Intelligent Design

Adding Noise energy to recover Information

Spread the love

ID seeks to reliably distinguish complex specified information from noise. Now Princeton Jason Fleischer and co-author Dmitry Dylov have discovered that there is residual information in “noise” that can be recovered using non-linear optical techniques by “stochastic resonance” with energy from added noise. See:

Turning noise into vision

“Normally, noise is considered a bad thing,” said Jason Fleischer, an assistant professor of electrical engineering at Princeton. “But sometimes noise and signal can interact, and the energy from the noise can be used to amplify the signal. For weak signals, such as distant or dark images, actually adding noise can improve their quality.” . . . The findings were reported online March 14 in Nature Photonics.

“The crucial portion of the experiment came when Fleischer and Dylov placed another object in the path of the laser beam. Just in front of the receiver, they mounted a crystal of strontium barium niobate (SBN), a material that belongs to a class of substances known as “nonlinear” for their ability to alter the behavior of light in strange ways. In this case, the nonlinear crystal mixed different parts of the picture, allowing signal and noise to interact.

By adjusting an electrical voltage across the piece of SBN, the researchers were able to tune in a clear image on the monitor. . . .The contrast makes the person stand out.”

The technique, known as “stochastic resonance,” only works for the right amount of noise, as too much can overwhelm the signal. It has been observed in a variety of fields, ranging from neuroscience to energy harvesting, but never has been used this way for imaging.”

See full news article: Turning noise into vision

Nature Photonics Published online: 14 March 2010 | doi:10.1038/nphoton.2010.31
Dmitry V. Dylov & Jason W. Fleischer
Nonlinear self-filtering of noisy images via dynamical stochastic resonance

Abstract

From night vision and objects overwhelmed by sunlight to jammed signals and those that are purposely encrypted, detecting low-level or hidden signals is a fundamental problem in imaging. Here, we develop and exploit a new type of stochastic resonance, in which nonlinear coupling allows signals to grow at the expense of noise, to recover noise-hidden images propagating in a self-focusing medium. The growth rate is derived analytically by treating the signal–noise interaction as a photonic beam–plasma instability and matches experimentally measured resonances in coupling strength, noise statistics and modal content of the signal. This is the first observation of nonlinear intensity exchange between coherent and spatially incoherent light and the first demonstration of spatial coherence resonance for a dynamically evolving signal. The results suggest a general method of reconstructing images through seeded instability and confirm information limits predicted, but not yet observed, in nonlinear communications systems.

See also: United States Application US20100020204

—————-

Now wonder if such methods can be used to remove the “noise” of evolution? Can “non-linear glasses” be used to improve insight?

———————————–

April 6, edited per discussion with pelagius at 2 below.

11 Replies to “Adding Noise energy to recover Information

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    Off topic Music video:

    Kutless- Shut Me Out
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_2TE7dldGs

  2. 2
    pelagius says:

    DLH wrote:

    Adding “Noise” to recover Information

    I’m not sure why you put the word “noise” in quotes. The noise they’re adding is real noise.

    ID seeks to distinguish information from noise.

    No, because the presence of information is not sufficient to indicate design.

    Now Princeton Jason Fleischer and co-author Dmitry Dylov have discovered that there is residual information in “noise” that can be recovered using non-linear optical techniques.

    No, the information is in the signal, not the noise.

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    off topic:
    This paper looks worthy of its own thread:

    Human genome at ten: Life is complicated
    Excerpt: Few predicted, for example, that sequencing the genome would undermine the primacy of genes by unveiling whole new classes of elements — sequences that make RNA or have a regulatory role without coding for proteins. Non-coding DNA is crucial to biology, yet knowing that it is there hasn’t made it any easier to understand what it does. “We fooled ourselves into thinking the genome was going to be a transparent blueprint, but it’s not,” says Mel Greaves, a cell biologist at the Institute of Cancer Research in Sutton, UK.

    Instead, as sequencing and other new technologies spew forth data, the complexity of biology has seemed to grow by orders of magnitude. Delving into it has been like zooming into a Mandelbrot set — a space that is determined by a simple equation, but that reveals ever more intricate patterns as one peers closer at its boundary.

    With the ability to access or assay almost any bit of information, biologists are now struggling with a very big question: can one ever truly know an organism — or even a cell, an organelle or a molecular pathway — down to the finest level of detail?
    http://www.nature.com/news/201.....4664a.html

    Human Genome “Infinitely More Complex” Than Expected
    excerpt: Ten years after the Human Genome Project was completed, now we know: biology is “orders of magnitude” more complicated than scientists expected. “When we started out, the idea was that signalling pathways were fairly simple and linear,” says Tony Pawson, a cell biologist at the University of Toronto in Ontario. “Now, we appreciate that the signalling information in cells is organized through networks of information rather than simple discrete pathways. It’s infinitely more complex.”

    Hayden acknowledged that the “junk DNA” paradigm has been blown to smithereens. “Just one decade of post-genome biology has exploded that view,” she said, speaking of the gene regulation was a straightforward, linear process of gene coding for regulator protein that controls transcription. “Biology’s new glimpse at a universe of non-coding DNA – what used to be called ‘junk’ DNA – has been fascinating and befuddling.” If it’s junk, why would the human body decode 74% to 93& of it? The plethora of small RNAs produced by these non-coding regions, and how they interact with each other and with DNA, was completely unexpected when the project began.
    These realizations are dissipating some of the early naivete of the Human Genome Project. Planners predicted we would “unravel the mysteries behind everything from evolution to disease origins.” Cures for cancer were envisioned. We would trace the path of evolution through the genetic code. That was so 1990s. Joshua Plotkin, a mathematical biologist at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, said, “Just the sheer existence of these exotic regulators suggests that our understanding about the most basic things – such as how a cell turns on and off – is incredibly naive.”
    http://www.creationsafaris.com.....#20100405a

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    pelagius:

    in response to this quote:

    “ID seeks to distinguish information from noise.”

    you stated:

    “No, because the presence of information is not sufficient to indicate design.”

    Since we know for 100% certainty that intelligence can generate functional information with ease and we know of zero instances where material processes have generated functional information, Can you please give just one example of material processes generating functional information so as to validate your claim that the presence of information is not sufficient to indicate design? i.e. can you falsify Abel’s null hypothesis?

    The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity: David L. Abel – Null Hypothesis For Information Generation – 2009
    To focus the scientific community’s attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous metaphysical imagination bordering on “wish-fulfillment,” we propose the following readily falsifiable null hypothesis, and invite rigorous experimental attempts to falsify it: “Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut: physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration.” A single exception of non trivial, unaided spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly natural process would falsify this null hypothesis.
    http://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/pdf
    http://mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/ag

    Then pelagius you state:

    No, the information is in the signal, not the noise.

    Which is absolutely correct and surprising coming from you since evolutionists insist that the noise (random variations) will eventually become the information.

    It should be noted that evolutionists like to play head games with Claude Shannon’s broad definition of information since “non-functional” information bits may be considered information in his broad definition, yet when looked at carefully, Shannon’s work actually fully supports Intelligent Design as is illustrated in the following video and article:

    DNA and The Genetic Code Pt 3 – Perry Marshall – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtMQUFOwEFo

    Skeptic’s Objection to Information Theory #1:
    “DNA is Not a Code”
    http://cosmicfingerprints.com/dnanotcode.htm

    I think what is happening in the experiment DLH cites is summed up in this quote:

    “But sometimes noise and signal can interact, and the energy from the noise can be used to amplify the signal.”

    In other words what they are doing is much like adding contrast to a picture on the old black and white TV’s when the signal was weak and fuzzy so as make the picture stand out more.

  5. 5
    pelagius says:

    bornagain77:

    …we know of zero instances where material processes have generated functional information…

    This is called “assuming your conclusion.”

    Can you please give just one example of material processes generating functional information so as to validate your claim that the presence of information is not sufficient to indicate design?

    Nylonase. Or do you believe that the Designer stepped in to tweak the bacteria in a factory waste pond in Japan?

    Then pelagius you state:

    No, the information is in the signal, not the noise.

    Which is absolutely correct and surprising coming from you since evolutionists insist that the noise (random variations) will eventually become the information.

    Stochastic resonance is not a Darwinian process, so your analogy does not hold. Also (and I’m sure that you’ve heard and ignored this a thousand times by now), evolutionists do not believe that random variation alone is sufficient to generate complex biological adaptations. Selection is also necessary.

    Now I have a challenge for you:
    Explain to us, in your own words, why complex adaptations cannot be produced by unguided variation and selection.

    I think what is happening in the experiment DLH cites is summed up in this quote:

    “But sometimes noise and signal can interact, and the energy from the noise can be used to amplify the signal.”

    Yes. The information is in the signal, not the noise, contrary to DLH’s claim.

  6. 6
    DLH says:

    pelagius
    You objected:

    ID seeks to distinguish information from noise.

    No, because the presence of information is not sufficient to indicate design.

    Please clarify. Please address bornagain77’s citing Abel’s null hypothesis.

    “Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut: physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration.”

    To clarify, the converse of Abel’s hypothesis is that “complex specified information” (CSI) is due to intelligent Design. Distinguishing purported “information” from noise is NECESSARY, but not SUFFICIENT to conclude it is “complex specified information”.

    The remaining challenge is to distinguish the purported information from the order of natural law, and from “chance” or stochastic probabilities. See Dembsky’s Explanatory Filter, e.g. in No Free Lunch

    Conventionally signal/noise ratios are important in recovering the signal. Adding “noise” is counterintuitive.

    You said

    “No, the information is in the signal, not the noise.”

    That is a good challenge to clarify my statement. The authors state:

    Here, we develop and exploit a new type of stochastic resonance, in which nonlinear coupling allows signals to grow at the expense of noise, to recover noise-hidden images propagating in a self-focusing medium.

    Their method adds design information by means of “nonlinear coupling” using the “self-focusing medium”. By this method, “energy from the noise can be used to amplify the signal” rather than dissipate it.

    So I rephrased my intro as:
    Adding Noise energy to recover Information

    ID seeks to reliably distinguish complex specified information from noise. Now Princeton Jason Fleischer and co-author Dmitry Dylov have discovered that there is residual information in “noise” that can be recovered using non-linear optical techniques by “stochastic resonance” with energy from added noise.

  7. 7
    SteveGoss says:

    Photographers have been doing this sort of thing for years. It’s called “Unsharp masking”.

  8. 8
    bornagain77 says:

    pelagius:
    as DLH asked, Please address Abel’s Null Hypothesis since you are indeed claiming purely material processes can generate functional information though no one has ever witnessed this “miracle” you so readily assume in your scientific foundation. And as you stated:

    “This is called “assuming your conclusion.”

    It is funny that the entire neo-Darwinian camp operates under this “assumed conclusion” that has no one has a shred of evidence for. Whereas I am demonstrating Intelligence can generate functional information right at this moment simply by writing this.

    Instead of addressing the fundamental question, as to the capability of material processes to generate functional information, you cite the Nylonase adaptation as if this will establish the basis you need from which to work scientifically, Yet this blatantly evasive ploy you try to use to avoid the main issue actually ends up turning on you for your Nylonase example is now shown to actually be a calculated response to environmental stress which arises from preexisting information in the genome and not from any purely material processes, and is to, once again, beg the question that is being asked in the first place, but more importantly from a scientific point of view, the adaptation falls under the principle of Genetic Entropy since the Nylonase will be less fit for survival than the parent strain once the nylon is removed from the environment. i.e. It has demonstrated zero gain in functional information/complexity that was not already present before so as to have demonstrated “evolution” instead of devolution!

    Nylon Degradation – Analysis of Genetic Entropy
    Excerpt: At the phenotypic level, the appearance of nylon degrading bacteria would seem to involve “evolution” of new enzymes and transport systems. However, further molecular analysis of the bacterial transformation reveals mutations resulting in degeneration of pre-existing systems.
    http://www.answersingenesis.or.....n-bacteria

  9. 9
    pelagius says:

    SteveGoss wrote:

    Photographers have been doing this sort of thing for years. It’s called “Unsharp masking”.

    It’s not the same. Stochastic resonance involves adding random noise to the signal. Unsharp masking does not.

  10. 10
    Collin says:

    Bornagain says, “Whereas I am demonstrating Intelligence can generate functional information right at this moment simply by writing this.”

    True, but not very much.

    Haha, good natured ribbing only.

  11. 11
    bornagain77 says:

    Collin – LOL,
    I never said HOW MUCH intelligence,,,

Leave a Reply