Asserting what "is" means that youve not carefully considered the range. Ive only been discussing aspects of your given hypotheses about "algorithms". YOUR paraphrased statement was not that components were "arranged" (of which I hve no argument Thats a Dr Obvious statement with which one can agree) You stated that matter was PERFECTLY arranged (which implies design, which implies designer) .
Ireally dont care about how you wish to arrive at some understanding of the structure of chemical matter , but it sure as hell isnt "Perfectly ARRANGED"
Youre just trying to modify your statemenst after being challenged with evidence from something as mundane as crystal structures.
Let me clarify my perfectly arranged matter statement. The quarks and electrons of every atom of every isotope when it is at the lowest energy level is, arranged exactly the same inside the universe contained in every atom of that particular isotope. That is where the perfection is. All the scientific data substantiates that by the fact that all individual isotopes always interact in exactly the same way with the higgs field and matter. You are correct that groups of atoms at higher energy levels fall under Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. It is true because, where atoms interact at their outer surface (the electron cloud) with each other and the higgs field there is disorder. The disorder is greatly decreased inside the atom where fermions are all constrained to the same spin (whether a quark or an electron they both have 1/2 spin). This fact requires the space inside the atom (especially the nucleus or the entire atom at low energies) to be highly ordered. If this perfection did not exist inside the atom, chemistry would not be consistent.
Id like you to define to me what the hell you mn by the term"information". eve gone back and forth and Im almost sur e to where you seem to arrive but Id like to know for sure.
Since all individual isotopes of every element act exactly the same because, they have the same number of quarks and electrons moving in the same pattern of 1/2 spin of a fermion, I believe every atom is storing information because, information is a recognizable pattern.
I think this information can be considered an alogorithm that answers the following question, "What are the properties of a certain isotope as it interacts with the universe at different energy levels?" We understand that algorithm as Quantum Mechanics and the other theories and laws of physics.
Youre assertions about the "Algorithms" of biology are your statements not mine. I think you are all wet because when we see such variability in "variation indeces" all we can do is discover what an evolution rate nd output for a large population is.
We see variation because, the algorithm adjusts accordingly to produce the proper end product that was determined when the algorithm was created. This is similar to an Artificial Intelligence algorithm we program a computer to do today.
The only information is the way that we create it to try to quantify an index. Such "information" has been a pet assertion area of Intelligent Designers by discarding natural selection in favor of some neutral hypotheses to which all life supposedly responds.
We don't create the information, we observe it and experience it. The information was arranged and stored first in atoms, and finally in biology and the ecosystem long ago. How can we create information by observing it. Can I take credit for creating your response because I am reading and understanding it? If that is true I guess I can postulate that you do not exist until you appear at my door step at which point I will take credit for creating the information stored in your body. Don't worry I will get out a scale and measuring tape so as to quantify you so I can qualify as creating the information I am observing.
oy, theres really no discussing with you. Im saddened that your mind is so ossified at an apparent young age. Asserting what "is" means that youve not carefully considered the range.
I am not going to take credit for creating you or anything else I observe that I did not have a hand in creating. My mind is ossified because, I understand the fact that I did not create things by quantifying and understanding them. I am also quite sure that when I observe information stored in matter somebody thought of the information and stored it there for me to observe.
I have seen a lot of information. I have quantified it, and understood it. The only information I cannot assign to an intelligence is, information that is to old to assign to a specific designer. But, all new information that has been introduced recently can and is assigned to an intelligence. We have not observed new information entering the universe any other way.
The only exception is, when an atheist observes an ancient algorithm creating new information (like the laws of physics or natural selection) and refuses to talk about the possibility that the ancient algorithm was new information at one time and followed the pattern we observe today, which is,"ALL NEW INFORMATION ENTERS THE UNIVERSE FROM INTELLIGENCE."
I am open to the possibility that new information can enter the universe without an intelligent source. We have not ever observed it though. All we have observed is ancient algorithms introducing new information. Some are algorithims of artificial intelligence like evolution through natural selection, and some are algorithms of real intelligence like you and your body.
I will prove I am open to the possibility that information can enter the universe without intelligent origin by looking at all scientific research supporting that position and promoting scientific discussion at all levels in society including public high school and universities.
Are you open to the possibility that all new information in the universe has to be introduced from an intelligent source whether we are considering new information today, or the establishment of information introduced at ancient times by, supporting all scientific research supporting that position and promoting scientific discussion at all levels in society including public high schools and universities?