*_"It is only at the semantic level that we really have meaningful information; thus, we may establish the following theorem: Theorem 14: Any entity, to be accepted as information, must entail semantics; it must be meaningful. Semantics is an essential aspect of information because the meaning is the only invariant property. The statistical and syntactical properties can be altered appreciably when information is represented in another language (e.g., translated into Chinese), but the meaning does not change. Meanings always represent mental concepts; therefore, we have: Theorem 15: When its progress along the chain of transmission events is traced backward, every piece of information leads to a mental source, the mind of the sender."_* Dr. Werner Gitt (Former Head of the Department of Information Technology at Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, Germany)
Год назад
You're like a dog licking a wall claiming to be an architect.
It is indeed cool, but it is a very surface level conceptualization. It is not the only theory of information. We don't have a clear consensus on what information is across domains. There also exist many deep unresolved philosophical/metaphysically issues which impact the usefulness and truthfulness of any theory of information. Be careful when considering information theory as the proper frame for natural systems. Shannon's entropy may not so easily be applied when considering fundamental principles of the theory and reality at large.
Information only comes from intelligence. Something Dawkins has little of. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. God is the reason for us and all we have. ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html “However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. The odds are NOT there. ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. ruclips.net/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/видео.html Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection... The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.” Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living. dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
@@classicsciencefictionhorro1665 yes thanks. I'm familiar with most of the different information theories. It's something I've been trying to write about. Even kolmogorov complexity doesn't map directly to natural systems, unless the natural system is highly contrived and constrained. Beyond that, I don't think anyone is able to adequately address the objective-subjective issues when it comes to quantitative or computational models of natural systems. I admire their pragmatic explanatory power, but I am still bothered by the mystery of the metaphysics.
@@S.G.Wallner Shannon was talking about communicating information not semantics or ontological aspects. Perhaps Chomsky is more relevant concerning those aspects…
*_"Not even one mutation has been observed that adds a little information to the genome."_* Dr. Lee Spetner ( American physicist who is a PhD and MD from MIT and Washington University)
A new book published by Austin Macauley Publishers titled From Chemistry to Life on Earth outlines abiogenesis in great detail with a solution to the evolution of the genetic code and the ribosome as well as the modern cell in general. A molecular natural selection formula is proposed with a worked example for ATP. In general the evolution of the genetic code complies with Shannon information theory. Hint - accuracy of information was less important at life's origin compared with the present.
*"Language: All digital communications require a formal language, which in this context consists of all the information that the sender and receiver of the digital communication must both possess, in advance, in order for the communication to be successful."* (Wikipedia: Digital Data) The only known source (i.e. cause) that has been observed in nature (i.e. Scientific method) that is capable of producing language is Mind, Consciousness, Intelligence.
Totally agree, I’m not a creationist like a man like Dawkins accuses any of his critics of being but it’s pretty obvious he doesn’t even remotely understand Claude Shannon’s concepts. It is even more hilarious how just like a creationist fundamentalist would argue towards evolution Dawkins in an out of context way claims that Shannon disproves creationism 😆
Shannon's phd theses was on dna. He didnt want to do it. Vannevar Bush's idea. He didnt publish it. It contained good work, ahead of its time. He had to learn genetics etc first.
*_"It is only at the semantic level that we really have meaningful information; thus, we may establish the following theorem: Theorem 14: Any entity, to be accepted as information, must entail semantics; it must be meaningful. Semantics is an essential aspect of information because the meaning is the only invariant property. The statistical and syntactical properties can be altered appreciably when information is represented in another language (e.g., translated into Chinese), but the meaning does not change. Meanings always represent mental concepts; therefore, we have: Theorem 15: When its progress along the chain of transmission events is traced backward, every piece of information leads to a mental source, the mind of the sender."_* Dr. Werner Gitt (Former Head of the Department of Information Technology at Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, Germany)
You're like a dog licking a wall claiming to be an architect.
information=reduction of uncertainty. pretty cool
It is indeed cool, but it is a very surface level conceptualization. It is not the only theory of information. We don't have a clear consensus on what information is across domains. There also exist many deep unresolved philosophical/metaphysically issues which impact the usefulness and truthfulness of any theory of information. Be careful when considering information theory as the proper frame for natural systems. Shannon's entropy may not so easily be applied when considering fundamental principles of the theory and reality at large.
Information only comes from intelligence. Something Dawkins has little of.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html
“However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins.
We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God.
The odds are NOT there.
ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd.
ruclips.net/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/видео.html
Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection...
The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”
Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living.
dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
@@S.G.Wallner There is a guy called Kolmogorov you should check out.
@@classicsciencefictionhorro1665 yes thanks. I'm familiar with most of the different information theories. It's something I've been trying to write about. Even kolmogorov complexity doesn't map directly to natural systems, unless the natural system is highly contrived and constrained. Beyond that, I don't think anyone is able to adequately address the objective-subjective issues when it comes to quantitative or computational models of natural systems. I admire their pragmatic explanatory power, but I am still bothered by the mystery of the metaphysics.
@@S.G.Wallner Shannon was talking about communicating information not semantics or ontological aspects. Perhaps Chomsky is more relevant concerning those aspects…
*_"Not even one mutation has been observed that adds a little information to the genome."_* Dr. Lee Spetner ( American physicist who is a PhD and MD from MIT and Washington University)
A new book published by Austin Macauley Publishers titled From Chemistry to Life on Earth outlines abiogenesis in great detail with a solution to the evolution of the genetic code and the ribosome as well as the modern cell in general. A molecular natural selection formula is proposed with a worked example for ATP. In general the evolution of the genetic code complies with Shannon information theory.
Hint - accuracy of information was less important at life's origin compared with the present.
*"Language: All digital communications require a formal language, which in this context consists of all the information that the sender and receiver of the digital communication must both possess, in advance, in order for the communication to be successful."* (Wikipedia: Digital Data) The only known source (i.e. cause) that has been observed in nature (i.e. Scientific method) that is capable of producing language is Mind, Consciousness, Intelligence.
You have no idea what that means you sad chimp.
Information Theory: Order (i.e. crystal structure) and Information (DNA/RNA) are Not the same thing.
Totally agree, I’m not a creationist like a man like Dawkins accuses any of his critics of being but it’s pretty obvious he doesn’t even remotely understand Claude Shannon’s concepts. It is even more hilarious how just like a creationist fundamentalist would argue towards evolution Dawkins in an out of context way claims that Shannon disproves creationism 😆
Shannon's phd theses was on dna. He didnt want to do it. Vannevar Bush's idea. He didnt publish it. It contained good work, ahead of its time. He had to learn genetics etc first.