Does information have a one-to-one correspondence with real life entities?Complete
information about reality, does. It is, by definition, all of the information
about the real life entity. An omniscient god has that.
For example, if I were to write out a description of a Rube Goldberg machine, you could perhaps divide my paragraph into phrases and demonstrate a correspondence between each phrase and the component in the machine that it represents.
That would gloss over great swaths of information about the real-life machine. What temperature are the pieces? What specific molecular arrangement exists in each bit of plastic? What % of each metal isotope exists in which places of every metal part? Etc. None of these details are likely to be in the design one uses to construct the real-life machine, and yet all of them contribute to the real-life machine's complexity. This information already existed, for the most part, and is inherited from the components one selects to build the machine, rather than imparted by the human assembler.
But does that kind of correspondence hold when talking about a creator's grasp of informational content pertaining to his creation? For instance, I could also take a picture of a Rube Goldberg machine (i.e. a picture is worth a thousand words) and then it would seem that I have done away with one-to-one concept-to-information correspondence.
You have not pictured the whole machine. You've pictured some essential bits of the machine's function. As human beings, we cannot know everything there is to know about the machine, even when thinking about it hypothetically prior to actually making it. We gloss over most of its complexity - we can take it for granted, in practical terms.
But then, we're not creating it completely from scratch with full knowledge of its makeup. That's the analogy breaker - a god supposedly would, because there are no pre-existing parts to assemble that carry their own complexity. Everything about the creation is poofed into existence directly by the mind of the god. So where did its details get decided? Where, if not from the mind of the god, did the information come from?
I think that when I look at a Rube Goldberg machine the complexity I perceive is that which is due to the relations between the individual parts - the relations between the parts is due to the creator of the machine and not to the creators of the individual parts.
Yes. Me too. A Rube Goldberg machine isn't necessarily any more complex than a "simple" machine, when you get down to all its real details. Only on the level of human assembly and operation is it more complex.
The parts could certainly exist apart from the machine, but the added complexity comes when the creator arranges them into a specific configuration.
Exactly. The amount of complexity that is added is what we have a copy of in our minds. We are merely assemblers and operators, and so the complexity of assembly and operation is contained both by the machine and in our minds. This isn't useful for comparing whether we are more complex than our machines, because most of our complexity has nothing to do with that knowledge, and most of the machine's complexity has nothing to do with it either. We just tend to focus on that part because we're biased to look at what we've contributed over what we havn't.