Gentlemen,
First off, I would like to take most of the blaim here for being unable to make myself as clear as need be. It's obvious that we are all describing different codes. In order to make sure we are on the same page, I would like to start from the beginning and try to shed more light on how code is being defined here.
*Note* - this is in reference to Mr. Marshalls current material.
Code = a communication between an encoder a writer / speaker" and a decoder a reader / listener using agreed upon symbols.
Using Claude Shannon’s model, which is THE definitive model of engineering communication theory. And we are going to narrow down this definition to digital communication using symbols. Shannon’s approach is the simplest available structure for defining digital communication. Note that Shannon’s paper was written in 1948, a decade before DNA was discovered.
pmarshall writes:
This definition is Shannon’s, and Shannon’s accurately describes all communication systems. Years after Shannon wrote his paper, we also discovered that DNA matches his model 100%. Shannon’s definition has been working just fine for 61 years.
All definitions are restrictive, otherwise we couldn’t have meaningful communication about anything at all.
There are no contradictions. DNA fits Shannon’s model. As does everything on the Internet, and human languages.
Snowflakes, rocks, volcanos and hurricanes do not fit Shannon’s model.
AM radio does not fit this definition because it's analog. We are going to use digital comunication instead of analog because digital is completely black and white, and totally unambiguous. By using black and white, 1 and 0, a specific definition of information, we are able to put our finger on the distinct difference between information and non information. In defining things we want to use terms that allow us to make important distinctions between seemingly similar things.
In this discussion "information" and "code" are interchangable terms being as obvious as "all bachelors are unmarried."
In Shannon’s model there is a encoder that sends a digital message that is decoded by a decoder using agreed upon symbols. When this process is complete with all three parts, we have digital communication. This definition makes a clear distinction between things that are communication systems and things that are not.
According to Shannon’s model, in oder for communication to take place, a encoder, decoder and a transmitted code must be in place. We can look at any system and see if it has an encoder, decoder and a message or not. DNA is a communication system. Pebbles and gravity etc., are not. The definitions are black and white.
For ease, I'll post pmarshall here if that's ok, this part is in reply to a question way down in the middle of a page...
pmarshall writes:
If you press the button on your garage door opener and the garage door opens, this happens because a code has been successfully transmitted and received.
The opening of the garage door is real.
Therefore the information that was passed between the transmitter and the receiver was also real.
Communication is real. It’s physically measurable.
Communication systems are real. They are also physically measurable.
We can make a judgment as to whether the code was successfully transmitted and received. If you push the button and the garage door doesn’t open, then transmission was unsuccessful.
It could be unsuccessful because the battery was dead. It could be unsuccessful because the I set the DIP switches wrong in the transmitter and it was transmitting the wrong code or using the wrong frequency.
It could be unsuccessful because you were too far away or because there was interference from electrical noise.
In any case there is an implicit definition of success or failure based on the INTENT of the code - and the intended consequences of pushing the button. The fact that the right transmitter is supposed to open my garage (notice the teleology here) and that all other transmitters in the neighborhood are not supposed to open my garage door.
We can describe this in terms of the OSI 7-layer model - physical layer, data link layer, transport layer, application layer, etc.
In the garage example there are only a few of layers in use. There’s the radio transmission (physical layer), and there is a code that is transmitted (transport layer). Then there is the application layer, which is the command to open the garage door (i.e. pushing the button).
In any communication system, there is ALWAYS at least one additional implied layer, on top of the ones that are physically present. In this example it’s the INTENT to open the garage; and also the INTENT to build a system that performs this task in the first place. All communication systems imply intent. DNA implies intent to convert GGG triplets to Glycine.
This implied intent is posteriori analytic. We can infer that this system existed as a thought experiment before it existed as a physical system. We make this inference from our observation that the system uses agreed-upon symbols. Symbols are abstract.
In DNA, the tables that map triplets to mRNA to proteins are not physical but the tables describe ideas that accurately describe the rules of a real coding system.
I think you are trying to ask the question, are symbols real? Are the rules of a communication system real?
(BTW I recognize the distinction between a physical object and the labels we attach to it. Glycine is a label we attach to a certain amino acid. As the Neuro Linguistic Programming people say, the territory is not the map.)
The rules of a communication system are not physically real. You cannot weigh them on a scale.
However the fact that we can MEASURE whether the rules were followed or not; whether the symbols were properly decoded or not; proves that they are still real. We could not talk sensibly about them if they were not.
We can measure whether the rules of a communication were followed or not just as accurately as we can measure a tree.
Correct programming of a garage door opener is real because the garage door opens. A measurable event.
Incorrect programming of a garage door opener is real because the garage door does not open. Also a measurable event.
Therefore communication is real; communication systems are real; the information in those systems is real; and the rules that govern them are real.
The fact that these words on this blog have appeared on your screen, properly decoded by your PC and in turn properly decoded by you, is proof of the reality of multiple layers information. And intent. Even on a purely mechanical level, ie your Wi-Fi sending this information to your computer.
Our judgment of proper or improper decoding is not a physical object. But the judgment exists and it is still measurably true or false.
This is proof that Norbert Weiner was right: Information is information, neither matter nor energy.
So information is on solid footing on priori analytic, posteriori synthetic, and posteriori analytic grounds.
This brings us to the priori synthetic - my metaphysical proposition of God.
Communication systems are built using rules that are arbitrary. The choice of 1000001 meaning the letter A in ASCII is arbitrary. The choice of GGG coding for Glycine in DNA is arbitrary.
Neither the rules of ASCII nor the rules of the genetic code can be derived from the laws of physics (Yockey, 2005). The rules of any particular coding system are not properties of pure matter and energy. Rather, these rules organize the movement of matter and energy.
In the OSI model, these rules operate in the upper layers, not at the physical layer. The physical layer simply obeys the instructions of the layers above it.
Since physical laws can never be disobeyed, the rules of codes are fundamentally different from the laws of physics. Why? Because they can fail. The intended outcome can fail to occur. The decoder can fail to properly decode.
The only place that rules of this kind originate, so far as we have ever observed, is from conscious intelligent minds. We have 100% inference from millions of codes supporting this statement and 0% inference to the contrary.
Rocks do not talk. Therefore the rules of communication systems come from consciousness and not from matter or energy.
Information is a separate entity from matter and energy and therefore has a separate source.
Since information exists and does not come from unconscious material sources, it must come from an immaterial conscious source that exists.
Therefore an immaterial conscious source exists, and information has a metaphysical origin.
Therefore God exists.
I have not formally proven this; such a thing is inherently unprovable in the formal mathematical sense. As Gdel said, all knowledge rests on axioms that you know are true but cannot be proven.
I have shown that all human knowledge provides 100% inference to this. Based on current knowledge and the scientific method of induction, we can be just as certain that God exists as we are certain about the laws of thermodynamics.
Gotta run for now guys, hope this sheds more light on how I'am using the terms "code" and "information." Peace.
-Word
™ Version 4.2
