Re: Non-beneficial Gaps
- From: picklebarrel1@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 09:51:36 -0800 (PST)
On Jan 31, 2:18 pm, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.
0catch.com> wrote:
All known language/information systems share a common feature. If
concepts or ideas or forms of information require a greater number of
characters or a greater specificity of character arrangement, the
ratio of potentially meaningful or useful or functional systems
relative to the number of potential character arrangements drops off
*exponentially*.
This is true of the English language as well as all other spoken or
written human languages, computer codes and programs, and even of
genetic information and protein-based biosystems.
Let's start with the English language/information system. What is the
ratio of potentially meaningful vs. meaningless 2-character sequences
are there? Well, its around 1 in 7. What about 3-character
sequences? About 1 in 18. What about 7-character sequences? About 1
in 250,000.
<snip>
To be honest, the term "meaning" is an abstract concept. "meaning"
has value to those who care about it. "meaning" and "function" are
not equivalent terms and cannot be used interchangeably. In the
english language, we have 26 letters (plus 10 digits) to create words
or sequences of words that have "meaning" to another person using that
language. There are an infinite possible combinations of letters or
sequences of letters that can contain "meaning", that is, convey
information (that is what a language is used for, it's "function" as
it were). To say that the a certain combination of letters has no
"meaning" just indicates that the people communicating using this
language have not defined a meaning yet. It DOES NOT indicate that
there is no "meaning"
For example, what does this mean to you?
httpColonBackslashBackslashgroupsDotgoogleDotcomBackslashgroupBackslashtalkDotoriginsbrowseUnderscorethreadBackslashthreadBackslashee904b89af817f75Backslashbb9fd00def458761Sharpbb9fd00def458761
To me, this means "the link to this thread on talk.origins spelled out
with the english language plus digits"...ummm...so I used two
sequences of letters to convey the same "meaning"...interesting...
We now have a world wide web that is growing with an incredible rate.
using languages we have a framework of conveying "meaning" for an
(exponentially growing) large volume of information which indicates
that our space for conveying meaning HAS to grow larger in order to
accomodate the information AND references to that information. I bet
you can find a "meaning" for ANY combination of two letters, I bet you
can even find a "meaning" for any 3 combination of letters. I think
this would be difficult to prove, but I definitely can DEFINE a
meaning for any sequence of letters you can come up with and therefore
give it "meaning".
A "meaning" is not a "function" or a "process" and cannot be used
interchangeably as such. Your anology stops there, and using your
ratios to indicate the amount of "meaning" in any sequence of letters
is a fallacy.
ummm...someone else can define "function" if they really want to. I'm
tired.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Bad design
- Next by Date: Re: should we believe things that cannot reliably be supported merely
- Previous by thread: Re: Non-beneficial Gaps
- Next by thread: In the News: Bible stories come to life inside Creation Museum
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
