Mr Skeptic

Sure, there can be moral absolutes, but there's no guarantee they won't vary from place to place!

Particles can be used to transmit information, but only up to or slower than the speed of light. Light (or microwaves or x-rays or any other color) can be used to transmit information just fine, so long as you don't mind the necessary delay.

If I understand your sentence, you are saying that everything you have just told me contains no information, since it does not generate a functional system. My measure of quantity of information is approximately the size of the data when it is as compressed as possible. Function of it or lack thereof has nothing to do with any particular string of information, since there is no difference between useful and useless information, not without looking at the context. My invitation to suggest a string of data that you believe contains no information is still standing. On the contrary, we have identified several. The metabolic pathway of glucose is a good example. No, what you are asking is that we observe an event which the theory predicts to be unlikely to happen within the confines of a lab within a reasonable amount of time, and then pretending that is evidence against the theory, or that it is a reasonable suggestion and you remain open-minded. In this your demand is far more close-minded than my demand to see someone raised from the dead, since the latter is something that not only has (according to the Bible) happened about 5 times in a few thousand years but also that only requires a little bit of faith the size of a mustard seed for anyone to do. But why the need to do it the difficult way? Why the requirement to observe something which the theory itself predicts you could have to wait millions of years to observe (really, the odds of an ability sufficiently novel to satisfy you, and on top of that for it to happen to the same species limited to a minuscule population (1 ton would be like 0.00000001% of earth's biomass) within a literal blink of an eye (0.000001%) of geologic time, and if you wanted them to build off each other than it has to relate to 1 out of thousands of genes three times, which would be a chance of 0.0000001% of a chance if you wanted 4 such examples and the four did happen anyways within the lab population and experiment runtime. Why such an unlikely thing, when you could simply look at the historical and DNA evidence? Like the Bible, evolution makes specific predictions as to what DNA should look like. According to the Bible, DNA should look like the quantity of DNA that fits on a big wooden boat, and the maximum number of alleles depending on the type of animal -- 4 alleles per unclean animal, 14 alleles per clean animal or bird, and only 1 allele in the Y chromosome and only one type of mitochrondrial DNA for unclean animals. Evolution predicts that DNA will look like it was copied and mutated, with less mutations to the more vital genes due to natural selection and probability of improving an already well-refined gene, and more mutations in neutral DNA. Guess which one turns out to be true? This is quite obviously false. Many times in evolutionary history genes have been copied wholesale, and then one of the copies modified to a new purpose. This does not destroy the original information. When there is no difference between two things it is reasonable to say they are identical. So yes, I do consider any string of data to contain information, though you are welcome to try to show a string of data with no information (again though, I shall be the one to put some context to said string).

That's pretty much it. However, knowing "the truth" about existence might mean I have some knowledge of metaphysics, which I might try to exploit if it were possible to do so. Oh, and I'd be much more inclined to believe in God and an afterlife.

This is something I've somewhat been expecting. Looks like its about time for physicists to start thinking up new ideas again!

The same, or perhaps we'd have a far worse understanding of them. Living things follows the laws of physics too, only as mentioned they are more complicated. When working on a nearly intractable problem, you don't start trying to solve the most complicated aspects of it first, you start with the simplest aspects.

War sucks. People die. Governments lie. Shock and horror! It's always nice when someone can stand up and tell the government, "You lie!". Well, except for the fact that they did lie and we've been killing people and having our own people die. But we all knew that was happening.

Hm, well could you tell me when the golden ratio becomes anything other than [math]\frac{1 + \sqrt{5}}{2}[/math]? And why such a number would have anything to do with either any of the four things you mention?

Yet you seem to have no trouble writing 162 posts that are full of words.

Very well then, it seems "information" seems to be our main point of contention. If you can give even one example of a random string of data that has no value of information, while allowing me to provide context for said data, I shall change my mind. On the other hand, if I can demonstrate that any arbitrary string of data will have value as information with a given context, then I would expect you would change your mind. Sound fair? On my part, I apologize for some of the ridiculous "demands" I have made, although I am sure you realize those were more of a rhetorical device, examples of why your demand could be seen as unreasonable and most definitely didn't prove anything. While I cannot read minds, I am 99.9% sure that you would change your demand were I to give you one example fitting that description that I can think of. Also, it really makes no sense to claim that natural processes cannot generate information, since the information produced by evolution is both observed and encoded and digital, as you requested. Similarly with fine-tuning, evolution is a natural process that can produce organisms fine-tuned to an environment (which has also been observed). Of course, since I'd also consider random data to be information, I think it best we work that out first.

Agreed. That's why I've been very careful to say that it is formal thought that requires language. On the other hand, language does affect how we think, and there are several experiments to demonstrate that. One was an experiment on color discernment among people who have separate words for green and blue vs those who don't.

It seems that rather than having misunderstood my position, you are employing the tactic known as "begging the question". I've said the algorithm has information (all algorithms do, by the way). And you assume that the presence of the information is proof for a designer -- the very thing under dispute. First prove that the presence of information proves a designer, and then you can speculate about evolution being designed. Perhaps this is a language issue. I consider any random string of data to be information. Because it is. If that random string had value of some kind for any reason, then it would just as clearly be information as would a string of data that the value of could be seen easily. You seem to have a more restricted view of what information is, but I don't know what yours is. If this is indeed our point of disagreement, I could expand on it further, and I would ask that you define what you mean by "information". Right, but what would it prove? Even were I to give an example, where 4 consecutive new abilities were evolved within a reasonable time while being observed, you would simply change your demand. Look at it this way: just because something has not been directly observed to happen, does not mean it didn't/doesn't. I demand that you show me someone being raised from the dead by holiness/faith, or I won't believe it ever did. I demand that you show me Napoleon conquering even just 1 country, or I won't believe that he conquered several. Not only does your demand prove nothing, but also you will change it were an example given.

This is what is called a strawman, and also called moving the goalposts. I never claimed that a genetic algorithm has no information, so asking me to prove it does not is misleading. Also, I never claimed that you can make information without information, which is what you are now asking. Finally, the fact that an algorithm contains information does not in any way impair it from generating new information -- an arbitrarily large amount of information, to be exact. Show me the moon is made of green cheese, and I might agree with your claim. Yet it is one step. Now it is a capability. What is to stop another step from being taken based on this new ability?

Don't mind me, my post was based on a mistaken understanding of synchronization in relativity. I had thought it said that one observer could see an event when a second observer would say the event had not happened yet (with both observers in the light-cone of the event, of course).

You cannot think formally without using symbols -- formal thought requires a vocabulary. You could think in Chinese symbols if you like, it doesn't have to be actual words. Computers think using only two symbols, 0 and 1, neither of which are words. But because of how our brain works, it is easier for us to think with lots of symbols rather than a few that have to be deeply nested.

Math has to be true; it was proved true.

Personally, I prefer patterns (less entropic) than random sprinkling of colors with no pattern (large entropy), or a homogeneous mixture of all component colors (maximum entropy). But I also do not like my art to consist of regions of colors grouped color by color (minimum entropy). For entropy, equilibrium occurs at maximum entropy.

Much like humans, some computer programs use randomness in their decision-making. In that case, the program is not deterministic based on what its designer told it to do, and makes "its own" choices much like people. Some programs also learn, and so are affected by previous history of previous games (possibly games against themselves). Their choices are "theirs" just as much as our choices are "ours" rather than the product of our DNA and environment -- only they lack self-awareness and general intelligence. And a chess program can easily beat its designers.

False. You have an apple squared, not an apple. If you multiply an apple by an integer, you get an integer number of apples. But if you multiply an apple by an apple you get an apple squared. No different than with any other unit, such as meters. Wrong equation; no apples is zero apples. 0A X 0A = 0A^2 1A X 1A = 1A^2 -1A X -1A = 1A^2 1A X 1 = 1A -1A X -1 = 1A You don't know the rules and concepts. But you're right that I see no application for apples squared either. (-1)^3 = (-1)^2 X -1 = 1 X -1 = -1

Genetic algorithms only need the same attributes as evolution has, to function. The most complicated would be the fitness function; but in evolution this comes naturally via death and reproduction. Likewise, you could implement a genetic algorithm with very little information, if you were to build every prototype yourself and input the outcome to the program; however, this would be absurdly time-consuming and expensive to do. So because we design things to look like something natural, you conclude that the natural thing must be designed, is that it? I can make a rock, therefore rocks are designed? What design? Who designed evolution, or what makes evolution not be a genetic algorithm? My prior commitment is a Young Earth Creationist, a position which I was forced after decades of kicking and struggling, to abandon. Look in the archives of this forum if you do not believe me, and you will see that for yourself. It is your prior commitments which drag you down, not mine. Oh, no no no no. This ability did not already exist; it was newly created during the experiment. The ability to use citrate may have existed elsewhere, but not in the sample in the experiment (not under oxidizing conditions). Just like if aliens 1 trillion light-years from here invented a lightbulb, doesn't mean that we didn't invent it too.

Formal thinking requires the use of symbols (words are a type of symbol). Our brain is a neural net, which I don't know if it has inherent symbols, and our brain has various specialized parts that we can use for thinking as well as for just processing sensory information. Using these parts we can think as if with our senses. Without words, however, we'd have to rely on these less formal thinking methods. This would work fine for some things, like sports, but not so much for things like science.

I didn't close your thread, and threads of that sort are closed because they were already closed long ago (rather the mind of the poster was already closed so it just makes sense to close the thread too). And you have yet to tell me how to get an apple squared from an apple, if you are going to complain that others cannot give you an apple squared from a negative apple.

Hm, this is somewhat similar to one of my fantasies of being transported a few thousand years into the past, although I focused more on machines because I don't know enough chemistry. One of the important things to have is a distiller, to distill certain of the items you mentioned. You'll also want some of the strong acids. Sulfuric acid: burning sulfur to get sulfur dioxide, oxidizing it some more (with an optional platinum or vanadium(V) oxide catalyst), and adding water. Nitric acid: You can make it from your saltpeter and sulfuric acid, or oxidizing ammonia and adding water, or if you have the energy to waste, zapping air and adding water. Hydrochloric acid: salt and sulfuric acid. Oh, and you may want ammonia for fertilizer and chemical feedstocks too.

Ever crash a large compressed air tank at 50 mpg?

Yes, you get a very high score on some tests simply for taking the test. Right answer, wrong answer, what's the difference? Especially the "IQ tests" that want to make money by giving you a full report on how smart you are. If you want a reliable IQ test look for one that isn't trying to make money over you, or at least one that you have to pay ahead of time rather than them trying to bribe you into buying something by telling you how smart you are.