Perhaps I am a bit awry with my understanding, but doesn't thermodynamics just say that it is statistically improbable that information can and will be produced, not that it can't be produced or is forever lost?
Well I see your point, but I don't think there is more information in a concentrated area of energy than a diffuse one (maybe there is though, its 7am).
This
wiki article (I prefer answers.com formatting) seems to be discussing basically what I am discussing: physical information (and the physicality, or embodiment, of said information).
From the website:
quote:
For a system S, defined abstractly in such a way that it has N distinguishable states (orthogonal quantum states) that are consistent with its description, the amount of information I(S) contained in the system's state can be said to be log(N).
It then goes on to say that if we use a natural log, things start to resemble thermodynamic equations (Boltzman's)...this tends to cause IDers to fall over themselves in excitement (a webwide google or forumwide search for 'jerry don bauer' will show this to anyone interested).
Anyway, thinking about your question further I would tend (pun intended (pun not intended)) to agree with your more specific wording. Indeed we can go further, the universe has a finite maximum storage capacity and it has a finite current storage capacity. It is highly improbable that this current storage capacity will increase, and highly probable that it will decrease.
We cannot increase our maximum storage capacity since this would mean creating energy (which is the idea I had in mind when I mentioned it originally), but we can decrease our current storage capacity by increasing the amount of unworkable energy in the system and of course we can increase our local storage capacity by doing work.
For a talk origins read, there is a quick article
here which discusses my actual point when I started discussing this in
Message 39.
quote:
Even if there were a law of conservation of information, it would not necessarily invalidate evolution. Information is transferred from the environment to organisms by natural selection and other processes.
which is basically what I started off actually saying:
Its a nonsense argument as far as evolution goes though because no new information is needed - change occurs as a result of a selection method based on the population's environment. The information isn't 'created' - it's already there in the environment.
I know I've gone on at some length based on quite a straightforward question, but I intend this to be the last word I say on this in this thread:- Nuggin is right in that it is off topic and in danger of getting really off topic. As such, any further questions I shall refer to this post and invite people to start a new thread.