Member (Idle past 1266 days)
Re: Equivocation: summary execution.
Give me one scientific fact that contradicts the inference that messages, information, instructions, codes, plans *ONLY* come from mental processes. All you need is one. The burden of proof is on you to tell us how these things can arise by unintelligent processes.
Pick up any science book or journal and it will tell you the where's, how's and why's of how things originate and evolve via "unintelligent" means.
First off, you have to define what "information" is. It seems you are misconstruing our common, every day understanding of information in the process of data communications to what scientists, specifically particle physicists term "information". Particle physicists' usage of the word "information" does not require any outside intelligent entity to "send" a message so to speak other than the particle itself. The term "information" is synonymous with the physical properties i.e. mass, spin, electrical charge, etc of that particle, nothing more.
You are deliberately distorting Shannon's work on "information theory" and making it say things about particle physics that don't jive and that Shannon never intended. Does a photon require an "intelligent sender" and "intelligent reciever" in order to pass information. No. "Information" in the form of physical properties are encapsulated within the particle itself and are what differentiates one particle from another. This is the "information" that is being passed.
And because molecules, organic and inorganic, are constituted of individual atoms of sub-atomic particles this same concept of unintelligent transfer of information applies, though on a much larger level. On the molecular, atomic and sub-particle level there is NO difference between life and non-life. Individual protons, atoms of carbon, molecules of sugar and nucleic acids possess exactly the same properties in non-living objects as in living organisms. The difference between life and non-life can only be distinguished at the macroscopic level's that humans observe and interact in.
Insinuating that sub-atomic particle "information" requires an outside intelligent entity unnecessarily adds complexity to the physical universe and its properties, that is not only not required but open's up another whole can of worms to explain where and how this outside intelligent entity came into being and how it uses it's "supernatural" powers on the physical universe. IOW, it defies Occam's Razor in that "entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily".
So really the onus is on you, who propose an outside entity/intelligence as the source of "information". As Dr. Michael Shermer wrote in a recent article in Scientific American ("I Want To Believe" July 2009 pp.33):
|Michael Shermer writes:|
Science begins with null hypothesis, which assumes the claim under investigation is not true until demonstrated otherwise...Failure to reject the null hypothesis does not make the claim false, and, conversely, rejecting the null hypothesis is not a warranty for truth. Nevertheless, the scientific method is the best tool ever devised to discriminate between true and false patterns, to distinguish between reality and fantasy and to detect baloney. The null hypothesis means the burden of proof is on the person asserting a positive claim, not the skeptic to disprove it.
Your and the ID claims fall's under this underlying tenet of modern science. You need to provide substantial evidence that there is more to this universe than what we can detect and infer through science. The onus is on you, not on the skeptic.
My argument has 100% inference. A natural explanation has *NONE.*
This is your biased opinion. This statement is purely speculative and you provided zero substantial evidence to back it up. Scientific inference is based on previous facts and substantiated emperical, neither of which you have provided.
Your evidence has been weighed, it has been measured, and it has been found wanting.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan
|This message is a reply to:|
| ||Message 307 by WordBeLogos, posted 06-21-2009 2:13 AM|| ||WordBeLogos has not yet responded|