To get to the nub of this sub-topic I need to finish reading James Gleick "The Information".. although a convinced naturalist he does his homework. But I am going through hell.. a painful 'interlude'. I mentioned a court case with CASA.. I am manually transcribing 10 days of court recording to text. It takes a week to do one day and it is personally distressing.. someone lied and got away with it.. I am appealing the adverse finding of forgery! I won the charge of 'reckless'.
I just realised what it means in this context. I am here trying to talk about deep truth's to which I have become privy by virtue of my 'faith' position.. specifically conclusions not based on belief (religious).
Think of the drama movies.. 'Heat', 'The Bourn series' 'Those Inglorious Bastards' etc, the 'good' tough or gifted guy gets hammered by an evil bad bunch but by super cunning, ability and luck blows the opposition away. Its in your face stuff but it feels good. Deep emotion stirring drama' hooks into your natural sense of justice.. (actually justice doesn't come from nature)
Desperate people actually do murder, payback and suicide.. Why, because 'I must do something' if I think there's no one else! In my dark moments I've had thoughts of blowing away that liar. BUT I know I don't have to.. because my FAITH POSITION is REAL. I have peace, joy and hope in my life because I know I am NOT the JUDGE I am not alone. Civilisation fails when people think 'I am the judge', that's playing God! The only choice we have about God is not his existence but who is going to play him?
Its not just definitions of words that's missing.. Its the understanding of knowledge, the times and ourselves. But if we don't answer the question who is God correctly.. we disable our faculty of 'knowing'. That's what Job 28:20-28 means.
I hope your getting this.
Monday, 27 October 2014
Tuesday, 7 October 2014
2.3 The Big Picture
To continue with 'authority' for my argument..
Sir Fred Hoyle famous mathematician and cosmologist, also studied and had a sound working knowledge of biology.. formal study of which he 'gave up' because..
"All that homespun knowledge was wiped clean from my brain by the age of eighteen, because by then I had become convinced that biology was a doubtful subject. The trouble was that in reading widely during my early teens I ran into the Darwinian theory, for a little while with illusions and then with less respect than adults with bated breath were wont to show."
from the Introduction to 'The Mathematics of Evolution' Pub Brig Klyce 1999 from the original paper by Fred Hoyle 1987. but by age 72 Fred had clearly not changed this view since those early teens.. as he goes on..
"I made them angry, just as I do today, by saying that it [natural selection] did nothing at all. You could select potatoes as much as you pleased but you would never make them into a rabbit. Nor by selecting oak trees could you make them into colonies of bats, and those who thought they could in my opinion were bats in the belfry. This made them angry too"
Don't misunderstand me here.. Fred was pretty much an atheist.. in the preface he says..
"Like a boat pushed off into a fast moving river, I was swept away from my former cherished beliefs. Out of my local church in a week. Out of my belief in the Christian religion in not much time. out of any belief in any fundamental religion in little more time than that.."
Fred is credited as the first atheist advocate for Intelligent Design.. (Wikipedia article), he goes on..
"A decade ago I thought new genes were acquired by an organism from the external environment ... Today, however, I would modify this picture somewhat to the view that all genes in present-day organisms were here already in the metazoans that invaded Earth 570 million years ago.."
The math is inescapable.. Darwinian Evolution cannot work! Hoyle's book was written to show the only way evolution could work, by removing the design of genes to the far distant unobservable cosmos in both space and time..?
regards to all
Sir Fred Hoyle famous mathematician and cosmologist, also studied and had a sound working knowledge of biology.. formal study of which he 'gave up' because..
"All that homespun knowledge was wiped clean from my brain by the age of eighteen, because by then I had become convinced that biology was a doubtful subject. The trouble was that in reading widely during my early teens I ran into the Darwinian theory, for a little while with illusions and then with less respect than adults with bated breath were wont to show."
from the Introduction to 'The Mathematics of Evolution' Pub Brig Klyce 1999 from the original paper by Fred Hoyle 1987. but by age 72 Fred had clearly not changed this view since those early teens.. as he goes on..
"I made them angry, just as I do today, by saying that it [natural selection] did nothing at all. You could select potatoes as much as you pleased but you would never make them into a rabbit. Nor by selecting oak trees could you make them into colonies of bats, and those who thought they could in my opinion were bats in the belfry. This made them angry too"
Don't misunderstand me here.. Fred was pretty much an atheist.. in the preface he says..
"Like a boat pushed off into a fast moving river, I was swept away from my former cherished beliefs. Out of my local church in a week. Out of my belief in the Christian religion in not much time. out of any belief in any fundamental religion in little more time than that.."
Fred is credited as the first atheist advocate for Intelligent Design.. (Wikipedia article), he goes on..
"A decade ago I thought new genes were acquired by an organism from the external environment ... Today, however, I would modify this picture somewhat to the view that all genes in present-day organisms were here already in the metazoans that invaded Earth 570 million years ago.."
The math is inescapable.. Darwinian Evolution cannot work! Hoyle's book was written to show the only way evolution could work, by removing the design of genes to the far distant unobservable cosmos in both space and time..?
regards to all
Tuesday, 9 September 2014
2.2 The Big Picture
Genetics.. let me try and get some authenticity behind this stuff. So I am quoting Dr John C. Sanford "Genetic Entropy" 3rd ed 2008.
Dr John Sanford a Cornell University Professor for more than 25 years.. trained graduate students and conducted genetic research.. has published over 80 scientific pubs and was granted over 30 patents. He invented the 'gene gun' and two other genetic processes.. Two enterprises came from his research..
pp140 "For decades biologists have argued on a philosophical level that the very special qualities of natural selection can essentially reverse the biological effects of the second law of thermodynamics. In this way, it has been argued, the degenerative effects of entropy in living systems can be negated, making life itself potentially immortal, However all of the analysis of this book contradicts that philosophical assumption. Mutational entropy appears to be so strong within large genomes that selection cannot reverse it. This makes eventual extinction of such genomes inevitable. I have termed the fundamental problem Genetic Entropy... derived from careful analysis of how selection really operates."
There's that word.. 'entropy' and the 'second law'. He quotes numerous well researched challengers to this idea but even their data in the end comes out the same.. even with extremely favourable assumptions. And then..
pp147 "Caution: The term "Shannon entropy" will be used by some to confuse the issue of genetic entropy. Shannon entropy is an unfortunate and misleading term which was coined to refer to certain statistical properties of potential information. It is a way to measure the "surprise value" of a letter within a string of letters. Any simple repeating pattern reduces a string's Shannon entropy value. A high Shannon information value can reflect either a randomized set of letters or a carefully written poem!"
Not only is Shannon information NOT semantic information but..
Shannon entropy is NOT thermodynamic entropy..?
This not what the 'secular education system' wants you to know..!!
Dr John Sanford a Cornell University Professor for more than 25 years.. trained graduate students and conducted genetic research.. has published over 80 scientific pubs and was granted over 30 patents. He invented the 'gene gun' and two other genetic processes.. Two enterprises came from his research..
pp140 "For decades biologists have argued on a philosophical level that the very special qualities of natural selection can essentially reverse the biological effects of the second law of thermodynamics. In this way, it has been argued, the degenerative effects of entropy in living systems can be negated, making life itself potentially immortal, However all of the analysis of this book contradicts that philosophical assumption. Mutational entropy appears to be so strong within large genomes that selection cannot reverse it. This makes eventual extinction of such genomes inevitable. I have termed the fundamental problem Genetic Entropy... derived from careful analysis of how selection really operates."
There's that word.. 'entropy' and the 'second law'. He quotes numerous well researched challengers to this idea but even their data in the end comes out the same.. even with extremely favourable assumptions. And then..
pp147 "Caution: The term "Shannon entropy" will be used by some to confuse the issue of genetic entropy. Shannon entropy is an unfortunate and misleading term which was coined to refer to certain statistical properties of potential information. It is a way to measure the "surprise value" of a letter within a string of letters. Any simple repeating pattern reduces a string's Shannon entropy value. A high Shannon information value can reflect either a randomized set of letters or a carefully written poem!"
Not only is Shannon information NOT semantic information but..
Shannon entropy is NOT thermodynamic entropy..?
This not what the 'secular education system' wants you to know..!!
2.1 The Big Picture
Just today I heard on CBS news how Mathew Martoma has just been sentenced to 9 years goal (jail) for insider trading to the tune of 9 million dollars but his boss S A Cohen is not charged with anything.. A commenter said that no one had been charged with any criminal activity over the 2008 financial crisis.. and this re.. Wall Street. "there's no right and wrong..".
A story on Al Jazeera revealed an insiders view of safety concerns with the Boeing 787.. Look I am an ex Pom (uk convicts transported to Australia were labelled POME ie Prisoner of Mother England so UK immigrants got to be called Poms) now Australian, but I would not dream of taking a cheep swipe at Boeing.. The 747 story is a fantastic chapter in all our aviation lives. I love those big jets. My company in Melbourne did Boeing work and eventually got taken over by Boeing well that's how it goes. But this story reveals something new going on.. a failure in 'average' morality and ethics. I always thought working for an aircraft company is the tops.. It is the cutting edge of engineering.. but the workers in an aircraft company like Boeing have got to represent the educated middle at least. The concerns were so significant an ex-engineer said that they would not fly on one..!! These are connected and they relate to what is happening in education?
If you learn at school your just another animal, there is no God to be ultimately accountable to when you die, life is just 'survival of the fittest'.. then not only was Hitler right, but even as a kid you have to make up your own rules about right and wrong. Good luck..! I say we are just beginning to reap what we have sown.. that's in the bible..!
So what else is on the table.. The rate of extinction of species a few years ago was described by a professional researcher as "terrifying".. our genome on average accumulates 100 errors per generation so we are seeing new genetic diseases and the higher prevalence of genetic disorders. Over consumption of limited resources and new strains of killer diseases like Ebola.. Gloomy stuff indeed.
We are witnessing a decline of biblical proportions.. that's not a pun.. because that's where it is described..!
A story on Al Jazeera revealed an insiders view of safety concerns with the Boeing 787.. Look I am an ex Pom (uk convicts transported to Australia were labelled POME ie Prisoner of Mother England so UK immigrants got to be called Poms) now Australian, but I would not dream of taking a cheep swipe at Boeing.. The 747 story is a fantastic chapter in all our aviation lives. I love those big jets. My company in Melbourne did Boeing work and eventually got taken over by Boeing well that's how it goes. But this story reveals something new going on.. a failure in 'average' morality and ethics. I always thought working for an aircraft company is the tops.. It is the cutting edge of engineering.. but the workers in an aircraft company like Boeing have got to represent the educated middle at least. The concerns were so significant an ex-engineer said that they would not fly on one..!! These are connected and they relate to what is happening in education?
If you learn at school your just another animal, there is no God to be ultimately accountable to when you die, life is just 'survival of the fittest'.. then not only was Hitler right, but even as a kid you have to make up your own rules about right and wrong. Good luck..! I say we are just beginning to reap what we have sown.. that's in the bible..!
So what else is on the table.. The rate of extinction of species a few years ago was described by a professional researcher as "terrifying".. our genome on average accumulates 100 errors per generation so we are seeing new genetic diseases and the higher prevalence of genetic disorders. Over consumption of limited resources and new strains of killer diseases like Ebola.. Gloomy stuff indeed.
We are witnessing a decline of biblical proportions.. that's not a pun.. because that's where it is described..!
Sunday, 31 August 2014
2.0 The Big Picture
There is too much.. for the time I give to this.! I am aware a few of you really want to understand.. truth should be like that.. available to everyone.. hence my Wikipedia involvement. I truly and deeply despise ignorance and particularly when its deliberate. That's a justice issue and I honestly believe I have a responsibility to tell what I know and yes invite anyone to tell me I'm wrong or out with the fairies etc..
There is a much 'bigger picture' to all this.. WHY.. am I discovering stuff that should already be there in our education system, open for discussion and question without cover-up or fear..
Well we don't actually have "truth'.. the best we can do is what I call "verified knowledge".. There is an underlying truth to knowledge, its just that we can never say we actually have it.. However truth can and would be known to an infinite mind.. and if that mind chose to reveal it.. please just hold that thought.
I am now reading James Gleick's "The Information".. he is a very good writer and does his homework very thoroughly. BUT.. How does he end up concluding (haven't finished the book yet but this was given on a radio interview with the author)
INFORMATION (now) = UNCERTAINTY
Whatever he means by information it's not 'semantic information'.. but surely he knows that.. a couple of quotes..
pp44 (In regard to the deciphering of cuneiform mathematical tablets)
"They were like maps of a mysterious city. This was the key to deciphering them, finally; the ordered chaos that seems to guarantee the the presence of meaning."
'ordered chaos' is an oxymoron.. 'ordered' means by definition not chaotic..?
Here's a hint.. of the problem for the naturalist..
pp32 "The paleographer has a unique bootstrap problem. Its only writing that makes its own history possible".
Pointing to my much earlier conclusion.. semantic information is recursive.
next time.
There is a much 'bigger picture' to all this.. WHY.. am I discovering stuff that should already be there in our education system, open for discussion and question without cover-up or fear..
Well we don't actually have "truth'.. the best we can do is what I call "verified knowledge".. There is an underlying truth to knowledge, its just that we can never say we actually have it.. However truth can and would be known to an infinite mind.. and if that mind chose to reveal it.. please just hold that thought.
I am now reading James Gleick's "The Information".. he is a very good writer and does his homework very thoroughly. BUT.. How does he end up concluding (haven't finished the book yet but this was given on a radio interview with the author)
INFORMATION (now) = UNCERTAINTY
Whatever he means by information it's not 'semantic information'.. but surely he knows that.. a couple of quotes..
pp44 (In regard to the deciphering of cuneiform mathematical tablets)
"They were like maps of a mysterious city. This was the key to deciphering them, finally; the ordered chaos that seems to guarantee the the presence of meaning."
'ordered chaos' is an oxymoron.. 'ordered' means by definition not chaotic..?
Here's a hint.. of the problem for the naturalist..
pp32 "The paleographer has a unique bootstrap problem. Its only writing that makes its own history possible".
Pointing to my much earlier conclusion.. semantic information is recursive.
next time.
Saturday, 30 August 2014
1.5 The Problem
Get this.. Here is how the Wikipedia editor in contention with me defines the second law..
The above is absolute BS because it takes no account of 'logically' ordered states like 'information', only physically ordered states like where one part is hot and another cold. I can't hardly believe such ignorance.. this guy is supported by over 460 observers.. we are in deep trouble.
The best and most meaningful statement of the Second Law is..
Any system left to itself will tend to move to its most probable state..!
I did finally manage to put a {further explanation needed} tag on the misuse of the word "evolve" (dictionary synonym 'develop') where it should read "decay" hopefully directing people to the 'talk' page to see why.
I also got some clarification into the page on 'Introduction to Entropy'.. but there is a glaring confusion still there to be dealt with.. in particular use of the term "information entropy".. suggesting there are different types of entropy.. there are not..
There is only ONE entropy..!
What I am telling you here is only the tip of the iceberg..
-
-
- One may consider an initial set {i } of several thermodynamic systems each its own state of internal thermodynamic equilibrium with entropy {Si }. There may then occur a thermodynamic operation by which the walls between those systems are changed in permeability or otherwise altered, so that there results a new and final set {f } of physical systems, at first not in thermodynamic equilibrium. Eventually they will settle into their own states of internal thermodynamic equilibrium having entropies {Sf }. The second law asserts that
-
The above is absolute BS because it takes no account of 'logically' ordered states like 'information', only physically ordered states like where one part is hot and another cold. I can't hardly believe such ignorance.. this guy is supported by over 460 observers.. we are in deep trouble.
The best and most meaningful statement of the Second Law is..
Any system left to itself will tend to move to its most probable state..!
I did finally manage to put a {further explanation needed} tag on the misuse of the word "evolve" (dictionary synonym 'develop') where it should read "decay" hopefully directing people to the 'talk' page to see why.
I also got some clarification into the page on 'Introduction to Entropy'.. but there is a glaring confusion still there to be dealt with.. in particular use of the term "information entropy".. suggesting there are different types of entropy.. there are not..
There is only ONE entropy..!
What I am telling you here is only the tip of the iceberg..
Tuesday, 22 July 2014
1.4 The Problem
Well in all that effort on the Wiki.. I have now written 18458 words in contributions to the 'talk - Entropy' page all about changing ONE WORD in the entropy article.. simply because it is being used in a manner contrary to its dictionary definition.!! That ought to tell you something.
In that context I have raised another word which is likewise kept in a seriously darkened state as to its real meaning.. COMPLEXITY
You see it is argued that 'evolution by natural selection' is the 'mechanism' by which complexity increases in nature. (ref Bill Nye debate with Ken Ham). But what does that mean if you don't define complexity?
The truth is they don't want to define it in any rigorous way because it would present such a huge problem for any proposal it can evolve by any natural process. Go ahead look up "define complexity".. you will see what I mean.
There is another word before I leave this introduction and it is..
INFORMATION
If you look this up you will be directed to a theory analyzing data transfer in a noisy environment by Claude Shannon and all I need to say about that is you will be mislead because Shannon was not interested in the significance or content of the signal. Only how the limits of error tolerance affect transmission. So in his terminology a message with the highest level of 'information' would be a random stream of characters ie with no expectation of the next character like the next letter in a word. Here's the quote from 'The Mathematical Theory of Communication' by Claude Shannon "meaning.. is irrelevant to the engineering problem". The best reference I can give you is the following..
[http://schneider.ncifcrf.gov/information.is.not.uncertainty.html]
This is the actual inverse of what the thermodynamic term entropy means for semantic information. Shannon's work is important but it is unfortunate that he chose to use the word 'entropy' for both information and uncertainty.. As a result the literature abounds with "Information = entropy and entropy = uncertainty".. The resolution is simple Shannon information is NOT semantic information (with meaning) as I am referring to.
So these three words are at the root of the problem..
ENTROPY - COMPLEXITY - INFORMATION
(Which causes problems with another word.. DESIGN )
This is the 'no man's land' between two apparently very unequally matched sides..
We all have a list.. 'truth we don't want to know'. My advice keep it as small as possible
Have a very good day
In that context I have raised another word which is likewise kept in a seriously darkened state as to its real meaning.. COMPLEXITY
You see it is argued that 'evolution by natural selection' is the 'mechanism' by which complexity increases in nature. (ref Bill Nye debate with Ken Ham). But what does that mean if you don't define complexity?
The truth is they don't want to define it in any rigorous way because it would present such a huge problem for any proposal it can evolve by any natural process. Go ahead look up "define complexity".. you will see what I mean.
There is another word before I leave this introduction and it is..
INFORMATION
If you look this up you will be directed to a theory analyzing data transfer in a noisy environment by Claude Shannon and all I need to say about that is you will be mislead because Shannon was not interested in the significance or content of the signal. Only how the limits of error tolerance affect transmission. So in his terminology a message with the highest level of 'information' would be a random stream of characters ie with no expectation of the next character like the next letter in a word. Here's the quote from 'The Mathematical Theory of Communication' by Claude Shannon "meaning.. is irrelevant to the engineering problem". The best reference I can give you is the following..
[http://schneider.ncifcrf.gov/information.is.not.uncertainty.html]
This is the actual inverse of what the thermodynamic term entropy means for semantic information. Shannon's work is important but it is unfortunate that he chose to use the word 'entropy' for both information and uncertainty.. As a result the literature abounds with "Information = entropy and entropy = uncertainty".. The resolution is simple Shannon information is NOT semantic information (with meaning) as I am referring to.
So these three words are at the root of the problem..
ENTROPY - COMPLEXITY - INFORMATION
(Which causes problems with another word.. DESIGN )
This is the 'no man's land' between two apparently very unequally matched sides..
We all have a list.. 'truth we don't want to know'. My advice keep it as small as possible
Have a very good day
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)