Information as the source of life; not by chance (Introduction)

by dhw, Wednesday, January 08, 2020, 13:38 (1780 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: According to our author, random processes do not produce information, and there has to be a mind with an idea before anything comes into existence. I disagree and have given an example.

DAVID: Your understanding is totally backward. Random processes (whatever that means) do not produce intelligent instructions. […] Instructions are inert information until interpreted and used. […] Agreed random processes produce information but not instructions.

I criticize the author’s claim that random processes do not produce information, and you agree with me. Then you want to discuss instructions. You know as well as I do that instructions cannot be produced without intelligent use of information. So then you skip to the intelligent user of the instructions!

dhw: Information “ is present in everything but cannot produce anything. Of course random processes can produce information, but it needs an intelligent mind to extrapolate that information and to use it.” Why is this backward?

DAVID: What is above this comment of yours is the backward part. this part is correct.

There is nothing backward in the argument that random processes do produce information, information is non-active, random processes do not produce instructions, and instructions can only be produced by intelligent use of information. The fact that instructions also require a user does not make my statement backward.

DAVID: This iteration of a universe is ours and is 13.78 byo. The so-called intelligent information carried between iterations is my God. God is my infinity.[/b] (dhw’s bold – see later)

dhw: You are assuming that the big bang happened, but even if it did, you still believe in eternal conscious energy that preceded this “iteration”, so why can’t you believe in eternal unconscious energy that preceded this “iteration”? What is intelligent information? Information does not have a mind of its own! […]. The very idea that non-productive information is the “source of life” is plainly absurd. The source of life has to be whatever used existing information to provide the instructions.

DAVID: All correct, except I view God as having all the information He needs to make new instructions. Your 'absurd' does not describe my view of God whose mind is very active.

What is absurd is the claim that information is the source of life. According to you, it is your God who intelligently uses the information. There is no “except”, and of course if God exists his mind is active.

dhw (taken from the Shapiro thread): “Information” explains nothing. The great question is what uses the information?

DAVID: Your very limited concept of information explains nothing. Information exists in many forms.

dhw: Then in order to clarify your thoughts, perhaps you should distinguish between those many forms and their functions and range of influence. Meanwhile, I will continue to argue that information itself produces nothing, and so it is absurd to say that “information is the source of life”.

DAVID: I agree with you, use of existing information is the source of life, but the information has to be supplied first!

Thank you for finally agreeing that the first part of the heading of this thread is absurd. And I agree with you too, but the agnostic’s dilemma is not knowing the origin of everything that contains information. Perhaps it is your God, perhaps it is an infinite, eternal, ever changing material universe. I drew attention to your new definition of God as bolded above: “intelligent information […] is my God” and expressed surprise that apparently information has a conscious mind.

DAVID: My God supplied/supplies "intelligent information" my shorthand for intelligently formed information.

So now you are saying that “intelligently formed information” is your God. More confusion.

dhw: Back to “first cause”: eternal conscious energy (where did its intelligence come from?), or eternal unconscious energy producing infinite numbers of material combinations resulting eventually but – given eternity – some might say inevitably, in a great big stroke of luck. […] the only way to believe in either is through the proverbial leap of faith.

DAVID: Of course it is possible to pick one side with all the evidenced available. The obvious design can only be explained by a designing mind. You are in a minority that tries to avoid the evidence for a Big Bang.

Evidence for the big bang is irrelevant to the subject of conscious versus unconscious energy.

DAVID: 'Eternal' universes are a series of bangs and then crunches, but each new universe has to start over from scratch to create each new reality! Your use of eternity is very flawed. Of course there is an original 'first cause' at the beginning of the series, which can be deist or theist, or your preference, amorphous energy.

What beginning? Are you now telling us that your God had a beginning? Of course you’re not. And so once more: If your conscious God had no beginning, then the unconscious, ever changing universe might also have had no beginning, and that = eternity. Where is the flaw?