RE: Shannon

From: Glenn Morton <glennmorton@entouch.net>
Date: Mon Sep 06 2004 - 18:32:55 EDT

 

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Randy Isaac
Sent: Monday, September 06, 2004 4:44 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Shannon

Glenn,
 
    Somehow, I am not surprised that you disagreed with my points, but I
am surprised that you missed the points.
 
GRM: I don't think I missed your point, I disagreed with your
conclusions. /GRM
 
 Your note is too long to quote so I'll refer everyone to the archive.
Let me just reiterate: Shannon's theorem applies only to information
transmission from one physical embodiment to another through a physical
medium with physical noise. Certainly, once you have a verified and
confirmed communication from God into a physical embodiment, then you
can indeed apply Shannon's theorem to any subsequent transmission.
 
GRM: and I think you missed my point as well.
 
1. How do you verify a communication from God? Give us an example of
how you verify God's communication? And if you can do it, then please
tell us what form the parity bits take when it goes over to the
spiritual side of things?
 
I want to see how you handle this one. :-)
 
 
2. I did address the physical embodiment issue by having God place the
message into the brain. And from that point on, Shannon does apply as
you say. But I see no reason why it doesn't apply if God is putting
false messages into the brain. Can you tell my why (whatever spiritual
form information takes when it is on God's side of the fence)
mis-transmission doesn't apply? Sure as far as we know information is
physical, but if God has it, it must be in some form, even if it
invovles the arrangmeent of spiritual stuff--whatever that is. /GRM
 
 
  Of course, this applies to the transmission of the information, not
the interpretation thereof. When God speaks to us in whatever form he
chooses, there is some non-physical to physical transformation. I don't
understand it but if that doesn't happen, then we do not serve a
personal God.
 
GRM: Agreed, but if in that non-physical to physical transformation, God
can't keep the message straight and tickle the physical brain in a
fashion that the correct message is emplaced, then since the brain is
probably the first site of the physical chain, the brain becomes God's
transmitter which then is transmitting the wrong thing. Shannon's laws
apply if the transmitter (the brain) gets the wrong thoughts emplaced by
God. The transmission then goes to the book.
 
Note, I haven't used anything spiritual in this transmission from brain
to book. The transmitter is the brain, the channel is the arm and hand
fo the guy writing the book./GRM
 
    As to the usefulness of communication theories, many of us spend a
lifetime extracting signals from noisy information. "accommodation" is
not a physical source of noise and Shannon's theorem doesn't help us
resolve it though it does give some good conceptual analogies. Granted,
I did not mean to imply that if I can't measure it, I can't use it or it
doesn't happen.
 
GRM: My life has been spent extracting geological signals from the
noise using the theories outlined by GAG at MIT.
 
Accommodation is a physical source of noise if God uses his transmitter
(the brain) to transmit one thing but then it transmits another thing.
Remember The transmitter is the brain, the channel is the arm and hand
fo the guy writing the book. The book is the receiver. Lets say that
God says to the brain of an ancient Hebrew, "It is OK to eat pigs". But
the guy, with that very hard heart, writes that "it is not ok to eat
pigs". Would you agree that that is a physical source of transmitter
noise? If not, what part is spiritual between the brain(transmitter) and
book (receiver)? /GRM
 
    So in that sense, I agree with your points but it doesn't help us
solve your concern. Yes, if we claim that God has conveyed falsehoods,
then we are in deep trouble on more fronts than you cite, not the least
of which might be coming close to blasphemy.
 
GRM: I am absolutely delighted that someone finally sees this terrible
issue that has bothered me for years with this type of approach. It
seems that few on this list. have the guts or insight to say what you do
above. Accommodation is having God send the wrong message (or
alternatively as mentioned above that the human writer can override the
inspiration./GRM
 
 
 If God chooses to use the scientific understanding of a particular era
to convey a theological message, it does not seem to me that he is
affirming the truth of that scientific understanding and we are not at
all on firm ground if we then accuse God of sending us false messages.
 
GRM: this part surprises me because it seems totally contrary to what
you said immediately prior, at least partly. Using pigs in stead of
lambs in a translation of the Bible is not in the same category as
having an entire Mosaic law and the religion based upon it be false,
which is what accommodation finally gets to. God basically says "just
kidding' when Jesus finally arrives. I cited Seely today on the
planned obsolecence of the entire OT or such large parts of it that it
amounts to that. I don't see the use of a flawed theology as a
comforting when it comes to knowing what God really wants today.
 
If religious truths are compromised by God--the ultimate
transmitter--then we can't be sure anything we got is not compromised.
Everyone should ask which religious truths are a compromise:
 
"We should not then be surprised at all to find in Leviticus 11 (in
spite of its absolute truth that God is holy and wants His people to be
holy) a compromise of both religious and scientific truth" P. Seely,
Inerrant Wisdom, p. 201.
 
This harkens back to Pilot's question: What is truth? /GRM
Received on Mon Sep 6 18:47:29 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Sep 06 2004 - 18:47:30 EDT