Information theory is bad news for Darwin: Evolutionary informatics takes off

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 30, 2017

Evolution, Informatics}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Return to product information The book Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics continues to make waves. The Lab writes to say:

A lot continues to happen surrounding the release of “Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics” by Robert J. Marks, William A. Dembski and Winston Ewert:

Here’s a quick summary of media.

– AI means the topic is Artificial Intelligence hype – EV deals with Darwinian Evolution

(AI) Janet Mefford Today – A.I. Hype & Limitations with guest Robert J. Marks (American Family Radio)

(AI) “Point of View” with Kerby Anderson. Robert J. Marks talks about AI hype

(AI) “The Remnant Road” Raging Against the Machines with guest Robert J. Marks

(AI) “Are Super Computers on the Verge of Becoming Our Overlords?’ Terry Lowry interviews Robert J. Marks

(AI) Bob’s interview on “The Going Home Show with Mark Cope” Newstalk 102.3 KXYL

(EV) Bob’s interview with Julian Charles’s on “The Mind Renewed” about “Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics”

(EV) Bob’s essay at EN “Top Ten Questions and Objections to Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics'”

(EV) Winston Ewert’s “ID the Future” podcast #1 on “Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics” titled “Author of New Book Tells Why Evolution Simulations … Don’t”

(EV) Winston’s “ID the Future” podcast #2 on “Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics” titled “Why Digital Cambrian Explosions Fizzle … Or Fake It” …

Granville’s EN “Intelligent Design Goes International — A Report from Istanbul”

(EV) Bob’s essay in CNS News “Sorry Darwin: New Video Game Proves Adaptation Is Ubiquitous – Not Evolution”

(EV) Bob’s editorial in the Dallas Morning News

(EV) Bob’s interview on the Bob Phillips Show in Austin.

Comments

I haven’t?
That's right. You made a statement on this thread, and you were asked a question about your statement. You are completely (and glaringly) unable to answer the question. But instead of acknowledging this fact, you keep pretending that a particular paper provides an answer to this question, which the paper itself does not even address. The reason you keep pointing to the paper is because you yourself are unable to draw from that paper an answer that it does not contain. This is your first deception. Secondarily, in this conversation and in our previous conversation, you've managed to manufacture this silly idea that I am somehow withholding from you a statement about which "theory of information" I am referring to when I write. Yet, you have already been pointed to my website, which is clearly labeled Biosemiosis, thus indicating that my comments stem from a semiotic view of biological information. This is your second deception.Upright BiPed_{July 8, 2017
July
07
Jul
8
08
2017
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT}

@UB
and still no answer to the question.
If you really want to make progress, you’d elaborate of that statement. For example, you would say “You haven’t answered the question, in a comment on this thread, as opposed to giving brief statements about a referenced a paper”. Or you’d say “You haven’t answered the question, because you’ve ignored some specific property of information.”, Or you’d say “you haven’t answered the question because your answer conflicts with some other theory we think is true”, etc. Yet you’ve done none of these things. It’s unclear how you know I haven’t answered the question because that would require having a theory of information in the first place, which you refuse to reference or disclose. So, what you’ve effectively said is “You haven’t answered the question to my liking.”, to which I’d respond, It’s unclear why what “you like” is relevant or why I should care.critical rationalist_{July 8, 2017
July
07
Jul
8
08
2017
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT}

I haven't? So, surely, you must have some criticism of the paper I linked to. Where is it? Or have you even read it? Also, you've posted yet another comment and still no answer to the questions... - Which theory of information are you referring to? - Is your answer a theory of information itself? The first of which I've ask long before this thread. Should I take you're refusal to provide one or identify your answer as such indicate you have no theory of information? Or is it yet another thing you simply don't find investing and continually ignore?critical rationalist_{July 8, 2017
July
07
Jul
8
08
2017
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT}

965 more words ... and still no answer to the question.Upright BiPed_{July 8, 2017
July
07
Jul
8
08
2017
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT}

@Barry Arrington
“physical theory of information”??? Put that one up there with the square theory of circles.
That would have been a great criticism had you indicated how the theory I referenced of what physical regularities are necessary for and define information is like "a square theory of circles". But you didn't.critical rationalist_{July 8, 2017
July
07
Jul
8
08
2017
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT}

The bottom line here is that you have no idea what is required. So, I answered the question for you.
But you haven’t. Again, it’s no surprise that we’re not agreement on what is required to store it, because we haven’t even agreed on a definition of information yet. Did you expect anything else? Did you expect us to actually make progress? I’ve provided a definition, but you have not. Or is genuinely making progress one of those things you ignore because you don’t find it “interesting”? For example, a key aspect of ID is that some designer, at some time in the past, supposedly put knowledge in the genomes of past organisms. And that same knowledge is embed in the DNA of current day organisms because it was copied there. So, what regularities in nature are necessary to make copying possible? Because, if it wasn’t copied it wouldn’t be stored there, which is a necessary part of the question… What is required for information to be embedded in a medium and play a causal role in it being retained.. However, nothing in your response addresses that. At all. And that’s just one aspect of information that is missing. This comes as no surprise as you do not seem to understand the issue at hand or the consequences to ID as a theory, etc. Specially, referring to the copyablity property of information, this requires that reversible computations are possible tasks. And the interoperability property of information indicates that any such designer that supposedly copied it there would necessarily had to previously possess that same embedded information. So, you have the very same problem: how did that same information get into the storage medium of a past designer (or a medium in had access to) to cause the necessary transformation that resulted in the copy? Some designer that “just was” complete with that knowledge, already present, doesn’t serve an explanatory purpose. This is because one could more efficiently state that organisms “just appeared” with that knowledge, already present. That's a consequence of the interoperability property of information. It's also why creationism is actual creation denial. Namely, the interoperability principle of information indicates the very knowledge in organisms would be the same knowledge that was always with one's preferred supernatural creator. So, it denies that any genuine creation actually took place.critical rationalist_{July 8, 2017
July
07
Jul
8
08
2017
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT}

@UB It appears a refresher is in order. I opened with two comments. First I wrote:
I’m completely confused. How is biological informatics the death blow to Darwinism? The appearance of design is adaptations that are the result of the creation of knowledge by nature. Knowledge plays a causal role in being retained when embedded in a storage medium. This isn’t new. Karl Popper developed an epistemology that included a theory of knowledge without knowing subjects decades ago. Sure, if you think that knowledge only comes from authoritative sources, you might conclude it’s a problem for neo-darwinsism, but that’s not exactly part of intelligent design. Not to mention that it’s bad philosophy. So, apparently, it’s only bad news for Darwinism if you hold an impoverished epistemological view about knowledge and philosophy.
This was referring to epistemology, appeals to authority and a theory about the growth of knowledge. Furthermore, the title of the OP is "Information theory is bad news for Darwin: Evolutionary informatics takes off". Yet, we haven't actually come to an agreement on what information is, which would refer to a "theory of information". I've linked to a specify theory, but you have not, despite being asked to please provide such a theory repeatedly. I've even suggested one for you, which was linked to your site, but you implied was irrelevant. And I’m the one that’s employing a distraction? Second, I wrote:
Yes, It’s possible that designers can design things. With that out of the way, the question is: under what conditions is it possible and wny? Any takers? Note: saying designers can design things because they are designers or have the “property of design” is a tautology. Still any takers?
This was a question of what is physically required for designers to design things, which is supposedly what ID is all about. If you don’t have an explanation for why we experience designers designing things, then it’s unclear why you wouldn’t expected to have experienced nature designing things in the past. That would be like someone who, on one hand, admits they have no idea how computers work but, on the other hand, claims only devices made of silicon can compute things because they had only experienced computers made of silicon computing things. This is inductivism. But the future is unlike the past in vast number of ways. Nor has anyone developed a “principle of induction” that can actually give guidance as to what will continue, in practice. We would expect to experience devices made of vacuum tubes or even cogs to compute things, even if we had never experienced it in the past, due to the theory of computation. In the same sense, we would expect to experience nature creating knowledge in the distant past, even if we’ve never experienced it the recent past. This is because our theories about how designers design things. The creation of knowledge is possible in both cases due to the same regularities in nature and variations on the same process: a form of variation and criticism.critical rationalist_{July 8, 2017
July
07
Jul
8
08
2017
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT}

CR: "physical theory of information"??? Put that one up there with the square theory of circles.Barry Arrington_{July 6, 2017
July
07
Jul
6
06
2017
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PDT}

CR, allow me to refresh your memory: You've made the statement: Knowledge is information embedded in a medium that plays a causal role in it being retained. I asked you What is required for that to happen? I also asked you to please not ask me to clarify what you meant by the word "information" when you used the term. But, apparently, that sort of distraction appears to be all you have left. You can't answer the question, so you start looking for something to attack -- perhaps the oldest trick in the book. The bottom line here is that you have no idea what is required. So, I answered the question for you. You're welcome.Upright BiPed_{July 6, 2017
July
07
Jul
6
06
2017
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT}

CR, I’ve read your response at 33. You didn’t lift a finger to answer the question I asked. There is no reason to believe you have any intention of doing so.
And, as I stated, we haven’t reached any sort of agreement of what information is. So, it comes as no surprise that you feel my response is lacking in some way. For example, let’s look at your response…
So before I bow out, I will leave you with my answer to the question.
What is required for information to become embedded in a medium and play a causal role in its preservation.

That would refer to physical theory of information. So, it would seem you are presenting just that but, for some reason, you have refused to come out and say so explicitly. Yet you claim I’m the one who is avoiding the question.
So the answer to the question is this: it requires a combination of representations and constraints to establish a medium of information, and it requires a functional correspondence between the sequence of the representations and the structures of the constraints. These observations were recorded in the physics literature starting about half a century ago, and were predicted years prior to that.
Yes, UB. I’m quite aware of your answer on the subject. But that’s not a physical theory of information. I’m short on time, but it lacks key attributes of information itself, such as interoperability, copyablity, consistency with quantum mechanics, etc. What physical laws does it require that make those properties possible and define information itself? Again, we haven’t even agreed on what information is, so it comes as no surprise that we’re having difficulty agreeing on what is physically required to embed it in a storage medium.critical rationalist_{July 6, 2017
July
07
Jul
6
06
2017
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT}

@Local Minimum I included “knowers” in that example to point out that people cannot choose what information plays a causal role in being retained. If we could, we could simply choose that some information on a flash drive should cause the necessary transformations to cure kill cancer cells without killing the patient and we would have a cure today. Yes, we want to cure cancer. But in that environment, that specific information would cause itself to be retained, as opposed to some other information. Genes in organisms are another example of knowledge. The causal role they play in being retained is getting themselves copied into future generations. In this cases, there are no “knowers”. As for the definition of knowege, I’ve already presented it. Knowege is information that causes itself to be retained when embedded in a storage medium.critical rationalist_{July 6, 2017
July
07
Jul
6
06
2017
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT}

Please, note that until the evo-devo literature shows macro-evolutionary cases of biological systems (ca,d1,d2) that rigorously meet the formulation described @1090 in the thread “A third way of evolution?”, any discussion on related topics is pure speculation. Archaic pseudoscientific hogwash shouldn’t be part of any serious explanation.Dionisio_{July 6, 2017
July
07
Jul
6
06
2017
03:50 AM
3
03
50
AM
PDT}

CR. Given constructor theory, knowledge is retained because of its usefulness not truthfulness. The “knowledge” that informs us that we must avoid tigers, because they want to capture and brainwash us with false ideas, may very well be useful and thus retained, but it happens not to be true. There is a huge chasm between usefulness and truth, which constructor theory does not acknowledge. Constructor theory of information, like evolutionary theory, only allows “knowledge” to be true as a byproduct of some struggle for survival. However, truth and reason simply will not fit in the back seat. If constructor theory of information is true we have no reason to believe that any knowledge (constructor theory of information included) is true. Therefor. Constructor theory of information is self-defeating.Origenes_{July 6, 2017
July
07
Jul
6
06
2017
02:02 AM
2
02
02
AM
PDT}

CR, I’ve read your response at 33. You didn't lift a finger to answer the question I asked. There is no reason to believe you have any intention of doing so. So before I bow out, I will leave you with my answer to the question.
What is required for information to become embedded in a medium and play a causal role in its preservation.
It requires a system that is capable of semantic closure. Systems that are capable of semantic closure use a combination of representations and constraints to establish a medium of information. This medium uses discontinuous association in order to specify the structure of the constraints, and the structure of the constraints assign the relationships between the representations and their referents. This enables semantic closure to occur. It occurs when there is a functional relation between the arrangements of the representations and the structures of the constraints. This is an interdependent system, meaning that the establishment of any single referent by its constraint requires functional constraints for many other referents. Semantic closure only occurs when this successful coordination is in place. So the answer to the question is this: it requires a combination of representations and constraints to establish a medium of information, and it requires a functional correspondence between the sequence of the representations and the structures of the constraints. These observations were recorded in the physics literature starting about half a century ago, and were predicted years prior to that. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - By the way, you suggest that the “physical aspects” of this information “being embedded in a storage medium” are “not unique”. This is completely wrong. An information system with the capacity to specify and organize all the constraints of its own translation is quite an object. It requires the use of spatially-oriented representations. This means that the relationships between the representations and their referents must be based on the spatial orientation of objects within each individual representation. This requires an organizational hierarchy in the recognition of the representations. This organizational heirarchy is what enables the system’s high capacity and transcribability. And the only other place that such a physical system can be identified is in recorded language and mathematics. It would be difficult for it to be more unique than that.Upright BiPed_{July 5, 2017
July
07
Jul
5
05
2017
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT}

CR @ 33: It seems that you're including the valuation and maintenance via "knowers" as a causal role of information in its preservation (how else is a cure for cancer going to play a role in "preserving itself"?) But then you state that since it plays a causal role in being retained, it doesn't require a knowing subject? Am I getting this right? Because that would clearly be a contradiction. Also, can you give a definition for "knowledge" as you're using it here?LocalMinimum_{July 5, 2017
July
07
Jul
5
05
2017
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT}

I bet if you found information embedded in a medium playing a causal role in its preservation, you’d know it.
That information would be present there because it acts as an abstract constructor that causes itself to be retained. The specific kind of transformations it causes are the reason why it is there. We do not choose which information will play this role anymore than we can choose for some specific information on a thumb drive to result in the transformations of matter necessary to cure cancer. When people, through the process of conjecture and criticism, eventually create the knowledge that does cause those specific transformations it will play a causal role in being retained. It will be copied at the detriment of, or overwrite overwrite storage mediums that contained, knowledge of transformations of matter that are less effective at treating cancer.
And I bet there’d be certain observations that would allow you to distinguish it from not-information embedded in a medium paying a causal role in its preservation.
That information is eventually lost as the substrate that contains it breaks down or is discarded before it is copied. Or it is overwritten with some other information. It fails to be retained or it is carried along because it is embedded in the same substrate with knowledge that does play that role. However, the physical requirements to store them in both cases are identical because the specific tasks that are possible and impossible, which defines information physically, are the same. In the sense that I’m using the term here, not all information is knowledge but all knowledge is information. And since it plays a casual role in being retained, knowledge doesn’t require a knowing subject.critical rationalist_{July 5, 2017
July
07
Jul
5
05
2017
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed @31:
Wow. It sure looks like you really know...
It seems like your politely dissenting interlocutor's comments are either in case 2 or 3, according to the classification given @24. At this point maybe it's hard to tell exactly which case, but as your debate continues it may help to determine the case more precisely. :) However, at the end of the day it doesn't matter, because in either case the politely dissenting interlocutors and their party comrades have lost the main debate already. It's just a matter of time for all to see it.Dionisio_{July 3, 2017
July
07
Jul
3
03
2017
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT}

UB: You stated that knowledge is information embedded in a medium that plays a causal role in its preservation. I’m asking you what is physically required for information to become embedded in a medium and play a causal role in its preservation. CR: The term knowledge, as I’m using here, refers to a specific kind of information and the physical aspects of being embedded in a storage medium are not unique. For example, the laws of physics must be such that the copyable and counterfactual properties of information are possible UB: all people already know that the laws of physics allow it, so your answer has no meaningful content CR: It’s not just that it is merely allowed by some abstract laws of physics, but which exactly regularities in nature defines information via a dichotomy of possible and impossible tasks that result in properties of being copyable, counterfactual, substrate independent, etc. - - - - - - - - - - Wow. It sure looks like you really know what is required for information to become embedded in a medium and play a causal role in its preservation. I bet if you found information embedded in a medium playing a causal role in its preservation, you'd know it. And I bet there'd be certain observations that would allow you to distinguish it from not-information embedded in a medium paying a causal role in its preservation. So can you tell me what that is? What is physically required for information to become embedded in a medium and play a causal role in its preservation?Upright BiPed_{July 3, 2017
July
07
Jul
3
03
2017
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT}

@25 https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/information-theory-is-bad-news-for-darwin-evolutionary-informatics-takes-off/#comment-634977 It's possible we'll know the answer to those and other questions sooner or later. But then we'll have new questions to answer.Dionisio_{July 3, 2017
July
07
Jul
3
03
2017
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT}

@28 error: It should read "note" instead of "nite". My mistake.Dionisio_{July 3, 2017
July
07
Jul
3
03
2017
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT}

To Whom This May Concern Please, nite that until the evo-devo literature shows macro-evolutionary cases of biological systems (ca,d1,d2) that rigorously meet the formulation described @1090 in the thread “A third way of evolution?”, any discussion on related topics is pure speculation. Archaic pseudoscientific hogwash shouldn’t be part of any serious explanation.Dionisio_{July 3, 2017
July
07
Jul
3
03
2017
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT}

UB: Your answer is that the laws of physics must allow it. But since all people already know that the laws of physics allow it, your answer has no meaningful content whatsoever.
It was? Your memory span seems to be getting shorter, as I wrote.
CR: For example, the laws of physics must be such that the copyable and counterfactual properties of information are possible, etc. Those requirements are listed in the paper above.
It’s not just that it is merely allowed by some abstract laws of physics, but which exactly regularities in nature defines information via a dichotomy of possible and impossible tasks that result in properties of being copyable, counterfactual, substrate independent, etc. Those properties represent specific physical transformations. For example, quantum information cannot be cloned because specific laws prohibit the sort of transformations that would be required to perform it. That specific prohibition is part of what defines quantum information. IOW, the referenced paper goes into detail as to which necessary laws of nature are necessary to physically embed information in a storage medium because those laws define information physically.
It certainly doesn’t distinguish your conceptions from any others, and does nothing at all to actually answer the question.
First, it’s not my conception. Second, the paper outlines several problems with existing theories of information and resolves them. For example, in the case of Shannon’s theory distinguishablity is circular. They do not present information in a phyical way that is compatable acrosss both classical and quantum phyiscs, etc.
I believe you have no understanding of this question, and have therefore demonstrated that you are unable to provide an answer.
I don’t think you undererstand what it means to have a fundamentally physical theory of information, which includes what is necessary to store it in a medium. That’s because what is physically necessary would include posssible transformations that copies it from one substrate to another, the act of being stored there, the reversiablity of computations which make information it interoperable, the counterfactual aspect of if what is prohibited, which indicates which possible physical states a medium could not be in so it can be distinguished, etc. Note the problem this causes for ID, as a designer is supposedly the source of the knowledge in an organism’s genome. Namely, that the necessary regularities required that makes it possible for information copying into a substrate requires that knowledge to be present in the source as a input substrate in physical form. And, due to the interoperability principle, that information is the same as the information as found in the organism. So, you have the very same problem in that the same information need to be explained in the designer, etc. So, it would seem that you have no understanding of the question, and it’s implications.critical rationalist_{July 3, 2017
July
07
Jul
3
03
2017
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT}

UB: You stated that knowledge is information embedded in a medium that plays a causal role in its preservation. I’m asking you what is physically required for information to become embedded in a medium and play a causal role in its preservation.
CR: The term knowledge, as I’m using here, refers to a specific kind of information and the physical aspects of being embedded in a storage medium are not unique. For example, the laws of physics must be such that the copyable and counterfactual properties of information are possible
You stated that knowledge is information embedded in a medium that plays a causal role in its preservation. You were asked what is physically required for information to become embedded in a medium and play a causal role in its preservation. Your answer is that the laws of physics must allow it. But since all people already know that the laws of physics allow it, your answer has no meaningful content whatsoever. It certainly doesn't distinguish your conceptions from any others, and does nothing at all to actually answer the question. And so the question stands: what is physically required for information to become embedded in a medium and play a causal role in its preservation? I believe you have no understanding of this question, and have therefore demonstrated that you are unable to provide an answer.Upright BiPed_{July 2, 2017
July
07
Jul
2
02
2017
09:00 PM
9
09
00
PM
PDT}

Where is the information that is used by the biological systems in order to determine the localization of the morphogen sources? Where is the information that is used by the biological systems in order to determine the morphogen secretion rate at the sources? My answer to both questions is: I don't know. I have not found anybody that knows that either.Dionisio_{July 2, 2017
July
07
Jul
2
02
2017
07:33 PM
7
07
33
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed @20:
If you cannot answer the question, then just say “I do not know”.
Perhaps some politely dissenting interlocutors won't say "I don't know" because either 1. They know 2. They don't know but think they know 3. They don't know but prefer not to admit it Here in this website cases 2 and 3 seem more common. Maybe some examples are right here in this thread.Dionisio_{July 2, 2017
July
07
Jul
2
02
2017
07:27 PM
7
07
27
PM
PDT}

CR, ponder complec text in coded language, transcription, error detection and editing. KFkairosfocus_{July 2, 2017
July
07
Jul
2
02
2017
07:25 PM
7
07
25
PM
PDT}

You stated that knowledge is information embedded in a medium that plays a causal role in its preservation.
What I did was present a very brief definition of knowledge that does not require a knowing subject. To elaborate, knowledge is distinguished from other information in that it plays a causal role in being retained when embedded in a storage medium.
I’m asking you what is physically required for information to become embedded in a medium and play a causal role in its preservation.
The term knowledge, as I'm using here, refers to a specific kind of information and the physical aspects of being embedded in a storage medium are not unique. For example, the laws of physics must be such that the copyable and counterfactual properties of information are possible, etc. Those requirements are listed in the paper above. However, I fail to see how that is relevant to the distinction I’ve made. If you have some specific criticism of this distinction, such as a theory of information that is incompatible with that definition, then by all means present it.
If you cannot answer the question, then just say “I do not know”.
You seem to have a very short memory span, as I’ve referenced a physical theory of information on multiple occasions, including in #17 on this very thread. Yet, when I’ve asked for the same, I’ve received nothing in return. In fact, I’ve gone out of my way to recommend one (Shannon’s) that is listed on the biosemiosis site, which you seemed to indicate was irrelevant. Have you not said “I do not know” because you’re presenting biosemiosis as a physical theory of information?critical rationalist_{July 2, 2017
July
07
Jul
2
02
2017
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT}

Dear all, Until the evo-devo literature shows macro-evolutionary cases of biological systems (ca,d1,d2) that rigorously meet the formulation described @1090 in the thread "A third way of evolution?", any discussion on related topics is pure speculation. Archaic pseudoscientific hogwash shouldn't be part of any serious explanation.Dionisio_{July 2, 2017
July
07
Jul
2
02
2017
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT}

Ill try again: You stated that knowledge is information embedded in a medium that plays a causal role in its preservation. I'm asking you what is physically required for information to become embedded in a medium and play a causal role in its preservation. Please don't ask me to clarify what you meant by the words you used to make your statement. If you cannot answer the question, then just say "I do not know".Upright BiPed_{July 2, 2017
July
07
Jul
2
02
2017
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT}

@UB Has anyone ever responded to a question you've asked by asking you to clarify a term that is relevant to that question, and had you actually follow though? Is this not something you can speak of? Or are you asking me for a theory of information, as well as how it plays a causal role in being retained? I've already provided one in the link above. Do you have any criticism of it? Do you have any specific questions? Do you expect me to re-write the entire paper here in a comment box? If we do not agree on what information is in a physical sense, then exactly how do you expect us to make progress?critical rationalist_{July 2, 2017
July
07
Jul
2
02
2017
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply