I say "Like all religious ideas, information theory makes no testable claims.  It is therefore a complete fiction!"

It makes me shiver to see Atheist profess intentional, or perhaps in this case actual stupidity. And then defend it religiously. The sheer stupidity that it takes to makes such arguments is probably of the IQ charts entirely. So I am dedicating this thread to why some Atheists make the rest of us look more idiotic than theists that believe in a magic man made of nothing. It's pretty scary to see the lack of education in some people that don't even bother to educate themselves, or even listen to what they are saying in order to understand the stupidity of what it is that they are saying. :/ It's almost as if there is a fundamentalism growing in Atheism where Atheists start acting like theists, or start denying every aspect of reality as if Atheism meant to believe in the denial of reality. For six pages this person professed the denial of information whilst he happily sat there and used it. Even after I had asked him to try and post without it. O.o 

 

It's actually sad that such people are in the gene pool, and I really hope they don't decide to breed. I generally don't see this kind of theistic behavior in Atheists, so I guess that is a good sign.

So what do you think of Atheists that behave like irrational theist fundamentalists?

 

 

Views: 197

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Moral codes are just relative in nature because each group or individual can abstractly develop their own moral code. It's still based on the Universal principles, it's just that such principles can emerge different moral codes depending on how each individual perceives the world. Hence they apply the principles differently depending on the information they have and how they react to the information they observe.

Example:

One could say that they love a specific red truck while someone else could say they hate it.. Morally they think each other is incorrect even if the information they have or observe in regards to this red truck could be identical.. It comes down to perhaps one person got hit by a red truck or that the color red is repulsive to them and given them a negative reaction to red trucks. This while being the opposite for the individual who loves red trucks... Relativity is also governed by those base principles of positive, negative, and neutral.  Hence, someone might not care one way or another in regards to how they view red trucks. it might just be "MEH!"..

:)

 

Or:

Organize religion might seem to be a scam to some who don't believe in religion while others who do don't believe it's a scam :) Morally relative :)

Also, does the universe move from choas to order... or is it a circlular movement from chaos to order, back to chaos, to order, etc.

The whole system is chaotic like even when there seems to be order. And this is because order rides on a thin line that is never static because itself is always changing. Thus order only really exists in one time frame, or reference frame.. It's the same reason why in empty space there is only on average, ground state energy. And it's because energy can interfere with itself. This is also proven at the quantum level by the double slit experiment where a collapse of wave function occurs when there is interference. It's also why in thermodynamics there could never exist a temperature of literal zero. :)

So the following seems to be true because the massive body of evidence to which is ourselves, and everything around us supports it:

Existence is seen as a phenomenal reality of physical self-oscillating, self-organizing energy that makes you, me, the stars, matter, anything with mass, and itself possible. "A universal set of all sets"

 

Even if we don't know everything about something like Gravity. We will always know it's effects are tied to the same fundamental principles discussed above :)

An atom is made of energy, no need to trace back it's source of origin. And might I ask what makes you think that tracing things backwards in time is relevant in regards to information theory? What a moron lol

Do you think you are some kind of modern Spinoza????

I don't need to be, I only need to realize that you make a complete idiot out of yourself O.o

What part do you not understand? I may be able to put some more context into areas you may not be grasping :)

 

Gee wizz bang.  I never ever hurd of infermation theery bafore.

Yeah, we can tell by your lack of education.

 

Are yoose sayin that all the infermation of the history of an atom can be magically traced back to its origin?  Is this here what youse is sayin?  You mean if I was to really understand an atom I could witness the entire history of that atom and be able to trace all of its prior interactions.

 s

S = stupid ;)

That argument was like a theist trying argue the odds game. Not only is it irrelevant, it's completely moronic. At best it's an attempt at the GOD of the Gaps argument as if tracing the history of an atom would even be relevant to establishing the validity of information theory. And we all know the source origin of an atom is without having to trace it's history. It's what it's made out of LOL.

And I have no Idea where this moron got the Idea that I was making an argument for a GOD. This argument if anything would be against a GOD because a GOD couldn't exist without information LOL. It makes the GOD concept entirely retarded actually.

Thus Johny D  when you say information is fictitious, you are thus proclaiming yourself to probably being the dumbest idiot on this planet. Or probably the greatest theist troll on this forum. Your level of education needs some serious work, and that means you need more information because you clearly lack in that area. Yes, the power button does turns your computer on and off ;) We can only hope you are actually smart enough to learn why it turns on and off... But we really can't expect theists like you to know how to educate yourselves. :/ Thus you will simply be ignored from this point on.

Information theory is indeed are real scientific endeavor.  The theory itself and how it is applied to the material world is testable.

First you state it's all fictitious, then you contradict yourself and backpedal from that position. Yeah.., your not very smart are you? Then you claim I made a claim for GOD? Are you really this dumb? And the theory would apply in principle regardless if you think there would exist an immaterial world or not! Information theory is not limited to your constraints in that aspect! However, a non-material world is a retarded concept! Nothing can't be a world, or be a substance to make up a world! Thus a non-material world is just as idiotic as those who believe in a GOD made of nothing.

There is only the physical world. People need to learn the definition of nothing before they attempt to use it as a substance :/

 

Uhhh No! ;) And I only changed William Schoenecker to Will-I-AM S. Just because I find it more interesting. Keep dreaming though. 

 

Your blog manners are complete shit.

make an ass of yourself

O.o

 

Yesterday you were claiming information theory was one of the best arguments for god.

Actually I was arguing against GOD lol. You might have actually tried to read my first post. Especially the Wikipedia link in dealing with Omniscience to where I linked my own contribution to which is listed under "Omniscient Creating Knowledge Problem"..Did you even comprehend it? No, instead you are not bright enough to actually read what people actually post.. Do yourself a favor John D, learn to read and comprehend what it is you are reading, or what it is that people are saying to you! Your laziness to not follow the links and actually read them show's why you are in the position you are in now. The position of someone who just made him self out to be a what he likes to call others, "a douche bag!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniscience#The_Omniscient_Creating_Kn...

 

Oh look.. that applies to my article on Information: The Material Physical Cause Of Causation. Which is a compilation of information theory and the different branches of information theory. It's purpose was to provide insight into information theory along with examples of!. GJ looking like a total douche bag John D!

 

Today you say no such thing and you take my comments out of context.

Your arguments are so incoherent that they take themselves out of context.. Especially when you can't even read and comprehend what it is you are talking about!. The only thing I suspected of you was that you were a theist since you seemed to instantly attack my arguments with Ad_hominems after I addressed the worthlessness of the 36 arguments for gods existence. The following explains why you are completely clueless:

Thanks for summarizing you articles.  This will save me the time and illness I would experience at actually having to read them.


Yeah, not exactly the most intelligent means of comprehending someones arguments lol.

 

 

You are a repugnant name caller.

I don't think I need to go through your history because I already see plenty of material in there to which I could use for this argument. Do your self a favor, don't try playing a moral high ground game here because you don't have any ground to stand on. But Let's look at the first offender of the Ad Hominem:

Are you a homeopath or psychic healer or some such fraud?  The world wants to know.

o.O

 

The original post was calling for arguments for god with counter arguments.

Not my original post ;).. And yest the OP was calling for the arguments for a GOD. I provided a counter argument! And the wiki link on Omniscience provided both arguments to which included my argument against it.

You immediately insulted the author and me and started a two page rant about the arguement of consciousness and then posted dozens of links.

Uhh.. Wrong! See (Are you a homeopath or psychic healer or some such fraud?  The world wants to know.).. And yes, I posted arguments of what consciusness would require to exist as a counter argument to the GOD concept being a "first cause", or even being possible under the attributes given to said deity. And the Author didn't even list all the attributes! I had to correct it for him to express how ridiculous such a concept would be! The problem was that you were lost at the beginning of page 2.

 

Then you linked in another handfull of links, some of which made bizzare "east meets west" claims.

You mean this link?

http://wfcmchicago.newsvine.com/_news/2011/02/26/6131959-platos-key...

Did you bother to read it? Or even bother to Notice the counter argument to it? Does this post look familiar to you?

Purpose is thus self-attained.. Same principles that are attributes of energy.


Information: The material physical Cause of causation

Existence is seen as a phenomenal reality of physical self-oscillating, self-organizing energy that makes you, me, the stars, matter, anything with mass, and itself possible. "A universal set of all sets"

I even covered it well under my contribution to Wikipedia:

----


You need to be more clear.  Can you make comment without writting page after page of lists and dozens of links?  Clarify Willy... clarify.

If you would have read the first post, followed the links, and did some old fashioned reading comprehension, we wouldn't have had 7 pages of nonsense! In fact, this should have been your first clue, and an obvious point that I was making a counter argument!:

Consciousness itself is too complex to not have a cause.

And that was in the second sentence to my reply on your list of 36 arguments of the existence of GOD.. The bell should have wrong right there! The sentence alone defies and collapses all the 36 arguments you posted in concept alone.

Regardless, we know where we stand.. If I came off as being arguing for a GOD, just be clear that I have no intention of arguing for an imaginary sky man. :/

 

And we were both rude after the second page.. And I'm not even going to attempt a high ground there.. So if you stop with personal insults, I will have no problem doing so on my end :).. Kewl ?

 

 

It's simple. everything that made the tree a tree still exists. It doesn't vanish into nothing. It doesn't matter if it decomposes, or burns to ash and the ash gets blown away by the wind. The information isn't lost, it changes in function, form, state, or purpose. Hence, it's not literally "Lost". We don't need to track it down, or trace where it goes because that is not what we mean by information not being lost.

A carbon atom that comes from a dead tree has no stored information.

Anything can be considered a piece of information. Everything has a function, or has a value. That includes the very atoms from which the tree was made from.. I posted several links in regards to information theory to which includes physical information theory.

The claim does make sense.. it's a well established science.. Especially in biochemistry, physics, and engineering. 

I will give you examples of how information theory works in biology and evolution. This falls under Physical information theory and information theory that deals with any pattern of information that influences the transformation of other patterns into new patterns of information. Here information is not lost, it just simply changes value, function, purpose, state, or behavior. So All of which is below are examples of physical information theory. This includes Chaos theory in regards to "sefl-organization"

 

Protein: Thermodynamics
Photon Energy and Life
Photon is the energy evolution of everything
Synthetic Life 1
Video: Synthetic Life 2
Self Orgainization and Complexity
Self organizing algorithms through the study of RNA
Gene self-organizing maps
Self-Organizing Biochemical cycles
Physical Role in Biochemical Self Organization

 

Enzymes and self-organizing collective dynamics:
Strong diffusional mixing and short delivery times typical for micrometer and sub-micrometer reaction volumes lead to a special situations of self oscillation where the turnover times of individual enzyme molecules become the largest characteristic time scale of the chemical kinetics. Under these conditions, populations of cross-regulating allosteric enzymes form molecular networks that exhibit various kinds of self-organized coherent collective dynamics.


RNA:

* http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100222162009.htm
* http://www.springerlink.com/content/p0mp6w24211696h3/

Further synthetic life links:

* http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1208047/Life-order-M...
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_life
* http://gizmodo.com/307958/craig-venter-claims-artificial-life-has-b...
* http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/01/synthetic_gen...
* http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/003908.html

DNA Robots:
* http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33483705/ns/...nnovation/

DNA robots that can reproduce themselves:
* http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=8412.php
* http://lcsr.jhu.edu/wiki/images/e/e6/Chirikjian200711.pdf

The Self-organized gene:
* http://blog.peltarion.com/2007/04/10/the-self-organized-gene-part-1/

The human Genome in relation to apes. Its the fusion of a chromosome 2:
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_%28human%29

Observed instances of speciation:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Genotypic speciation of heterotrophic bacteria:
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=15524705

Introduction: to species and speciation in micro-organisms:
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/361/1475/1897.full


Everything in existence has pattern from a chaotic system with feed back with order that comes from a system of chaos. All this states is that a pattern can lead to the change of another pattern should said pattern influence and exert pressure on the other as noted below:


 * "Information is any type of pattern that influences the formation or transformation of other patterns. In this sense, there is no need for a conscious mind to perceive, much less appreciate the pattern

 

* what is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things, or things of representation and value. Example: genetic or, genetically transmitted information.

 

* Computingdata as processed, stored, or transmitted by a computer.

 

* a mathematical quantity expressing the probability of occurrence of a particular sequence of symbols, impulses, energy, matter., as contrasted with that of alternative sequences.

 

So lets look at a direct example:

 

We can also go here under my evolution thread concerning Prions to understand more of what material-physical information is or means, and how it's related to evolution:

http://thinkingaloudforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=13429

We can prove physical information theory and evolution in non-living molecules as We can in living molecules. Prions are non-living molecules that can evolve and adapt to their environment. Ju­pi­ter, Fla discovered that these Prions can develop many different kinds of mutations that help prions develop defenses to withstand against threats. Even viruses that are considered non-living but active matter that can also evolve. However, viruses have a commonality with life known as DNA, and Prions do not. Prions consist of proteins that are composed of amino acids. The mutations are different folding arrangements of the protein molecules that achieve different material physical/informational characteristics much like that of DNA.. These fold­ing arrangements play an ev­o­lu­tion­ary role in pri­ons. This follows the same premise behind the driving force commonly found in cases of co-evolution and mutualism. Sorry creationists, but Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest isn't the only driving force behind evolution. The fact that non-life or non-living active matter evolves, also means that life evolves. Evolution is proven in by co-evolution, mutation, and simple observations of existing wild life. This shows the deeper communicative connection between living active matter, non-living active matter, and inactive matter.

http://www.mad-cow.org/prion_evol.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coevolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_%28biology%29

--

* Furthermore, we can get even deeper into information theory and evolution by linking plant and animal into one little critter known as the Green Sea Slug. Here we can observe an example of the deeper communicative process of evolution!. The Green Sea slug can actually steal photosynthesizing organelles and genes from algae. This little slug can produce it's own chlorophyll. Also, Elysia and its genetic kleptomania is yet another example of animals undergoing the sort of horizontal gene transfer that is so commonplace in bacteria to where we can see how the flow of information is a material physical process.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/01/green-sea-slug/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

Latest Activity

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service