Information Theory Revisited

[Crusadar]

I know some TEs will probably squirm and say “another information thread? I thought this was settled” This thread is not meant to disprove evolution but rather to provide an objective look at information theory as it applies to biology and perhaps answer some questions or get some interaction between the two sides without hostility.

To begin we will need to define again what creationist mean by information, again the best information theorist in the creationist camp is Professor Werner Gitt. So much information will be from his book, in “In the beginning was information” - without infringing on copyright laws I hope. So go ahead and pick any of his points and we will begin there.

According to Gitt - information exists in five levels:

Statistics: According to Claude Shannon, it is the statistical aspect of information. This theory makes it possible to quantitatively describe the characteristics of languages which are based on simple repetitions. At this level the meaning of a chain of symbols as well as grammar is not taken into consideration.

Syntax: In this second level strings or chains of character or symbols that have meaning are ruled governed and based on a consciously established convention. The syntax level requires that a specified number of symbols represent the information. An example of this is written languages which use letters, others include but not limited to hieroglyphics, musical notes, computer codes, morse code, genetic codes, sign language and even the figures in the dance of foraging bees or the odor symbols in the pheromone languages of insects.

Semantics: At this level strings or chains of symbols governed by syntactical rules are represented in information. Information at this level is not determined by the type, size, quantity, or method of transmission but by its information content – that is what it means. At the semantics level, information is determined in the meaning – whenever it is transmitted or received. And because no information exists without this third level only that which contains semantics or meaning is information. According Norbert Wiener, the founder of cybernetics and information theory, information is not of a physical nature.

Pragmatics: In this fourth level of information the purpose of the source of information is said to be irrelevant. However the particular response of the receiver of this information is of particular importance. The focus of information at this level is on whether or not the transmitting source meets its set objective in soliciting the desired response from the receiver. In human language pragmatic is represented not by the sentence structure but the anticipated response from the recipient when given a request, complaint, question, threats or commands.

Apobetics: The fifth level of information deals with purpose. At this level - information focuses on the result at the receiving end. Communicated information is taken into consideration as to its objective, plan or design. Since it is the highest information level it is the most important as it takes into consideration the objective that is being pursued by the transmitter.

In short here is what creationists mean by information.

1. Information cannot exist without a code.
2. Codes can not exist without a free and deliberate convention.
3. Information can not exist without the five levels: statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics.
4. Information is not found in purely statistical processes.
5. Information cannot exist without a transmitter.
6. Information chains cannot exist without a mental origin.
7. Information cannot exist without an initial mental source, that is, information is, by its nature, a mental and not a material quantity.
8. Information cannot exist without a will.

 

[billwald]

If a tree falls . . . .

 

[Crusadar]

billwald said: If a tree falls . . . .

Does it make a sound? - Obviously you heard it. If you are going to post, please follow the instructions.

 

[gluadys]

I know some TEs will probably squirm and say “another information thread? I thought this was settled” This thread is not meant to disprove evolution but rather to provide an objective look at information theory as it applies to biology and perhaps answer some questions or get some interaction between the two sides without hostility.

To begin we will need to define again what creationist mean by information, again the best information theorist in the creationist camp is Professor Werner Gitt. So much information will be from his book, in “In the beginning was information” - without infringing on copyright laws I hope. So go ahead and pick any of his points and we will begin there.

According to Gitt - information exists in five levels:

Statistics: According to Claude Shannon, it is the statistical aspect of information. This theory makes it possible to quantitatively describe the characteristics of languages which are based on simple repetitions. At this level the meaning of a chain of symbols as well as grammar is not taken into consideration.

Syntax: In this second level strings or chains of character or symbols that have meaning are ruled governed and based on a consciously established convention. The syntax level requires that a specified number of symbols represent the information. An example of this is written languages which use letters, others include but not limited to hieroglyphics, musical notes, computer codes, morse code, genetic codes, sign language and even the figures in the dance of foraging bees or the odor symbols in the pheromone languages of insects.

Semantics: At this level strings or chains of symbols governed by syntactical rules are represented in information. Information at this level is not determined by the type, size, quantity, or method of transmission but by its information content – that is what it means. At the semantics level, information is determined in the meaning – whenever it is transmitted or received. And because no information exists without this third level only that which contains semantics or meaning is information. According Norbert Wiener, the founder of cybernetics and information theory, information is not of a physical nature.

Pragmatics: In this fourth level of information the purpose of the source of information is said to be irrelevant. However the particular response of the receiver of this information is of particular importance. The focus of information at this level is on whether or not the transmitting source meets its set objective in soliciting the desired response from the receiver. In human language pragmatic is represented not by the sentence structure but the anticipated response from the recipient when given a request, complaint, question, threats or commands.

Apobetics: The fifth level of information deals with purpose. At this level - information focuses on the result at the receiving end. Communicated information is taken into consideration as to its objective, plan or design. Since it is the highest information level it is the most important as it takes into consideration the objective that is being pursued by the transmitter.

In short here is what creationists mean by information.

1. Information cannot exist without a code.
2. Codes can not exist without a free and deliberate convention.
3. Information can not exist without the five levels: statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics.
4. Information is not found in purely statistical processes.
5. Information cannot exist without a transmitter.
6. Information chains cannot exist without a mental origin.
7. Information cannot exist without an initial mental source, that is, information is, by its nature, a mental and not a material quantity.
8. Information cannot exist without a will.

What is objective about this personally defined description of information?

 

[Crusadar]

gluadys said: What is objective about this personally defined description of information?

Could you, um, be more specific?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

gluadys said: What is objective about this personally defined description of information?

Could you, um, be more specific?

this term "Apobetics"
is Gitt's own invention.
he appears to be trying to argue by creating words that seem to prove his point.

AFAIK, Gitt is not even engaged with by the field, he is just a darling of YECist and AiG, i'm not sure that it is worth the time to buy and read one of his books even.

check out the googling results.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Apobetics&btnG=Google+Search
http://www.google.com/search?q=Apobetic&btnG=Search&hl=en&lr=

....

 

[gluadys]

gluadys said: What is objective about this personally defined description of information?

Could you, um, be more specific?

You said:
This thread is not meant to disprove evolution but rather to provide an objective look at information theory...

Then you give an outline of Gitt's personally devised notions of information, which include, as rmwilliamsll notes, words which he has created.

Now where is the data that transforms this personal description of information into objective knowledge?

Shannon's theory is objective because it provides a mathematical base for calculating information, noise and entropy.

What's objective about Gitt's pet theory?

 

[notto]

I'm guessing that somehow this is supposed to relate to DNA, which is a chemical.

Are the implications of this that any catalyst in a chemical reaction stores and forwards 'information' on the reaction it produces?

How does the op relate to chemical replicators? I really don't see any value in the OP toward addressing self replicating biological entities.

Thanks rmwilliams:
By asserting that data must have an intelligent source to be considered information, and by assuming genomic sequences are information fitting that definition, Gitt defines into existence an intelligent source for the genome without going to the trouble of checking whether one was actually there. This is circular reasoning.

 

[Crusadar]

rmwilliamsll said: this term "Apobetics" is Gitt's own invention. he appears to be trying to argue by creating words that seem to prove his point.

Forgetting of course that it is how language works, if there is no word for a concept - you invent one. As we all know the word internet did not exist before the early seventies. However I’m pretty sure its not the word that you are at odds with, as Gitt could of used any word as designation – it is probably the concept it stands for that you disagree with. So lets start there, what part of the concept of “Apobetics” that you disagree with.

As you will never see a link in any of my posts I ask that you do the same because chances are I won’t bother to look at it as there is nothing worst then putting someone on a wild internet goose chase (too many popups and junk information out there) just explain to me in your own words what it says or simply quote them – with references of course.

AFAIK, Gitt is not even engaged with by the field, he is just a darling of YECist and AiG, i'm not sure that it is worth the time to buy and read one of his books even.

I suppose we all have a list of our very own “darling” pet theorists, - your point being? Lets look at the merits of the argument as oppose to a persons popularity shall we?

--------------------------------------------------------------​

gluadys said: You said

This thread is not meant to disprove evolution but rather to provide an objective look at information theory...

And then there is the part where I said……. So go ahead and pick any of his points and we will begin there.

Then you give an outline of Gitt's personally devised notions of information, which include, as rmwilliamsll notes, words which he has created.

Read my response to rmwilliamsll.

Now where is the data that transforms this personal description of information into objective knowledge?

Its only the opening post for crying out loud, you don’t expect the whole nine yards in a single bite do you?

Shannon's theory is objective because it provides a mathematical base for calculating information, noise and entropy.

It is purpose we are looking for here also, not mere statistical analysis.

What's objective about Gitt's pet theory?

Again specifics – i.e. what specific part (or parts) do you disagree with? Why don’t you start there.

--------------------------------------------------------------​

notto said: I'm guessing that somehow this is supposed to relate to DNA, which is a chemical.

Perhaps, that is after all what my introduction says.

Are the implications of this that any catalyst in a chemical reaction stores and forwards 'information' on the reaction it produces?

Come again, because I haven’t the foggiest idea how this statement relates to the opening post. An elaboration is in need.

How does the op relate to chemical replicators? I really don't see any value in the OP toward addressing self replicating biological entities.

One step at a time brother, why not just pick Gitts theory apart – that’s always a good start.

Thanks rmwilliams:

By asserting that data must have an intelligent source to be considered information, and by assuming genomic sequences are information fitting that definition, Gitt defines into existence an intelligent source for the genome without going to the trouble of checking whether one was actually there. This is circular reasoning.

Lets see now was it really rmwilliams who said that? Because if I didn’t know any better it is a word for word quote from the last paragraph of a webpage by the name of Rich Baldwin in his article “Information Theory and Creationism: Werner Gitt, dated 4/17/03. But that’s not really the point - the point is that the commentor whether it was rmwilliams or Baldwin should really get Dempski’s book “Intelligent Design” as it goes in much greater detail even though Gitt does do that in some detail – something which we will be looking into as soon as I remember where I put both books.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

the big problem is how to decide what to study and how much time to put into it.

i first ran into Gitt's theory and was recommended the book in sep 2003.
i spent an hour or so trying to see if it was worth reading.

no one but AiG and YECists were discussing it.
the term "Apobetics" like baraminology is unique to YECists.
it appears to be trying to argue by folding the conclusion into the definition of the word.

i still dont see any reason to buy and invest my time in his book. which is the only way to understand his ideas. enough stoplights to cease the research and move on.

there is LOTS of other books in the field of information theory that would be better reads.

btw
http://home.mira.net/~reynella/debate/gitt.htm
is the best link i found on Gitt
and i will continue to post links for those who want to research the issues.
i dont have the time nor the ability to rewrite what i read in my own words.
plus i hate to reinvent the wheel.
Gitt himself writes at:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v10/i2/information.asp
...

 

[billwald]

Bottom line is still either "god" or "always was," philosophy, not science.

 

[gluadys]

What's objective about Gitt's pet theory?

Again specifics – i.e. what specific part (or parts) do you disagree with? Why don’t you start there.

Ok. Start specifically with this statement:

"information exists in five levels"

It is not that I disagree with the statement, nor agree with it. I have no basis on which to agree or disagree. That is what I mean when I say there is nothing objective here.

As far as I can see this is a purely subjective classification of levels of information.

To make it objective I would need to see how he came to this conclusion. Where is the evidence or logical deduction that says information comes in levels at all? Why five levels rather than 3? or 33?

 

[notto]

Ok. Start specifically with this statement:

"information exists in five levels"

It is not that I disagree with the statement, nor agree with it. I have no basis on which to agree or disagree. That is what I mean when I say there is nothing objective here.

As far as I can see this is a purely subjective classification of levels of information.

To make it objective I would need to see how he came to this conclusion. Where is the evidence or logical deduction that says information comes in levels at all? Why five levels rather than 3? or 33?

According the the footnotes of this content at AIG:

This paper has presented only a qualitative survey of the higher levels of information. A quantitative survey is among the many tasks still to be performed.

Just as with ID, we apparently need to wait for the objective part to come.

 

[gluadys]

According the the footnotes of this content at AIG:

This paper has presented only a qualitative survey of the higher levels of information. A quantitative survey is among the many tasks still to be performed.

Just as with ID, we apparently need to wait for the objective part to come.

And I expect we will be waiting just as long.

 

[Crusadar]

gluadys said: Ok. Start specifically with this statement:

"information exists in five levels"

It is not that I disagree with the statement, nor agree with it. I have no basis on which to agree or disagree. That is what I mean when I say there is nothing objective here.

Well now I guess we can begin then. Frankly I don’t have a clue as to why Gitt classifies information into five levels – but is that what you really want to discuss, as to why there are different levels of information, or for that matter why classify the different races, languages, or kinds of animals? My guess is that it helps to organize, relate, and compare – after all man does classify everything. Whether he is good at it or not is not really the point - it’s just something that he does.

As far as I can see this is a purely subjective classification of levels of information.

Sometimes it’s good to elaborate as to why something is subjective. Instead of just telling me it’s subjective, why not tell me instead if it is valid? Is it logical, does it reflect reality? Is it testable? Is it repeatable?

To make it objective I would need to see how he came to this conclusion. Where is the evidence or logical deduction that says information comes in levels at all? Why five levels rather than 3? or 33?

Five seems logical in this case as Gitt does go in depth describing each level - as that is what we work with and can relate to. Could there be more, perhaps (let me know if you can come up with more that don’t fall into any of the five categories) could there be less, of course, just let me know if you can condense it to be less. But I suspect it’s not really the number of levels that you object to, its what Gitt says about information, that information by nature is mental in origin - that is where the problem is, and its application to biology upsets you because of your commitment to the sacred theory of evolution where it is suppose to be a thoughtless process.

But lets see the logic behind this classification shall we?

Transmitter--------------Information Level---------Receiver
sends signal-------------Statistical---------------receives signal
coded symbol employed----Syntax--------------------understands code
communicate idea---------Semantics-----------------understand meaning
expect action------------Pragmatics----------------implement action
intended purpose---------Apobetics-----------------achieves desired result

Let’s start with the first level - statistics.

Statistics: According to Claude Shannon, it is the statistical aspect of information. This theory makes it possible to quantitatively describe the characteristics of languages which are based on simple repetitions. At this level the meaning of a chain of symbols as well as grammar is not taken into consideration.

Now does Gitt’s first classification of information have any legitimacy and practical applications in the real world is the question we should ask. It would seem that he is talking about information at its lowest level. This is the level that Shannon chooses to work at, and never really beyond that. But information at this level is meaningless for the simple fact that a statistical analysis of information:

1. Considers any random sequence of symbols as information without concern as to its origin or its meaning.

2. Information is exclusively measured quantitatively.

Without consideration as to the origin or meaning of a given sequence of symbols in any medium of transmission (i.e. visual, aural) of what use is it when the information content does not lie in the symbols themselves but what the concept it represents. It allows for information to be transmitted and measured but not understood.

 

[gluadys]

gluadys said: Ok. Start specifically with this statement:

"information exists in five levels"

It is not that I disagree with the statement, nor agree with it. I have no basis on which to agree or disagree. That is what I mean when I say there is nothing objective here.

Well now I guess we can begin then. Frankly I don’t have a clue as to why Gitt classifies information into five levels – but is that what you really want to discuss, as to why there are different levels of information, or for that matter why classify the different races, languages, or kinds of animals? My guess is that it helps to organize, relate, and compare – after all man does classify everything. Whether he is good at it or not is not really the point - it’s just something that he does.

Sure it helps organize, relate, compare. But he simply lays out five levels. What is the objective basis of this classification? The classification of races and languages and kinds is based in observed differences of morphology and culture and the history of both which elucidates their roots and relationships. Other people can study these differences and similarities and evaluate if the original taxonomist or linguist has made a logical classification.

Where does Gitt discuss the methodology that led to his classification? Where does he set out his reasoning for making his divisions where he does?
Without this information, how is an observer supposed to be able to evaluate his work?

I also have questions about the list of characteristics of information listed in the OP. They don't seem to derive directly from the description of levels. Are they explicitly named in Gitt's work or is this a creationist interpretation of his work?

 

[gluadys]

But information at this level is meaningless for the simple fact that a statistical analysis of information:[/font]

1. Considers any random sequence of symbols as information without concern as to its origin or its meaning.

2. Information is exclusively measured quantitatively.

Without consideration as to the origin or meaning of a given sequence of symbols in any medium of transmission (i.e. visual, aural) of what use is it when the information content does not lie in the symbols themselves but what the concept it represents. It allows for information to be transmitted and measured but not understood.

Depends on the context doesn't it? Who or what is doing the transmitting to whom or what? The point is well taken if one is speaking of linguistic communication among persons. But what does "understand" mean when a computer program is responding to algorithms?

 

[Crusadar]

Gluadys said: But what does "understand" mean when a computer program is responding to algorithms?

Well I would hope that it would understand the way it was programmed to! As an example try opening a Mac based document or program in a Windows environment – good luck! Computers understand because it does what its programming allows it to do.

 

[gluadys]

Gluadys said: But what does "understand" mean when a computer program is responding to algorithms?

Well I would hope that it would understand the way it was programmed to! As an example try opening a Mac based document or program in a Windows environment – good luck! Computers understand because it does what its programming allows it to do.

I would say a computer responds to its programming. I have trouble attributing understanding to a machine . How can it understand anything when it has no awareness?