>>That does not qualify as a gain in information, and you know that.
>>If the information is already present, deleting then restoring it is not
>>what anybody means by an increase in information.
>
>Art, It is what I mean by an information increase and it would most
>certainly fit the description of an informational increase provided by
>information theory--the theory which I use to process seismic data and
>which is used by EE's all over the world. Numerically if you take H, the
>information of a DNA sequence and mutate it in such a way that H is
>lowered, and then reverse it, the reversal increases H.
Hi, Glenn. If that is what you mean by information increase, then I have no
problem with your definition, I just have a problem with it going anywhere.
No matter how many times you rebuild London Bridge, so long as you
rebuild it as a carbon copy of the old one, you have not perturbed the
system, and you will never get a Golden Gate.
> Producing the system
>>necessary to convert a reptilian scale into an avian feather involves an
>>increase in information of the system.
>
>Define that type of information mathematically? What you are trying to do
>is have a theory of specificity which has not yet been developed and in
>which the founders of info theory say is impossible.
Well, I don't disagree with that.
>
> All the arm-waving in the world
>>will not provide a cogent explanation for such an increase in information.
>
>
>And Art, neither will the use of the word 'information' in a non-technical
>sense answer the problem. To claim an increase in information one must be
>able to quantify the info he has. You can't do it with that loose
>terminology.
Spetner uses the term in a very precise and useful way (that was his
specialty in Physics, after all).
There is nothing loose about his understanding or use of the term. He knows
exactly what he is saying.