Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Trying this again ... Information ...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    The problem is this is meaningless, and so circular the rat bites its own tail.

    Information is information! How meaningful is this.

    That's what happens when you listen to and believe LIES -- you create your own paradoxes.

    Worthless dragon post.

    Neeeeeeext !!!

    Jorge

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Jorge View Post
      That's what happens when you listen to and believe LIES -- you create your own paradoxes.

      What happens when you make up your own LIES and create your own definitions of information and intelligence? Looks like we're about to find out.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Jorge View Post
        It depends on what you mean by "context"
        I mean which species it's found in, what's its position relative to things like enhancers and splice sites - the actual biology we make use of to understand genomic data.
        "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
          I mean which species it's found in, what's its position relative to things like enhancers and splice sites - the actual biology we make use of to understand genomic data.
          Still not clear.

          "I mean which species it's found in, what's its position relative to things like enhancers
          and splice sites - the actual biology we make use of to understand genomic data."


          I don't grasp the logical structure of what you're asking.

          Maybe this will help: in my theory, 'information' is in and a part of all entities. Something I call 'global context' is what determines how 'information' is ultimately manifested. This approach includes but transcends the traditional (Shannon) information theory approach. Maybe that's the problem here - can't formulate my theory with traditional thinking.

          Jorge

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Jorge View Post
            I'm getting closer to releasing at least some of my work on Information Theory.

            A while back I solicited questions here at TWeb and unfortunately got mostly garbage.

            Let me try again ...

            Do you have any questions on the general subject of 'information'?
            Specific questions? Mysteries? Confused?
            Also see if friends, colleagues, etc. have any questions.

            Here's your opportunity - use it or waste it, your choice.

            Please be serious. Otherwise, kindly refrain from any posts.

            I'll give this thread a week or so before closing.

            Thanks.

            Jorge
            Science works by making predictions. To be credible, your information theory must make a prediction that competing theories do not. Then you look for evidence that your prediction is correct. At that point, your theory is worth further investigation.

            Is this your plan of action?
            “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
            “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
            “not all there” - you know who you are

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Jorge View Post
              Still not clear.

              "I mean which species it's found in, what's its position relative to things like enhancers
              and splice sites - the actual biology we make use of to understand genomic data."


              I don't grasp the logical structure of what you're asking.
              Let me try again. A DNA sequence would have the same Shannon information no matter where it is in the genome. Whereas from a biological perspective, the location of the sequence can make all the difference. For example, if you take an exon and place it in the middle of nowhere in the genome, then it will perform no function. Place it in the middle of a gene, and it can be spliced in. If it's spliced into the right reading frame, it'll change the amino acid sequence of the protein. If it's placed in the wrong reading frame, it can disrupt or terminate the protein. So, from a biological perspective, context is key.

              So, while Shannon information is a perfectly valid measure of some aspects of information, it's useless for the measurement of biological information.

              Based on your past discussions, i have the impression you want your ideas about information to apply to biology. I'm wondering if/how you will deal with the challenge.
              "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                Great questions, 37818! The above proves that while most is lost, not all is.

                I definitely treat that line of thought in my work. In fact, it is central.

                I can't provide full answers in any concise way - not even close.
                All I can do here is provide a few words.

                1. Information manifests itself in relation to intelligence.

                2. Due to that, 'intelligence' and 'information' exist simultaneously.
                Those terms have a non-traditional definition in my work. Enough on that.

                3. Your questions and examples do not have the same logical structure.

                "Intelligence precedes information" (or vice versa) implies that the former is a kind of 'requisite' for the existence of latter. But lies are the antithesis (or the denial) of truth --- truth may exist without the co-existence of lies. Same for good and evil. It's similar to 'darkness' -- there is no such thing as 'darkness', there is only the absence of light. There is no darkness in light - that would be a logical fallacy (contradiction).

                "Order and chaos" are different things under different definitions/views and the same for "simple and complex".

                Re-stating the original: 'Intelligence' and 'information' exist simultaneously.
                In my work this point is foundational and I demonstrate why it is so.

                Jorge
                Reason is because of Intelligence.

                Lies are dependent upon there being truth. Truth does not need lies to be truth.
                Evil is dependent on the deprivation of good. Good does not need evil to be good.
                The complex cannot exist without the simple.
                Chaos is made up of what consists of order.
                Last edited by 37818; 05-16-2017, 10:36 AM.
                . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                  Science works by making predictions. To be credible, your information theory must make a prediction that competing theories do not. Then you look for evidence that your prediction is correct. At that point, your theory is worth further investigation.

                  Is this your plan of action?
                  Hmmm ... interesting ...

                  Let me ask, name a prediction that Shannon's information theory makes.
                  Specifically, a prediction that competing theories do not make.
                  I'll be anxiously waiting for your input on this ...
                  P.S. I have most of Shannon's works so just reference a title and page number.

                  NOTE: I'm not asking about what his technical communications work entails.
                  I'm asking for a unique prediction from Shannon's information theory.

                  In any event, yes, my information theory explains and 'predicts' lots of things
                  that other information theories leave 'dangling' or inadequately addressed.

                  Jorge

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                    Let me try again. A DNA sequence would have the same Shannon information no matter where it is in the genome. Whereas from a biological perspective, the location of the sequence can make all the difference. For example, if you take an exon and place it in the middle of nowhere in the genome, then it will perform no function. Place it in the middle of a gene, and it can be spliced in. If it's spliced into the right reading frame, it'll change the amino acid sequence of the protein. If it's placed in the wrong reading frame, it can disrupt or terminate the protein. So, from a biological perspective, context is key.

                    So, while Shannon information is a perfectly valid measure of some aspects of information, it's useless for the measurement of biological information.

                    Based on your past discussions, i have the impression you want your ideas about information to apply to biology. I'm wondering if/how you will deal with the challenge.
                    "Let me try again. A DNA sequence would have the same Shannon information no matter where it is in the genome." Yes, generally speaking that is true.


                    "Whereas from a biological perspective, the location of the sequence can make all the difference. For example, if you take an exon and place it in the middle of nowhere in the genome, then it will perform no function. Place it in the middle of a gene, and it can be spliced in. If it's spliced into the right reading frame, it'll change the amino acid sequence of the protein. If it's placed in the wrong reading frame, it can disrupt or terminate the protein. So, from a biological perspective, context is key." Absolutely true. In my work I introduce the concept of "global context" to cover what you mention here.

                    "So, while Shannon information is a perfectly valid measure of some aspects of information, it's useless for the measurement of biological information." Again, absolutely true. I cover this point in detail.

                    "Based on your past discussions, i have the impression you want your ideas about information to apply to biology. I'm wondering if/how you will deal with the challenge." I appreciate the effort to make clear your meaning - now I 'got it'. What I'm working on is meant to apply to ALL information cases, not just to limited cases as, for example, Shannon does. Even the work of Werner Gitt (which I collaborated on and where we introduced 'Universal Information') is a subcategory of my own work. Clearly I cannot get into the details here. My aim in this thread was to solicit questions - no more. What you ask is definitely an important point.

                    So, yes, the challenge that you refer to will indeed be addressed. However, of necessity at times this may be on a conceptual/ philosophical level and not on a quantifiable level. One reason for this is that, as you are aware, we do not know/understand (enough or at all) the relationships or the 'language' (such as grammar) of what is going on in the genome between the physical parts and how those parts are expressed (i.e., the genotype-to-phenotype link). That aside, I introduce ideas to help explain and possibly investigate why or how these phenomena occur. My notion of "global context" is key in this.

                    Hope that helps.

                    Jorge

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      When are you going to pay up the money you owe for the bet you lost?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                        Hmmm ... interesting ...

                        Let me ask, name a prediction that Shannon's information theory makes.
                        Specifically, a prediction that competing theories do not make.
                        I'll be anxiously waiting for your input on this ...
                        P.S. I have most of Shannon's works so just reference a title and page number.

                        NOTE: I'm not asking about what his technical communications work entails.
                        I'm asking for a unique prediction from Shannon's information theory.

                        In any event, yes, my information theory explains and 'predicts' lots of things
                        that other information theories leave 'dangling' or inadequately addressed.

                        Jorge
                        Then you will know that Claude Shannon (the Father of the Information Age) was a pioneer in the field of information theory, a very great scientist. Prediction is not narrowly defined, but it implies that the theory leads somewhere, moves the field forwards, is foundational, allows the development of technology, and so on. All of this is clearly evident in Shannon’s work.

                        Do you imagine that you are a better scientist than Shannon?
                        “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
                        “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
                        “not all there” - you know who you are

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                          When are you going to pay up the money you owe for the bet you lost?
                          After you get the sex change operation you've been hinting at.

                          Jorge

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                            Then you will know that Claude Shannon (the Father of the Information Age) was a pioneer in the field of information theory, a very great scientist. Prediction is not narrowly defined, but it implies that the theory leads somewhere, moves the field forwards, is foundational, allows the development of technology, and so on. All of this is clearly evident in Shannon’s work.

                            Do you imagine that you are a better scientist than Shannon?
                            "Better"? Nope, not at all.

                            Perhaps you are not versed in these matters -- that would explain your silly question. Science progresses by "standing on the shoulders of our predecessors". For example, J.C. Maxwell "stood on the shoulders" of Michael Faraday. Did that make Maxwell a "better scientist than Faraday"? Errr ... the question is silly.

                            I could not have done what I have without the work of those before me. I've benefited from everything they got right. They've also helped steer me to insights by avoiding their mistakes, dead ends and shortcomings. Does that make me "better"? Again, not at all.

                            You will have to try harder.

                            Start with this: You say that Shannon was "the Father of the Information Age" ... "a pioneer in the field of information theory". Okay, tell us what information is according to Shannon?

                            Jorge

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                              Perhaps you are not versed in these matters -- that would explain your silly question. Science progresses by "standing on the shoulders of our predecessors". For example, J.C. Maxwell "stood on the shoulders" of Michael Faraday. Did that make Maxwell a "better scientist than Faraday"? Errr ... the question is silly.

                              Clucky hasn't realized standing on the shoulders of Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, and Duane Gish still leaves him at the very bottom of the stupidity pit.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                                "Better"? Nope, not at all.

                                Perhaps you are not versed in these matters -- that would explain your silly question. Science progresses by "standing on the shoulders of our predecessors". For example, J.C. Maxwell "stood on the shoulders" of Michael Faraday. Did that make Maxwell a "better scientist than Faraday"? Errr ... the question is silly.

                                I could not have done what I have without the work of those before me. I've benefited from everything they got right. They've also helped steer me to insights by avoiding their mistakes, dead ends and shortcomings. Does that make me "better"? Again, not at all.

                                You will have to try harder.

                                Start with this: You say that Shannon was "the Father of the Information Age" ... "a pioneer in the field of information theory". Okay, tell us what information is according to Shannon?

                                Jorge
                                The answer is in here somewhere (p7 looks promising). No doubt you will understand this much better than I do:
                                http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1091...nformation.pdf
                                “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
                                “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
                                “not all there” - you know who you are

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                47 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X