're using a invented term - "CSI" - that is not recognized by the scientific community.

Note how Dembski defines it.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Sun Nov 27, 2016 1:45 pm
RhedUser avatarPosts: 260Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:01 amLocation: Currently on the sofa Gender: Male

Post Re: History of Everything.

Rhed wrote:
Anything that has instructions, the ability to transmit those instructions, a receiver able to translate and read the instructions, and finally execution of those instructions. This is basically how programs, software, and have a conscious mind works. This is what I mean by information, which isn't only chemistry. It's another dimension to the chemistry involved.


Dragan Glas wrote:Everything is information.

You're using a invented term - "CSI" - that is not recognized by the scientific community.

Note how Dembski defines it.


No, not everything is information. I don't care what the "scientific community" recognizes. Information is exactly the way I described it. This is testable and observable science. Lightning striking a tree isn't information. Erosion isn't information. We all know what information is so why fight it.
If evolution was in the newspaper, it would be in the funnies
Sun Nov 27, 2016 3:39 pm
RhedUser avatarPosts: 260Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:01 amLocation: Currently on the sofa Gender: Male

Post Re: History of Everything.

Nesslig20 wrote:So rule of thumb, if the system you are talking has units of atoms that combine into molecules and molecules interacting which each other by chemical forces or changing due to chemical reactions, you have chemistry.

That pretty much describes what happens in every living cell in a nutshell. Sure it doesn't describe everything about the processes that happens in living systems, the chemistry of life is very complex, but it is still inherently chemistry.

Your entire body is made of chemical compounds that is mostly Hydrogen, Oxygen, Carbon and Nitrogen (the most abundant atoms in the universe with the exception of helium, which is chemically inert, thus life cannot use it as part of its chemistry) and a couple other elements such as Calcium, Phosphorus, Potassium, Sulfur, Sodium, Chlorine and Magnesium as well as trace elements too many to name here.

And every one of those compounds interact with each other according to the principles of chemistry. Even the process that you would say has "information" in it, DNA being translated into RNA and RNA transcribed into protein, also happens according to chemical interaction.


And here is the difference between life and non-life. Life will have the compounds to grow, reproduce, etc. Once it is dead, the exact same compounds are there. Nothing changed in regard to composition. Nothing. But the chemical reactions in the now dead organism succumbs to natural laws which is decomposing. The chemistry has changed.
If evolution was in the newspaper, it would be in the funnies
Sun Nov 27, 2016 3:57 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 2799Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: History of Everything.

Greetings,

Rhed wrote:
Rhed wrote:
Anything that has instructions, the ability to transmit those instructions, a receiver able to translate and read the instructions, and finally execution of those instructions. This is basically how programs, software, and have a conscious mind works. This is what I mean by information, which isn't only chemistry. It's another dimension to the chemistry involved.


Dragan Glas wrote:Everything is information.

You're using a invented term - "CSI" - that is not recognized by the scientific community.

Note how Dembski defines it.


No, not everything is information. I don't care what the "scientific community" recognizes. Information is exactly the way I described it. This is testable and observable science. Lightning striking a tree isn't information. Erosion isn't information. We all know what information is so why fight it.

This is simply not the case. Your - or Dembski's - idea of information isn't what defines it - it's how the scientific community defines it that counts.

As I said, everything is information.

The fact that lightning occurs at all tells us something - provides information - about the weather conditions that produced it. The fact that the bolt of lightning struck that tree, as against another, tells us something about the static electrical chanrge on that tree. Erosion provides information about what is happening - and has happened - to a cliff, etc.

It's all information.

Understand?

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Last edited by Dragan Glas on Sun Nov 27, 2016 5:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sun Nov 27, 2016 4:11 pm
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 210Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: History of Everything.

Rhed wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:One wonders how Rhed defines information.


Anything that has instructions, the ability to transmit those instructions, a receiver able to translate and read the instructions, and finally execution of those instructions. This is basically how programs, software, and have a conscious mind works. This is what I mean by information, which isn't only chemistry. It's another dimension to the chemistry involved.


So you are not using any scientific definition of the word information. You're using YOUR definition, which arbitrary.

But even taking your definition for the sake of argument, it is very confusing. By your definition, the medium that has instructions and is able to transmit, receive, translate and execute said instructions, like a computer, would be information. Is a computer information? Aren't the instructions themselves information rather than the medium carrying, transmitting and receiving (etc) said information?

I think you are confusing the medium with the content. The content would be information, not the medium by which it is carried.

The scientific definition of information is basically anything (data and answer to a question, evidence, etc) that resolves uncertainty.
This can be applied to anything. Tree rings contain the information on how old the tree is. It resolves the uncertainty of the tree's age.

The basic unit of information is a bit. Which basically answers a single question with a yes or no (1 or 0).

So if we have two strings of 20 bites

00000000000000000000

and

01010101010101010101

Do both contain equal information (according to shannon information theory), well yes if you wrote the entire strings on a disc, the disc would have the exact same amount of stored information. However, these two strings are not equal. The first string can be compressed by

repeat ( 0 ) 20 times

and the other one by

repeat ( 01 ) 10 times

This is what Kolmogorov theory of information/complexity deals with, how the algorithm can be compressed such that it still describes the same amount of information. It basically tries to minimize redundancy.

The easiest digital codes that cannot be compressed have a predictable pattern like repeat ( 0 ) or repeat ( 01), but what if you have a code that is less predictable or more uncertain. You have to have a longer algorithm to describe it, thus it contains more information. If the shortest possible algorithm to describe a string is the entire string itself (compression is impossible), what you have is something that has no predictable pattern, it is completely random and has the maximum amount of information it can contain.

These two strings of 20 bites, but the later has more information in it, since the sequence is more random.

00000000000000000000 (this is how a blanck CD-R looks like in digits)

00110110100011100101 (this is how random gibberish looks like, yet the information content is maximum, it cannot be compressed)

In other words, more randomness is more information.

Credit to hackenslash's explanation of information


And also a video that explains what I have just done.


And here is the difference between life and non-life. Life will have the compounds to grow, reproduce, etc. Once it is dead, the exact same compounds are there. Nothing changed in regard to composition. Nothing.


Sure that is one difference between life and non-life. But that doesn't refute that life is chemistry. What did stop in your example though is homeostasis (an chemical balanced internal environment) and metabolism, etc. Which is also happens according to chemistry.
Life is NOT just composition of chemicals, never said it was. I also said that life is also the chemical processes themselves, without the processes, you would not have life. The difference between life and death is, once again determined by chemistry. Life is also chemistry.

But the chemical reactions in the now dead organism succumbs to natural laws which is decomposing.
The chemistry has changed.


The chemistry has changed, before it has changed it was also chemistry. Life is still chemistry.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Sun Nov 27, 2016 4:24 pm
RhedUser avatarPosts: 260Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:01 amLocation: Currently on the sofa Gender: Male

Post Re: History of Everything.

Rhed wrote:Anything that has instructions, the ability to transmit those instructions, a receiver able to translate and read the instructions, and finally execution of those instructions. This is basically how programs, software, and have a conscious mind works. This is what I mean by information, which isn't only chemistry. It's another dimension to the chemistry involved.


Nesslig20 wrote:So you are not using any scientific definition of the word information. You're using YOUR definition, which arbitrary.


You are going to have to explain to me what is wrong with my definition of information? It's not arbitrary. This is simply what you and I and everyone else experience everyday, and I only put it down in words.


Nesslig20 wrote:But even taking your definition for the sake of argument, it is very confusing. By your definition, the medium that has instructions and is able to transmit, receive, translate and execute said instructions, like a computer, would be information. Is a computer information? Aren't the instructions themselves information rather than the medium carrying, transmitting and receiving (etc) said information?


No, the computer would be the hardware. The software would have the information.


Nesslig20 wrote:I think you are confusing the medium with the content. The content would be information, not the medium by which it is carried.


Not at all. The DNA, RNA, amino acids are the media. The instructions to build, go here, go there, die there, etc is the content. Just like how we humans write down instructions. There is the paper and pen which are the media. The message "go to the store and pick up..." is the content.


Nesslig20 wrote:The scientific definition of information is basically anything (data and answer to a question, evidence, etc) that resolves uncertainty.
This can be applied to anything. Tree rings contain the information on how old the tree is. It resolves the uncertainty of the tree's age.

The basic unit of information is a bit. Which basically answers a single question with a yes or no (1 or 0).

So if we have two strings of 20 bites

00000000000000000000

and

01010101010101010101

Do both contain equal information (according to shannon information theory), well yes if you wrote the entire strings on a disc, the disc would have the exact same amount of stored information. However, these two strings are not equal. The first string can be compressed by

repeat ( 0 ) 20 times

and the other one by

repeat ( 01 ) 10 times

This is what Kolmogorov theory of information/complexity deals with, how the algorithm can be compressed such that it still describes the same amount of information. It basically tries to minimize redundancy.

The easiest digital codes that cannot be compressed have a predictable pattern like repeat ( 0 ) or repeat ( 01), but what if you have a code that is less predictable or more uncertain. You have to have a longer algorithm to describe it, thus it contains more information. If the shortest possible algorithm to describe a string is the entire string itself (compression is impossible), what you have is something that has no predictable pattern, it is completely random and has the maximum amount of information it can contain.

These two strings of 20 bites, but the later has more information in it, since the sequence is more random.

00000000000000000000 (this is how a blanck CD-R looks like in digits)

00110110100011100101 (this is how random gibberish looks like, yet the information content is maximum, it cannot be compressed)

In other words, more randomness is more information.

Credit to hackenslash's explanation of information


And also a video that explains what I have just done.


You are going too far with this. I am basically trying to convey what information is. The 0 and 1 bit example is about the more, less, and random information. But it's still not all parts of information. Give this to a person who doesn't understand binary bits, then it is useless. In the chain for information to work, you need to transmit the information, receive it, translate it, then execute. In your examples, the "receive" and "translate" portions are broken.

Nesslig20 wrote:The chemistry has changed, before it has changed it was also chemistry. Life is still chemistry.


But information is not chemistry, which is part of life. ;)
If evolution was in the newspaper, it would be in the funnies
Mon Nov 28, 2016 3:42 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 2799Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: History of Everything.

Greetings,

Rhed, you're trying to insert the need for a mind in order to have, what you call, "information" - this is simply incorrect. Minds are not necessary for information to exist.

Information is just chemistry - nothing more. The brain's processing of stimuli, both internal and external, is just biochemistry.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Mon Nov 28, 2016 4:10 pm
Grumpy SantaPosts: 382Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 6:27 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: History of Everything.

Rhed, I have to ask you this... do atoms contain "information"? For example, do hydrogen and oxygen atoms contain the "information" in them to form H2O when combined? If you burn hydrogen (combine with oxygen) you're going to get H2O (maybe trace amounts of H2O2, not sure...) and nothing else. You won't get H13O7, or H3O3 or any other of the myriad of hypothetical combinations of hydrogen and oxygen you can imagine.

So, do hydrogen and oxygen atoms contain the "information" to create H2O when burned, or is it simply a chemical property of hydrogen and oxygen that, when combined, will give you water?
Scientists don't believe. They conclude based on evidence.
Mon Nov 28, 2016 6:24 pm
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 210Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: History of Everything.

Rhed wrote:Anything that has instructions, the ability to transmit those instructions, a receiver able to translate and read the instructions, and finally execution of those instructions. This is basically how programs, software, and have a conscious mind works. This is what I mean by information, which isn't only chemistry. It's another dimension to the chemistry involved.

Nesslig20 wrote:So you are not using any scientific definition of the word information. You're using YOUR definition, which arbitrary.


You are going to have to explain to me what is wrong with my definition of information? It's not arbitrary. This is simply what you and I and everyone else experience everyday, and I only put it down in words.


I did explain what is wrong with it, by
One: Pointing out the definition is based on your own arbitrary whim by admission.
Two: Pointing out the confusing aspect of the definition.
Three: Contrasting it what how actual scientists (the theories on information like Shannon and Kolmogorov) define this term.

Rhed wrote:
Nesslig20 wrote:But even taking your definition for the sake of argument, it is very confusing. By your definition, the medium that has instructions and is able to transmit, receive, translate and execute said instructions, like a computer, would be information. Is a computer information? Aren't the instructions themselves information rather than the medium carrying, transmitting and receiving (etc) said information?


No, the computer would be the hardware. The software would have the information.


However, by YOUR definition, the hardware would be information.

"Anything that has instructions, the ability to transmit those instructions, a receiver able to translate and read the instructions, and finally execution of those instructions."

The software on its own doesn't have the ability to transmit, receive, translate nor read any instructions without the hardware. This is why your definition is confusing to say the least.

But even if you define information as basically "software", than you are going against information theory as I have explained and will again in a moment.

Rhed wrote:
Nesslig20 wrote:I think you are confusing the medium with the content. The content would be information, not the medium by which it is carried.


Not at all. The DNA, RNA, amino acids are the media. The instructions to build, go here, go there, die there, etc is the content. Just like how we humans write down instructions. There is the paper and pen which are the media. The message "go to the store and pick up..." is the content.


The analogy is broken on so many levels. DNA doesn't do "just like" we write down instructions. What we do is writing down symbols in one way or another (doesn't matter what medium you put it) that represent an abstract concept Like Zeros and Ones in a digital code.

But DNA is not an abstract concept. DNA is the very material (the software itself by analogy, not the medium) that do the very chemical interactions itself. The zeros and ones in a digital code, don't, since they don't exist like the base pairs in nucleotides do.

Rhed wrote:
Nesslig20 wrote:The scientific definition of information is basically anything (data and answer to a question, evidence, etc) that resolves uncertainty.
This can be applied to anything. Tree rings contain the information on how old the tree is. It resolves the uncertainty of the tree's age.

The basic unit of information is a bit. Which basically answers a single question with a yes or no (1 or 0).

So if we have two strings of 20 bites

00000000000000000000

and

01010101010101010101

Do both contain equal information (according to shannon information theory), well yes if you wrote the entire strings on a disc, the disc would have the exact same amount of stored information. However, these two strings are not equal. The first string can be compressed by

repeat ( 0 ) 20 times

and the other one by

repeat ( 01 ) 10 times

This is what Kolmogorov theory of information/complexity deals with, how the algorithm can be compressed such that it still describes the same amount of information. It basically tries to minimize redundancy.

The easiest digital codes that cannot be compressed have a predictable pattern like repeat ( 0 ) or repeat ( 01), but what if you have a code that is less predictable or more uncertain. You have to have a longer algorithm to describe it, thus it contains more information. If the shortest possible algorithm to describe a string is the entire string itself (compression is impossible), what you have is something that has no predictable pattern, it is completely random and has the maximum amount of information it can contain.

These two strings of 20 bites, but the later has more information in it, since the sequence is more random.

00000000000000000000 (this is how a blanck CD-R looks like in digits)

00110110100011100101 (this is how random gibberish looks like, yet the information content is maximum, it cannot be compressed)

In other words, more randomness is more information.

Credit to hackenslash's explanation of information


And also a video that explains what I have just done.


You are going too far with this. I am basically trying to convey what information is. The 0 and 1 bit example is about the more, less, and random information. But it's still not all parts of information. Give this to a person who doesn't understand binary bits, then it is useless. In the chain for information to work, you need to transmit the information, receive it, translate it, then execute. In your examples, the "receive" and "translate" portions are broken.


I am not going far at all. This is the very basics of information theory. And information isn't synonymous with "meaning", that is another thing that demonstrates that your conception of information is a misconception.

This is why any random string of binary digit that contain no meaning whatsoever still can have information and more information than an orderly "meaningful" string of information.

Take it from the founders of information theory.
Shannon and Weaver wrote:The semantic aspects of communication are irrelevant to the engineering aspects

The word information, in this theory, is used in a special sense that must not be confused with its ordinary usage. In particular, information must not be confused with meaning. In fact, two messages, one of which is heavily loaded with meaning and the other of which is pure nonsense, can be exactly equivalent, from the present viewpoint, as regards information.


Rhed wrote:
Nesslig20 wrote:The chemistry has changed, before it has changed it was also chemistry. Life is still chemistry.


But information is not chemistry, which is part of life. ;)


sigh, information is not the same as chemistry, yes. Information is anything that resolves uncertainty. So that can be applied to chemistry, or anything else that resolves uncertainty. In other words, wether it something has information or not, doesn't mean it is not chemistry.

Even if I granted that life contains this information that you are talking about, it doesn't refute that it is still chemistry. If you think that DNA is or contains "information", guess what, DNA and everything that it does is chemistry. Translation, Transcription, etc. It is all chemistry. Same goes for every other process that every living cell does.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Mon Nov 28, 2016 8:05 pm
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2204Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: History of Everything.

Rhed wrote:
Rhed wrote:
Anything that has instructions, the ability to transmit those instructions, a receiver able to translate and read the instructions, and finally execution of those instructions. This is basically how programs, software, and have a conscious mind works. This is what I mean by information, which isn't only chemistry. It's another dimension to the chemistry involved.


Dragan Glas wrote:Everything is information.

You're using a invented term - "CSI" - that is not recognized by the scientific community.

Note how Dembski defines it.


No, not everything is information. I don't care what the "scientific community" recognizes. Information is exactly the way I described it. This is testable and observable science. Lightning striking a tree isn't information. Erosion isn't information. We all know what information is so why fight it.


Then why do neither of the two branches of information theory utilise that definition? Or do they? Can you point to where Shannon or Kolmogorov use the term in the way you suggest?
Wed Nov 30, 2016 5:13 pm
Previous
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 3 of 3
 [ 55 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests
cron