Information Theory part1
Mon, 01/21/2008 - 19:35 — admin
In his analogy, Hume chose a living organism to make his point. But a living organism always exhibits a very high information content, whereas dead matter has a relatively low information content. Scientists have estimated, for example, that the information content within a simple bacterial cell is on the order of ten trillion (10,000,000,000,000) bits of information.4 A vast amount of information would be required to assemble it! A tiny ameba, for instance, has an information content several times greater than that of the greatest computer constructed by man. Mammalian cells, and also the cells of higher plants, are even more complex! This means that the information content of a fair-sized plant, or even a small animal, is billions if not trillions of times greater than that of the bacterial cell just mentioned.
Information theory has influenced scientists such as C. H. Waddington, Arthur Koestler, John L. Randall, and Ludwig von Bertalanffy. They reject Theory that design within living things is simply a result of chance. Also, highly-skilled mathematicians and scientists have worked out equations illustrating the fact that even in billions and billions of years, we could not expect all the correct chemical ingredients to combine together by chance in an organized manner comparable to the construction of a very simple one-celled living organism.5 Since Hume's argument in this regard is based on the premise that vegetation or generation is a process which arises not from intelligence and design, but from chance, we have to reject it as being without proper foundation.
MICHAEL: Hume also argues that the universe is poorly made and that not only for human beings, but also for animals, the amount of misery experienced here outweighs the moments of pleasure. In short, the existence of evil doesn't support the existence of a benevolent Deity.6
TEACHER: One step at a time! The first questions on your list were, “Does God exist, and if so, how can His existence be proved?” But you've just reminded me of another feature of this argument which we can discuss, namely, that of purpose.
MICHAEL: I'm afraid I don't see the connection.
PERFECTION – BEING IN TUNE WITH REALITYNow, the greater the design of a system, the smaller the odds of chance being responsible for everything fitting in its right place. What would be the odds, for example, of ten pegs of various sizes all falling simultaneously into ten different holes, each corresponding in size to a given peg? Obviously, not very good. An agent of organization, however, could easily place each peg in its respective hole with very little effort. The more complex the system, then, the greater the odds that if there is design within that system, that an agent of organization-i.e., a designer- is responsible for it.
The body is yours — but it is not you. The body is a garment that you are wearing, a machine that you are using, a vehicle that you are driving. The body is your possession. Just as a person does not identify himself as being the shirt he is wearing, he also should not identify himself with the body that he is wearing.
Science of Identity Foundation – Siddhaswarupanda
In his analogy, Hume chose a living organism to make his point. But a living organism always exhibits a very high information content, whereas dead matter has a relatively low information content. Scientists have estimated, for example, that the information content within a simple bacterial cell is on the order of ten trillion (10,000,000,000,000) bits of information.4 A vast amount of information would be required to assemble it! A tiny ameba, for instance, has an information content several times greater than that of the greatest computer constructed by man. Mammalian cells, and also the cells of higher plants, are even more complex! This means that the information content of a fair-sized plant, or even a small animal, is billions if not trillions of times greater than that of the bacterial cell just mentioned.
Information theory has influenced scientists such as C. H. Waddington, Arthur Koestler, John L. Randall, and Ludwig von Bertalanffy. They reject Theory that design within living things is simply a result of chance. Also, highly-skilled mathematicians and scientists have worked out equations illustrating the fact that even in billions and billions of years, we could not expect all the correct chemical ingredients to combine together by chance in an organized manner comparable to the construction of a very simple one-celled living organism.5 Since Hume's argument in this regard is based on the premise that vegetation or generation is a process which arises not from intelligence and design, but from chance, we have to reject it as being without proper foundation.
MICHAEL: Hume also argues that the universe is poorly made and that not only for human beings, but also for animals, the amount of misery experienced here outweighs the moments of pleasure. In short, the existence of evil doesn't support the existence of a benevolent Deity.6
TEACHER: One step at a time! The first questions on your list were, “Does God exist, and if so, how can His existence be proved?” But you've just reminded me of another feature of this argument which we can discuss, namely, that of purpose.
MICHAEL: I'm afraid I don't see the connection.