Talk:Information

Attribution

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. RDre 11:36, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Science does not "prove", but can succeed or fail to disprove. Can you dispute (disprove) the claim? Philip J. Rayment 11:42, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

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? Tsumetai 11:45, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

A neutral definition would be helpful. However, attribution would still be useful anyway. RDre 11:48, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Is there such a thing as a neutral description? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Philip J. Rayment (talk)

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. Tsumetai 06:49, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

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. Philip J. Rayment 07:38, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

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. Tsumetai 07:42, 17 April 2007 (EDT)