Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 82 (8972 total)
173 online now:
LionFluit, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (3 members, 170 visitors)
Newest Member: LionFluit
Post Volume: Total: 875,373 Year: 7,121/23,288 Month: 1,027/1,214 Week: 39/303 Day: 0/39 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   NvC-1: What is the premise of Naturalism in Biology?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16184
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 136 of 240 (876404)
05-18-2020 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Admin
05-18-2020 6:10 PM


Re: Information
quote:
Here's a link to Richard's book at Amazon: Darwinian-Naturalism is Pseudoscience. It's free on Kindle.

It shows as $12:48 for me. Possibly because I’m outside the US. And it has no reviews. At all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Admin, posted 05-18-2020 6:10 PM Admin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by PaulK, posted 05-19-2020 12:15 AM PaulK has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16184
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 137 of 240 (876405)
05-19-2020 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by PaulK
05-18-2020 11:58 PM


Re: Information
And we don’t have to read far to see that my earlier assessment of Richard was understated.

Reading between the lines Richard’s argument against random mutation failed because he hadn’t bothered to understand how the word “random” was being used. This doesn’t mean that Richard was ignorantly wrong, oh no. The “(Neo-)Darwinists” are guilty of “academic fraud, as bad as falsifying data”.

And that’s the opening two paragraphs (where the second is just a one-sentence accusation).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by PaulK, posted 05-18-2020 11:58 PM PaulK has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4977
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 138 of 240 (876406)
05-19-2020 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by GDR
05-18-2020 11:11 PM


However, information like the law of gravity existed long before there were minds able to conceive it.

Another point of the philosophy of science: The laws of physics are mathematical equations borne from observation and as such are approximations of what we observe in nature. They may be accurate to some greater degree or other dependent on circumstance but they are approximations none the less. Is that apple really falling at 32/ft/sec2? Probably not but close enough to target New Horizons onto Pluto.

The relationship between mass, energy and spacetime is, as far as we can tell, reality. The mathematical expression of that relationship is our best approximation of how it works. It is the useful communicable information of the relationship, the physical embodiment of an underlying symbology approximating that relationship. The information, the equation, the approximation, is not the reality itself but stands as a surrogate in our understanding. That understanding will become more accurate as our information grows more accurate.

If it wasn't for Einstein's GR we would have only Newtonian gravity to go by and we know Newton is incomplete ... in the same way we're finding Einstein is (very very accurate and yet) incomplete.

Your definition of information is too broad in speculating levels of knowledge not viable in the reality we see in this universe. According to your idealized definition information can never be wrong and we already know that any approximations we have from our observations can never be completely right. We can never know any information in this universe. In your world "information" is non-existent to us and cannot inform our reality.

This idealist information cannot be. I reject your reality and substitute my own in its place.


Factio Republicana delenda est.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by GDR, posted 05-18-2020 11:11 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by GDR, posted 05-19-2020 2:25 AM AZPaul3 has not yet responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 5372
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 139 of 240 (876407)
05-19-2020 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by AZPaul3
05-19-2020 1:17 AM


AZPaul3 writes:

Another point of the philosophy of science: The laws of physics are mathematical equations borne from observation and as such are approximations of what we observe in nature. They may be accurate to some greater degree or other dependent on circumstance but they are approximations none the less. Is that apple really falling at 32/ft/sec2? Probably not but close enough to target New Horizons onto Pluto.

The relationship between mass, energy and spacetime is, as far as we can tell, reality. The mathematical expression of that relationship is our best approximation of how it works. It is the useful communicable information of the relationship, the physical embodiment of an underlying symbology approximating that relationship. The information, the equation, the approximation, is not the reality itself but stands as a surrogate in our understanding. That understanding will become more accurate as our information grows more accurate.

If it wasn't for Einstein's GR we would have only Newtonian gravity to go by and we know Newton is incomplete ... in the same way we're finding Einstein is (very very accurate and yet) incomplete.

OK, then the information that we have is incomplete and not fully accurate. In that case it seems clear to me that there is more accurate information that exists which hasn't yet been discovered. That information must already exist.

AZPaul3 writes:

Your definition of information is too broad in speculating levels of knowledge not viable in the reality we see in this universe. According to your idealized definition information can never be wrong and we already know that any approximations we have from our observations can never be completely right. We can never know any information in this universe. In your world "information" is non-existent to us and cannot inform our reality.

Information just is. We may have absolute knowledge of it, we may have partial knowledge of it or we may have it completely wrong. Scientific information does exist and does inform our reality, sometimes more accurately than other times, but as we gain understanding of the information available we hopefully keep gaining greater accuracy.

Back to the onions. If we were able to look at the records as they were originally recorded we can never be certain that they were recorded accurately, but regardless of whether it was recorded accurately or not there is an absolutely correct number of onions.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by AZPaul3, posted 05-19-2020 1:17 AM AZPaul3 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Tangle, posted 05-19-2020 3:45 AM GDR has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7614
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 140 of 240 (876410)
05-19-2020 3:45 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by GDR
05-19-2020 2:25 AM


GDR writes:

Back to the onions … regardless of whether it was recorded accurately or not there is an absolutely correct number of onions.

But that only became information when someone counted them. Before the count, there was no information.

It's the physical process of the count that produces the information about how many. The information is then stored in the memory functions in the brain and can stay there or be transmitted onwards - speech, writing, images, codes etc. All physical.

In biology, what these people always try to do is show that new information can't be created naturally - ie that creatures can't evolve because that requires the creation of new 'information'. But of course nature creates new stuff all the time - one year it produces 1,000 onions, the next 600. Once you count them it becomes new information.

They claim that the code that produces new organisms - DNA - is information that can't be increased by what they call 'random' processes. But we know that it be because we observe it happening and count it and it has become useful information - knowledge. For example, peppered moth studies.

Essentially what these people claim is that the universe is wrong and they are right.

And isn't it odd that it's only fundamental religious believers that make these claims? They are always based on belief, not fact.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by GDR, posted 05-19-2020 2:25 AM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by GDR, posted 05-19-2020 3:04 PM Tangle has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3943
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 141 of 240 (876425)
05-19-2020 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Richard L. Wang
05-18-2020 4:47 PM


Re: Re-Stile(90): Premise
Richard L. Wang writes:

“Matter obeys the natural laws” links if “Life consists only of matter” then “only natural laws operate in biological processes.”

I agree.

Linked as a conclusion based on observations of reality.
Not linked as a premise.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-18-2020 4:47 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 5372
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 142 of 240 (876426)
05-19-2020 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Tangle
05-19-2020 3:45 AM


Tangle writes:

But that only became information when someone counted them. Before the count, there was no information.

It's the physical process of the count that produces the information about how many. The information is then stored in the memory functions in the brain and can stay there or be transmitted onwards - speech, writing, images, codes etc. All physical.

Bur prior to knowing the number of onions counted there was an exact number of onions. People might have guessed how many onions there were and come up with an approximate figure. That itself would be information suggestive of how many there actually are but the fact remains that there is still an exact number that exist prior to counting. That is information waiting to be discovered.

Let me ask you this. Did the law of gravity exist prior to conscious life?

Tangle writes:

In biology, what these people always try to do is show that new information can't be created naturally - ie that creatures can't evolve because that requires the creation of new 'information'. But of course nature creates new stuff all the time - one year it produces 1,000 onions, the next 600. Once you count them it becomes new information.

They claim that the code that produces new organisms - DNA - is information that can't be increased by what they call 'random' processes. But we know that it be because we observe it happening and count it and it has become useful information - knowledge. For example, peppered moth studies.

Essentially what these people claim is that the universe is wrong and they are right.

I'm certainly not claiming that. Of course natural processes, random or otherwise create new information. We would disagree though about why the natural processes exist in the first place.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Tangle, posted 05-19-2020 3:45 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Tangle, posted 05-19-2020 3:59 PM GDR has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7614
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 143 of 240 (876427)
05-19-2020 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by GDR
05-19-2020 3:04 PM


GDR writes:

Bur prior to knowing the number of onions counted there was an exact number of onions.

There was, but it was not known. There was no freestanding information telling anybody or anything how many.

People might have guessed how many onions there were and come up with an approximate figure. That itself would be information suggestive of how many there actually are but the fact remains that there is still an exact number that exist prior to counting.

Sure, people estimating and counting creates information of various accuracies.

That is information waiting to be discovered.

Nope, the onions are waiting to be discovered, counting them creates the information about them.

Let me ask you this. Did the law of gravity exist prior to conscious life?

Of course. And the onions existed before people counted them. But the inverse square law that describes gravity and the counting system that tells us how many is information about them and is our creation.

But once again, no one knows how the stuff came to be the way it is and we can describe. Yet.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by GDR, posted 05-19-2020 3:04 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by GDR, posted 05-19-2020 4:55 PM Tangle has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 5372
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 144 of 240 (876429)
05-19-2020 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Tangle
05-19-2020 3:59 PM


Tangle writes:

But the inverse square law that describes gravity and the counting system that tells us how many is information about them and is our creation.

But once again, no one knows how the stuff came to be the way it is and we can describe. Yet.

I'm not arguing about how it came to be that way. The fact remains that it was that way prior to the law being discovered. If it hadn't been there waiting to be discovered we would not exist. It was simply undiscovered information regardless of how it got to be that way.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Tangle, posted 05-19-2020 3:59 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Tangle, posted 05-19-2020 5:06 PM GDR has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7614
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 145 of 240 (876430)
05-19-2020 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by GDR
05-19-2020 4:55 PM


GDR writes:

The fact remains that it was that way prior to the law being discovered. If it hadn't been there waiting to be discovered we would not exist. It was simply undiscovered information regardless of how it got to be that way.

Undiscovered information, is not information; it doesn't exist. It can't exist. Only the thing itself exists. It's only the act of discovery that creates the information about the thing.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by GDR, posted 05-19-2020 4:55 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by GDR, posted 05-19-2020 7:21 PM Tangle has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 5372
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 146 of 240 (876433)
05-19-2020 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Tangle
05-19-2020 5:06 PM


Tangle writes:

Undiscovered information, is not information; it doesn't exist. It can't exist. Only the thing itself exists. It's only the act of discovery that creates the information about the thing.

I believe either you or Stile claimed that when my hypothetical physicist died without passing on the information that he had gleaned then that information ceased to exist as it wasn't recorded anywhere and wasn't in anyone's memory.

I quoted an article in post Message 134.

quote:
The no-hiding theorem[1] proves that if information is lost from a system via decoherence, then it moves to the subspace of the environment and it cannot remain in the correlation between the system and the environment. This is a fundamental consequence of the linearity and unitarity of quantum mechanics. Thus, information is never lost. This has implications in black hole information paradox and in fact any process that tends to lose information completely. The no-hiding theorem is robust to imperfection in the physical process that seemingly destroys the original information.

This was proved by Samuel L. Braunstein and Arun K. Pati in 2007. In 2011, the no-hiding theorem was experimentally tested[2] using nuclear magnetic resonance devices where a single qubit undergoes complete randomization, i.e., a pure state transforms to a random mixed state. Subsequently, the lost information has been recovered from the ancilla qubits using suitable local unitary transformation only in the environment Hilbert space in accordance with the no-hiding theorem. This experiment for the first time demonstrated the conservation of quantum information.


The claim that information wasn't lost but was waiting to be rediscovered.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Tangle, posted 05-19-2020 5:06 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by AZPaul3, posted 05-19-2020 8:21 PM GDR has not yet responded
 Message 148 by Tangle, posted 05-20-2020 2:33 AM GDR has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4977
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 147 of 240 (876435)
05-19-2020 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by GDR
05-19-2020 7:21 PM


I believe either you or Stile claimed that when my hypothetical physicist died without passing on the information that he had gleaned then that information ceased to exist as it wasn't recorded anywhere and wasn't in anyone's memory.

I quoted an article in post Message 134.

quote:
The no-hiding theorem[1] proves that if information is lost from a system via decoherence, then it moves to the subspace of the environment and it cannot remain in the correlation between the system and the environment.

The no-hiding theorem is robust to imperfection in the physical process that seemingly destroys the original information.

This experiment for the first time demonstrated the conservation of quantum information.


The claim that information wasn't lost but was waiting to be rediscovered.

From my Message 133

quote:
Don’t fall into the quantum trap of “information cannot be destroyed” because that definition of information has to do with the quantum properties, like spin and charge, associated with fundamental particles. That kind of information, per QFT, must always be conserved. QFT couldn’t care less about onions.

What kind of quantum spin does a physicist have?

Crash! Burn! You didn't fall in, you jumped with both left feet!


Factio Republicana delenda est.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by GDR, posted 05-19-2020 7:21 PM GDR has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7614
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 148 of 240 (876439)
05-20-2020 2:33 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by GDR
05-19-2020 7:21 PM


GDR writes:

I believe either you or Stile…


Stile.

…claimed that when my hypothetical physicist died without passing on the information that he had gleaned then that information ceased to exist as it wasn't recorded anywhere and wasn't in anyone's memory.

So suppose the physicist was the one who counted the onions in the field and now he's dead how can the information about how many onions are in the field exist? The onions are still there but the information isn't. To find the information about how many onions, the onions needs to be recounted.

I quoted an article in post Message 134.

Quantum information is a different kettle of ferrets. If you want to talk about that, you need someone else (and about 20 years of impossible study first.)


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by GDR, posted 05-19-2020 7:21 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by GDR, posted 05-20-2020 11:57 AM Tangle has responded
 Message 154 by Stile, posted 05-20-2020 1:02 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Richard L. Wang
Member
Posts: 49
From: Ottawa, ON, Canada
Joined: 04-27-2020


Message 149 of 240 (876447)
05-20-2020 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Admin
05-13-2020 1:38 PM


Re-Admin(114): Still, we need a new topic and NvC-3 is a good topic
Hi Percy,

I’m terribly sorry for replying too late.

We need a new topic
On NvC-1, at least half of the messages are irrelevant to the NvC-1 topic. Members continue to submit messages to NvC-1 because they are interested in discussing the relevant topics while no new thread is opened. Although there are many interesting and thoughtful points of view presented here, I have not submitted my messages yet, because I’m waiting for a “narrowly focused” new topic to open up. As stressed in the third point of the Forum Guidelines, a “narrowly focused” topic can lead to a meaningful discussion/debate.

NvC-3 is a good topic
So far, our discussion on the two topics – “The Opponent of Creationism …” and this NvC-1 topic – concluded that “Life consists only of matter” is the premise of Neo-Darwinian-Naturalism that “all biological processes follow the natural laws”.
Because “Life consists only of matter”, life can naturally originate on Earth through chemical processes. Although the theory of evolution technically starts from the origin of life, the life’s origin through chemical evolution is the natural extension of life’s evolution through biological evolution.
Because “all biological processes follow the natural laws”, genetic mutations are driven by natural forces, which are purposeless and directionless, so all genetic mutations are random.

What is the premise of my creationism? This is “life consists of matter and information”.
Because information cannot be produced by matter, the genetic information of the first life cannot be produced in the pure-material world of the primitive Earth, so life did not originate through chemical evolution but was created.
Because information does not obey the natural laws, all bioinformatic processes, including genetic mutations, do not obey the natural laws. Therefore, all genetic mutations except the point-mutations are not driven by natural forces, and all genetic mutations except point-mutations are non-random (sorry, I’m not going to elaborate here).

So, the NvC-3 topic – “What is life made up of?” OR “Does life consist only of matter or Does life consist of matter and information?” – is a very important topic, on which members have already shown their interest.

Admin(114) writes:

Richard L. Wang writes: “Which one do you think clearer and better?”
Keeping things simple is often a good idea, but not to the point of error. "Life consists only of matter" is as clearly in error as "pizza consists only of dough."

I think that all members, who will participate in NvC-3 discussion, have no misunderstanding on the topic, so this does not prevent the opening of the NvC-3 topic.

For your reference, and sorry again for replying late.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Admin, posted 05-13-2020 1:38 PM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by JonF, posted 05-20-2020 9:51 AM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded
 Message 151 by Admin, posted 05-20-2020 9:52 AM Richard L. Wang has responded
 Message 152 by PaulK, posted 05-20-2020 10:13 AM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6073
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 150 of 240 (876450)
05-20-2020 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by Richard L. Wang
05-20-2020 9:27 AM


Re: Re-Admin(114): Still, we need a new topic and NvC-3 is a good topic
This is “life consists of matter and information”.

Meaningless until you provide an operational definition of your "information".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-20-2020 9:27 AM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020