Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
A Seemingly Definitive Refutation of the "No new information" canard
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Philip Bruce Heywood" data-source="post: 75157934" data-attributes="member: 429150"><p>Perhaps we should define information more clearly?</p><p></p><p>It is self evident that for scientific experiments to work, we can't have quantum category information -- things such as electron orbital characteristics, for instance, flitting in and out of existence. Likewise, since genetics is real and reliable, we don't have subatomic information coming and going so as to arbitrarily turn that reliability into bedlam. There are things we can stand on in this world. Such as this world being here for us to jolly about on and smell the daisies --- up until the Revelation angel proclaims, Time shall be no more. That's space - time. </p><p></p><p>This NATURAL world. </p><p></p><p>But people can experience things that are brand new, experience each other (for better or worse!) and have what might be called religious experience which is outside physical analysis. We can encounter new things outside the purely physical. This is new information of a sort? It has an influence on physical outcomes? This is somewhat deep. But no, Einstein never thought up anything new regarding Physics. How could he? If it's Physics, it always existed in space-time. The man was prone to forgetting at which station he was supposed to get off the train, but that may not be relevant?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Philip Bruce Heywood, post: 75157934, member: 429150"] Perhaps we should define information more clearly? It is self evident that for scientific experiments to work, we can't have quantum category information -- things such as electron orbital characteristics, for instance, flitting in and out of existence. Likewise, since genetics is real and reliable, we don't have subatomic information coming and going so as to arbitrarily turn that reliability into bedlam. There are things we can stand on in this world. Such as this world being here for us to jolly about on and smell the daisies --- up until the Revelation angel proclaims, Time shall be no more. That's space - time. This NATURAL world. But people can experience things that are brand new, experience each other (for better or worse!) and have what might be called religious experience which is outside physical analysis. We can encounter new things outside the purely physical. This is new information of a sort? It has an influence on physical outcomes? This is somewhat deep. But no, Einstein never thought up anything new regarding Physics. How could he? If it's Physics, it always existed in space-time. The man was prone to forgetting at which station he was supposed to get off the train, but that may not be relevant? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
A Seemingly Definitive Refutation of the "No new information" canard
Top
Bottom