Principia

This quote came from the following link:
<a href="http://www.arn.org/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001953.html" target="_blank">http://www.arn.org/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001953.html</a>

mturner is arguing that the 'meaning' of DNA (I am guessing he means the functions directed by DNA code) exists even before its 'encoding' in DNA, and that the existence of the meaning presupposes the existence of an 'intelligence' which understands the meaning.

I admit I am ill-equipped to understand this argument. It is heavily philosophical, and seems to me to be saying that Reductionism inherent in Science gives no meaning to life (i.e. it makes life 'absurd').

Is this point valid? (Please read the link before accepting my interpretation. He is citing a field of philosophy (biosemiotics) unknown to me.)

SC

Late_Cretaceous

In "Climbing Mount Improbable" Richard Dawkins desribes how he was asked after giving a presentation "where does the information come from?" There are some schools of thought that all information resides somewhere. Seriously. They seem to think that if you apply a mathematical formula that the information for the answer came from some place. Personally I think they are bigger morons then the post modern types - people who have thier heads so far up their asses they don't know which way is up anymore.

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

Well, ask Plato, and you're sure to find out where the information comes from.

Axiom of Choice

Hello all. I've been lurking around for a while, and I figured I'd add my two cents for a change. I admit I'm not qualified to speak about the philosophical implications of the linkage between matter and information, but I can comment on the scientific view of the matter.

One of the fundemental observations of quantum information theory is that information cannot exist without some form of material representation. Basically, information must be encoded in some physical system, and that data cannot be accessed without making some physical measurement on the system. It does not exist `exterior' to the system carrying it, but is an inherent feature of how the particles in a system are organized. This last point is critical to the entire field of quantum information, and, from what I understand, experimental evidence bears this out.

Also, on a side note, this interlinkage between information and matter helps cause the creationist confusion on the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (or at least, part of the confusion. They'd probably confuse the issue themselves regardless). Since information must be encoded in some microstate of a system (think of bits on a hard drive), writing data causes a change in the multiplicity of the system, and thus a change in entropy. The 2nd Law thus serves to limit the theoretical efficiency of any computer, though the limits are far below today's operating levels.

From what I see in the conversations around here, one of the typical creationist errors in this matter is to say that, since information and entropy are linked, and entropy increases, then we can draw some conclusion about the information in the system. However, the 2nd law only states that the entropy of the universe increases, which may have some bearing on the information stored in a particular part of the universe. It is not true however, that `information always decreases' or some such nonsense that I've seen a few times.

Anyway, that's my thought on the matter. I hope it was somewhat coherent, and I apologize for the lack of documented sources, I'll have to work on that at some point.
--- M. R. Buckley

Principia

Buckley,

I agree with this point, and it is a shame that informaticians haven't made this their own 0th law, or something to that effect . In case you have checked the ARN forum, this theory that you are trying to debunk has been termed 'Jephtodynamics,' in loving memory of Jeptha who made this assertion and is still arguing it.

However, I am still at a lost on how to argue 'meaning.' If meaningful information is encoded, and DNA has meaningful information (I guess in the sense that it directs function that is external to itself), then the argument is that some *intelligence* must have encoded it. In other words, the meaning must exist before and independently of the encoding.

I am not sure if this argument is related to the final conclusion that Materialism somehow demeans our sense of Reality.

I would really appreciate anymore insight.
SC

[ March 09, 2002: Message edited by: Scientiae ]</p>

excreationist

Information requires a physical medium to store it on and physical encoding and decoding mechanisms.

It is true that it requires a kind of intelligence to work - just to decode (and possibly encode) the information.

In the case of DNA, information is copied and manipulated (sexual recombination?) but not originally encoded by the life-form. What I mean is that the DNA's contents are just randomly accumulated information based on selection pressures - the individual life-form doesn't generate its own DNA from scratch.

But animals (such as a sea-slug) can have memories where the individual animal encodes the information for itself.

luvluv

What's that site you are pulling from SC?

Vorkosigan

The argument is simple.....information is in the mind of the beholder.

You see a wave at the beach. It is just a wave to you. To a surfer, a meteorologist or a marine biologist, it is pregnant with information. I don't think you'll find anyone who would argue that the "information" is put there in the wave by the wind blowing across the fetch.

Similarly, DNA is just chemicals in a cell. It contains no information unless we choose to regard it as having information. The DNA can, though chemical operations, tell a cell how to replicate itself. But it only has information to some perciever.

Most discussions of this confuse "message" with "information." DNA is information to us, but it is not a message (no intention). So is a wave. Conversely, since I moved out here to Taiwan, my parents have stopped speaking to me. The information is nil, but the "message" is clear.

Note that the author uses an ambiguous term "meaning." The use of an ambiguous term implies that the author has either (a) misunderstood his own writing or (b) deliberately set out to mislead you. "Meaning" can refer to information that is either intentional (a message) or not. Consider:

"What is the meaning of this note you left on my desk?"

"What is the meaning of this strata here positioned on top of this bed of slate?"

Note that in only one case did someone form an intent to transmit information.

Further, the author is stating a fact, not making an argument. The author complains that a materialistic world is without meaning from the outside. No shit. Reality is meaningless (note three words that mean exactly the same thing "meaningless, pointless, absurd" -- a sure sign that the author isn't saying anything. That is simply a statement of fact, but by using words with Capitals and Lots of Big Words very fast, the author has given his rambling grumbling rhetorical status it does not deserve. The author's argument is:

1. Reality has no meaning.
2. I don't like that.
______________________
C: Therefore Reality must have meaning.

That and $8 will get you a cup of java in Tokyo.

So just laugh, and ask him to prove that Life has meaning, or withdraw the remark.

Michael

excreationist

Yeah, it is based on recombined memory patterns in your brain learnt from experience. I think that information only resides in people's brains or other information storage/decoding systems (e.g. DNA, etc). Plato believed in a dimension of pure "forms" though where information exists on its own eternally.

Bill Snedden

Thank you, thank you...very succinct.

They have Starbucks in Tokyo?

Regards,

Bill