Information Theory and the Trinity

A friend of mine commented that the Trinity was a made-up crazy idea concocted by the church in the early middle ages. I say the Trinity is reflected in the very nature of information.

Nassim Nicholas Taleb wrote this fascinating Facebook post about information theory:

Take a good look at this diagram and study it, because I came to the same exact conclusion years ago. The communication system itself is one of the most vital fractal patterns in the universe.

Even though this structure is the foundation of Watson and Crick’s discovery of DNA in 1953, the biologists have mostly misunderstood it, many people in many disciplines have misunderstood it because although you can use reductionist analysis to study it (it’s absolutely central to Electrical Engineering) you cannot use reductionist physics to explain its origin.

Here’s what I mean by that. A communication system is an [encoder] -> [a message] -> [and a decoder].

Here’s the diagram we use for the Evolution 2.0 Prize:

You text me on your phone. Your phone encodes your words into a message and sends them over a communication channel, and my phone decodes your message. The amount of information is the number of bits it takes to encode the message. The message can be degraded by noise.

For the guy who builds TVs, cell phones, etc., his #1 job is to combat the noise.

Everything I just said is simple reductionism. It is very powerful. What you cannot reduce to formula though (by definition) is the origin of the message itself, the “surprise” and originality of that message, the creation which requires will and intent. Its origin is by definition not algorithmic.

The heart of this question is nothing less than the mystery of consciousness – which no one to date has ever even been able to fully define, let alone explain.

All communication systems that we know the origin of are designed. This suggests that consciousness comes first in the universe. Consciousness first, matter second. Not the other way around. (If anyone solves the Evolution 2.0 Prize, and I hope they do, they’ll solve it by starting with consciousness and working from there. My 2 cents.)

You cannot create messages or communication by blind material processes, so far as anyone knows thus far. Information always starts with consciousness. Which is the thesis of my Evolution 2.0 book.

All of this is pretty simple stuff. It’s not rocket science. But it is kind of trippy, and it’s fractal. So people struggle to wrap their heads around it.

Well if you can wrap your head around it, you can see how, as Taleb says, it has implications for dozens of fields of study, including core philosophical questions like consciousness and free will. I recommend the book “In the Beginning was Information” by Werner Gitt because it offers the best philosophical treatment of this subject I’ve ever seen.

Information theory shows that words and language are the basis of all creative acts. They are also the basis of all replication and all memes. So having understood this I was doubly struck by John’s opening statement in his gospel:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

“Word” is the Greek word Logos. It suggests the Evolution 2.0 Prize, an award for the mystery of how chemicals produced code, is a search for the original Logos in the physical world.

People have been debating the Trinity question since the beginning of the first century, and in fact longer than that, because in Genesis God says “Let US make man in OUR image.”

God is plural. The prophets and writers are emphatic about this.

This question – more a question than answers per se – is intrinsic to the Old and New Testaments. No matter what you say about it, or how you might politically frame it, the question itself is always staring you in the face no matter what you do. It’s only an issue of how various people have tried to answer it.

In John 14 Jesus says “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.”

Knowing that the Holy Spirit is the teacher and explainer of the WORD, I had an epiphany:

God the Father is analogous to encoder.

The Father is originator, the original intent; all mysteries are hidden in Him.

The Son is the expression of God, the WORD, the communication and expression of the intent.

The Spirit is the understanding of God, the decoding of the WORD and the effective communication of that intent.

Which means that on earth, all successful communication is a reflection of the nature of God: An idea, which is then expressed and communicated, then finally understood. All successful communication is a fractal expression of the nature of God.

This is the definition of love. Love is the desire for complete communication and complete knowing. Without degradation and without shame. The only way that is can ever be possible to say “GOD IS LOVE” (as in God=Love, an equivalency statement, not just a metaphor) is if God is plural; and if the origination, expression and understanding of God is in perfect, lossless agreement. No entropy.

So God, stated in terms that humans can understand, is three persons who are in total and absolute agreement. Total harmony. That is what it means to say “GOD IS LOVE.” This statement cannot be true unless there is some kind of Trinity.

It cannot be true in Islam, for example, because Islam dogmatically insists that God is absolutely one, that there is no plurality with God, and that God has no son.

And, as you know, Allah is not exactly depicted as love. Not normally anyway.

Any Muslim who describes Allah=love has borrowed this idea from Judaism or Christianity. Allah in the Koran is distant and inscrutable.

So circling back to the beginning of this, every instance of successful communication is an expression of the nature of God – whether it is lovers melding together in harmony or merely your cell phone successfully receiving a text message.

It suggests that an ultimate evolution is harmony and communication between all things.

It’s because the thing that harmonizes the most people has unbreakable power. Which is true because…. God is love.

21 Responses

  1. Melvin Beck says:

    So the Bible says God chose us (believers) before the foundation of the world. God knows everything . God has known me forever. Yet He didn’t physically create me( at least as far as I know) until He knit me in my mothers womb(more love) in 1952. The only reason there’s a universe is to have a planet ( a nest) where God could have us be born. All things work for the good of them that love God. That are called according to His purpose. All molecular activity works for us. Hence quantum mechanics. How the water held up Jesus and Peter. All things are held together by the power of His word. Hence string theory ( Jesus’ word). That’s all for now . Shalom out.

    • Definitely, your obsession with “god” crippled your brain. By following the laws of “science”, on the other hand, I was able to solve/find/understand the origin of the DNA/chromosomes/Life programming. I can also point out to you; the boundary defining the individual/ the Me. It’s all scientifical/material, no god/spirit in view. As for the notion of “Trinity” we leave it for later.

      • Please provide full information on your origin of life discovery. I have a $5 million prize for you if you’re not bluffing.

        • Faruk Bajric says:

          THE SECOND COUNCIL OF VATICAN CHANGES ‘THE HOLY TRINITI.’

          We know that there is no original Bible, supposedly
          burned. Today’s Bible is the product of the Nicea Council 325 n.e.
          319 Bishop attended the meeting to handle
          the question whether Jesus was a god or not.
          Dr. Arien claimed that Jesus was not God, while the Bishop
          Atanasie from Alexandria, yes. Imperator
          Constantine (pagan) with the power solves the question of the divinity of Jesus and the birth of the Holy Trinity. Imperator Konstantin
          orders to put their Gospel under the huge oval table, and to pray over the night to the Holy Spirit determines
          which is the true gospel. See Karen Armstrong: THE HISTORIES OF GOD “at
          st. 305, (distributed by Random House, Inc., New York.
          Originally published in Great Britain by William
          Heinemann . 1994 London). Reprinted ten times. Pope
          Corrects the Bible at the Second Vatican Council,
          throwing away the indication of the Holy Trinity from the Bible.

          And in recent additions, this is how it is.
          FIRST IVAN LETTER CHAPTER 5 VERSE 7 and 8
          STATES: THE FATHER; WATER AND BLOOD,
          THESE THREE ARE ONE.

          These differences, contradictions, Keren
          Armstrong thus says: Holy Trinity can be compared
          with one of the cells in a hive of honey where the drone is
          to be a plague of beehives.

          Christianity and Islam have different views of God. Both the Bible and the Qur’an claim to be the Word of God but the theology of God is often strikingly different in these two books. What we are particularly concerned about here, however, is to discover in which book we find the best revelation of God’s love towards men. Let us begin by studying briefly the teaching of the Qur’an about the love of God.
          Firstly, there is in the Qur’an an exhortation to men to love God. Perhaps the best verse in the Qur’an which contains this injunction is this one:
          “Say, If ye love Allah, follow me; Allah will love you and forgive you your sins”.(Qur’an, 3:31)
          The Qur’an wisely refrains from commanding of men the greatest possible devotion to God – that of inexhaustible love from the heart. Such love could only be expected of men if God himself is far greater than the Qur’an makes him out to be. He will have to be far more majestic, positively greater, distinctly superior and infinitely more loving if men are to succeed in loving him with all their hearts.
          Throughout the Qur’an, we read that Allah loves those who do good and does not love those who do evil. This means principally that he approves of those who do good and accordingly disapproves of those who do evil. In every case where the expression occurs in the Qur’an, it can easily be translated “approves of” instead of “loves” without any change in the meaning of the expression at all. The knowledge and realization of this approval will also only be known at the Last Day. This is virtually all that the Qur’an says about the love of God towards mankind…

        • Jean-Robert Colimon says:

          So so sorry about the answer more than one year late //Not too fast Mr Marshall, the said discovery, since also revealed the coordinate system of Organ’s formation, I intend to patent it before going public. Your $5 millions, nothing to “spit at” nonetheless, will be peanuts to a potential market, of producing, organs on demand, with the client’s DNA no rejection. However your money, can help me, speeds things up; we can reach a compromise, lawyers at hand, sign a confidentiality agreement, and since past two persons; there can’t be a secret; same obligations to any persons involved. In return, I might concede a 1% of 1% of the patent’s right.

          • Our prize is now $10M.

            • Jean-Robert Colimon says:

              $10M is even better, there is no reason for delay, let’s get the ball rolling; to initiate/established my credibility, I can send you a copy of the article, in which I solved the encoding done by the human retina, complete with the electronic circuit, equivalent to the natural one; generating the spikes train to the optic nerve. Some 50 years ago, still a student, I was appalled (still is) at seeing the blind banging their head against pillars on the subway platforms, so I set for the electronic artificial retina. Going trough the literature, nobody (scientist) did explain the information compression, from some 144 millions rods and cones, to the 1.2 millions nerve fibers of the optic nerve, which I did. All the above is to demonstrate the “Caliber” of my investigations; Back to the DNA, I will show/demonstrate/prove the mathematical/physical Origin of the (double helix) DNA programming, plus as a bonus in less than 2 hours, have you trace/deduct, (obeying the laws of mathematics) on a blank paper sheet, as a derivative, the endoplasmic reticulum as it appears under the light microscope. I might even bring my 3D printer, to churn out some examples. Counting the money already, out of $10M, Uncle Same will grab $5M as taxes.

              • Please use the facilities provided at http://www.naturalcode.org to apply to win the prize.

                • Jean-Robert Colimon says:

                  Accepted, will fill the paper work , and understand all the by-laws tomorrow, will also consult a lawyer, as to defend my interest . . really excited .. since it’s a shortcut to finishing this project. I promise you a “Revolution” in Biology. . . all the facet of evolution will be evident then.

                  • Jean-Robert Colimon says:

                    As I reviewed your approach/procedure for the price, with all due respect, please if I am wrong, correct me; I think its a bit childish. Take 10 seconds, THINK ! ! ! of the consequences of such information in the wrong Hands ? ? ? . . Why ? ? ? am I sitting on top of it, for a little more than 10 years, without looking for Fame and Fortune. . now I hope you get my drift. It’s an “American Product” and should stay “Classified” as such. I cannot give/reveal you the Tool, (trough the mail) with which you can start your own line of Hominids, say average 10 feet tall, with a bias toward us, as cupcake for breakfast. However Mr Marshall, I am opened to communication/dealing with responsible members of our actual society, within the Ethics/guidelines of said Society; feel free to contact me for further development/ direct contact.

      • Joey Alcantara says:

        Whose brain?
        It could be the other way around.

        • Excuse my subtle “Arrogance”, from 1859 (Darwin’s publication) to today, it’s 160 years minus 10 years; it took to find/prove his theory, at the DNA level. I can fairly say, it (theory of evolution) log into my brain some 50 years ago, in the cauldron the churning of arithmetic, algebra, trigonometry, geometry, mathematics, geology, cosmology, biology, chemistry, physics, and most of the subdivisions of those main Topics; still could not solve ” the Origin of the DNA”, I have to admit, that a part of luck came into play, when a piece of paper falling on a graph, blocking part of it, giving me my “Eureka” moment. How long will it take another “Scientist” to solve ? ? ? . I got a product that I need (getting old) to sale , to responsible people, and willing to go 50/50 on patent rights.

  2. Larry E. Pope says:

    Have known this all my life– how I was taught. Interesting that before anything – there was only the Spirit- God. He has always been Love and Good, The Positive. What if He was not? All things come from Him – all – go back to Him. He spoke and there was Creation. His thought , action , does not come back void. The energy of His first Word is still within us and all around us. The Bible is not called the ” Living Word” go nothing.

  3. I have discovered the code that you are seeking in its complete Form. The Original Word that Encoded Chemical interactions and DNA is unlocked using the Scripture of Genesis and what “Science” calls The Periodic Law. I have created a book that proves what I say and I will show you if you wish. I care more about getting this information to the public than any money because it confirms Genesis of The Bible as scientific Fact. Given a Simple context Genesis is a mind blowing Parable of epic proportion. Fom Atom to Adam using Gods Rainbow Covenant. Keeping the Sabbath is not just speaking of the days but also of the Periodic Law the Elements Abide by. Please contact me about this. What I have discovered is patentable and can be used to teach fundamental principles of Chemistry and Quantum Mechanics in days rather than many years using standard methods. There will be a major awakening once this knowledge is spread throughout the world and fully realized. I dont know if you really believe that this challenge is winnable but with Gods Word it can be done. The origins of DNA and key to Chemical reactions. GENEsis Creation is Truth! Hope to hear from you soon!
    God bless
    JC

  4. Dale Tuggy is a Christian philosopher who has studied the Trinity question very deeply and has writings and a podcast on why it is not true.

  5. Bernie says:

    Very logical, explanatory, and enlightening. A good beginning to an understanding of existence.

  6. Richard says:

    !

  7. Eddy Newman says:

    Thank you!!! You imparted a “revelation,” making my spirit the decoder. It is now, not just your revelation, but mine, as well. Thank you!!!

  8. Michael Champion says:

    Unfortunately you seem stuck in a loop here. It is not like you lack the ability to understand this, you easily could and do for a lot of information, but your Christianity is limiting you and putting you in a logic loop. Let me try to explain by responding to your main idea here.

    “God the Father is analogous to encoder.

    The Father is originator, the original intent; all mysteries are hidden in Him.”Hold your horses, what exactly do you think origination means? Even if your idea of a God comes up with an idea, that is not creation of the information, it is discovery, just as it is when humans think of things. Even if he comes up with every single idea before anyone else does, that is not creation,it’s discovery. For example when someone invented the wheel, they may have done something good for everyone else, but that invention is the re arrangement and intelligent re ordering of already existing information. The potential possibility of the wheel being invented always existed. Do you see what i’m getting at here? It’s the same with all ideas and all inventions. So there is no such thing as a mind that originates information, only a mind that discovers possibilities, the Christian idea of Omnipotence cannot address this question because it is conceptually impossible to originate information.

    “The Son is the expression of God, the WORD, the communication and expression of the intent.”You can call this some Christian symbol if you want. But even if you were somehow right and Jesus existed he could only be an example of a person who communicated a message. TThe idea of communication is a higher concept and it’s fundamental compared to the idea of any Communicator, Communicators are just individuals applying that concept.

    “The Spirit is the understanding of God, the decoding of the WORD and the effective communication of that intent.”
    OK why do you assume this. What you are saying here does not affect what is true. Even if you believe some Spirit of God exists that doesn’t change anything about what decoding is, it is more fundamental and primary than any idea you have about religion.

    Last point that seems the most important:
    “Which means that on earth, all successful communication is a reflection of the nature of God: An idea, which is then expressed and communicated, then finally understood. All successful communication is a fractal expression of the nature of God.”This is what made me want to nitpick the most. God’s nature does NOT matter here at all in determining what Truth is and how it works, no matter how powerful he is supposed to be, or omnipresent, or whatever other things Christians believe. If God is a communicator of information that does not make him become the concept of Communication itself. It doesn’t matter how much he communicates or how well.

    To put this in as clear terms as possible, the truth is actually the reverse of what you said. The right way to phrase it(assuming your claims about an Omnipotent God existing although i do not believe them) is this:
    “All examples of successful communication are a reflection of ideal communication. God communicates perfectly, so he’s a perfect reflection of the ideal of an effective communicator.”
    That’s the best the Christian idea of God can do here. Omnipotence and etc cannot change any of these facts, the fact is that God can’t be the nature of communication, any communicating being including any God, is inevitably only an example of a communicator, the concept of a communicator itself is always the label applied. It’s even in the language syntax itself, the moment you describe God with the label of Communicator that means he’s a member of a category, and the concept itself is inevitably more fundamental than him being a user of communication. It’s not like i’m making this idea up, I am just arriving at this conclusion and even if I try to imagine a way for you to be right there is none to see. It’s not logically possible for these things to originate from God’s nature. God’s nature, no matter how perfect it is, can only be an example of a higher concept. Even if it’s a 100% perfect nature it falls under a higher category of a nature, or of a Perfect Nature/Perfect Mind.

    I realize i am posting in several different threads and you are busy often so it will take time for you to respond but I really do think this feedback is necessary as although I am addressing similar issues about how God is necessarily categorized in other threads on this site, they are not quite the same and this is a fundamental problem in your analysis that you should try to fix. I do not believe anyone else for now as far as i know is going to tell you this important information. Again all of this argument is me limiting myself to arguing only from your perspective with only your set of facts of what God is(although i don’t believe in God and disagree with much of your factual beliefs because of this), but I cannot honestly let him be things that are conceptually impossible and not logically sound, that you can just see directly upon examination.

    • Michael Champion says:

      It’s been almost 2 weeks now, all conversations require some level of speed to work. You haven’t responded here or anywhere else. As i showed with the previous comment you have a large Christian bias, a fully honest analysis will inevitably lead to not believing the conclusions you made. So please do respond as this is an incoherent point in your worldview not based on deduction.

Leave a Reply

You must use your real first and last name. Anonymity is not allowed.
Your email address will not be published.
Required fields are marked *