What is meant by the word "information" in ID?

[Bungle_Bear]

I have no idea what condition or format the info in the can has.
It might be worthless scrap and no longer useful as information.
We can only guess.

It might be worthless? ID claims that information is measurable. If you can only guess then there can be no measurement, so ID fails.

 

[SLP]

All information is not valuable. It must be in an intelligent and useful format.

So what format is DNA in such that it is in an "intelligent" format? What with all of the degeneracy and all that.

 

[SLP]

Words are analogies.

No, words are representations of things or actions.

Fish =

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It means useful information. Information that produces expected results.
If you do any computer programming you learn the difference between the
outcome of deliberate design and encoded information, and garbage.

Garbage In - Garbage out.

A trash can can be filled with information. But if it is not in a form
that is usable, it remains garbage. Somebody can create a system
to harvest the information and if a process is put into place, the garbage
information can be used to...say...steal your identity.

But
IF
the information is in a usable form,
AND
processed correctly
THEN
it might produce results.
ELSE
the effort will fail.

There's no useful scientific definition in those comments.

Usefulness is contingent. For example, a book in Chinese is useful information only to a Chinese reader.

 

[Job 33:6]

I feel like my question is still out in the open, without a clear response.

 

[Speedwell]

I feel like my question is still out in the open, without a clear response.

Which is about what you should expect. "Information" as a mathematical concept is a way of characterizing patterns in nature originally developed by a communications engineer named Claude Shannon. His theories have since found applications in a variety of fields, including genetics. But the term "information" has as well a variety of colloquial meanings, and IDsts have played with these as part of their apologetic, which relies heavily on the logical fallacy of equivocation. So no, you are not going to get a straight answer..

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I feel like my question is still out in the open, without a clear response.

See my post #16.

As Speedwell said, ID plays fast and loose with what "information" means. The definition changes depending on requirements.

 

[SkyWriting]

It might be worthless? ID claims that information is measurable. If you can only guess then there can be no measurement, so ID fails.

Gosh...I guess you got me.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Gosh...I guess you got me.

It wasn't hard

 

[SkyWriting]

I feel like my question is still out in the open, without a clear response.

Because you've never looked into it before?

 

[SkyWriting]

It wasn't hard

Sarchasm online is hard to pull off.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Sarchasm online is hard to pull off.

Oh, I know very well you were trying to be sarcastic.

The real shame is that you just don't see that I was right - ID fails because it cannot provide any real definition of "information" and cannot measure it.

 

[Job 33:6]

What if we looks at the various definitions or ideas behind the word "information", and see how IDists correctly and/or incorrectly use the word.

For example, what is Claude Shannon information?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

What if we looks at the various definitions or ideas behind the word "information", and see how IDists correctly and/or incorrectly use the word.

For example, what is Claude Shannon information?

The problem is not (in)correct use of definitions, it is equivocation of multiple different definitions. Ask an ID proponent to define information and they will avoid the challenge. It's all smoke and mirrors.

 

[SkyWriting]

Oh, I know very well you were trying to be sarcastic.

The real shame is that you just don't see that I was right - ID fails because it cannot provide any real definition of "information" and cannot measure it.

That also has no logic to it. The ID crowd did not invent "information", is not in charge of the definition, and it is not central to ID.

 

[SkyWriting]

It might be worthless? ID claims that information is measurable.

As do real people.

 

[SkyWriting]

There's no useful scientific definition in those comments.

Usefulness is contingent. For example, a book in Chinese is useful information only to a Chinese reader.

That's what I was explaining. Not that your Chinese people would ever read anything scientifically useful, I guess.

 

[Job 33:6]

Are there any ID proponents in this chat that we can ask for a definition of information?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

That also has no logic to it. The ID crowd did not invent "information", is not in charge of the definition, and it is not central to ID.

If you don't understand I suggest silence is the best option. Take time to learn, then come back when you have some idea of the subject matter.

"Information" is central to ID. But there is no definition of what ID means by "information". You'd know this if you had done your research.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

As do real people.

I won't deny that Dembski et al are real people, but I will deny that non-IDers claim that ill-defined "information" can be measured.