Ask the Atheist

Maybe I'm looking at the wrong poster in the thread, but run a text search for "at this point" and somebody concedes something, dammit.

His Library of Babel example devalues all information to the point of uselessness (another version would be the old thing about monkeys at typewriters for eternity) but the important thing is what information has a physical effect. It doesn't matter if the information produced is gibberish as long as it keeps you alive, and that information which keeps you alive is what is propagated when you reproduce.

It doesn't matter how much truly useless information (or non-information) is produced and discarded in the process. As long as something affects survival, it will be picked up in time. The real world is the arbiter of what is useful information and what isn't. No god is required.

Hi CA, likewise it's refreshing to find someone who reads the opposing opposing view. I appreciate the concessions, and I realise you're really thinking hard about this as opposed to spouting anyone's party line. That's rare.

Yes, I brought up God and evolution and you didn't. That's because I'm not just addressing you, and I'm staying within the scope of my own site. You might or might not be a creationist or even a theist, but you're using an question of which many of both are very fond (and, of course, often think the answer is no) and my reply is geared more towards them.

I'm also trying to pre-empt your train of thought, in a sense. If you were to actually establish beyond doubt that chance cannot produce information and, further, that any natural process is a form of chance (admittedly, that's getting way ahead of you), what then would be your hypothesis on the source of information in nature?

If that's not where you were going at all, fair enough. Enough people have gone there already that it's worth addressing here.

Thanks for a stimulating question. Despite the above, I do think I've provided a reply for you by example.

I did realise he meant you after I wrote, but I'm just as guilty of bringing up God first.

hahaha hooray! I'm fairy decent!
I'll call you Healy from now on. (HH is so much faster to type!!)

ergh. in my above comment, "as apposed" --> "as opposed"

Hi again!
I thought about this quite a lot over the weekend, might blog my thoughts later but here goes for now.

Firstly, we both "define chance as the sample space of possible outcomes" - and therefore I hope we agree that we cannot use the definition of chance to show that it is possible. Arguing in a tighter circle can scarcely be imagined!

Secondly, I think I am prepared to concede that chance can produce a certain kind of information, the kind found in DNA. No doubt Creationists will dislike this concession, but I have no vested interest in that direction.
I make this concession because of the particular physical nature of DNA.
The whole point of DNA is to make amino acids, and thus proteins. The function of a protein is caused by its structure – the chemical elements (and hence bonds) as well as its shape (produced by the way it ‘folds up’).
So basically, to really simplify it, DNA contains the information to make shapes. But here is the really cool part: the bits of information in DNA have shapes themselves which are directly responsible for the protein shapes formed.
For (a very poor) analogy, consider a row of differently coloured marbles. A machine (analogous to the ultra-cool tiny machines that make DNA work) goes along the row and uses a colorimeter to ‘read’ the colour of the marble. For each colour there is a corresponding lego piece (ie molecule), which the very cool machine attaches to the previous piece. You could easily lay out the marbles in an order that would, say, build a bridge. To that effect, the marbles would contain information. The bridge’s function depends on its structure, and there is a direct causal relationship between the marbles and the structure.
It was a shame I couldn’t create a better analogy than marbles – ideally there would be a more direct relationship. But, though very different, DNA codes for structures in this way.
All questions of likelihood aside, it is conceivable that the row of marbles, pile of lego pieces, and the machine could arise by chance. And so it is with DNA, the molecule and all related machinery could theoretically be assembled by chance. The information in DNA also answers my original argument, that information produced by chance would be indistinguishable from junk – it is distinguishable by its effective functioning.
So I’m compelled to concede that in this way information can be produced by chance.

I hope you will permit me to shift the discussion in light of this, for you will notice something about the particular kind of 'information' in DNA: it is not very informative. You can read the transliterated human genome: what do you learn? Even if you study the molecule itself and can appreciate what each piece achieves, will you have encountered any meaning? (I am, of course, talking about meaning directly contained in the molecule itself, not that inspired by implication or metaphysical speculation)
You might suspect I'm cheating here. I suppose I am. My new question, then, is this: Can chance produce meaningful information?
I say no, not alone. I posted a thought experiment which helped me think about this.

Sorry, maybe I didn't explain how that was circular well enough (I thought I was pretty much summarising previous posts)
If we "define chance as the sample space of possible outcomes" let us see our reasoning:
1. Chance can produce anything that is a possible outcome. (Our definition)
3. Therefore, chance can produce information.

The circularity arrises in (2.), which is unexpressed:
2. Information arrising by chance is a possible outcome.

This argument begs the question by assuming the conclusion in the premise. If we are discussing whether information can arrise by chance, we cannot assume that it can (Ie is possible).

Does that help?

All this does is show that we can't argue from chance's definition alone. My reasoning went a little differently when I condeded DNA:
1. Chance can produce anything that is a possible outcome.
2. DNA arrising by chance is a possible outcome.
3. DNA is a kind of information.
4. Therefore, chance can produce the kind of information of which DNA is one example.

The key difference here is that we have now justified why information is a possible outcome. If one was to attack this second argument I would suggest either (2.) or (3.) - probably (2.)

But that is not my concern.

It's perfectly reasonable to request those clarifications.

The most important words in my thought experiment are these: "in an otherwise empty universe"

The Oxford dictionary presently sitting in my study is indeed meaningful information - and it would be regardless of how it came to be there.

The thought experiment is as hard as I could make it - I'm not interested in straw-men. Essentially I created it by considering why a certain thing wasn't information, and trying to come up with something which would make it information.

I have since extended it even further: Suppose, then, by a freak of chance, a computer just happened to be brought into being from a pile of molecules. This computer is capable of scanning letters and thus 'reading'. It is able to 'read' a word in the sentence, find it in the dictionary, then look up all the words used to define it, then look all the words up that were used to define all those words etc - all the while using the grammar to decode the syntax of the defintions. It does this for each word of the sentence, and then also syntactically analyses the sentence.
After processing for a sufficient time, the robot has followed every thread needed: an immense and complex database has been created, in which every entry is related to many millions of others as in a web or the connections in the brain.
As a result, the computer is able to 'understand' the sentence. If comprehension-type questions were asked of it, it would be able to give coherent and consistent answers.

Is there any meaningful information?

This is the beauty of the experiment: On its face, it seems obviously meaningful information. But if it can be shown not to be, then we will be hard pressed to immagine another way.

So why don't I think there is any meaningful information in this universe (which is empty apart from the computer, the word CAT, the phrase, the dictionary and the grammar)? (Ok, even suppose there were cats etc)

Simply because the computer has not found any meaning. To understand what I mean, imagine every word in the dictionary was replaced with a symbol. Now the computer has simply a massive database showing relations between symbols according to 2 'symbol arrangement guides'.

We really do not need to imagine at all, however, since words are not more than symbols. The computer will have a complex ability to relate these 'words' together - but if a cat were to walk past it, the computer would not be able to say anything at all about the cat. The computer has lots of information, but none of it is meaningful.

I'm finding this difficult to express, but I hope you are following it. Ask yourself whether it would even matter if all the words used were substituted for their grammatically equivalent (ie adjective for adjective) antonym.

What is required for it to become meaningful? Not much, now that we already have all of this. In fact, all that is needed is this: an injection of meaningful information.

If you but tell the computer that CAT corresponds to the object now walking past it, suddenly the computer possesses meaningful information (ok, it might be that the computer needs more associations than just one, let it be so)
Once you tell the computer what the symbols or 'words' represent, ie you inject meaningful information, it has meaningful information.

This is what was significant about the universe being otherwise empty - a human speaking English would be able to recognise CAT and identify one and thus provide the injection of information needed.

Are you following so far? I feel like I have written too much, perhaps I should stop and let you respond.

So do you think that argument stumped him or did he just get bored?

That was what I was talking about though... I would make an example of chance producing something we know as specific information and he'd say something like how it's not really information for X obscure reason, and where does information come from, etc etc...

I think he was TRYING to say that it's only called information because we're sentient and we're only sentient because of God. Something like that but I couldn't be sure.

Regarding the circular reasoning issue...yep, I'm with you. The reasoning with the unwritten '2' describes my original "that's what chance means" argument. The four-step argument you use to represent your own argument applies to my later DNA example as well, though I established 3 before 2. So we're very much on the same page with respect to this. Let's move on properly.

You've defined meaningful information as requiring a kind of meta-information; a link between information and a subject. "A cat is an animal" is not meaningful information until you've said, "That's a cat." So what is meaning? Application?

Okay, the moment I typed "what is meaning" I realised we're really in at the philosophical deep end here. We may lose all meaning ourselves if we try to push this all the way, so although I'm highly suspicious of your definition I'll stick with it.

What makes it all meaningful in your example is for a person to come by and explain the connection between the information and the world. I daresay that with a spontaneous webcam (same one it uses to read?) and some image recognition software, the computer could work out for itself that it shares its universe with a genuine cat, and perhaps play a screensaver with plump mice and catnip.

This sort of information could instead happily occur spontaneously in the same way as the rest of the information has come about. Suppose the computer has a random "brainwave" that a cat, one instance of a hypothetical construct it "understands", is in front of it. That's meaningful to the computer, whether or not it's true.

Something like this can happen to people. In A Beautiful Mind (and of course in real life), John Nash saw complex ciphers in random arrangements of letters subconsciously selected from bodies of text. Schizophrenic delusions, but they still could have told him that someone was about to bomb his house.

That's an extreme example, but false yet meaningful information occurs in our brains all the time. Perhaps a feeling that a loved one is in danger, or that the ball will stop on 31 black.

It's actually fine from my perspective if you don't accept that the above is meaningful information. If your idea of meaningful information can only come from true awareness, so be it, because the sort of information you've ruled out is well above the level of the information needed to bring about the current universe.

The physical information expressed in a water molecule, a fusion explosion or a DNA strand is quite meaningless by these standards. It's just atoms and void as ones and zeroes, words in no language at all. The world can nevertheless be built on this supposedly meaningless information.

Eventually intelligence can arise which finds (and defines) meaning in any or all of it, true or false. Once there is consciousness and purpose in the universe, meaning is everywhere. Whether that purpose comes from gods, humans or both is another matter.

To be clear, we don't see eye to eye on the meaning of meaning (meta-meaning?). However, though I expected you would ultimately imply through all this that what is cannot be without a god (in essence, the Cosmological and Design arguments) your interpretation has left room for the natural occurrence of meaning (after the natural occurrence of brains). Francis Collins would say God set up those natural occurrences, and I'm sure you'd agree. I'm happy to leave it at that.

If you want to carry on discussing meaning in those deep waters, blog about it and we'll talk on your turf for a change. I reckon I've defended atheism to Healy's satisfaction and my site's expectations, so I'll visit you simply as an amateur philosopher.

Thanks CA, it's been stimulating.

Yeah, I figured you were busy when your blog posts got really short. No rush, go study good and hard.

From http://sydneyanglicanheretics.blogspot.com/2008/06/k-d-creation-of-world-part-4.html
Healy, Are you brain dead? You must be if you think this an answer, an answer to a point I never made i.e. straw man.

I never said unqualified information. Read my qualifying and evolutionary necessary adjectives attached to the noun 'information'.

I've quoted in full the text that Healy believes is the answer. I just love the guy's use of Big Brother as proof that evolution can create novel information.

Listen Healy, mate, I gave up doing pot, LSD and cocaine 20 odd years ago. I suggest you do the same. It does wonders for your intellect.

Rereading the answer, I reckon the atheist has been doing way too much acid and bongs. Why don't you write to him Healy and suggest he should lay off the drugs.

Apparently you're a terrible atheism Guru and you also deal in drugs. Which is the kind of stuff I've come to expect from John over at the creationist website.

I linked directly to this post in fact. It was in a huge argument that has been going for about 150 comments on a creationist blog. So copy-pasting your entire post would have been a little on the messy side and wouldn't have exposed them to this webpage.