At Some Point, the Obvious Becomes Transparently Obvious (or, Recognizing the Forrest, With all its Barbs, Through the Trees)

_{Gil Dodgen

June 5, 2011

Intelligent Design}

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

At UD we have many brilliant ID apologists, and they continue to mount what I perceive as increasingly indefensible assaults on the creative powers of the Darwinian mechanism of random errors filtered by natural selection. In addition, they present overwhelming positive evidence that the only known source of functionally specified, highly integrated information-processing systems, with such sophisticated technology as error detection and repair, is intelligent design.

[Part 2 is here. ]

This should be obvious to any unbiased observer with a decent education in basic mathematics and expertise in any rigorous engineering discipline.

Here is my analysis: The Forrests of the world don’t want to admit that there is design in the universe and living systems — even when the evidence bludgeons them over the head from every corner of contemporary science, and when the trajectory of the evidence makes their thesis less and less believable every day.

Why would such a person hold on to a transparently obvious 19th-century pseudo-scientific fantasy, when all the evidence of modern science points in the opposite direction?

I can see the Forrest through the trees. Can you?

Comments

Elizabeth Liddle @213:
Because my information (despite having 100 bits in Shannon terms) wasn’t “about” anything, you regard its information content as zero.
We must have misunderstaood each other, though I find it difficult to understand how that came to be the case. I thought that you had agreed that if your "information" wasn't about something, it was not information after all. And yet here you are claiming that your "information" is in fact information, even though we both agreed that it wasn't about anything at all. In fact, you are claiming that your example contains 100 bits of information according to Shannon's measure. So from where I sit, you are contradicting yourself. Let's review: Mung @119:
As to your Shannon Information example. Even Shannon Information pre-supposes the existence of something called information. He just gives a way to measure it. True?
Elizabbeth Liddle @166:
hmmm. Yes, I guess he does – no point in measuring something you don’t think exists
So we seem to be going backwards, not forwards, or perhaps in circles. Do you now say that your string of bits contains 100 bits of information about nothing at all? Why do you think that is the case? Now I have tried to think about this, really. There are two options, as I see it. Let me know what you think. 1. Any random assortment of anything contains a measurable amount of Shannon Information regardless of whether it is "about" anything. [That seems to be your stance]. 2. You thought your information was not about anything at all, but you were mistaken. You just failed to correctly identify what it was about.Mung_{June 10, 2011
June
06
Jun
10
10
2011
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT}

ME: And of course, all the evidence in favor of the existence of a designer must be disregarded for, after all, there is no evidence there has ever been one. ellazimm @122
I’m sorry that I don’t see any good evidence. But even Christians don’t agree what parts of the Bible are literal truth and what parts are metaphor.
What an enormous non-sequitur.Mung_{June 10, 2011
June
06
Jun
10
10
2011
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT}

tbh, I'm at a loss, UB. From my PoV, I offered a clear proposal to demonstrate a clear claim (mine) that you challenged me to support, namely, that Chance and Necessity (or the equivalent, I can't remember the original wording) could produce Information. I've been accused of trying to evade the challenge, and of hiding behind demands for definitions, when the reverse is the case; my problem with the definitions offered are not that they are too stringent but that they are not stringent enough. It's also been implied that I've been moving goalposts, and yet whenever I look there seems to be another goal post to meet. I did not claim to be able to demonstrate how abiogenesis occurred. I did not even claim to be able to simulate life. All I claimed to be able to do was to produce Information from Chance and Necessity. I've said, explicitly, the role I plan to give to Chance, and the role I plan to give to Necessity. I've also set a fairly high bar for Information, as, without any self-replicating algorithm or starter critter, I plan to let my self-replicators emerge, then evolve. I may fail. My claim is that if I succeed, I will have demonstrated that Chance and Necessity can produce Information - not just any old Information, but Information encoded in a structure that enables that structure to duplicate itself. If that doesn't count as Information, then I really don't understand the ID argument at all - I thought it was precisely that kind of information (the information encoded within living cells/organisms that allows them to reproduce themselves that IDists insist cannot be produced by mere Chance and Necessity. So what is the problem with my proposal? Is it that people think I am going to sneak something other than Chance and Necessity into my virtual world? (I will supply the source code). Is it that Chance and Necessity can indeed create Information, but that what I propose won't be Enough? Or is it that you can see it won't work and want to save me the trouble of attempting it? Seriously, I don't see what in my proposal fails to be a test of my claim. UB, you say:
UB’s challenge was an demonstration of neo-Darwininan forces that caused the rise of the recorded information in the cell
Well, I didn't think that was exactly the original challenge (it wasn't my original claim, anyway) but I could be wrong. My proposal is to show that "neo-Darwinian forces" can result in a cell-like structure that records information. Actually I go further than that, because I'm actually proposing not to set up a Darwinian simulation with a starting primitive self-replicator, but to actually start with no self-replicators at all, just Chance and Necessity. I did this because people started saying: but first you've got to account for getting to self-replication in the first place, which cannot, obviously, be a result of Darwinian processes (which assume an existing self-replicator).
, and has long morphed away to a sim that will have nothing to do with chemical reality.
"Chemical reality" was not in the original spec. However, in fact I have chosen to emulate a chemical process, as that seemed to me a way of getting past the holdup of defining information. If what emerges from my model is something that is clearly analogous to a living cell, then we can, I would have assumed,that it embodies the same kind of information that living things do.
UB has now written two posts to warn you of this impending doom, yet you’ve ignored the content of both posts. What do you think UB is thinking now?
I have not knowingly ignored any posts of anyone's, but I will go back and see what I may have inadvertently missed. However, I would appreciate a response to this post, and I would furthermore point out, as I have pointed out a few times: My requests for an operational definition of Information (and indeed an operationalised statement of the problem), far from being an attempt to evade the challenge, are an attempt to ensure that the challenge is watertight, and I cannot produce something that passes on a technicality. My original claim, as I recall (I can't remember the actual thread, so I can't copy it, although I'll try to look later) was that I could demonstrate that Darwinian processes could generated Information. I did not say I could do it in a living cell - I was talking about the mathematical principle. I still am. However, as the point was raised (by kf) that that didn't address the question as to how the Darwinian processes would get started in the first place, I "morphed" the challenge into something even harder: to start with no more than Chance and Necessity, get from there to a self-replicator, and leaving the Darwinian processes to result in evolution. And I anticipate the results will be a population of self-replicators, which must, of their nature, embody meaningful Information (meaningful, in exactly the sense that cells contain meaningful Information. If not, why not? Cheers LizzieElizabeth Liddle_{June 10, 2011
June
06
Jun
10
10
2011
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT}

PS: Kindly compare my remarks at 214 above on the related math, and BTW, the equation is derived form and expands Dembski's metric. This is one case where the easiest path to understanding is to move forward and simplify.kairosfocus_{June 10, 2011
June
06
Jun
10
10
2011
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT}

Dr Liddle: Pardon, that sounds like a red herring chase to me, especially where the strings or whatever structures you seem to propose will evidently have no real world functionality based on a structured system that has the additional facility of self-replication. That issue of additionality to an existing, complex and specific function was on the table since Paley in 1806. Paley talked of self-replicating watches, I have discussed self replicating automata that in the case of the living cell are metabolic nanomachine entities, in the case of the Industrial Civ 2.0 would include in effect a self-replicating modular factory capable of manufacturing a key technology industrial base given reasonable inputs. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 10, 2011
June
06
Jun
10
10
2011
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT}

"I don’t see why that won’t meet UB’s challenge (if I succeed of course!)" UB's challenge was an demonstration of neo-Darwininan forces that caused the rise of the recorded information in the cell, and has long morphed away to a sim that will have nothing to do with chemical reality. UB has now written two posts to warn you of this impending doom, yet you've ignored the content of both posts. What do you think UB is thinking now?Upright BiPed_{June 10, 2011
June
06
Jun
10
10
2011
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT}

KF, I am not proposing to "design" an automaton. I am proposing to set up a virtual world consisting of a set of rules (necessity) governing mutual bonding in population of vMonomers, and give them random kinetic energy (random as to direction and timing). And I anticipate that my self-replicating automaton will emerge within that world. I will not design the automaton. No self-replicating algorithm will be written by me, and none will be written in the MatLab or Java code. It will simply arise, I predict, from the rules of Necessity and the kinematics of Chance. I don't see why that won't meet UB's challenge (if I succeed of course!)Elizabeth Liddle_{June 10, 2011
June
06
Jun
10
10
2011
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT}

Hi Kairos Hi Elizabeth ...interesting experiment with vMonomers.... While ago I setup thought experiment with electronic components. It could be done in reality but I have no time for it. Lets fill 30% of the bag with logic gates which we can consider a simple rules for electron flow. Than attach little magnets to gates contacts to provide simple assembly rules. We cannot forget energy source so lets put small batteries in the bag and attach magnets to them as well. Everything should be floating in dielectric liquid and kept in slight motion to provide chance collisions. How long before we get one bit adder?Eugen_{June 10, 2011
June
06
Jun
10
10
2011
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT}

F/N: Please mark a careful distinction or two: (i) in principle anything is strictly possible to occur by chance, once it is based on a configuration, the issue is whether the likelihood is sufficient that chance is a reasonable explanation or mechanism to do it, (ii) I am interested in things that work by real world mechanisms, and are sufficiently complex to be relevant. In particular, you need to explain how languages, algorithms, codes and complex programs with data structures and implementing machinery -- not just to self replicate [mould-like, or even variable mould like] but to effect systems that transform environmental resources into useful objects -- will emerge from chance and necessity.kairosfocus_{June 10, 2011
June
06
Jun
10
10
2011
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT}

Dr Liddle: Remember, my primary interest is kinematic, not software. I am full to the gills of Langton loops, Cellular Automata, artificial life sprites, Life 2.0 sims, etc etc that are essentially pointless and irrelevant. And all of which are -- surprise . . . NOT -- intelligently designed. The energy conversion devices I am interested in will have to do things that can seriously convert the equivalent of solar, thermal, biofuel or wind etc energy into shaft work, shaft work that is controlled by coded inputs [no cam bars please]. And that can be then onward made locally through self-replication. [No games with feed in energy parameter, exhaust, pull in next bundle of e-parameter . . . ] Then, we need a code and the equivalent of the tape reader and writer that can drive position-arm assembly robot units that make machines from available components, at most components that can be refined from and made with local materials [including discarded junk]. (I would love something that can cost effectively make Al and Fe from dirt, and plastics from cellulose!) Then we start to look at constructing machine tools, power packs, transmissions, and devices for farming, fishing, construction, commercial and industrial spaces, roads and transportation etc. An open source industrial base, creating a C21 sustainable civilisation not dependent on whether the latest ME dictator or hot heads in the bazaars do something crazy this morning. Coming back from my angle on all this, I am sure you will see why I am looking at the cell as a model, and why I want to make sure we do not go barking up a strawman-decorated tree. Remember, I am not only interested in how the cell does it, but in creating an industry 2.0 self-contained facility. Ship 'er in in 2 - 3 40 ft containers and your'e good to go. (Then, Moon and Mars, here we come!) GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 10, 2011
June
06
Jun
10
10
2011
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT}

Well, I'm not going round in circles, kairosfocus. I'm just trying to establish what the challenge is that I have to meet. I'm not claiming to have met it, just trying to make sure we agree what meeting it would look like. i.e. I'm not saying: look this is possible, therefore ID is wrong; I'm saying: if I demonstrate that this is possible, then that is a strong case against the ID argument. I know you have given examples, but what I am trying to do is to find a doable (IMO) example that would meet the challenge. And I really liked your formulation of what I must achieve. I agree to it - is there a remaining problem? I know you believe that my task is impossible, but I don't. The best way of seeing who is right is for me to attempt it, right? I will attempt to set up a world in which metabolising, self-replicating entities emerge from nothing more than chance (as defined above) and necessity (as defined above). If my critters appear, as I believe they will, they will utilise the kinetic energy of the movement of vMomomers (and any result vPolymers) to maintain themselves, and self-replicate (I envisage by cell division). Do you agree that if I succeed I will have made my point?Elizabeth Liddle_{June 10, 2011
June
06
Jun
10
10
2011
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT}

Dr Liddle: It seems to me that we are going in essentially fruitless circles on the concepts chance, necessity, choice/art/design. I have already given key examples on the three, and I would appreciate if they were revisited. I note that the quantum level events make no difference to whether or not a dropped heavy object falls at a certain rate. They make no difference to whether a bob on a string obeys the classic pendulum relationships, or the more sophisticated versions when we bring in other aspects. Yes, when the dropped heavy object is a diwe the way we get to chaince outcomes -- which face is up -- is by accidental, untraceable and unpredictable stochastic distributions tied tot he nonlinear behaviour of the eight corners and twelve edges. But, in the old days, my dad used to use the want of correlation between telephone number assignments and surnames of people to generate random numbers. (He actually showed me how to do it once, and I actually did so once, oddly enough to drive a telephone calling survey, because I did not want to use a pseudorandom number process). The point is, that once we have similar enough starting points but statistically driven -- especially flat random -- end points, we have chance contingency. And, sky or shot or Johnson noise give rise to pretty random outputs that can be ironed out flat. Similarly, the Maxwell-Boltzmann result for molecules can be modelled using hard little balls in a box disturbed, withthe inevitable variations between the boxes. An array of boxes as close to identical as we can make it, hit by teh same initial impulses will after a time have a similar distribution, but the boxes will NOT mimic each other, i.e the pattern is sufficiently random to be useful as that. I already gave a specific case of choice contingency and a discussion on why it is that specified, complex information -- per the presence in narrow and separately definable target zones -- will not credibly be accessed by chance driven contingency, due tot he issue of dominant statistical weights of clusters of microstates. That is why 1,000 coins spelling out the ASCII code for the beginning 143 characters of this post would reliably indicate intelligence, not chance and necessity: tossing a coin is tossing a 2-side die, with gravity etc providing the necessity and the chance coming from the finely sensitive variables attaching to that ring edge and how it interacts with the box etc. there is no serious escape from the issue of functionally specific complex information requiring very special clusters of configs that will be so isolated int eh space of possibilities that the best explanation for reaching hem is choice not chance. And when it comes to the laws and parameters of nature that set up an operating point conducive to C-chemistry, cell based life, I have long gone on record on my view -- and reasons for it -- that such fine tuned complex organisation is a signature of choice not chance. But that is not what we are dealing with in the narrow circle of the code in D/RNA and the precisely specified functional configs of proteins, not to mention the requisites for a living cell to be a metabolising, self-replicating entity. THAT is what is to be explained, and not some arbitrary construct that leads in an utterly different direction not supported by empirical observation in the real world. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 10, 2011
June
06
Jun
10
10
2011
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT}

kf:
What is needed is to generate a metabolic entity capable of transforming parts in its environment into components it uses, and energy to drive its processes that use energy. In addition, it has to code a representation of itself and in effect a self-assembly process for copying itself, metabolic and self replicating facility included.
Yes, exactly. And that is what I intend to do, with nothing more than a set of Necessities, random Brownian motion, and, probably, heat fluctuations (they may not be necessary). So, can we agree, that if my resulting virtual critters: 1> are capable of transforming parts in its environment into components it uses, 2. Use energy to drive its processes that use energy. 3. Codes a representation of itself and in effect a self-assembly process for copying itself, metabolic and self replicating facility included. I will have succeeded? If so, to further clarify, would you agree that if the things spontaneously self-replicate that in itself is evidence that they embody the code necessary for copying themselves, together with their self-replicating capacity? If so, we have a WINNER!!! (Well, maybe a loser, but let's see...) As I said, it will take me a while, especially as I'm going to try, if possible, to do it in Java rather than MatLab, so people can run it themselves. But I may give up and use MatLab! (I'm learning Java right now). Cheers LizzieElizabeth Liddle_{June 10, 2011
June
06
Jun
10
10
2011
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT}

F/N: Chi metric as applied to a 900 digit 4-state random string -- and let us grant for the moment that we are in a nice friendly medium without cross-interfering chemical species that would break it up and/or render such a string maximally unlikely to assemble -- no chirality issues, no different bonding possibilities. On the Hartley suggested metric on a flat random string, 900 4-state digits is 1800 bits. However, specificity is zero, so: Chi_500 = [1800 * 0] - 500 = 0. On replication, the new string is reproducing not originating, so we now have Chi_500 {gen 2] = 0. Similarly: Chi_500 [gen 3] = 0 Chi_500 [gen n] = 0. Or, if we wish we can interpret the first string as a template for a reproduced crystal, replicated n times. The originally random string is now redefined to be a template. The template being replicated n times, there is no addition of information. The template, let's call it X is simply being replicated: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX . . . Functionally specific, complex information is found in neither randomness nor in simple repetition. Suppose the replication can occasionally generate a random change: XXXXXXXXXXX . . . YYYYYYY . . . In this case, we are still seeing he same basic problem, we are not genrating a funcirtonallys pecific complex, vNSR, and irreducibly complex object. And, that is what was to be generated. In short, such an exercise is a red herring led off to a strawman. It is not along the right track. What is needed is to generate a metabolic entity capable of transforming parts in its environment into components it uses, and energy to drive its processes that use energy. In addition, it has to code a representation of itself and in effect a self-assembly process for copying itself, metabolic and self replicating facility included. This is what we need, instead:
(i) an underlying storable code to record the required information to create not only (a) the primary functional machine [[here, for a "clanking replicator" as illustrated, a Turing-type “universal computer”; in a cell this would be the metabolic entity that transforms environmental materials into required components etc.] but also (b) the self-replicating facility; and, that (c) can express step by step finite procedures for using the facility; (ii) a coded blueprint/tape record of such specifications and (explicit or implicit) instructions, together with (iii) a tape reader [[called “the constructor” by von Neumann] that reads and interprets the coded specifications and associated instructions; thus controlling: (iv) position-arm implementing machines with “tool tips” controlled by the tape reader and used to carry out the action-steps for the specified replication (including replication of the constructor itself); backed up by (v) either: (1) a pre-existing reservoir of required parts and energy sources, or (2) associated “metabolic” machines carrying out activities that as a part of their function, can provide required specific materials/parts and forms of energy for the replication facility, by using the generic resources in the surrounding environment.
Until we can create something that can do that, we are not even close to what is needed. (And BTW, I have a technology interest here, as a modular system to replicate itself and to do a universal programmable constructor or even something a lot less than that, is a way to industrial civilisation 2.0, and onward space colonisation. DV, I intend to make a blog on that -- ID based thought is potentially a key to the technological transformation of the 3rd world. Imagine, a network of communities with such modular self-replicating technology bases that can manufacture from local ingredients the decisive things for farming, commerce, general manufacturing, education and trade!)kairosfocus_{June 10, 2011
June
06
Jun
10
10
2011
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT}

Hi, Chris!
Thank-you very much for your response (208) , Lizzie. The thrust of your sideways approach to Accident or Design is an appeal to “stochastic processes [that] involve feedback loops”. That appeal raises the question: was that stochastic process put in place intentionally by the Creator? You suggest that your approach “certainly doesn’t rule out a creator God” and if you actually did rule in the Creator, that would make you a theistic evolutionist like Kenneth Miller, for example. The acid test would be do you believe that: a. The Creator planned our existence (ie. it was intended or Designed), or b. The Creator was surprised by our existence (ie. it was unintended or Accidental) However, if in fact you reject the existence of a Creator then you are actually proposing an Accidental choice to explain existence. All you are saying is that everything just made itself by a stochastic process that involves feedback loops. That is not a third way.
Well, as I said, it's a sideways look at the problem, I'm not suggesting an additional "third" way :) To be more specific, I am claiming that stochastic processes can result in complex structures. Indeed non-stochastic processes that involve feedback can, likewise (the most famous example is probably the Mandebrot set), which is bound entirely by Necessity (no Chance involved). I guess my point is that at first sight "Necessity" evokes deterministic processes that no-one expects to have a non-natural (supernatural?) cause (the cause is indeed regarded as "natural law"), while "Chance" evokes the idea of noise process - accidents that make the operation of natural law unpredictable (contaminants in the chemistry set, or whatever). However, I suggest that when these concepts are carefully unpacked, they turn out to be somewhat different. "Necessity" at quantum level turns out to be stochastic (i.e. events are drawn from a probability distribution, not a deterministic algorithm), and "Chance" turns out mostly to consist of things obeying natural laws but at unanticipated times. In other words "Chance" turns out to be largely a function of how much we know (we as intelligent predictive observers or our world) rather than some alternative to "necessity". After all, a good Newtonian physicist can sometimes beat the odds at Monte Carlo by close observation of the velocity and mass of the roulette ball and of the terrain it will encounter before it stops. In other words, whether something is "chance" or not, depends on the information that an intelligent observer has at his/her disposal :) Which is somewhat the other way round from the usual ID argument!
Now then, back to arguing about the definition of information even though you’re not disputing that the cell is probably the most amazing source of information in existence! Even if you can “make the case that ‘information’ can arise from simple beginnings”, and you most certainly have not made that case yet, that would not even begin to help you explain the existence of the super-computer, super-factory like cell. If pebbles were the first computer, then no matter how many times we randomly rearrange them, we’ll never end up with even a digital watch never mind a super-computer. Even if you somehow managed to show that pebbles could, through an unintended stochastic process involving feedback loops, turn into a digital watch, the gulf from that to the super-computer like cell remains as unbridgeable as ever. The more sophisticated, complex and functional information becomes, the more prone it is to loss through unguided influences… never, ever gain.
Well, I would dispute that last claim. I don't think it's true :) At least not in the context of self-replication.
in the existence of “precursors of that first modern cell” is an entirely unscientific one. It is not supported by experimental results or observational evidence. You merely ‘hope’ they existed to prevent the global paradigm shift in favour of Intelligent Design (which, of course, does solve the problem of the origin of life). Evolutionists know that attempting to explain Accidental abiogenesis scientifically, with reference to cell biology, is ‘clear nonsense’ which is the only reason they keep trying to disown it despite the fact that their beliefs commit them to it (unless they’re theistic evolutionists).
Well, no. "They" don't "keep trying to disown it", so we do not need to explain why they do. And the reason scientists are interested in OOL questions is easy to explain - because the question is both fascinating and unsolved! Nothing a scientist likes more, whatever his/her beliefs :)Elizabeth Liddle_{June 10, 2011
June
06
Jun
10
10
2011
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT}

Lizzie,
And what I hope to demonstrate is that in that virtual world, self-reproducing structures will emerge. If I succeed, then the very fact that I have self-reproducing structures, means, I think, that information (in your sense) has been created, because each structure embodies the information required to make a copy of itself.
…and what shall we do with the observed discrete-ness ? Lizzie, as much of an achievement as it might be, the issue is not if you can concoct a realistic simulation with parameters where self-replicating structures spontaneously appear. That schtick has already been done with intelligent agents feeding energy and pre-programmed units into an intelligently constrained system (yawn). The issue is can you get an encoded symbolic abstraction of a discrete state embedded into a discrete medium, whereby that representation/medium is physically transferred to a receiver in order that the receiver become informed by the decoded representation. As you can see, the rise of recorded information entails the rise of the abstraction, the symbol, and the translation apparatus/receiver. To approach it otherwise would be to attempt a book prior to the onset of paper, ink, the alphabet, or the reader. I wonder if you are failing to truly appreciate the conceptual issues you face. I know you are enamored with some idea of a mechanical representation, (like a shadow for instance) but that is not what is observed. Even the leading materialist researchers on this issue (Yarus, Knight, etc) concede the observed indirect nature of translation. It is this prescriptive quality which you are shooting to mimic, and it is very much related to Pattee’s “epistemic cut” or Abel’s “cybernetic cut”, and even Polanyi’s “boundary condition”. This is where the mechanism of the mind asserts itself in the causal chain, and for you to be successful, it is that quality (and its observed effects) you must reproduce without a mind. As I stated in my previous post: “…this is what information is, and it is also what is found in the living cell. Information is being used to create function, and that is an observed reality. I am not interested in a loose example that truly only fulfils the need to complete a game; I am interested in an example relevant to the observation.”Upright BiPed_{June 10, 2011
June
06
Jun
10
10
2011
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT}

Well, this is why I want an actual operational definition of information, and a clear method of quantifying it (if the criterion of success is going to be a quantified threshold). Upright BiPed imposed no such threshold, and that is the challenge I sought to meet. However, we did agree that the "representation" of the information should be disassociated from the content. So that rules out "moulds". What I am proposing (or rather expecting to arise from my starting conditions) is not as simple as my earlier "Duplo Chemistry" example, in which the Duplo polymers duplicated only themselves. I am expecting that an entire system (a "structure") consisting of an identifiable assemblage of vMonomers (probably polymerised in various ways) will reproduce itself, i.e. will intrinsically encode the information required to produce a not-quite faithful copy of that pattern. In other words, will do what living cells do (except on a much simpler scale). Moreover, I am not starting with a pattern, as, indeed, I did not, before. So I have not "designed" a mould that stamps out a pattern. I have simply set up a world consisting of Chance and Necessity in which self-replicating structures tend to emerge, and, in this case, evolve into ever-more-efficient self-replicators. If I succeed, then I submit it will be a powerful argument against the case that Information (as exemplified in the capability of living cells to self-replicate) cannot arise only through Chance and Necessity. If not, why not? Remember, I am programming nothing, merely laying down the Rules and the Hazards and letting the rest happen as it will.Elizabeth Liddle_{June 10, 2011
June
06
Jun
10
10
2011
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT}

Thank-you very much for your response (208) , Lizzie. The thrust of your sideways approach to Accident or Design is an appeal to “stochastic processes [that] involve feedback loops”. That appeal raises the question: was that stochastic process put in place intentionally by the Creator? You suggest that your approach “certainly doesn’t rule out a creator God” and if you actually did rule in the Creator, that would make you a theistic evolutionist like Kenneth Miller, for example. The acid test would be do you believe that: a. The Creator planned our existence (ie. it was intended or Designed), or b. The Creator was surprised by our existence (ie. it was unintended or Accidental) However, if in fact you reject the existence of a Creator then you are actually proposing an Accidental choice to explain existence. All you are saying is that everything just made itself by a stochastic process that involves feedback loops. That is not a third way. Now then, back to arguing about the definition of information even though you’re not disputing that the cell is probably the most amazing source of information in existence! Even if you can “make the case that ‘information’ can arise from simple beginnings”, and you most certainly have not made that case yet, that would not even begin to help you explain the existence of the super-computer, super-factory like cell. If pebbles were the first computer, then no matter how many times we randomly rearrange them, we’ll never end up with even a digital watch never mind a super-computer. Even if you somehow managed to show that pebbles could, through an unintended stochastic process involving feedback loops, turn into a digital watch, the gulf from that to the super-computer like cell remains as unbridgeable as ever. The more sophisticated, complex and functional information becomes, the more prone it is to loss through unguided influences… never, ever gain. Belief in the existence of “precursors of that first modern cell” is an entirely unscientific one. It is not supported by experimental results or observational evidence. You merely ‘hope’ they existed to prevent the global paradigm shift in favour of Intelligent Design (which, of course, does solve the problem of the origin of life). Evolutionists know that attempting to explain Accidental abiogenesis scientifically, with reference to cell biology, is ‘clear nonsense’ which is the only reason they keep trying to disown it despite the fact that their beliefs commit them to it (unless they’re theistic evolutionists).Chris Doyle_{June 10, 2011
June
06
Jun
10
10
2011
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT}

Dr Liddle: The issue is chance and necessity producing information beyond a threshold linked to either the solar system or the observed cosmos Planck-time quantum state thresholds, i.e we are looking at 500 or 1,000 bits as the lower threshold of functionally specific complex info to be produced by chance and necessity not with the injection of choice, as GA's routinely do. We already have cases where info of order 20 - 24 or so ASCII digits is produced by random text generators, i.e plumbing 10^50 possibilities. We are looking at 10^150 or 10^300 possibilities as the threshold, as that is where we can comfortably say the solar system or cosmos scale resources are swamped by the scope of search. 125 bytes of functional info in an algorithm or 143 ascii characters at the higher end. In addition, I have no interest in the equivalent of going back and forth with moulds, even digitised moulds, as you did already with the idea of plastic modules. The mould REPLICATES the pattern, it does not create it. Mould-copying is not creation of information. And, the pattern is not functional in itself, especially in the sort of code based vNSR context we are examining. if we are going down a mould road, that is a red herring led out to a strawman, as was already addressed. the information in question in mRNA is coded in the sequence of the string, and it specifies start, elongation and halt, in an algorithmic context based on a digital code. Which in turn are effected through machines in and around the ribosome. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 10, 2011
June
06
Jun
10
10
2011
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT}

F/N: A version on cellular automata that fit together and replicate on a simulation do not answer to the issue. We need something that is chemical, not algorithmic.
It will be chemical (albeit simulated chemistry) not algorithmic. I will provide no algorithm for self-replication. This will have to emerge from no more than Chance (as in the movement of the vMonomers in the virtual world) and Necessity (the chemical rules and cyclical temperature fluctuations that govern bonding between vMonomers).
Unless, you will have thousands of cross interfering chemicals, chirality and for the equivalent of AAs in proteins 50-50 peptide non peptide bonds, in a context where the relevant protein machines are on avg 300 20-state AAs long and the relevant D/RNA strands — which must make up a code fortuitously and the machines to make proteins must form equally fortuitously — must be of order 1800 4-state elements, just for a toy example. And your numbers of elements in your pond would have to be of order 10^20 – 26.
Well, we will see. What I would like to agree before I start, however, is that if a population of self-replicators does emerge from Chance and Necessity, that that will satisfy the requirement for Information. After all, if a structure can replicate itself, it must embody the information required to do so, and the capacity to communicate that information to the system that assembles the replication, right?Elizabeth Liddle_{June 10, 2011
June
06
Jun
10
10
2011
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT}

Dr Liddle: If you can credibly produce a replicable unweaving of diffusion or similar phenomena [and remember there is a sale issue on fluctuations] — empirically, not a simulation — you have a Nobel Prize coming, as you are blowing away the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Let us see you do it . . . GEM of TKI
First of all, my project will of course be a simulation. I don't see a problem with that - a simulation is just a type of mathematical model, and we are talking about demonstrating (actually, falsfying) a principle here. If the falsification holds in the simulation then it holds. The principle I am attempting to falsify is that Chance and Necessity cannot produce Information. And to make sure that Chance and Necessity are not confounded, I propose that the movement of my vMonomers is drawn from a completely flat random distribution (all directions equally probable; the probability of a move on any one trial equal for all vMonomers), i.e. Chance whereas the way they combine is completely deterministic (Necessity). I may also include cyclical fluctuation in a variable to stand for temperature, that will govern the bonding, but that will also be entirely deterministic. If I succeed, I will not have violated the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics because I am not proposing that this occurs in a closed system, but one, like planet earth, that receives energy from an outside source. Same would apply if I did it using actual chemistry, but I'm not going to use actual chemistry. I'm simply going to demonstrate (I hope) that Information can arise spontaneously from nothing more than Chance and Necessity.Elizabeth Liddle_{June 10, 2011
June
06
Jun
10
10
2011
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT}

F/N: A version on cellular automata that fit together and replicate on a simulation do not answer to the issue. We need something that is chemical, not algorithmic. Unless, you will have thousands of cross interfering chemicals, chirality and for the equivalent of AAs in proteins 50-50 peptide non peptide bonds, in a context where the relevant protein machines are on avg 300 20-state AAs long and the relevant D/RNA strands -- which must make up a code fortuitously and the machines to make proteins must form equally fortuitously -- must be of order 1800 4-state elements, just for a toy example. And your numbers of elements in your pond would have to be of order 10^20 - 26.kairosfocus_{June 10, 2011
June
06
Jun
10
10
2011
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT}

Pardon typo: SCALE issue.kairosfocus_{June 10, 2011
June
06
Jun
10
10
2011
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT}

Dr Liddle: If you can credibly produce a replicable unweaving of diffusion or similar phenomena [and remember there is a sale issue on fluctuations] -- empirically, not a simulation -- you have a Nobel Prize coming, as you are blowing away the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Let us see you do it . . . GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 10, 2011
June
06
Jun
10
10
2011
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus at 214: This is very helpful. I need to print it out and read it carefully. Thanks.Elizabeth Liddle_{June 10, 2011
June
06
Jun
10
10
2011
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus, #
3 –> Sorry, but this is hand waving. You are essentially calling for the unweaving of diffusion and brownian motion to create complex self-replicating systems, with informational control. the number of dispersed states will so overwhelm clumped at random states then the random clumped ones the functionally combined ones that you will run straight into Hoyle’s tornado in a junkyard. (Cf my own thought experiment discussion here.)
Well, no it isn't "handwaving", kf! It would be if I didn't intend to actually do it, but I do :) If I succeeded would you accept that the "tornado in a junkyard" argument had failed?Elizabeth Liddle_{June 10, 2011
June
06
Jun
10
10
2011
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT}

PS: I'd point out that what I propose is not a conventional GA, because I am not proposing to start off with a self-reproducing structure. I am starting of with a randomly generated population of non-self-reproducing vMonomers, with certain "chemical" binding properties. I am trusting that my self-replicators will emerge "naturally" in this population and then go on to evolve. Does that make sense?Elizabeth Liddle_{June 10, 2011
June
06
Jun
10
10
2011
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT}

Thanks for this, UB:
I am trying to get you to demonstrate a natural process whereby a symbolic representation of a discrete state becomes embedded in a discrete medium, then that representation/medium is transferred to a receiver in order for that receiver to become informed by that representation. (And quite frankly, I am giving you a HUGE amount of leeway, given the facets of recorded information and information transfer that have yet to even be discussed). Why am I asking for this? Well, primarily because you suggested you could do it. But moreover, because this is what information is, and it is also what is found in the living cell. Information is being used to create function, and that is an observed reality. I am not interested in a loose example that truly only fulfils the need to complete a game; I am interested in an example relevant to the observation.
However, I should make it clear: leeway is is precisely what I do not want! This is why I have been trying to drill down to an operational definition with minimal leeway, of what you would regard as information. So if what you suggest provides me with "a HUGE amount of leeway" then it isn't terribly useful! That's why I presented a specific proposal. I've thought it out a little more thoroughly, so here it is: I propose to devise a virtual world populationed by virtual monomers (which I will refer to as vMonomers). Each of these monomers will have a set of "chemical" properties, i.e. they will have certain affinities and phobias (if that's the right word) and some of those affinities will be shallowly contingent. This if you like is the "Necessity" part of the virtual world - a set of simple rules that govern what happens when my vMonomers come into contact with each other. It will be entirely deterministic. In contrast, the way my vMonomers move around their virtual world will be entirely stochastic (virtual Brownian motion, if you like) so that the probability of any one of them moving in any given direction is completely flat - all directions are equiprobable. So we have Necessity, and we have Chance. And what I hope to demonstrate is that in that virtual world, self-reproducing structures will emerge. If I succeed, then the very fact that I have self-reproducing structures, means, I think, that information (in your sense) has been created, because each structure embodies the information required to make a copy of itself. However, those copies will not be perfect, and so I also foresee that once my self-reproducing structures have emerged they will evolve, in other words the most prevalent structure type in each generation will tend to change. As I say, I don't know that I can do this (although I believe it can be done!) If I succeeded, would you agree that information (meaningful information, i.e. the information required to duplicate a structure) had been created by Chance and Necessity? Or do you see a loophole? Because I do NOT want to work on this and discover I have slipped through a loophole! Cheers LizzieElizabeth Liddle_{June 10, 2011
June
06
Jun
10
10
2011
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT}

#213 "I’ve described how I propose to attempt the challenge. If you both are happy with the proposal, I am happy to start work Please take note of my post at 212.Upright BiPed_{June 10, 2011
June
06
Jun
10
10
2011
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PDT}

EL, In your post #207 you say that there is a potential problem because Mung claims that information can be measured without knowing what its about, while I claim that it must be about something. You then asked if I see the problem. No I don't. Both those claims are correct, and not in conflict with one another.Upright BiPed_{June 10, 2011
June
06
Jun
10
10
2011
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 13 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply