https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=PohlConservapedia - User contributions [en]2026-11-14T17:01:56ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.35.14https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Information&diff=484366Talk:Information2008-06-30T16:22:34Z<p>Pohl: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Attribution ==<br />
<br />
With such a controversial topic it is essential to add proper attribution to claims. Unless you can objectively prove that information can only come into existence by intelligent means, then it is inappropriate to state something as fact. [[User:RDre|RDre]] 11:36, 15 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Science does not "prove", but can succeed or fail to disprove. Can you dispute (disprove) the claim? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:42, 15 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
::Perhaps we'd do better to defer this discussion until we've got a neutral description of what information theory actually states. Once we've got that down, then we could discuss its implications. Thoughts? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:45, 15 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::A neutral definition would be helpful. However, attribution would still be useful anyway. [[User:RDre|RDre]] 11:48, 15 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Is there such a thing as a neutral description? {{unsigned|Philip J. Rayment}}<br />
<br />
::::I think so, yes. We all agree on the definitions of Shannon information, or Kolmogorov complexity, or whatever. The conclusions one draws from the field are another matter. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 06:49, 17 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I actually meant to question the possibility of a neutral description ''in this particular case'', as it impinges on people's worldviews, unlike Shannon information, etc. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:38, 17 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Oh. No, whether or not intelligence can derive from anything but intelligence is probably going to remain an issue of contention. But having a neutral description of the basics down might help resolve it. As it stands, it's not even clear what the claim is supposed to mean. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:42, 17 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Wait a second...is the Second Law of Thermodynamics really up for debate here? The amount of information (a.k.a. "entropy") in a system will always decrease over time, with or without the presence/action of intelligence. This is elementary-school-level material, folks.</div>Pohl