What is the ID Definition of Information?

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Timothy_Horton

Can you please repeat it here for us? Is that the accepted “official” ID definition?

I’m pretty sure the answer is some combination, by definition rather than demonstration, of:

1. That which is uniquely produced by conscious intelligence.
2. Complex Specified Information (CSI)
3. Algorithmic Specified Complexity (ASC)
4. The entropy of entities (on the one hand)
5. The mutual of entities (on the other hand)

4 and 5 are opposite sides of the coin, a type of catch-22. We see shared entropy? That is “order,” and can only produced by a mind. We see entropy that isn’t shared? That is “complexity,” and can only be produce by a mind. This mutually contradictory sort of reasoning is the source of much confusion and makes the whole effort self-defeating.

As far as I know, no one has put forward the right amount of complexity vs. order to expect in design. It is, however, a zero sum game between complexity and order. So the reasoning does not make sense to me.

It is echoed in the FT vs. D argument:

@swamidass

How this often plays out in conversation is that:

1. ID proponent argues that certain structure very improbable to arise, therefore design.
2. We show how it is actually not impossibly improbable.
3. ID proponent argues now that this just push problem to fine-tuning. therefore design.

Isn’t it clear that this is the situation? I’m not sure what the value on pressing for a definition is? Seem like the “on the spot fallacy” On the spot fallacy - RationalWiki. I’d just drop it if I were you, and focus instead on explaining better the argument, so it becomes clear what the problem is.

Also, none of this is ultimately against “design” as a concept, which is important to remember when communicating with religious audiences. Whether or not design is true, these arguments for design do not seem coherent. I fall ack on:

@swamidass

what ever the likelihood is, then it is design, why even enter into the debate in the first place? Isn’t the design argument much more appropriately expressed as astonishment at the beauty and complexity of life, as we all should be?

Understanding the beauty, complexity, and order of life should bring us all to awe and wonder, and it usually does. Whether our not we can “explain” the mechanisms, it should never explain away our surprise. It can and should and does welcome us into the grand.