Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Congratulations Dave Thomas!

August 22, 2006
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Dave has proven beyond a doubt that intelligent agents can construct useful trial and error algorithms.  As long as the way the trials are conducted and the way the results are judged is well specified then trial and error algorithms work!  Of course we all learn to search for solutions using trial and error as children.  Or so I thought.  Maybe Dave Thomas is just discovering it now and thinks he’s stumbled onto something revolutionary.  The $64,000 question remains unanswered.  Who or what specified how trials in evolution were to be conducted?  The only answer I’ve heard  from chance worshippers is that some mystical chemical soup burped out a living cell containing a protein assembly machine called a ribosome driven by an abstract digitally encoded control program and a data library containing abstract digital specifications for a large number of proteins required for the cell to function in an information storage molecule called DNA.   In point of fact, information in the  DNA molecule is required to construct a ribosome and a ribosome is required to duplicate a DNA molecule.  Which came first: the protein or the robotic protein making machine that requires parts made of proteins?    Maybe Dave can find the answer by trial and error.  Let’s all wish him luck.

Good luck, Dave!

Comments
Joe: "Wow, this is worse than I thought. Coin tossing will only generate an algorithm if an intelligent agency is involved." Do you have a new theory of intelligent tossing? Is it sort of like intelligent falling? Or is it just the old, tired treatment of intelligence as something infectious -- i.e., when I touch the coin, it becomes intelligent, and the outcome of the toss is biased? Here's how you started all of this: "Any algorithm strongly suggests intelligence. Do anti-IDists even understand the word 'algorithm'? Apparently not. Has anyone ever observed unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) process produce an algorithm? No." If we reject intelligent tossing theory, then I have demonstrated exactly what you suggested could not exist. You placed no restriction on the language in which algorithms would be expressed. And you should not have, because your claim was that there was no way for a random process to produce an algorithm. I made a natural choice of language -- prefix-free, compact, binary descriptions of Turing machines. This type of language plays an important role in the theory of Solomonoff-Chaitin-Kolmogorov complexity. You whined and whined for proof. Now that I have proved exactly what you wanted proved, you insinuate that I cheated, but offer no counterargument. That's worthless behavior.Tom English
August 30, 2006
August
08
Aug
30
30
2006
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT
Wow, this is worse than I thought. Coin tossing will only generate an algorithm if an intelligent agency is involved. Also Wiki can hardly be considered an authority on anything. Thanks again for demonstrating an algorithm requires intelligence. BTW I never once thought that you were saying every algorithm can be generated without intelligence. The confusion is still all yours.Joseph
August 30, 2006
August
08
Aug
30
30
2006
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT
Joe: "Also we were talking about ALGORITHMS implying INTELLIGENCE." The negation of your claim is merely that SOME algorithm can arise by chance-and-necessity. I evidently have confused you by arguing that EVERY algorithm can be generated without "intelligence." So let's take the simple route and be done with this. I am going to demonstrate that "coin tossing" generates algorithms with high probability. As always, when you don't understand something, see Wiki. A universal Turing machine (UTM) is a Turing-complete system. A UTM is "programmed" with a description of a Turing machine (TM). When the TM description specifies no transitions, the UTM merely halts on all inputs. Such a TM description is the shortest algorithm for the UTM. For some UTMs the TM description must be self-delimiting, and we require such a UTM here. In other words, each description must encode its own length in some fashion. In the TM description language we use here, every sufficiently long sequence of bits begins with a TM description. A description begins with a possibly-empty string of M 0's, which indicates that M bits are required to encode TM states. Then there is a non-empty string of N 1's, which indicates that N bits are required to encode TM symbols. Then a 0 serves as a delimiter. If M is nonzero, the following M + N bits give the number of transitions in base-2 notation. Otherwise there are no additional bits in the TM description. For instance, a TM with two states, four symbols, and three transitions has a description 0110011 [plus 18 bits for transitions]. Any TM that has no states (i.e., has a description that starts with 1) has no transitions, and halts on all inputs. Thus the following are all algorithms. 10, 110, 1110, ... All TM descriptions beginning with 1 belong to the preceding sequence. Now let's generate a TM description M by tossing a fair coin, and writing down 1 for heads and 0 for tails. The procedure is well defined, because every sufficiently long sequence of bits begins with a TM description, and all TM descriptions are self-delimiting. The probability that a M begins with 1 (hence is an algorithm) is 1 / 2. The probability that M is the algorithm 01000 (note that there are no transitions) is 2 ^ 5. Thus the probability of generating an algorithm by coin tossing is greater than 1 / 2. Did I rig this result? No. The UTM is the original model of universal computation. In fact, the notion of Turing-completeness is defined in terms of the UTM. The choice of self-delimiting TM's was natural here. How else would we have guaranteed that every sequence of coin tosses gave a description? Is it really that surprising that the simplest algorithms should merely halt, and that they should occur often in random generation of "programs"? I'm sure you are not satisfied with algorithms that merely halt. Perhaps I should mention that coin tossing will also generate nontrivial, though short, algorithms with fairly high probability. Before barking at the stranger again, why not go back to No Free Lunch and observe that Bill Dembski rejects chance at 500 bits of complexity. There are many algorithms shorter than 500 bits. Coin tossing will turn up short algorithms, and this is no contradiction to what Bill has written. Why did I not go directly to this proof? Because it is not particularly interesting. I wanted to talk about design inference, not basic probability and the plain old theory of computation.Tom English
August 29, 2006
August
08
Aug
29
29
2006
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT
[Off topic, regarding my off-topic post addressed to no one] Joseph: “Those are design-centric hypotheses.” Joseph: "Weird because I asked for CHANCE hypotheses." From http://www.chiasmus.com/archive/msg00190.html: One night, while serving as [Lyndon Baines Johnson's] press secretary, Bill Moyers was saying grace in a soft and respectful voice before a White House dinner. LBJ startled everyone when he interrupted Moyers, saying, "Speak up, Bill! Speak up!" Not letting the president rattle him, Moyers softly replied: "I wasn't addressing you, Mr. President."Tom English
August 29, 2006
August
08
Aug
29
29
2006
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT
Joseph: “Those are design-centric hypotheses.” Tom English: My point, precisely. Weird because I asked for CHANCE hypotheses. Tom English: Did it really never occur to you that my sequence of bits could come from space too? I have asked you several times for a demonstration and you failed to do so. In that light it occurred to me that you were just blowing smoke. Also we were talking about ALGORITHMS implying INTELLIGENCE. And from your responses I would have to say that is as safe an inference as there could be.Joseph
August 29, 2006
August
08
Aug
29
29
2006
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT
Joseph: "Those are design-centric hypotheses." My point, precisely. A wizard. A giant. The Devil. I have wasted a lot of time here. You should know that Bill Dembski has inferred design in a fictitious observation -- a sequence of binary-coded prime numbers (excluding 59) coming from deep space. Did it really never occur to you that my sequence of bits could come from space too? Did you stop to think that my sequence was less complex than the prime sequence, and that a design inference was therefore not a slamdunk?Tom English
August 28, 2006
August
08
Aug
28
28
2006
09:48 PM
9
09
48
PM
PDT
Tom English: My hypothesis that the sequence of strings can arise by chance-and-necessity stands until someone gives evidence that it should be rejected in favor of design. Your hypothesis is rejected because it has not and cannot be substantiated. Show us a sequence of strings arising from nothing via chance-and-necessity. I can demonstrate intelligent agencies putting together a sequence of strings. Gee I wonder how many chance hypotheses were rejected before Stonehenge was deemed an artifact? Tom posts: “Early interpretations Many early historians were influenced by supernatural folktales in their explanations. Some legends held that Merlin the wizard had a giant build the structure for him or that he had magically transported it from Mount Killaraus in Ireland, while others held the Devil responsible.” Those are design-centric hypotheses. Were there ever ANY chance hypotheses?Joseph
August 28, 2006
August
08
Aug
28
28
2006
08:32 PM
8
08
32
PM
PDT
[Off-topic] From the Wiki article on Stonehenge: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonehenge "Early interpretations Many early historians were influenced by supernatural folktales in their explanations. Some legends held that Merlin the wizard had a giant build the structure for him or that he had magically transported it from Mount Killaraus in Ireland, while others held the Devil responsible."Tom English
August 28, 2006
August
08
Aug
28
28
2006
08:05 PM
8
08
05
PM
PDT
DaveScot: "It is obvious in your writings you begin with the assumption that evolution happened by chance then expect others to prove you wrong." Did you see post 61 in https://uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1464, especially "Evolution is necessity operating on chance inputs"? "I expect you to prove the chance hypothesis." No one can prove a statistical hypothesis. In Bill's approach to design inference, a chance hypothesis is a null hypotheses. It is accepted in the absence of strong evidence to reject it. My hypothesis that the sequence of strings can arise by chance-and-necessity stands until someone gives evidence that it should be rejected in favor of design. This isn't something self-serving I am doing. It is simply the nature of null hypotheses. A legitimate request would have been to ask me to derive a probability for my hypothesis. I have already done some work to estimate what's known as the universal probability of the sequence, and I was prepared to take an honest stab at rejecting the chance hypothesis myself. "All I can do is point to what I know is designed, compare and contrast it with what I suspect is designed, and ask which is the better explanation - design or chance." I have no objection whatsoever to your doing that to form your personal worldview. But I hope you don't expect such informal methods to lead to scientific knowledge. By the way, I have a personal worldview that could not be less scientific.Tom English
August 28, 2006
August
08
Aug
28
28
2006
07:55 PM
7
07
55
PM
PDT
Joe: “Do you understand what is being debated? The debate is unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes - ie the anti-ID position- vs. intelligent, directed (goal oriented) processes)- ie the ID position.” Tom English: You truly do not understand what a logical and linguistic abomination that is, do you? It is reality. Therefore I understand your reaction. Reality doesn't appear to be your strong suit. Tom English: I tried to get you to reason through what you were saying, and you entirely ignored me — to your own detriment. Yup you are a legend in search of a mind. Tom English: I gave you the hypothesis that the enumeration can arise by chance. And I asked you to demonstrate that. IOW show us an enumeration that arose without the aid of an intelligent agency. Tom English: It is your responsibility, as the ID advocate, to show how to reject the hypothesis and make a design inference. Show me where this hypothetical enumeration exists. That is how it (science) is conducted- by examining the data. If the enumeration exists only in your head then I would sau it is an empty hypothesis- one not worth pursuing. Gee I wonder how many chance hypotheses were rejected before Stonehenge was deemed an artifact?Joseph
August 28, 2006
August
08
Aug
28
28
2006
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT
Tom I expect you to prove the chance hypothesis. It is obvious in your writings you begin with the assumption that evolution happened by chance then expect others to prove you wrong. I cannot prove or disprove either chance or design. All I can do is point to what I know is designed, compare and contrast it with what I suspect is designed, and ask which is the better explanation - design or chance. There are things that science may never be able to reveal with any degree of certainty and things like the evolution of life on this planet, a process that is unpredictable, unrepeatable, unwitnessed, and happened only once is quite likely to be one of those areas that may resist any definitive explanations.DaveScot
August 28, 2006
August
08
Aug
28
28
2006
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT
Joe: "Do you understand what is being debated? The debate is unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes - ie the anti-ID position- vs. intelligent, directed (goal oriented) processes)- ie the ID position." You truly do not understand what a logical and linguistic abomination that is, do you? I tried to get you to reason through what you were saying, and you entirely ignored me -- to your own detriment. Tom: "I say that enumerating binary instruction sequences in “dictionary” order (0, 1, 00, 01, 10, 11, 000, …) is mechanical, not intelligent." Joe: "It does NOT matter what you say. It matters what you can demonstrate." You argue, but you evidently know little about argumentation. "I say" means "I claim"--i.e., "here is what you must refute." You clearly do not understand the logic of design inference. It is obvious in your writings that you start with the assumption of design and purpose, and expect others to prove you wrong. But the design inference works just the opposite way. One or more chance hypotheses must be rejected in favor of design. I gave you the hypothesis that the enumeration can arise by chance. It is your responsibility, as the ID advocate, to show how to reject the hypothesis and make a design inference. "IOW if we saw that sequence etched in the wall of a cave could we safely infer intelligence was responsible or would we infer errosion? [...] All Tom has to do is to demonstrate an algorithm can originate without the help of an intelligent agency." Quite the contrary. It's time for you to do a formal design inference. The cave-wall appeal to intuition is pathetic. The etchings themselves would probably merit a design inference.Tom English
August 28, 2006
August
08
Aug
28
28
2006
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT
Joseph: “I am still waiting for a reference that demonstrates unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes can produce an algorithm.” Tom English: I challenge you to find any peer-reviewed publication whatsoever that refers to “unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes.” Wow- you sure did tell me- LoL! Do you understand what is being debated? The debate is unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes - ie the anti-ID position- vs. intelligent, directed (goal oriented) processes)- ie the ID position. Now if you are telling me there aren't any references to the former then one has to wonder why anti-IDists say their mechanism is well founded in peer-reviewed literature. So what we have here is Tom English doubting my claim that "algorithm directly directly implies intelligence" but offering absolutely nothing to show his doubt has any merit. Yet he continues to babble-on. Tom English: I say that enumerating binary instruction sequences in “dictionary” order (0, 1, 00, 01, 10, 11, 000, …) is mechanical, not intelligent. It does NOT matter what you say. It matters what you can demonstrate. Can you demonstrate ANY enumerating sequence arising from scratch, without the help of an intelligent agency. IOW if we saw that sequence etched in the wall of a cave could we safely infer intelligence was responsible or would we infer errosion? BTW intelligence can be defined as that which can create counterflow. Tom English: You effectively admit that a) you cannot hold your own in the discussion and b) you do not know how to deal with it appropriately. True projection at its finest. Tom's response is typical when one cannot support the claims made. All Tom has to do is to demonstrate an algorithm can originate without the help of an intelligent agency. Until that is demonstrated it is more than safe to infer any algorithm observed owes its origins to some intelligent agency. And therefore algorithm directly implies intelligence. Tom English: Are you aware that the phrase “blind watchmaker-type process” has no clear meaning? Are you aware that you have dumped it onto 96 pages on the Web? Go whine to Dawkins and all of evolutionisms' faithful. The meanings of evolution from "Darwinism, Design and Public Education": 1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature 2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population 3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor. 4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations. 5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor. 6. “Blind watchmaker” thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms. You do know that Dawkins wrote a book about "The Blind Watchmaker" And one more thingy: FUNCTION implies a definite end or purpose that the one in question serves or a particular kind of work it is intended to perform (the function of language is two-fold: to communicate emotion and to give information -- Aldous Huxley).Joseph
August 27, 2006
August
08
Aug
27
27
2006
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT
"It case Tom missed this: Perhaps “the blind watchmaker” deserves a fellowship also-> That is if said watchmaker can demonstrated to provide “any sequence of operations which can be performed by a Turing-complete system”." No, JG, I saw the original post and found it twice as sad when you quoted yourself. Your reference to the blind watchmaker is entirely gratuitious. Your post is nothing but a sneer. You effectively admit that a) you cannot hold your own in the discussion and b) you do not know how to deal with it appropriately. Are you aware that the phrase "blind watchmaker-type process" has no clear meaning? Are you aware that you have dumped it onto 96 pages on the Web?Tom English
August 27, 2006
August
08
Aug
27
27
2006
12:13 AM
12
12
13
AM
PDT
Joseph: "I am still waiting for a reference that demonstrates unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes can produce an algorithm." I challenge you to find any peer-reviewed publication whatsoever that refers to "unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes." You have ensured there are no references by setting up a bizarre requirement. I have looked into your use of the phrase on the Web (57 hits), and you seem to think it is really a grand challenge when you throw it out there. But I doubt you can pin down what you mean by the phrase. 1. What is an an unintelligent process? How can we tell if a process is unintelligent? 2. What is a blind process? undirected (non-goal oriented) process? How do they differ from one another? 3. How can a blind or undirected process be intelligent? Note: The meaning of "intelligent" is far from self-evident. Ask Bill Demski. I say that enumerating binary instruction sequences in "dictionary" order (0, 1, 00, 01, 10, 11, 000, ...) is mechanical, not intelligent. The enumeration (see the Wiki article) has no purpose but to enumerate. It knows nothing about algorithms, and it never terminates. Some of the instruction sequences are algorithms for processing a null input. Perhaps we should look at relevant meanings of "purpose" from dictionary.com: 1. the reason for which something exists or is done, made, used, etc. 2. an intended or desired result; end; aim; goal. The enumeration has no purpose (2), and the algorithms it generates have no purpose (1). The algorithms do have function, however. I think you have been confusing function with purpose. Tom: "By definition, every algorithm has meaning. The meaning of an algorithm is what it instructs the Turing-complete system to do." Joseph: "From that we can infer algorithms do have a purpose- to instruct the Turing- complete system." You are equivocating on "meaning." Back to dictionary.com: 2. to intend for a particular purpose, destination, etc. 4. to have as its sense or signification; signify I am using the word in a sense close to the fourth. You are using it in the second sense. I hope you were genuinely confused, and did not equivocate purposefully. Intentional equivocation is a slimy tactic employed by people who know deep down they are űberdopes, but who will do anything to conceal the fact from themselves and the world.Tom English
August 26, 2006
August
08
Aug
26
26
2006
10:43 PM
10
10
43
PM
PDT
I am still waiting for a reference that demonstrates unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes can produce an algorithm. Also a reference for such processes producing enumerated sequences would be helpful. Tom English: By definition, every algorithm has meaning. The meaning of an algorithm is what it instructs the Turing-complete system to do. From that we can infer algorithms do have a purpose- to instruct the Turing- complete system. Thanks again. Tom English: P.S.–Joseph, when are you going to parse the Dembski quote you say I don’t understand? After you start substantiating your posts. Which means I will never have to... It case Tom missed this: Perhaps “the blind watchmaker” deserves a fellowship also-> That is if said watchmaker can demonstrated to provide “any sequence of operations which can be performed by a Turing-complete system”. Joseph
August 25, 2006
August
08
Aug
25
25
2006
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT
P.S.--Joseph, when are you going to parse the Dembski quote you say I don't understand?Tom English
August 24, 2006
August
08
Aug
24
24
2006
10:32 PM
10
10
32
PM
PDT
Joseph: "OK wait-> Does “without useless instructions” mean they were with useful instructions?" In a teleonomic, not teleological, sense.Tom English
August 24, 2006
August
08
Aug
24
24
2006
08:44 PM
8
08
44
PM
PDT
Tom: "Infinitely many algorithms read no input, run for a long time, and halt without writing output. How do you get a purpose out of that?" Joseph: "They are doing something, as opposed to nothing which can be quite easily accomplished without an algorithm." But such algorithms serve no function. They do not process information. How can something that serves no function have a purpose? "Do we have direct observation of intelligent agencies producing algorithms? Yes." Does this imply that only an intelligent agent can generate an algorithm? No. "Can intelligent agencies produce meaningless algorithms? Yes" By definition, every algorithm has meaning. The meaning of an algorithm is what it instructs the Turing-complete system to do. "Can intelligent agencies produce algorithms that produce algorithms? Yes" Does this imply that simple enumeration of sequences of instructions in lexicographic order does not generate algorithms? No. "Have you ever observed unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes producing one?" Enumeration of sequences of instructions produces both algorithms and non-algorithms. This is as blind a process as one can define. To get some algorithms from the enumerated sequences, submit each instruction sequence to the Turing-complete system for execution without input. If execution terminates without error within bounded time, the sequence is an algorithm. If execution exceeds the time bound, assume the sequence is not an algorithm. This undirected procedure will not find all algorithms, but it will find indefinitely many. "And when unintelligent, blind/ undirecetd (non-goal oriented) processes start producing random (number) generators from scratch please be sure to let us know." Why? The random numbers used in an evolutionary computation can and actually should be input. But if you insist, first you will have to define what a random number generator is. You should read Bill Dembski's "Randomness by Design," available at http://designinference.com . By the way, see if you can find his error in defining the Glish* language. It causes him to contradict a well known result in the theory of Solomonoff-Chaitin-Kolmogorov complexity.Tom English
August 24, 2006
August
08
Aug
24
24
2006
08:33 PM
8
08
33
PM
PDT
Tom English: The set of algorithms without useless instructions is infinite, so let’s say “infinitely many.” OK wait-> Does "without useless instructions" mean they were with useful instructions?Joseph
August 24, 2006
August
08
Aug
24
24
2006
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT
Tom English: Infinitely many algorithms read no input, run for a long time, and halt without writing output. Yes I know. Tom English: How do you get a purpose out of that? They are doing something, as opposed to nothing which can be quite easily accomplished without an algorithm. Joseph: “THanks Tom- Thanks for confirming my point.” Tom English: Joseph’s point? “First just the word algorithm directly implies intelligence- look it up.” Absolutely. Do we have direct observation of intelligent agencies producing algorithms? Yes. Can intelligent agencies produce meaningless algorithms? Yes Can intelligent agencies produce algorithms that produce algorithms? Yes Have you ever observed unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes producing one? Has anyone EVER demonstrated that such processes can produce an algorithm? Reference it or admit algorithm directly implies intelligence. And when unintelligent, blind/ undirecetd (non-goal oriented) processes start producing random (number) generators from scratch please be sure to let us know. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- “That does NOT follow from the quote I posted.” Tom English: You’ve said this a couple times before. Two and through. Which is bad for a situation which called for a "one and done".Joseph
August 24, 2006
August
08
Aug
24
24
2006
03:51 PM
3
03
51
PM
PDT
Tom: "Almost all algorithms" The set of algorithms without useless instructions is infinite, so let's say "infinitely many."Tom English
August 23, 2006
August
08
Aug
23
23
2006
09:56 PM
9
09
56
PM
PDT
Joseph, "That does NOT follow from the quote I posted." You've said this a couple times before. But you have never parsed the quote for me. Why not? Here it is again. Dembski: “Chance as I characterize it thus includes necessity, chance (as it is ordinarily used), and their combination.”Tom English
August 23, 2006
August
08
Aug
23
23
2006
05:38 PM
5
05
38
PM
PDT
Wikipedia: “Thus, an algorithm can be considered to be any sequence of operations which can be performed by a Turing-complete system.” Joseph: “Operations that can be performed” still demonstrates purpose. The purpose being to perform the operations specified. No, it demonstrates definition. The phrase says in essence that any algorithm is defined with respect to some Turing-complete system. An algorithm need not have any purpose. Infinitely many algorithms read no input, run for a long time, and halt without writing output. How do you get a purpose out of that? Wikipedia: "Because an algorithm is a precise list of precise steps, the order of computation will almost always be critical to the functioning of the algorithm. Instructions are usually assumed to be listed explicitly, and are described as starting ‘from the top’ and going ‘down to the bottom’, an idea that is described more formally by flow of control." Joseph: "THanks Tom- Thanks for confirming my point." Joseph's point? "First just the word algorithm directly implies intelligence- look it up." Evidently you are backing off from "directly," and are taking an indirect approach. You seem to hint at irreducible complexity in algorithms. Bad news here. Let M be a Turing-complete system with algorithms expressed as binary strings. This is purely for convenience -- all Turing-complete systems are equivalent in computing power. Almost all algorithms for M are algorithmically random or close to it. To see this consider that any algorithm A for M that is not random or close to it can be modified by adding random instructions that are never executed. Call the modified algorithm B. Keep it in mind that B computes the same function as A, so B is algorithmic. The number of algorithms B we can generate randomly from A is countably infinite, and for almost all B the length of B is much greater than the length of A, and this implies B is close to algorithmically random. In a rigorous proof, I would count more carefully, but this is good enough for here. To recap, in almost all algorithms a relatively small number of used instructions is lost in an ocean of random, unused instructions. Thus almost all algorithms exhibit a high degree of randomness, not a high level of complex specified information. If you do not understand the quasi-formal argument, Joseph, please have the grace to ask questions rather than attack.Tom English
August 23, 2006
August
08
Aug
23
23
2006
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT
Perhaps "the blind watchmaker" deserves a fellowship also-> That is if said watchmaker can demonstrated to provide "any sequence of operations which can be performed by a Turing-complete system".Joseph
August 23, 2006
August
08
Aug
23
23
2006
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT
Tom English presents: Wikipedia: “Thus, an algorithm can be considered to be any sequence of operations which can be performed by a Turing-complete system.” "Operations that can be performed" still demonstrates purpose. The purpose being to perform the operations specified. But I like this passage: Because an algorithm is a precise list of precise steps, the order of computation will almost always be critical to the functioning of the algorithm. Instructions are usually assumed to be listed explicitly, and are described as starting 'from the top' and going 'down to the bottom', an idea that is described more formally by flow of control. THanks Tom- Thanks for confirming my point. And the following is just wishful speculation: Tom English: Genetic algorithms are highly abstract models of biological evolution. While they do not predict much about biota, they do serve to validate key aspects of evolutionary theory. Why is it wishful speculation? We do NOT know what makes an organism what it is so we do not know what can cause the changes required if all of life's diversity owed its collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms that just happened to have the ability to asexually reproduce. With GAs the programmer can make those "organisms" be anything he/ she wants them to be. That programmer can also define the parameters of what allows change and what constitutes "new/ evolved" populations. Now back to Tom's backpeddling: Read Dembski closely. Necessity is chance. That does NOT follow from the quote I posted. And YOU were deriving you post from that quote. Also if you had been following ID even the laws of nature had to have arrived via chance in the anti-ID scenario. IOW it IS "sheer-dumb-luck" through and through.Joseph
August 23, 2006
August
08
Aug
23
23
2006
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT
DaveScot, "Like rule based decision making in software was something no one had ever done before some marketing genius decided to call it “Expert Systems” to see if it would sell better." The term "expert system" was coined in academia in the 1970's, not in industry. Not all expert systems are rule-based, and in fact the first expert system, Dendral (1966), was not. You might want to check out the Post production system, first published by the mathematician Emil Post in 1943. Another model of rule-based computation is the Markov algorithm (1960?). Markov was a mathematician. "We implimented genetic algorithms, artificial intelligence, and expert systems in that software [25 years ago] before anyone ever heard the terms and we weren’t pompous enough to think we were inventing anything new." I am confused as to why you listed both expert systems and artificial intelligence. Expert systems are a kind of artificial intelligence. The term "artificial intelligence" goes back to 1956. Holland wrote about genetic algorithms in 1973. His book came out in 1975. The term "expert system" was around at least as early as Buchanan's Mycin (developed in the early 1970's). All three terms were well known 25 years ago (1981). I am confused. "Imagine how we laugh when some young idiot or clueless academician picks up something we were doing when they were still crapping gerber baby food and gives it some hoity-toity name like it’s something new." Programmers rarely invent as much as they think they have. Even if something has been pulled together with baling wire and chewing gum in industry, it is important for someone to reduce it to engineering (not hacking) practice. "So now here comes Tom with a GA working on a Steiner Tree with 6 points and one connection layer. Imagine me giggling over that trivial POS when 25 years ago I was coding software that did the same thing only with 60 thousand points to connect and anywhere from one to a dozen connection layers." The point of the exercise is not to demonstrate how large a problem instance the GA can solve. The point is to give a small, easy to understand example of a GA generating irreducible complexity. The program is intended as a proof of principle. Less is more.Tom English
August 23, 2006
August
08
Aug
23
23
2006
03:22 AM
3
03
22
AM
PDT
Tom English While fishing one of my own comments out of the spam filter (I used the word "pill" which is blacklisted) I noticed one of yours in there and recovered that as well. I don't believe it was intentional. You probably used a blacklisted word like I did.DaveScot
August 22, 2006
August
08
Aug
22
22
2006
11:39 PM
11
11
39
PM
PDT
Oops - that should be "So now here comes Dave Thomas with a GA working on a Steiner Tree with 6 points" in comment 38 instead of "here comes Tom". Please pardon any confusion that may have caused.DaveScot
August 22, 2006
August
08
Aug
22
22
2006
10:43 PM
10
10
43
PM
PDT
Tom English with an as yet undetermined appendage writes: When you are awarded your McArthur Fellowship you can explain that to former McArthur Fellow John Holland, to whom the term “genetic algorithm” is due. I was awarded millions of dollars in incentive compensation at Dell while we took it from $1B to $40B in revenue in the 1990's. No fellowships though. It never occured to me to ask Michael for one. Imagine how sad I feel as I sit on my yacht writing this. Boo hoo.DaveScot
August 22, 2006
August
08
Aug
22
22
2006
10:29 PM
10
10
29
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply