Information Theory and Intelligent Design.

I think that they are confusing Dembski and Gitt. Dembski just defines information as improbability (and that's not going to replace Shannon information). Gitt is rather less qualified - his main claim to fame, apparently, is running the IT department at a German institute working on standards and measures.

I've noticed something about all your quotes. Not one of them deals with information theory. None offers any real alternative to existing information theory, either.So they don't really address the topic. All you offer is the opinions of people committed to politically fighting evolution.The Meyer quote is just silly. If the information on the disk is recorded physically it's a material process - the mass is a red herring. If Meyer doesn't think that the information is recorded physically then how does he believe that it got on there, how it is stored and how it is accessed. ? Is it all magic ?

quote:

---

I don't understand the difficulty.

---

OK it's quite simple.Meyer argues that information is non material because it is massless. But as we all know the information is physically recorded. It isn't true to say that there is anything non-material about that disk. Meyer is wrong.

quote:

---

He did not say that there is anything non-material about the disk.

---

Then the fact that recording something on the disk doesn't affect the mass doesn't matter, does it ?

quote:

---

He asks what the differnce in mass is, between a disk with information added(by intelligence) and a disk that is blank. The answer is zero. The addition of information adds no mass. Meyers is correct!

---

Only if by "correct" you mean "talking bullshit". You see you're not dealing with the question of how one gets from the premise (writing to the disk adds no mass) gets to the conclusion (information needs an intelligent origin). If it doesn't assume that the information on the disk is somehow non-physical how can the question of mass be even relevant ?

quote:

---

You're assuming that mind is the same thing as matter...

---

Actually that plays absolutely no part in my point so such a claim is a pure irrelevance even if it were true (which it isn't). Of course if Meyer's (unexplained) argument assumes the contrary that woudl be a fair criticism to raise of HIS point.

quote:

---

...But that is not a scientific problem or belief. It is a metaphysical one. You are invoking meaning.

---

No, I'm not. That's a simple invention on your part.

quote:

---

You can't prove that all is material. You can only have faith that it is...

---

Of course I'm not even atttempting to make such an argument. If anything Meyer is the one assuming that minds are non-physical. THus your criticisms would be better applied to the argument you are suppsoed to be defending. At least then they would be honest !