Jim_Wynne
Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006
|
| Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 01 2013,11:15) | | Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 01 2013,11:10) | So, you know you're wrong and you can't answer a simple yes/no question.
So, cryptography uses information, but without meaning. Shannon was right. Information has nothing to do with meaning.
You and your ID friends are wrong. You can't measure meaning in bits. |
Kevin, if you had read my post you would know that I covered that.
No one is measuring meaning Kevin. No one is even trying. You are a dumbass moron strawman punk.
AGAIN- meaning/ function is OBSERVED. And Shannon told us how to counts the bits.
Meyer goes over this. I have gone over this on my blog.
But anyway, it is obvious taht you are too much of a coward to respond to what i said. You are pathetic.
[b]EvoTARDs are such a clueless lot- I blame it on Shannon and others for causing confusion over the word "information". Now evoTARDs have taken that confusion to a new level by saying IDists confuse information with meaning.
Hellooooo!!! Information and meaning go hand in hand 99% of the time. Only physicists and Shannonites don't get what information means. For example:
| Quote | | The word information in this theory is used in a special mathematical sense that must not be confused with its ordinary usage. In particular, information must not be confused with meaning.- Warren Weaver, one of Shannon's collaborators |
That means Shannon was the one who "redefined" information and IDists use the word in its normal/ regular/ ordinary sense.</b>
Only in limited cases does anyone NOT use information to = meaning. How hard is that to understand? |
If "IDists" use information=meaning, then what's the basis of the bit-counting?
--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT
|
