The Entropy of the Bible

[AV1611VET]

Wouldn't "used to" imply that you don't use it anymore?

I don't use it regularly, that's true --- but I think that's about to change.

I miss that term.

 

[Gracchus]

The thread has drifted from discussion of the OP:

In reading about entropy just now (symbolized by the letter H), I came across this definition:Thus I would like to submit this as the equation for the entropy of the Bible:

• ΔH[sub](Bible)[/sub]=0

In English, it simply states that the change [Δ] in the entropy [H] of the Bible equals zero.

Which is: "A measure of the loss of information in a transmitted message."

entropy: Definition from Answers.com

Note that it is a measure. That means there is a number associated with it. In the OP you claimed that the number was zero.

Here is how the measure is calculated:
"For a random variable

with

outcomes

, the Shannon entropy, a measure of uncertainty (see further below) and denoted by

, is defined as

(1)where

is the probability mass function of outcome

."

Entropy (information theory) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now you, AV1611VET, said:


I have asked you to assign values to the variables so as to arrive at the value of zero for the entropy, and explain how you arrived at the values for those variables.

Surely, you will find it a simple matter to do that! I would really like to know.

You know how I feel about people changing the wording of OP's, I hope?

Your formula can take a hike.

The quote was a cut and paste from your OP, as can be seen by simple inspection.

...


How did you derive S(sic) (or H as corrected) =0? What formula did you use?

You made a specific claim. Can you support it? Or were you just blowing gas from your ... ears? (Pardon my dyslexia!)

I pointed out that in Shannon information theory, entropy is usually designated by "H" and not by "S", which you acknowledged and corrected:

Noted and corrected --- thanks for the 411.

When are you going to acknowledge that your OP that the entropy of your holy book is zero, is also completely unfounded?

 

[Nathan Poe]

I disagree, because I think we're all creationists --- even atheists - (and I know you disagree).

I tend to disagree with people who are wrong.

"Theocreationist" just distinguishes us from, say, "geocreationists".

And how are you choosing to define that word?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I tend to disagree with people who are wrong.

He's not wrong, he just has his own vocabulary. 'Creationist', to him, doesn't refer to people who believe something (the universe, the Earth, etc) was created ex nihilo by divine intervention; rather, 'Creationist' refers to someone who believes the thing was created at all (be it by mundane processes, divine intervention, or magic sky gnomes).

That said, unless I've completely misunderstood his terminology... not everyone is a Creationist: some still believe in a steady-state universe, for instance.

 

[Philothei]

Mod hat on

Please refrain from flaming each other and post according to CF rules stay with the topic or this thread will be closed....

Mod hat off​

 

[AV1611VET]

<staff edit>

In his book, Five Equations That Changed The World*, Michael Guillen reduced entropy to the following formula:

• &#8710;S[sub]universe[/sub] > 0

Since I'm a believer in both Verbal Plenary Inspiration and Preservation of the Scriptures, I thought it would be neat to combine the two doctrines into one formula, then make an OP out of it, so as to just QV people to that thread whenever the subject of the validity of the Bible comes up.

Say, for example, someone starts harping on the Johanine Comma not being in the "original manuscripts" --- I just QV them here.

*

 

[Gracchus]

In his book, Five Equations That Changed The World*, Michael Guillen reduced entropy to the following formula:

• &#8710;S[sub]universe[/sub] > 0

But he was talking about thermodynamic entropy. It is not the same thing.

Since I'm a believer in both Verbal Plenary Inspiration and Preservation of the Scriptures, I thought it would be neat to combine the two doctrines into one formula, then make an OP out of it, so as to just QV people to that thread whenever the subject of the validity of the Bible comes up.

You thought it would be neat to make a baseless claim, and support it with a false and inappropriate metaphor.

I am glad we have established that your OP was just passing gas. It is an illustration of the fact that just because something contains information, does not mean that the information is meaningful, pertinent, or true.

 

[AV1611VET]

But he was talking about thermodynamic entropy. It is not the same thing.

Why do you think I claried that in my OP --- by providing the Internet definition of entropy, as it applies to information being lost (or preserved)?

(And why are you the only one who seems to be having trouble with this?)

 

[Gracchus]

Why do you think I claried that in my OP --- by providing the Internet definition of entropy, as it applies to information being lost (or preserved)?

Which pretty much rendered the OP pointless, don't you see?

(And why are you the only one who seems to be having trouble with this?)

I am not having trouble with this, I am taking trouble with this.

 

[gaara4158]

In his book, Five Equations That Changed The World*, Michael Guillen reduced entropy to the following formula:

• &#8710;S[sub]universe[/sub] > 0

Since I'm a believer in both Verbal Plenary Inspiration and Preservation of the Scriptures, I thought it would be neat to combine the two doctrines into one formula, then make an OP out of it, so as to just QV people to that thread whenever the subject of the validity of the Bible comes up.

Say, for example, someone starts harping on the Johanine Comma not being in the "original manuscripts" --- I just QV them here.

*

Alright AV, here we go again.
1. As Gracchus pointed out already, the laws of thermodynamics do not apply to abstract concepts such as information. If you're going to argue that because of Michael Guillen's equation the Bible can't have changed from the original manuscripts, you'll have to argue the same thing about every ancient myth, all folklore, and even all telephone calls.
2. Even if you decide to ignore problem 1, you're still stuck with the fact that you have nothing more than a claim here; you yourself admitted that you're a "believer in both Verbal Plenary Inspiration and Preservation of the Scriptures." Your argument is based on a premise that you believe, not an actual known fact. QVing people to this thread wouldn't provide an answer to any question about the preservation of scriptures; it's like if you asked me how evolution works and I QV'd you to a post saying "i believe evolution works."

All you've done here is come up with a fancy way of saying, "I believe the Bible has been preserved miraculously to retain its original meaning." You're fooling no one.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Alright AV, here we go again.
1. As Gracchus pointed out already, the laws of thermodynamics do not apply to abstract concepts such as information. If you're going to argue that because of Michael Guillen's equation the Bible can't have changed from the original manuscripts, you'll have to argue the same thing about every ancient myth, all folklore, and even all telephone calls.
2. Even if you decide to ignore problem 1, you're still stuck with the fact that you have nothing more than a claim here; you yourself admitted that you're a "believer in both Verbal Plenary Inspiration and Preservation of the Scriptures." Your argument is based on a premise that you believe, not an actual known fact. QVing people to this thread wouldn't provide an answer to any question about the preservation of scriptures; it's like if you asked me how evolution works and I QV'd you to a post saying "i believe evolution works."

All you've done here is come up with a fancy way of saying, "I believe the Bible has been preserved miraculously to retain its original meaning." You're fooling no one.

AV would still have to explain how Mark 1:18 changed from "angry" to "compassion." Which he has yet to do, as I've asked him before and he just glosses over.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV would still have to explain how Mark 1:18 changed from "angry" to "compassion." Which he has yet to do, as I've asked him before and he just glosses over.

Gloss over this:

And straightway they forsook their nets, and followed him.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Gloss over this:

My bad, Mark 1:41 actually:

Then Jesus, moved with compassion, stretched out His hand and touched him, and said to him, "I am willing: be cleansed."

Earliest existing manuscipt have Jesus becoming angry.

Can you honestly answer why it was changed to compassion?

 

[AV1611VET]

My bad, Mark 1:41 actually:

Then Jesus, moved with compassion, stretched out His hand and touched him, and said to him, "I am willing: be cleansed."

Earliest existing manuscipt have Jesus becoming angry.

Can you honestly answer why it was changed to compassion?

Here's the AV1389 Wycliffe:

And Jesus had mercy on him, and stretched out his hand, and touched him, and said to him [Forsooth Jesus, having mercy on him, stretched out his hand, and, touching him, saith to him], I will, be thou made clean.

The textbook answer to your question is simple: God made sure we have a copy of what He really said in Mark 1:41.

The logic goes like this:

Why do people find these "better manuscripts"?

Simple --- the common people didn't use them --- they would read that and immediately dismiss it as not being the preserved Word of God.

Therefore, since these supposedly "older" or "better" or "original" manuscripts were not used, they just sat on the shelf in a slower state of decay than the ones actually being used.

 

[AV1611VET]

1. As Gracchus pointed out already, the laws of thermodynamics do not apply to abstract concepts such as information.

Actually, he corrected me, and I changed the OP accordingly.

You mean "S" doesn't apply to abstract concepts --- but "H" does --- right, Gracchus?

 

[gaara4158]

Actually, he corrected me, and I changed the OP accordingly.

You mean "S" doesn't apply to abstract concepts --- but "H" does --- right, Gracchus?

There were many more objections than just that, AV. You've got to explain all of them. That's how it works.

 

[suzybeezy]

MOD HAT ON

Closed for staff review

MOD HAT OFF