RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (356) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 4, Fostering a Greater Understanding of IDC< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Posts: 1268
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2012,13:05   

Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 05 2012,18:12)
tgpeeler is USING a lot OF randomly capitalised WORDS, JUST like all THE best scientists:
This entire issue boils down to the question: Is it even possible for the laws of physics to explain information? In principle, as a matter of logic, they cannot. The laws of physics describe and prescribe the behavior of every bit of matter and energy in the universe. Physical laws govern the behavior of physical things.

Information requires language. Language requires symbols and rules. Symbols are ABSTRACT THINGS, arranged freely and purposefully in accordance with the rules of the language (and one hopes, logic) in order to create information. Let me say that again. The FREE and PURPOSEFUL arrangement of SYMBOLS is required for the generation of information. Free and purposeful have no standing in physics. Thus the denial of said free will and purpose. Meaning, or semantic content, or in the case of biology, LIFE is encoded into a physical substrate (explained by said physical laws) but it is DIFFERENT and APART FROM the physical substrate. Only a mind or Mind can explain information.

There are no laws of physics nor are there any algorithms based upon these laws that can EVER hope to explain how and why symbols are arranged in one way and not another and why they mean or do not mean anything.

This is not that difficult. The naturalist/materialist/physicalist position is destroyed. Itís game over for theseÖ people. They just havenít awakened to that difficult (for them) fact yet.

With all these declarations of the game being over, I'm astonished the lights are still on here this morning.

New research project for all those ID scientists: determine why information can only be explained by a mind or Mind, but not by a MIND or miND.

Wouldn't you need a pHd to answer that properly?

"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

  10669 replies since Aug. 31 2011,21:06 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (356) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]