Is there any such thing as information that does not depend on a physical medium?
Have I stated anywhere that anything violates 2Lot?
Upvote
0
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.
Is there any such thing as information that does not depend on a physical medium?Only if the information is dependent on a physical mechanism to store it. The medium is affected because it is physical, not the information itself.
Do you understand that in order to say that something violates the 2nd law that a physical mechanism that violates it must be named and that this violation needs to be shown through mathematics, data, and measurment?
ok fine... as it is there's only a small handful of you so I'll repost my line of questioning yet again so we can be straight about it.
Does 2Lot affect the entropy within physical systems? In other words, does it affect my computer?
Information itself doesn't depend on a physical medium - information is not a physical thing - it is a concept - concepts can't violate a physical law. Storage of information and transmission of information depends on a physical medium.Is there any such thing as information that does not depend on a physical medium?
You seem to be hinted at it, regardless,Have I stated anywhere that anything violates 2Lot?
Information itself doesn't depend on a physical medium - information is not a physical thing - it is a concept - concepts can't violate a physical law. Storage of information and transmission of information depends on a physical medium.
You seem to be hinted at it, regardless,
Do you understand that in order to say that something violates the 2nd law that a physical mechanism that violates it must be named and that this violation needs to be shown through mathematics, data, and measurment?
It is lost unless he transfers it to another medium. The disease is affectng the medium (brain), not the concept itself.If a man has a concept, and he develops chronic dimentia or some similar disease that affects his memory and cognition, what is likely to happen to that concept?
Well that's too bad. If you want to talk about the 2nd law, you should understand it and understand the context of it. That you seem to refuse to accept this basic idea of physics is baffling. It will only lead you further from understanding evolution and the 2nd law.No, because it is my God given right, purchased by blood, to say what ever I darned well please (so long as I don't blaspheme Him, of course). However, in order to prove somethingrequires a bit more. Fortunately for me I'm not trying to prove anything, yet.
It can work both ways notto.It is lost unless he transfers it to another medium. The disease is affectng the medium (brain), not the concept itself.
Well that's too bad. If you want to talk about the 2nd law, you should understand it and understand the context of it. That you seem to refuse to accept this basic idea of physics is baffling. It will only lead you further from understanding evolution and the 2nd law.
It can work both ways notto.
Do you understand what information is?
I find the notion that one must be a trained scientist in order to think for himself and to speak about those thoughts to be rather offensive. IMO, a person who holds this view does not value understanding but simply fills his mind with silly factoids until it has grown large enough that he can use it to head-butt others into submission. There is no intelligent dialogue involved in this. It has devolved into a stupid game.
Yes.It can work both ways notto.
Do you understand what information is?
Laws of physics are not open to personal interpretation. Until you understand the law itself, the mathematics involved, the physical mechansims involved, and the units to express it, trying to apply it is pointless.I find the notion that one must be a trained scientist in order to think for himself and to speak about those thoughts to be rather offensive. IMO, a person who holds this view does not value understanding but simply fills his mind with silly factoids until it has grown large enough that he can use it to head-butt others into submission. There is no intelligent dialogue involved in this. It has devolved into a stupid game.
If you understand what information is then surely you must be able to explain to me how information can exist apart from a physical medium.Yes.
Laws of physics are not open to personal interpretation. Until you understand the law itself, the mathematics involved, the physical mechansims involved, and the units to express it, trying to apply it is pointless.
Would you like to understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics and how to appy it?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html
Thermodynamics is an exact science that is based on a limited number of specific mathematical concepts. It is not explainable in terms of qualitative metaphors. In order to understand the relationship between probability and the second law, the reader must be familiar with the relationship between probability and entropy. Entropy is a mathematically defined entity which is the fundamental basis of the second law of thermodynamics and all of its engineering and physical chemistry ramifications.
The concept of entropy is fundamental to understanding the second law of thermodynamics. Entropy (or more specifically, increase in entropy) is defined as heat (in calories or Btu's) absorbed by a system, divided by the absolute temperature of the system at the time the heat is absorbed. Absolute temperature is the number of degrees above "absolute zero", the coldest temperature that can exist.
The numerical calculation of entropy changes accompanying physical and chemical changes are very well understood and are the basis of the mathematical determination of free energy, emf characteristics of voltaic cells, equilibrium constants, refrigeration cycles, steam turbine operating parameters, and a host of other parameters. The creationist position would necessarily discard the entire mathematical framework of thermodynamics and would provide no basis for the engineering design of turbines, refrigeration units, industrial pumps, etc. It would do away with the well-developed mathematical relationships of physical chemistry, including the effect of temperature and pressure on equilibrium constants and phase changes.
That is all I've been trying to do is help you understand it.
No game involved. You said you wanted to learn yet you seem to refusing to do so. In that regard, yes, it is a stupid game.
Information is stored in a physical medium. I don't believe I have ever stated otherwise. All i've said is that inforamtion itself is not a physical thing. It is a concept.If you understand what information is then surely you must be able to explain to me how information can exist apart from a physical medium.
As far as 2Lot is concerned, you've already stated that it does affect the entropy within physical systems, and and that this entropy can affect the entropy within the information that those physical systems process. This is sufficient to conclude that if you would like to state that information is not affected by 2Lot, you must explain how it can exist apart from a physical medium.
My friend, a concept is contained within information. That information is a pattern - a sequence in the order of the parts of a physical system. A concept would then be a particular pattern of the parts within your mind. And a pattern cannot exist except between physical pieces. Now if thermodynamic entropy pertains to the disorder of physical particles within a system, and information entropy pertains to the order of the bits in information, and those bits ARE the physical particles within a system, then how is it that the second law of thermodynamics does not affect information?Information is stored in a physical medium. I don't believe I have ever stated otherwise. All i've said is that inforamtion itself is not a physical thing. It is a concept.
No, again, the 2nd law can only be applied to the physical. Information is a concept, not a physical thing.
You can certainly show that the medium is affected by the second law but what is lacking in arguing that evolution somehow violates or steps around this is just that - discussion of the physical medium the information is stored in and physical mechansism used to explain evolution- whicyh is the only thing the 2nd law can be applied to.
The 2nd law will not change the information in this sentance unless it affects the physical medium on which it is stored - the information itself is not affected by the 2nd law, otherwise, information would degrade at the same rate no matter the medium. Do you understand why this is important to comprehend? Untill you do, your application of the 2nd law to 'information entrophy' is misguided.
All of the physical mechanisms responsible for the 'information' changes in the theory of evolution have been directly observed. If they violate the 2nd law, then the second law is wrong.
I don't know how many times we can repeat this.
All of the mechanisms involved in the theory of evolution have been directly observed. If they violate the 2nd law, then the second law is wrong.
Do you think that there is some physical mechanism used in the theory of evolution that has not been observed?
Correct me if I'm wrong but it sounds like what you're trying to say is that 'meaning' can't be affected by the law since 'meaning' will be the same if you transfer the information between mediums. I am inclined to think that what I mean by 'meaning' would then be a particular pattern sequence.My friend, a concept is contained within information. That information is a pattern - a sequence in the order of the parts of a physical system. A concept would then be a particular pattern of the parts within your mind. And a pattern cannot exist except between physical pieces. Now if thermodynamic entropy pertains to the disorder of physical particles within a system, and information entropy pertains to the order of the bits in information, and those bits ARE the physical particles within a system, then how is it that the second law of thermodynamics does not affect information?
My friend, a concept is contained within information. That information is a pattern - a sequence in the order of the parts of a physical system. A concept would then be a particular pattern of the parts within your mind. And a pattern cannot exist except between physical pieces. Now if thermodynamic entropy pertains to the disorder of physical particles within a system, and information entropy pertains to the order of the bits in information, and those bits ARE the physical particles within a system, then how is it that the second law of thermodynamics does not affect information?
Ok notto. Can we at least agree to disagree?It affects the medium the information is stored on. Just like you say here. It does not impact the information (nor 'meaning') as itself because the information itself is not a physical thing. You seem to be confusing 2 types of entropy.
How big is an idea? What physical dimensions does it have? How do I measure how much it degrades due to the second law? What units do I use to express it?
You are trying to imply that somehow the second law impacts the idea or information independent of the medium (or external energy put in to preserve the medium or copy the idea to a new medium). This is not the case.
If it was, information would degrade at the same rate whether stored on paper, gold leaf, or DVD. Is that the case?
If you can't name a unit to use that will apply to thermodynamics and information, that should be your first clue that you are going down the wrong path.
Now, look how far you have strayed from your discussion of evolution. All for a discussion that has absolutely nothing to do with it. Because as has already been demosntrated, evolution doesn't violate the second law because all of the mechanisms involved have been directly observed.
You are going down a rabbit hole. Let me know when you would like to return to the subject of evolution in some meaniful way.
All of the physical mechanisms responsible for the 'information' changes in the theory of evolution have been directly observed. If they violate the 2nd law, then the second law is wrong.
I don't know how many times we can repeat this.
All of the mechanisms involved in the theory of evolution have been directly observed. If they violate the 2nd law, then the second law is wrong.
Do you think that there is some physical mechanism used in the theory of evolution that has not been observed?
Ok notto. Can we at least agree to disagree?
So if I disagree with you then I disagree with physics? Whatever dude....You are not disagreeing with me. You are disagreeing with physics textbooks and experimental data world wide.
But sure, feel free to disagree. Considering you came to this thread seeking to objectively learn about evolution (and supposedly actual science), it is strange that you want to disagree with a very basic and mainstream understanding of physics and the physical mechanisms behind evolution. This may be why you may feel that you are being criticized as a layman. When you as a layman suggest that you can subjectively disagree with a scientific consensus and physics in general, your ideas won't be looked on as valid because quite simply, they are not. Unless you can show objectively why you disagree and do so using proper terminology, mathematics, and units, then although you may voice disagreement, don't kid yourself that it is based on anything objective. You want something to be true so you object when shown it is false. That is not objective investigation, that is dogma.
So if I disagree with you then I disagree with physics? Whatever dude....
Still to this point I have not stated that anything violates the second law. Nor have I taken a stand for or against TofE. The only thing I DO disagree with you about is the nature of information. I say information is a pattern. You seem to be saying that information is something else... I don't know what. All you have said is that it is conceptual not physical. Can we agree to disagree on that point?
If TofE purports that organisms evolved from simpler to more complex forms, how is it possible that these mechanisms could have seemingly completely bypassed the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
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?