tgpeeler:
Q-1 concerning information. Doesn’t the existence of information require the existence of a language? It would seem so. I can’t imagine, and neither can anyone else imagine, thinking or expressing a coherent thought apart from a language.
Q-2. What does a language consist of? It consists of a set of symbols (in this case the English alphabet), a set of words, called a vocabulary, and a set of rules called grammar and syntax for arranging those words into phrases, sentences, and paragraphs. Thus, I can arrange letters in my mind, pick them out on a keyboard, strike them, and string together hundreds of symbols that mean something to the readers who understand English. So if I say “it’s raining” the English speaker would understand that droplets of water are falling from the sky. If I said “es regnet” the English speaker would say ‘huh’ and would not have a clue about what I was saying. On the other hand, a German speaker would understand that I just said droplets of water are falling from the sky. In any case, no language, no message that it is raining.
Q-3. What other things might the creation of information require? I’ve thought about this for a minute or three and I have a short list of other prerequisites for the creation of human information. The laws of reason are first. Just as thought is impossible without language, so is language impossible without the laws of identity, non-contradiction, and excluded middle. All language, or so I say, has at its core, the immutable, eternal, immanent, transcendent, sovereign (over truth) laws of logic. Sometimes called First Principles or the Rules of Right Reason or the Laws of Rational Thought. (Or God but that’s another story, too.)
There is still an unaccounted for first principle and that is causality. In terms of information we can call it purpose or intent. So I can say with certainty, (modus tollens coming) “If I did not intend to say anything I would not be saying anything. But I am saying something. Therefore, I INTENDED or PURPOSED to say something.” Therefore, purpose, has as much ontological status as a quark or lepton. It exists in this universe else there would never be any information created by human beings. It is impossible for an infinite regress in a chain of causes for the creation of information to exist, either, and the ultimate first cause of my typing this post is my free will. I’m doing it because I want to.
The final piece of the information puzzle is free will. That should also be pretty evident by now. There is no algorithm or physical law that can explain the rational, purposeful creation of information. Indeed, free will is NECESSARY for the creation of information. Were I constrained by physical law (classical realm) my typing might look like “aaaaaaaaa” or “ababababab” or some such other nonsense. Were I constrained by physical law (quantum realm) my typing might look like “84ifj84ejug830” or some such other nonsense. In either case, if I happened to, by accident, create a string of English letters that meant something they would still be meaningless without the symbols, vocabulary, and rules of English, none of which are amenable to explanation by physics of any kind. I must be free to pick and choose among the various letters presented to me by my keyboard. This cannot be explained by reference to physical laws. Not now, not ever.
To recap my prerequisites for language. I say that first of all, Reason is required. Second is language (symbols and rules). Third is purpose. Fourth is free will. Without all of these things being present, the creation of information is impossible. Oddly enough, none of these things can be explained by reference to physical laws. Another modus tollens argument is suggested.
If NMP were true, then physics could explain human information (reason, language, purpose, free will). But physics cannot explain information (reason, language, purpose, free will). Therefore, naturalism is false.
Someone may say, modus tollens isn’t a valid form of argument. May I address that ahead of time. Modus tollens is a valid form of argument IFF there is a necessary connection between the antecedent and the consequent. In this case, since the consequent is part of the definition of the antecedent (law of identity), this necessary connection exists, and the argument is valid.
Not only is naturalism false, it is not even possible for it to be true. So we have the spectacle, the SPECTACLE, of allegedly smart (“brights”), educated, serious, thoughtful people, communicating that none of the things that enable them to communicate exist in nature.
So, Mr/Mrs/Ms naturalist, materialist, physicalist, I would like to hear from you. How do you attack this argument? How do you deny the existence of an immaterial substance, information, when you have to use information to assert the denial? This seems so, so fundamental and rational that I cannot understand why anyone would possibly deny the truth of this. But some do and inquiring minds want to know why. And so do I.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the mess above: "To recap my prerequisites for language. I say that first of all, Reason is required. Second is language (symbols and rules). Third is purpose. Fourth is free will. Without all of these things being present, the creation of information is impossible."
Okay, first of all, peeler first uses the phrase "the existence of information" (in Q-1) but later switches to "the creation of information". He also goes from "information" to "human information". Major goal post moving.
Also in Q-1, he says: "Doesn’t the existence of information require the existence of a language? It would seem so. I can’t imagine, and neither can anyone else imagine, thinking or expressing a coherent thought apart from a language."
The obvious implication in that paragraph is that only humans (or possibly other beings capable of written or spoken language) are capable of creating, expressing, or understanding information, and that the "existence" of information relies on all those things too.
Doesn't that go against the ID claims that there is information (CSI, FSCI, etc.) in most or all things in the universe, and that that information can be measured by the tools/methods in ID 'theory'?
ID-ists regularly say that cells, genes, and DNA contain information and a "language". But, can those things express a coherent "thought"? Do they 'think'? Do they reason? Do they have free will? How about all the other things that ID-ists say contain information? Can all those things express a coherent "thought? And if something is non-living, like a rock, does that mean that it wasn't designed, because it cannot create, contain, express, or understand information?
I find myself picturing the following scenario:
I walk into a bar. I look around the room and my eyes meet the eyes of a woman. Virtually immediately I can tell if she's interested in me, or not, just by the 'look in her eyes'. Of course sometimes it may not be easy to tell but often it's real easy to tell. At the moment when our eyes meet, which may consist of a second or two (or even less), is any language spoken, written, or expressed, by means of symbols? Is there a "set of words, called a vocabulary, and a set of rules called grammar and syntax for arranging those words into phrases, sentences, and paragraphs"? Is there any or all of that in the meeting of our eyes and what I may think I see in her eyes? And what if I'm wrong about what I think I see in her eyes? If I don't understand or misunderstand the 'information' in her eyes, was there any information in the first place?
Did the woman "express a coherent thought" via the 'look in her eyes', and was a language involved, with a set of rules called grammar and syntax for arranging those words into phrases, sentences, and paragraphs?
Comments are, of course, welcome.
Just to 'express' some of my 'thoughts':
I agree that there is information in living things, and I am strongly inclined to think that there's information in everything. Complexity is debatable and relative. I haven't seen any evidence that anything in nature is "specified" (in the ID context). Specification assumes a creator/designer, which has not been established.
