From Conservapedia
This is the current revision of Talk:Information as edited by Marnick (Talk | contribs) at 18:53, 25 February 2010. This URL is a permanent link to this version of this page.

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search


With such a controversial topic it is essential to add proper attribution to claims. Unless you can objectively prove that information can only come into existence by intelligent means, then it is inappropriate to state something as fact. RDre 11:36, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Science does not "prove", but can succeed or fail to disprove. Can you dispute (disprove) the claim? Philip J. Rayment 11:42, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Perhaps we'd do better to defer this discussion until we've got a neutral description of what information theory actually states. Once we've got that down, then we could discuss its implications. Thoughts? Tsumetai 11:45, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
A neutral definition would be helpful. However, attribution would still be useful anyway. RDre 11:48, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Is there such a thing as a neutral description? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Philip J. Rayment (talk)
I think so, yes. We all agree on the definitions of Shannon information, or Kolmogorov complexity, or whatever. The conclusions one draws from the field are another matter. Tsumetai 06:49, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
I actually meant to question the possibility of a neutral description in this particular case, as it impinges on people's worldviews, unlike Shannon information, etc. Philip J. Rayment 07:38, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
Oh. No, whether or not intelligence can derive from anything but intelligence is probably going to remain an issue of contention. But having a neutral description of the basics down might help resolve it. As it stands, it's not even clear what the claim is supposed to mean. Tsumetai 07:42, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

2nd Law

Wait a the Second Law of Thermodynamics really up for debate here? The amount of information (a.k.a. "entropy") in a system will always decrease over time, with or without the presence/action of intelligence. This is elementary-school-level material, folks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pohl (talk)

Information is not entropy, although there is a connection. To the extent that they are related, entropy increases as information decreases. Entropy is the amount of disorder in a system, whereas information is analogous to the amount of order. Also, the 2nd law applies to a closed system. Information can be added from outside an open system, or, obviously, from an intelligence (the source of all information). Philip J. Rayment 20:33, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Example of new information through random process

Some time ago I was typing my name. I couldn't type blind very well at that time so I made quite some mistakes. We can all agree that these mistakes are purely random, when you're learning something, you make random mistakes. While I was typing my name I realized that I had made an error. Instead of Marnick I had typed Harnick. At first glance this is a loss of information, as my name was lost. However it sounded cool and I decided to keep that mistake as a handle on online discussion boards. So by pure chance new information was generated, namely a new name to use online. I acted as natural selection on my own mistake, almost all mistakes will be corrected but sometimes a mistake induces new information. When that information is useful it will be retained. This is the basis for evolution. Marnick 13:53, 25 February 2010 (EST)