Michael Denton on Mathematics and Stardust

_{Gil Dodgen

July 27, 2011

Intelligent Design}

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

I’m not quite sure who Michael Denton is.

I’ve read his two books, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis and Nature’s Destiny.

It was Crisis that first inspired me to exclaim to myself, How could you have been so stupid as to have been duped into believing this transparent Darwinian-gradualism-and-random-mutation-natural-selection nonsense?

In Destiny he presents some remarkable insights, not just about the fine tuning of the laws of physics, but about the remarkably fine-tuned properties of water, the carbon atom, light, and much more, for the eventual appearance of living systems.

For Denton’s comments about stardust see here.

For his comments on mathematics see here.

So far, ID theory has addressed two primary domains: cosmology and biology. However, I believe that Denton elucidates another area of ID interest, and that is mathematical ID.

How is it that the laws of physics and so much of physical reality can be represented by mathematics? As Denton explains, humans did not invent math, it is built into the nature of things and was discovered. How is it that random mutations filtered by natural selection produced the human mind that can discover not only the beauty of math, but its application in the description of how things work?

It was as a result of the observations presented above, and many more, that I finally decided I could no longer muster up enough blind faith to be an atheist. The only rational conclusion I could reach is that it’s all the product of design, by an indescribably powerful and creative intelligence.

The reason I say that I’m not quite sure who Michael Denton is, is that he appears to be some kind of “vitalist.” I’m not quite sure what that means, but he certainly has no theological axe to grind.

No matter what you might think about Michael Denton, he is certainly not a mindless, knuckle-dragging, uneducated, science-destroying Christian like me.

Comments

I think William stumbled on this thread while stalking Mung. I think he posted here by mistake, because he asks Mung what new insights he provided, yet there's nothing here by William but two snarky non sequiturs, while I counted 30 posts by Mung before getting tired of counting. I have to think he meant to post on another thread, because I have a hard time imagining the hubris required to level a charge of "contributing nothing" to a thread that one's contributed absolutely nothing to.material.infantacy_{August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT}

Upright,
how symbolic representations and physical protocols came to be coordinated together in a system of information storage and processing?
No, the paper I am referring to speaks to information only. For example, Mung notes:
It is always information about something. It’s effect is to change, in one way or another, the total of ‘all that is the case’ for us. This rather obvious statement is the key to the definition of information.
Casting information into a form that can be subject to analysis from a mathematical point of view has a long history. I'm simply pointing out to Mung that he would be better served by learning what is already known regarding information then attempting to get up to speed by asking to be spoon fed a course in information theory on a blog. However I have my own point of view regarding "symbolic representations and physical protocols" but many of the questions/points I have will no doubt be answered when your particular definition is operationalised so it can be examined in the simulation that Lizzie is proposing. So I'm going to hold off until then, when many things will become clear that are currently unclear.WilliamRoache_{August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT}

Was it something I said?Upright BiPed_{August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT}

William, I am unfamiliar with the paper you refer to. Does your paper from the 60's give any credible idea (or preferably experimental results) as to how symbolic representations and physical protocols came to be coordinated together in a system of information storage and processing?Upright BiPed_{August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT}

Mung,
Such insightful originality is always welcome around here. Unfortunately we can’t pay you for it.
Well, let's look at the facts. What new insight have you provided that has not already been detailed 100's of times already here and elsewhere. Do you honestly think that nobody has thought of your questions/points, that they are somehow original and insightful? If you'd read the paper I already linked to that has been available since the 60's then many of your kindergarden level questions would be answered. But you want to be spoon fed constantly. The funny thing is that it's obvious that were you to attempt to engage professional scientists in any other venue then this you'd be met with disbelief that somebody with so little understanding is attempting to critique what they don't actually understand. And then be ignored.WilliamRoache_{August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT}

Dr Liddle: Surely you know better than that. The problem of general skepticism is that it is self refuting by self-referential incoherence. It is not possible that "all viewpoints may turn out not to be" because there are somethings that are certainly true. One of those certainly true points is that error exists, which can only be denied by giving an instance of its correctness. Similarly, knowledge is possible is undeniably true. General skepticism is inherently absurd. Yes, since error is possible, and indeed exists, we must be humble and open-minded in our pursuit of the possibility of knowledge, here in the form warranted credibly true belief. But the very fact that we can to certainty -- not just moral certainty, but on pain of reduction to absurdity -- warrant at least one knowledge claim, then we know that knowledge even to certainty, is possible and actual. Beyond that we have weaker forms of knowledge that we routinely use in going about life and science, provisional warrant, sometimes to moral certainty [beyond reasonable doubt], sometimes to the preponderant balance of the evidence. Yet further, we have opinions which may be sufficiently well supported that it would be irresponsible -- imprudent -- not to act on them, but they are less certain yet. So, please revise your project in light of first principles of right reason and the impact of self evident truths that are the pivots for that right reason. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
04:56 AM
4
04
56
AM
PDT}

An intervention: Parson, but part of the exchange pivots on the significance of symbols as digital carriers of information that may be expressed in signals and messages. Symbols have observable, measurable characteristics that are so closely associated with the information they convey that the statistical study of symbols is tantamount to a study of the associated information. This is quite similar to how energy is a very abstract entity but the study of closely associated entities and operations such as work, wave fluxes, fields, forces, motion etc in suitable configurations, is effectively a study of energy. Now, in terms of common use, digital information functions in computers, in text, in telephones etc etc. In some cases a living mind is directly involved, as in when we read or hear or speak etc. In others, the symbols, in the form of messages conveyed by signals of one form or another, are used in that form to process the symbols based on intelligently designed protocols and procedures, in machines that are intelligently designed and configured, to achieve what we commonly call information processing. But int eh latter case, we should observe carefully: it is the physical signals and their associated modulations of contingent material or energy or wave states that are being mechanically processed, much as a numerically controlled machine will mill a bit of wood to make a carving, as opposed to a skilled human carver doing much the same. That we see the machine at work does not imply that there is no intelligence involved, just that it has been canned and embedded in machinery. So, if we were to put the two carvings side by side, we would be entirely warranted to infer to design as the root cause in both cases. In the case of the living cell the situation is much like the NC machine. The key difference -- often highlighted by evolutionary materialism advocates and fellow travellers -- is that the living cell self-replicates. But, that is simply an instance of ADDITIONALITY. The living cell manifests the factory side and the self-replication side that partly uses the factory to draw on stored information that is digitally coded, and create a copy of itself, perhaps an imperfect one. Von Neumann showed us how to do that in principle, through his kinematic self-replicator, but the past 60 years have shown that this is much easier said than done, though we now have some very primitive partial instances. (Cf on RepRap a 3-d printer here, which makes about half its own parts, but of course does not assemble them into a copy of itself, which the cell does in the course of a few minutes.) What I always find astounding is that people can look at a functioning kinematic self replicator that is also a nano machine based factory, and then say that it can credibly originate by chance and necessity, and will then by lucky accidents rewarded by success in ecological niches build itself into a world of life. It strikes me that such have never done serious software and hardware system development, much less the sort of machine they are talking about. So, they have no real idea of the immensity of the specified complexity challenge they are so easily gliding over with a few smooth words. Even the first 72 ASCI characters of this post are hopelessly beyond the reasonable chance and necessity blind search capacity of the 10^57 atoms of our solar system, our effective world. [If you had a haystack 1/10 of a light year on the side and you were to make a single sample equal in size to one straw from it, would you reasonably expect to find isolated needles in the stack, or would you overwhelmingly expect to only find a straw? Of course, if you were to have an intelligently designed machine that could go needle hunting, say by putting out mm wave radar pulses and picking up echoes then converging on likely targets, that would be a very different thing. But that would be the use of a warmer/colder oracle, not a chance based random walk rewarded only by actual success, in a context where a mm's miss is as good as a mile.] GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
04:46 AM
4
04
46
AM
PDT}

i.e. all skepticism is valid: all viewpoints may turn out not to be :) That's the point.Elizabeth Liddle_{August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
03:28 AM
3
03
28
AM
PDT}

Is it a zone where skepticism about materialism is also valid
Yes! And climate change, even. Or who won the 2004 Presidential election. The only rule is: Park your priors at the door! In other words, loosen your assumptions, whoever you are, and prepare to have them challenged. But I'm going to be anal about insisting that arguments are aimed at arguments not at people. The working assumption that people are posting in good faith must be adhered to. Hence the guano page where violating comments will remain visible but uncommentable on, and out of the way. If it doesn't work, I will close the blog (or keep it for my personal musings :) There are plenty of other forums around where people can cackle at the stupids who don't share their views.Elizabeth Liddle_{August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
03:14 AM
3
03
14
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth, appreciated. Your courtesy is a credit to your character; and your willingness to entertain at least some of our viewpoints and ideas is admirable. I don't have the same view regarding many of your associates, however. I have no interest in defending ID against charges of being "creationism in a cheap tuxedo," or of ID being "unscientific." I've no interest in engaging with people who are incapable of respecting those of my persuasion. I find repeated assertions that mind is an emergent property of matter a bore, as I find those who are incapable of even assuming for the sake of argument that the mind is, even possibly, in a category of it's own. And I have no tolerance nor respect for priggish behavior, classism, elitism, or for bullying, stereotyping, caricaturing, and all the tactics I've witnessed here numerous times by the same folk who whine incessantly about UD's moderation policies. I find all of that very tiring and I have no intention of investing any effort on those who will steadfastly refuse, to the bitter end, to consider the validity of making a design inference because they can't, even for a moment, accept the implications that might follow. I could go on but I think you get the point. I'm finding it rewarding to explore ideas here with people with whom I have something in common philosophically, having spent enough of my youth having philosophical materialism rammed down my throat to the point of gagging. There is no philosophical parity between materialism and theism, so there is little common ground to be had there, and so no point in trying to convince of anything, those who've stopped up their ears to anything I have to say before I've ever said it. These are only interested in scoring rhetorical victories before high-fiving their buddies and proclaiming "pwnd!!!11!!" I'm not in a war of world views on this blog. I can converse with those who consider what I say, and who extend the benefit of the doubt when I say something stupid or get in over my head. I can for the most part expect respectful correction, and sincere attempts to help me expand my understanding by sharing insights and trying to enlighten me on facts or viewpoints that I may not have considered. Can I get the same at "The Skeptical Zone?" Who knows, but I'd bet not. Is it a zone where skepticism about materialism is also valid, in any sense, instead of being written of as religious fanaticism, or "ignorance of the facts?" Because what passes for intellectual pursuits among committed materialists seems like little more than elitism, dismissive of even the notion of a divine intelligence to the point of being downright hostile to, and demeaning toward, anyone who disagrees. Well that's my evening rant, I hope it was at least entertaining! xp g'night, m.i.material.infantacy_{August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
02:43 AM
2
02
43
AM
PDT}

This thread is getting really interesting, and I'm finding the last few posts very useful. Moderators: please don't lock this thread! However, if we get stuck again, I've book marked this one, and I strongly suggest that we adjourn to The Skeptical Zone The Skeptical Zone and set up permanent camp! I've started a thread already, but can make a new one with a link to here. Or if anyone wants to write their OP, just let me know. I'm making all users "contributors" with OP writing permissions. Also I have a guano zone, MI, and I'm not afraid to use it :)Elizabeth Liddle_{August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
01:14 AM
1
01
14
AM
PDT}

I guess I'm looking for the appropriate nomenclature relative to two distinct entities: the concept conceived in the mind, and the symbols representative of the concept.material.infantacy_{August 2, 2011
August
08
Aug
2
02
2011
11:37 PM
11
11
37
PM
PDT}

fG, That's true in a sense, except we're understanding a delineation between that process and it's representation in the mind. I gather it's your view that there is no delineation, and the conscious process is a moment-by-moment change in "brain state," which corresponds directly to elector-chemical states in the brain. If you're right about that, then you're absolutely right in your #185. But assuming for a moment that the process in the brain is the result of mind, then we have another category of thing which requires some sort of explanation. In this case, the concept formulated in the mind is of an entirely different category than the physical states of the mediums which carry the symbols. If I'm starting to understand Mung after my inanity in post #183, the concept suspended in the mind is information and the symbols strung together in whatever medium, which carry the message, contain no information. If that's the case, then the message is an artifact of the mind, having no impact on anything in the universe whatsoever, having no quality distinct in effect from any other contingent arrangement of the same. Information is instantiated in the mind, and the impact of the message on another mind is another "instantiation" of the message, either creating, or simply conveying the information. This is where Mung comes in and says, "No, you're not getting what I'm saying at all." If I am, information can only exist and be contained in a mind, and any physical state used to represent the information is a string of symbols producing no effect except in another mind. If that is the case there's another type of artifact to catagorize, but I'll save that for a bit.material.infantacy_{August 2, 2011
August
08
Aug
2
02
2011
11:26 PM
11
11
26
PM
PDT}

“When a personal assistant in New York types a dictation and then prints and sends the result via fax to Los Angeles, some thing will arrive in L.A. But that thing — the paper coming out of the fax machine — did not originate in New York. Only the information on the paper came from New York. No single physical substance — not the air that carried the boss’s words to the dictaphone, or the recording tape in the tiny machine, or the paper that entered the fax in New York, or the ink on the paper coming out of the fax in Los Angeles — traveled all the way from sender to receiver. Yet something did.” ------- This question goes away the moment one realises that information is not a thing, but a process, a chain of interactions. Nothing travelled all the way from New York to Los Angeles. What happened in Los Angeles was just the final step in a series of interactions. fGfaded_Glory_{August 2, 2011
August
08
Aug
2
02
2011
11:03 PM
11
11
03
PM
PDT}

Correction. Old: ...can we say that it received a message representing the sequence of symbols? New: ...can we say that it received a message represented by the sequence of symbols?material.infantacy_{August 2, 2011
August
08
Aug
2
02
2011
10:03 PM
10
10
03
PM
PDT}

Mung, regarding #180, "So one thing that UPB, yourself, and Elizabeth all seem to hold in common is that a receiver does not have to be a mind." I need to give this some thought. I typed a bunch of stuff but it was all rubbish, so I flushed it. What follows may not be much of an improvement. As a side note, I would say of Meyer that he may have made a conscious decision to trade precision for accessibility, avoiding carefully crafted definitions for commonly used words, for the sake of a more general audience. ... "But is that actually the case? Because he also seems to acknowledge that it is the fax machine (or perhaps the paper itself) that was the receiver of information." I'll confess to being ignorant of the distinction, but I'm intrigued and would certainly like to know more about how you see this. Can you recommend some reading material? I'm happy to do my homework on this. Does it change things if we say that the fax contained a "message" instead of containing information? Because I would suggest that they are just splotches of ink on a paper, and the particular configuration isn't significant to any entity save a mind, to which it is potentially profound. (But for what we observe in a cell, there's certainly an artifact of mind crafted in the languages of chemistry and physics. Is it information?) So if you're saying that information can only be instantiated and received by a mind (and I agree in principal, so this is about a definition, not a concept) and that's part of the definition of information, then how do we refer to the coded symbols, the contingent arrangements, which carry it? If the fax doesn't receive the information, can we say that it received a message representing the sequence of symbols? That makes sense to me I suppose, but I'm afraid I might be missing the point. I believe it's reasonable to presume that there is an artifact we observe which can only be the product of mind. About that we certainly agree. What I'm asking is if I'm abusing the language by using the word information where it would be more approprate to use a word like message. And I agree that it's important for us to be consistent about our definitions and usage, as much as possible. So I hope you don't read all this rambling as quibbling. I want to understand these distinctions better, and the concepts relating to them. "But they do need to be symbols, right? They need to represent something." Absolutely. So I'll ask a couple of question to seek clarification, and make a few assumptions. I come across a message written on a piece of paper, which reads, "Help! I need a roast beef sandwich and a six pack of Sierra Nevada Pale Ale delivered immediately to 1234 22nd street #212 or I will surely die!" The message has clearly been written by someone and now read and understood by me. Where's the information now? I write a program which takes a gray scale bitmap containing elevation data and outputs a 3D rendered terrain grid on the computer screen. I send it to a client who runs the program and examines the output. Where's the information in this example? Is it in the program (bits in ram or hard drive), the source data, the output, or just in the minds of the sending and receiving party? Again, recommended reading would be appreciated, especially if you want to escape my inane questions. xp m.i. P.S. I'll read #182 now.material.infantacy_{August 2, 2011
August
08
Aug
2
02
2011
09:55 PM
9
09
55
PM
PDT}

In everyday language we say we have received information, when we know something now that we did not know before. If we are exceptionally honest, or a philosopher, we assert only that we now believe something to be the case which we did not previously believe to be the case. Information makes a difference to what we believe to be the case. It is always information about something. It’s effect is to change, in one way or another, the total of ‘all that is the case’ for us. This rather obvious statement is the key to the definition of information. For those to whom 'metaphysics' is a bad word, any aura of metaphysical abstruseness which it may have is easily exorcised. What we know or believe, in science at least, could in principle be represented in a variety of quite precise ways: we might make a long statement, or draw a symbolic picture, or make a physical model, or send a communication-signal. All the results could in a sense show or embody what we believe: they are what we may call representations: structures which have at least some abstract features in common with something else that they purport to represent. These abstract features of representations are what we want to isolate. They form the real currency of scientific intercourse, which is normally obscured in wrappings of adventitious detail. Now that we have established this fundamental notion of a representation, information can be described as what we depend on for making statements or other representations. More precisely, we may define information in general as that which justifies representational activity. – Donald M. MacKay, Information, Mechanism and MeaningMung_{August 2, 2011
August
08
Aug
2
02
2011
06:04 PM
6
06
04
PM
PDT}

WilliamRoache:
No, not really.
Such insightful originality is always welcome around here. Unfortunately we can't pay you for it.Mung_{August 2, 2011
August
08
Aug
2
02
2011
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT}

m.i. I understand what you are saying and I think Meyer is imprecise in his language and it is just this sort of imprecision which leads to so much confusion, even among ID advocates, a bad place for confusion to exist about information! There is no information on the paper. What is on the paper is ink/toner. :) What is it that makes those splotches of ink anything other than splotches of ink on paper? The process that puts the ink on the paper is mechanical. The ink is given form. Mechanically. Discrete symbols appear. The symbols "stand for" something, they "represent" something.
A symbol is something which represents an idea, a physical entity or a process but is distinct from it. The purpose of a symbol is to communicate meaning. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol
The symbols are arranged in a sequence. Again through a mechanical process they are imprinted on the page by forming ink. The arrangement of symbols itself gives form to a representation. That which represents another. It is these representations that we look for to tell us that information is present (among other things). As an interesting point for possible further discussion, Meyer's view seems to be that the information needs to be on the paper because someone needs to then read the fax in order for there have to been a transfer of information. But is that actually the case? Because he also seems to acknowledge that it is the fax machine (or perhaps the paper itself) that was the receiver of information. So one thing that UPB, yourself, and Elizabeth all seem to hold in common is that a receiver does not have to be a mind. And we can even talk about an effect, in that the effect is the arrangement of symbols formed by applying ink to a sheet of paper in Los Angeles. But they do need to be symbols, right? They need to represent something. Do formless blobs of ink convey information? Maybe they convey that the fax machine is broken, lol.Mung_{August 2, 2011
August
08
Aug
2
02
2011
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT}

Mung at #175, Meyer says something that struck me as similar. From page 15 of SITC, Meyer suggests to the reader that information is in another category from the physical: "When a personal assistant in New York types a dictation and then prints and sends the result via fax to Los Angeles, some thing will arrive in L.A. But that thing -- the paper coming out of the fax machine -- did not originate in New York. Only the information on the paper came from New York. No single physical substance -- not the air that carried the boss's words to the dictaphone, or the recording tape in the tiny machine, or the paper that entered the fax in New York, or the ink on the paper coming out of the fax in Los Angeles -- traveled all the way from sender to receiver. Yet something did."material.infantacy_{August 2, 2011
August
08
Aug
2
02
2011
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT}

Good show at #163, faded_Glory. "Information" is always in the eye of the beholder, just like "beauty."Pedant_{August 2, 2011
August
08
Aug
2
02
2011
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT}

Hi UB, regarding your post at #177: Don't misunderstand, you seem more than capable of the task -- your grasp on the problem is impressive. I just wouldn't think it fair to ask you to shoulder the entire burden of providing (or better yet, representing) a comprehensive definition of information for a simulation that will probably be used to justify who-knows-what claims about the efficacy of chance and necessity to do it's own designing. I wouldn't have the stones to do it. And yes, I wondered myself about the eerie silence. I expected to be corrected at some point for my own assertions regarding what would "prove" that chance and necessity can stand in place of a designer. Perhaps we're the only ones who find it particularly interesting. It does seem almost axiomatic that a simulation is incapable of solving the search-for-a-function problem (squared) so maybe they see it as an exercise in hot air, no offense intended to Elizabeth. I hope to summarize my own view on the problems and potential solutions in the next day or so, and then I intend to head back to the bleachers and watch the game, with perhaps the occasional yelling from the sidelines.material.infantacy_{August 2, 2011
August
08
Aug
2
02
2011
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT}

MI at 174. Obviously I cannot speak for the ID community. I am just me - trying to articulate an argument coming from the observations. And if you take a look around, you'll notice that (with just a couple of valued exceptions) the UD contributors have remained fairly silent on these threads, so that should answer that.Upright BiPed_{August 2, 2011
August
08
Aug
2
02
2011
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT}

Mung,
Just wondering if pursuing this line of thought would be helpful.
No, not really.WilliamRoache_{August 2, 2011
August
08
Aug
2
02
2011
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT}

So in the search for information, what are some examples from real life which we can all agree on, if any? Can we take the contents of a file on a hard drive as an example? Let's say that I prepared this post in a text editor and saved it to a file on my hard drive. I then open the file in my hard drive and copy/paste the contents and submit them. Or I open an email application and attach the file to the email and send it to someone. So what is the process that is involved and how is the information "stored" and communicated? When I press a key on the keyboard mechanics unquestionably take over, agreed? Something gets stored in RAM, something gets displayed on the screen, and when I save the file something gets stored on the hard drive which can later be retrieved, displayed, and communicated. No one would argue that this process of from key to hard disk is not entirely mechanical, would they? So what actually happens during that process and can it help to understand that in our question for how to discover the presence of information? Or perhaps introducing a hard disk is just adding an unnecessary extra component. Hard drive encoding is a whole topic in itself, lol. So what about RAM? How do we get from keyboard to RAM and what is it that gets stored in memory? Now first and foremost RAM is a physical substrate. What is it about RAM that allows it to store representations of information? Just wondering if pursuing this line of thought would be helpful.Mung_{August 2, 2011
August
08
Aug
2
02
2011
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT}

Ditto to Mung's #172. But I would recommend that at least Meyer and the EIL be made aware of the goal and the terms as part of the arrangement, to be given an opportunity for comment. It shouldn't be hung on UB to speak for the entire ID community, unless he prefers it that way.material.infantacy_{August 2, 2011
August
08
Aug
2
02
2011
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT}

On the non-circularity of Information Charges of circularity have been leveled, but they are misguided. Elizabeth believes that Intelligence can arise from Chance + Necessity sans Intelligent causation. So even if it is true that information requires intelligence, nothing prevents the proposed simulation from incorporating the generation of intelligence from Chance + Necessity in order to bring about information. In fact, that would be an even more impressive demonstration. Away with the misguided objections! On with the simulation! If it must first generate intelligence, so be it.Mung_{August 2, 2011
August
08
Aug
2
02
2011
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT}

And for the record, if the two of you (Upright BiPed and Elizabeth Liddle) come to some agreement, I have no intention of stepping in and objecting. As far as I am concerned the actual decision as to what is a sufficient demonstration for the purposes of the discussion between you is between the two of you.Mung_{August 2, 2011
August
08
Aug
2
02
2011
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT}

UBP: Touched and reassured by 169. Thank you, both for this and for your patience :) Will look in detail at 170 before responding. Cheers LizzieElizabeth Liddle_{August 2, 2011
August
08
Aug
2
02
2011
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT}

Dr Liddle, It seems like an utter waste of time to have to go through the sideshow, but you’ve made several comments. You continue to cast my argument as “circular”. What on earth are you talking about? From the very start I have said that the presence of information requires a mechanism in order to bring it into being. I’ve never described information as solely the product of a mind, and therefore do not make the circular argument that the product of a mind is defined as the product of a mind. In fact, this is something you yourself acknowledged in a comment to another contributor to the conversation (Liddle: ‘Upright BiPed has already said that a mind is not necessary’). So what gives? One instance where you started calling the argument circular is when I brought Nirenberg into the conversation in full. I told you at the time that simply recognizing the historical fact that Nirenberg confirmed the existence of information in the genome (by demonstrating it) did not constitute a circular argument. Instead of stating why you thought it was, you only wondered why I didn’t see it. You also made the circularity claim when I observed that the physical state within nucleotides never interact with the physical state of the amino acids, yet one determines the other through an discrete physical object; a protocol. You’ve made these claims along the way, but you have yet to actually demonstrate what is circular. Either do so, or leave it alone. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Also you seem to want to portray yourself in this conversation as having provided a definition that fits the observations, and are just waiting and waiting and waiting for someone to come along and give it the “okay”. This is either lunacy, carelessness, or deceptive, and it can easily be shown as such. Look at the very last definition you offered, versus the first. Observe the dates. Notice the incremental changes that took place along the way. This, Dr Liddle, has been an exercise in getting you to understand and include (one by one) the critical details required to confirm the true existence of information. Here is an example from late in the conversation (just one week ago as of today), I am arguing that to confirm information it must be demonstrated, and you are agreeing to a demonstration, except that you don’t feel we need to include the language (or the dynamics) of ‘representations’ and ‘protocols’:
BIPED: This is why the demonstration is the only viable method, Dr Liddle. It’s mandatory to the exercise. You have to demonstrate that a discrete representation is a discrete representation, and for it to actually be a discrete representation it will require something to create the mapping between itself and that which it is to represent. And as in all other cases of information known to exist, those representations will have a physical protocol to establish that mapping. LIDDLE: Well, I would then need operationalisations of “discrete representation” and “physical protocol” then. But I don’t see that they are necessary. [emp ad] If the output (say an amino acid) maps to an arrangement of nucleotides, then obviously there must be a physical mechanism to do so. But all we need to do to say that information has been created is to demonstrate the mapping, surely? We do not have to say – “oh, and that mapping has to have been created by a physical protocol”. And we certainly do not have to say, surely, that the mapping has to have been created by a non-physical protocol, or a “break in the causal chain”!
You say that all we need to do is show the mapping between the arrangement and the effect. This is effectively the same as saying all we need to do is show that an arrangement of oxygen and iron are mapped to the presence of rust! Without a “break in the causal chain” and a “discrete protocol” to establish the relationship across that break, there CANNOT BE A REPRESENTATION, and hence, NO INFORMATION. So in the last week of July when you were still saying that “Operationally, we would demonstrate that information was present by the simple observation that the arrangement of input material resulted in specific output” you are indeed hanging on to a misunderstanding of the dynamics involved, and you are hanging on to this misunderstanding at a very fundamental level. Not only are you hanging on to it, but you feel the need to clarify it for me, as if I need a more precise understanding. You are shoehorning this misunderstanding (and others) into your demonstration amongst a cloud of smoke, and you and want me to sign off on it. You say:
I’ll tell you again, and try to make it even clearer … My “arrangements of something” will be strings of “virtual polymers”. I will categorise them by their arrangements, as they will be categorical variables. I will measure their “specific effects” either as longevity (in terms of iterations) or reproductive fidelity (by comparison to “organisms” with different parentage. If the arrangement is a statistically significant predictor of “specific [functional] effects” I will consider my claim demonstrated.
Dr Liddle, there is nothing whatsoever in that methodology that establishes either a protocol or a break in the causal chain, and therefore no representations, and then by definition, no information. Yet you are willing to consider the presence of information “demonstrated” on your behalf.
My claim stands: that Chance and Necessity alone can create information, by any definition of information that anyone cares to offer
Dr Liddle, really, get real. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Okay, enough of that. Let’s look at the definitions we’ve exchanged. First let’s remember the conceptual definition which came from the observations of information (any information):
Information is a representation of a discrete object/thing embedded in an arrangement of matter or energy, where the object/thing represented is entirely dissociated from the representation, but where the association of the two can be established by means of a protocol instantiated in the receiver of the information.
And now the last exchanges:
LIDDLE: That, starting only with non-self-replicating entities with a physics-and-chemistry plus random kinetics, self-replicating “virtual organisms” can emerge that contain patterns of “virtual matter” whose arrangement determines the fidelity of its self replication (measured in terms of similarity to its “parent” as compared with a randomly substituted pattern).
I then told you of the gulf that stands between this definition and the observations that led up to it, and I offered this instead:
BIPED: Starting only with non-self-replicating entities in a physics-and-chemistry (plus random kinetics) environment, self-replicating “virtual organisms” can emerge that contain dissociated representations embedded in the arrangement(s) of matter. These arrangements represent the system that created them, and will determine the output of that system by means of an intermediary “virtual object”. Without becoming incorporated, this object may interact with either the representation or output, or both, but where the two remain whole and physically separated. 1) Dissociated = having no physical relationship to that which it represents. 2) Intermediary = serves the dynamic purpose of allowing the input representations to determine the output while they each remain discrete, a facilitator
To which you found the word “representation” objectionable, as well as the footnotes (added for clarification of context) and offered this in return:
Starting only with non-self-replicating entities in a physics-and-chemistry (plus random kinetics) environment, self-replicating “virtual organisms” can emerge that contain arrangements of virtual matter represented as strings that cause the virtual organism to self-replicate with fidelity, and thus determine the output of that system, namely a copy of that system. The arrangement must produce its output by means of an intermediary “virtual object”. This “virtual object” must take the form of a second arrangement of “virtual matter” that may interact with the strings and with some other “virtual object” that affect the fidelity of the self-replication of the “virtual organisms” without either permanently altering, or being altered by, the interaction.
In deference to your many attempts to integrate the requirements of information into your simulation, I suggest that we work from this definition of yours, but I take a couple of exceptions. My priorities have always been to include the existence of specific objects (discrete representations and protocols) and specific dynamics (the discrete-ness of the objects, the break in the causal chain, and the resulting effect - which is the output of the system being the replication of the system itself). As far as your first paragraph above, I have no particular problems. What this tells me is that you will produce a system that is reproducing copies of itself by means of “arrangements of virtual matter represented as strings” which determine the output of the system – a copy of itself. In this paragraph you used the word “represented” which you otherwise objected to when I used it, but I will not throw up a fuss. No one interested in this exercise will misunderstand its use, and if they do, it won’t change the results of your simulation. Therefore, this paragraph establishes my priorities of representations and output, but says nothing of protocols or the break in the causal chain. For this we turn to your second paragraph. In your second paragraph you say:
The arrangement must produce its output by means of an intermediary “virtual object”. This “virtual object” must take the form of a second arrangement of “virtual matter” that may interact with the strings and with some other “virtual object” that affect the fidelity of the self-replication of the “virtual organisms” without either permanently altering, or being altered by, the interaction.
This paragraph is made up of two sentences. The first of these introduces the protocol as an intermediary virtual object, which is perfectly fine, and leaves only the critical dynamic relationship to be established. This is where I take my exception, and I suggest that we leave the other parameters alone, and focus on dealing with this final piece. The observations regarding the dynamics of the protocol are critical. Without them, nothing else can follow, or in the case of the representation – it couldn’t even exist.. Now, we have already had an extended (and bloody) brawl over the term “break in the causal chain” and over the specific dynamic involved. That brawl can be condensed down to the general observation, and one of your final comments on the matter:
BIPED:Thirdly, to facilitate this dynamic property, there must be a necessary break in the causal chain. This break is exemplified within the cell by the simple fact that proteins are not created from nucleotides. In other words, if you plucked the ribosome from the cell’s protein synthesis machinery, and put yourself in its place, in one direction you would see sequences of nucleotides coming in for translation, and in the other direction you would see sequenced amino acids floating off into the distance to be folded into proteins. One of these marks the input of information (representations instantiated in matter) and the other is the output (a process being dynamically altered by the input). But these are two entirely separate causal chains (if I may use that word). The first causal chain is the sequence of representations, which I say is the product of design, and you contend is the result of chance/necessity. It is made up of nucleic acids. The second causal chain is the bonding within the resulting polypeptide. It is made up of amino acids. The amino acids and the nucleic acids do not interact. They are connected at this dynamic break only by the protocol itself, which I say is the product of design, and you say is the result of chance/necessity. Regardless of who is correct, this dynamic break in the causal chain must be represented in the simulation.
- - - - -
BIPED:ID views these symbols and their discrete protocols as formal, abstract, and with their origins associated only with the living kingdom (never with the remaining inanimate world). Their very presence reflects a break in the causal chain, where on one side is pure physicality (chance contingency + physical law) and on the other side is formalism (choice contingency + physical law). Your simulation should be an attempt to cause the rise of symbols and their discrete protocols (two of the fundamental requirements of recorded information between a sender and a receiver) from a source of nothing more than chance contingency and physical law.
- - - - -
BIPED:Again, it is not at my insistence that the entailment be simulated, it’s a requirement coming from the evidence itself – but there is no miracle there. The tRNA – a physical object subject to physical law – is the protocol that (by its physical configuration) allows the information to be transferred into the output, and thereby constraining it. If there is an unbroken line between the information and its final effect, then no discrete representation could exist, and no protocol either. Neither would even be necessary. This would violate your own operational definition, as well as the dynamic structure that the definition entails.
- - - - -
BIPED:The sequences of nucleotides in DNA, and the order of amino acids in proteins, are two discrete objects. They are separated by both space and direct interaction. They are bridged by transcription and translation machinery which includes a physical object which converts one sequence into the other while they remain separate. It responds to the representation at the input, and transfers that representation to a second sequence which is entirely disassociated from the first. This fulfills the operational definition you put forth.
- - - - -
LIDDLE: Re-reading your paragraph here: ”The sequences of nucleotides in DNA, and the order of amino acids in proteins, are two discrete objects. They are separated by both space and direct interaction. They are bridged by transcription and translation machinery which includes a physical object which converts one sequence into the other while they remain separate. It responds to the representation at the input, and transfers that representation to a second sequence which is entirely disassociated from the first. This fulfills the operational definition you put forth.” This is absolutely fine. As I said I’d thought we were nearly there. But here you specifically describe the link (the dissociated link) as “a physical object which converts one sequence into the other while they remain separate” No problem. I’m not quite sure why you describe this as a “break in the physical chain” or a “break in the causal chain”, because it seems to me to be neither. But if that “break” can take the form of a “physical object” there is no problem at all.
Here you introduced the phrase “dissociated link” which I thought had some promise. We can either work from there, or start anew. As long as we can fully capture the dynamics involved, (and perhaps take a moment to reflect on entire resulting definition) I will be prepared (obviously speaking only for myself) to stand by that definition for the purposes of your simulation.Upright BiPed_{August 2, 2011
August
08
Aug
2
02
2011
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply