Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Hmm, I'll concede that. It is indeed scientifically contentious.Having a side is not the problem.
Stating that a scientifically contentious paradox is false without giving scientifically acceptable proof is the problem.
That's why I stated that it's better for you to argue by saying that the matter is contentious, which is widely acceptable. Other statements (outside of actual proofs) just show your lack of understanding of the concepts.
Hmm, I'll concede that. It is indeed scientifically contentious.
Personally I think the concept of "information" is both tantalizing and too vague to pin down in any but the most simple cases.
It is called the conservation of information, and it is far from simple.
...
Is there a reason to think that the phrase "conservation of information" is anything other than something intended to sound sciency, but which in reality has no real content?
Papias
rcorlew wrote:
??
Information is not conserved. Anyone can see that information is easily created by natural processes all the time - such as in ice cores or tree rings, which record the information of past climates, and information is also easily destroyed, as any Enron employee knows.
Sure, information isn't simple, but most of the complexity seems to stem from people switching their definition of information midway through a discussion.
Is there a reason to think that the phrase "conservation of information" is anything other than something intended to sound sciency, but which in reality has no real content?
Papias
We investigate the main features of a measure of fidelity between states in a general family of probabilistic theories admitting classical probability theory and standard quantum theory as particular instances. We apply the aforementioned measure to investigate information-theoretical features of these theories related to the conservation of information during the evolution of closed physical systems. In particular, we derive a generalization of a fundamental result in quantum theory relevant for the measurement problem: Zurek's recent extension of the no-cloning theorem.
Fidelity measure and conservation of information in general probabilistic theories
It is better for people who have not studied something to refrain from commenting on those things.
A simple google search on "conservation of information" will give you an introduction.
Even either one of the four corollaries to that law are far from trivial.
Nope, no degree in "conservation of information" for me. That's why I don't label it as non-scientific or scientific. I leave that to people who have studied it to comment upon. That is the point of my post...Would you like to inform us as to your degree in an area relevant to a real conservation of information? I'm assuming that in making the comment above, you have studied this in a real field, right?
...
Nope, no degree in "conservation of information" for me. That's why I don't label it as non-scientific or scientific. I leave that to people who have studied it to comment upon. That is the point of my post. To say that conservation of information is not scientific requires sound scientific proofs. To dismiss it without the proofs is not scientific.
No I didn't bring it onto the thread, you tried to dismiss it without any proof which is what caught my attention....Um, no, sorry. You brought it onto this thread, it is your burden of proof, not mine, to show it is relevant. If I had brought it onto this thread, it would be my burden of proof to say it is relevant.
..
Perhaps a minor point, but again you misread. I never referenced any biology paper...or to reference quantum physics without understanding what you referenced, as if that paper had any relevance to biology.
Darn, I had hoped I might hear something new. ...
No I didn't bring it onto the thread, you tried to dismiss it without any proof which is what caught my attention.
Perhaps a minor point, but again you misread. I never referenced any biology paper.
Um, no, sorry. You brought it onto this thread, it is your burden of proof, not mine, to show it is relevant. If I had brought it onto this thread, it would be my burden of proof to say it is relevant.
OK, now I see. You have no basis for any of your comments on “conservation of information” other than to reference Dembski’s well debunked ramblings, or to reference quantum physics without understanding what you referenced, as if that paper had any relevance to biology.
Darn, I had hoped I might hear something new.
Papias
matter and energy are not information.
You have described the food chain (which requires neither the conservation of energy nor matter), and the chemical cycles (which are related to the conservation of matter).
Nothing you brought up in that last post shows a conservation of information, or seems to have anything to do with a conservation of information.
Is there some other way a "conservation of information" came up in your biology class? Are you sure? Where would that have been (what school)?
I suspect that you've confused the real conservations of energy and matter with the creationist use of "conservation of information". If that's the case, that's understandable, as they do sound similar.
Papias
The sun fuses 2 hydrogen atoms together to produce energy
That energy (some of which is light energy) makes it to earth
2% of solar light energy is transferred into chemical energy the other 98% is accounted for as heat
Grass uses that light energy for photosynthesis converting another 2% of light energy into chemical energy, the other 98% is given off as heat energy
A cow eats the grass and converts 2% of the grass's chemical energy into chemical energy for itself, the other 98% is given off as heat
We eat the cow, 2%/98% rule still into effect, but we also make clothes, shoes, medicines,etc from the cow
So
Okay then:
How much information is there in two hydrogen atoms?
How much information is there in a photon?
How much information is there in a given amount of heat, and how much in another amount of chemical energy?
How much information is there in a blade of grass?
How much information is there in a cow?
And in a steak?
How much information is there in a leather handbag? (Answer: when it is owned by a woman, too much!)
How much information is there in a syringe of bovine insulin?
Maybe the calculations are a bit difficult, but they should be easily described. Laws of conservation are only useful when the things they conserve can be simply, but non-trivially, quantified.
But the first law of thermodynamics is about energy! I don't see how there is a simple equivalence to information.That was my point, the conservation of information is based on the first law of thermodynamics. On the surface, information conservation seems almost pointless or trivial at times, but the application is far more important than a mere curiosity.
I do fully admit this is a rather big and complex idea and it takes some time to fully understand it (it took me about 4 weeks of study for me to comprehend it)
Might not be the best example though. In that case it is philosophical as to whether information is indeed lost or just the ability to retrieve the information is what is lost. Indeed it is also philosophical as to whether those two losses mean the same thing....
Suppose someone mugs me in a back alley and knocks my brain so that I forget everything that has happened for the past ten years. Very little energy is transferred; and yet a large amount of information is lost. How does that square with any "conservation of information"?
Aye, perhaps you should study the topic before you reply to any more posts.
Okay, I burn a hard drive full of important documents. Where has the information gone?Might not be the best example though. In that case it is philosophical as to whether information is indeed lost or just the ability to retrieve the information is what is lost. Indeed it is also philosophical as to whether those two losses mean the same thing.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?