Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

New Dembski-Marks Paper

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email
William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, “Bernoulli’s Principle of Insufficient Reason and Conservation of Information in Computer Search,” Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. San Antonio, TX, USA – October 2009, pp. 2647-2652.

Abstract: Conservation of information (COI) popularized by the no free lunch theorem is a great leveler of search algorithms, showing that on average no search outperforms any other. Yet in practice some searches appear to outperform others. In consequence, some have questioned the significance of COI to the performance of search algorithms. An underlying foundation of COI is Bernoulli’s Principle of Insufficient Reason1(PrOIR) which imposes of a uniform distribution on a search space in the absence of all prior knowledge about the search target or the search space structure. The assumption is conserved under mapping. If the probability of finding a target in a search space is p, then the problem of finding the target in any subset of the search space is p. More generally, all some-to-many mappings of a uniform search space result in a new search space where the chance of doing better than p is 50-50. Consequently the chance of doing worse is 50-50. This result can be viewed as a confirming property of COI. To properly assess the significance of the COI for search, one must completely identify the precise sources of information that affect search performance. This discussion leads to resolution of the seeming conflict between COI and the observation that some search algorithms perform well on a large class of problems.

[ IEEE | pdf ]

Comments
Typo! The caption for Section III is missing the 'N' in BERNOULLI.Mung
December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
11:17 PM
11
11
17
PM
PDT
We don’t have to infuse information into a search if the search and landscape are matched by circumstance.
You mean accidental? By chance? Random?Mung
December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
11:06 PM
11
11
06
PM
PDT
Zachriel, You have not considered any adversarial landscapes, e.g. those that are not smooth or those that are full of "delta peaks". In fact give me any optimization algorithm and we can perhaps find a landscape where it would do worse than blind search. Of course in some situations one can safely assume some regularities such as smoothness of the landscape, number of modes, etc. and leverage that within the particular optimization strategy.GradStudent
December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
10:09 PM
10
10
09
PM
PDT
Congratulation Bill and Mark. Keep up the good work.........T. lise
December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
10:02 PM
10
10
02
PM
PDT
Oh. Bayes liked ID. Maybe he was a YEC. His day job was as a Presbyterian minister.Uvula Presley
December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
09:45 PM
9
09
45
PM
PDT
To intrinsic target agnostics. Flipping a coin has an intrinsic target of a 50-50 heads and tails. The asymptotic partition theorem says a randomly chosen irrational number will have 10% of its base ten digits being equal to 3. And for those in Rio Linda, pinball machines have goals dictated by landscape. No matter what the path, no matter the interference of man, the ball ends up dropping in the little hole.Uvula Presley
December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
09:42 PM
9
09
42
PM
PDT
Congratulation Bill! So you're a Bayesian now! ;)Prof_P.Olofsson
December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
09:18 PM
9
09
18
PM
PDT
"...real progress in any intellectual endeavor cannot come from consensus, but only from the clash of ideas and evidence." Like Climategate and Unguided EvolutionUpright BiPed
December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
07:12 PM
7
07
12
PM
PDT
Congratulations Dr. Dembski and Dr. Marks!Clive Hayden
December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
06:49 PM
6
06
49
PM
PDT
Go here for more analysis (including hyperlinks): http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/12/searchers.htmlAllen_MacNeill
December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
06:31 PM
6
06
31
PM
PDT
First, congratulations to Dr. Dembski & Marks; publication is the life blood of all career academics and the living heart of the intellectual process. It takes courage and hard work (and a little bit of luck) to get your original work published, and more of the same to weather the criticism that inevitably ensues. But, just as one cannot have a fencing match without an opponent, real progress in any intellectual endeavor cannot come from consensus, but only from the clash of ideas and evidence. And so, to specifics: I have no quibble with most of the mathematical analysis presented. Indeed, given the assumptions upon which the authors' COI theory is based (with which I do not necessarily agree, but which are clearly presented in this paper), the analysis presented is apparently not completely outside the domain of NFL theorems in general. However, the same cannot be said for the application of these ideas to biological evolution. To be specific, consider the following quote (Re Dembski & Marks (2009) pg. 2651 lines 2-5):
"From the perspective of COI, these limited number of endpoints on which evolution converges constitute intrinsic targets, crafted in part by initial conditions and the environment." [emphasis added]
This is indeed the crux of the issue vis-a-vis biological evolution. While it is clearly the case that Simon Conway-Morris asserts that there is an apparently limited number of biological "endpoints", it is neither the case that Morris' viewpoint represents the core of evolutionary theory, nor that his point is relevant to the analysis of COI presented in Dr. Dembski and Marks' paper. To be specific, the highlighted qualifier from the quote above – crafted in part by initial conditions and the environment – is precisely the issue under debate between evolutionary biologists and supports of ID. Taken at face value, this qualifying phrase means that, given specific starting conditions and a specific time-varying environmental context, the various mechanisms of evolution (e.g. mutation, natural selection, genetic drift/inbreeding, etc.) tend to converge on a relatively limited set of genotypic/phenotypic "endstates" (i.e. what could be loosely referred to as "evolutionary adaptations"). This is simply another way of defining evolutionary convergence, and in no way constitutes evidence for intrinsic evolutionary teleology. On the contrary, it simply provides support for the hypothesis that, given similar conditions, similar outcomes result. Furthermore, it assumes that virtually all characteristics of living organisms are adaptations (that is, genotypic/phenotypic characteristics that fulfill some necessary function in the lives of organisms). However, this is manifestly not the case, nor is it an absolutely necessary component of current evolutionary theory. On the contrary, many (perhaps the majority) of the characteristics of living organisms are not adaptive. This is certainly the case at the level of the genome, as evidenced by the neutral and nearly neutral theories of molecular evolution. Finally, Morris' (and, by extension, Dembski and Marks') position completely omits any role for historical contingency, which both the fossil and genomic record indicate are of extraordinary importance in macroevolution. As Dembski and Marks state, the "endpoints" (perhaps it would be more precise to refer to them as "way stations") of macroevolution depend fundamentally on initial conditions and the environment. But this is not fundamentally different from Darwin's position in the Origin of Species:
"The complex and little known laws governing variation are the same, as far as we can see, with the laws which have governed the production of so-called specific forms. In both cases physical conditions seem to have produced but little direct effect; yet when varieties enter any zone, they occasionally assume some of the characters of the species proper to that zone." [Darwin, C. (1859) Origin of Species, pg. 472 http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=side&itemID=F373&pageseq=490 , emphasis added]
However, their analysis completely ignores the appearance (or non-appearance) of new genotypic and phenotypic variations, and on the accidental disappearance of such characteristics (via extinction), without regard to the adaptive value of such characteristics, or the lack thereof. In other words, Dembski and Marks' analysis, while interesting from the standpoint of what could be called "abstract" search algorithms, completely fails to address the central issues of evolutionary biology: the source of evolutionary novelty (i.e. the "engines of variation"), the effects of changing environmental conditions on the actual forms and functions of living organisms, and the fundamental importance of historical contingency in the ongoing evolution of genotypes and phenotypes.Allen_MacNeill
December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
05:49 PM
5
05
49
PM
PDT
Re post #1: I have similar problems. Calling it an 'intrinsic' target seems to be a bit of linguistic sleight-of-hand. Its not a target at all, just a constraint on the possible end-points, eg: its unlikely life forms would evolve to an extremely large size, simply due to the physical constraints of the environment. Also, if evolution has no 'target', then how is any consideration of 'search' algorithms relevant ?Graham
December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
05:41 PM
5
05
41
PM
PDT
Prothero: “They haven’t created life in a test tube yet–but they are very close.” Every religion has faith in and hope for the future.JPCollado
December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT
Excellent paper with a great conclusion. Congrats!Douglas Moran
December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT
Dembski & Marks: Likewise, COI establishes important limitations for search algorithms, as revealed in the amount of active information that must be infused into a search for it to be successful.
If we take a random choice from all possible search algorithms and match it to a random choice from all possible landscapes, our results would, on average, be no better than a random search. If, however, we take a standard evolutionary algorithm, and match it to a well-defined landscape with plenty of hills to climb, then our results would be better than a random search. We don't have to infuse information into a search if the search and landscape are matched by circumstance. A replication and selection algorithm (life) is well-suited to a search of an ordered environment (the natural world).
Dembski & Marks: Prior knowledge about the smoothness of a search landscape required for gradient based hill-climbing, is not only common but is also vital to the success of some search optimizations. Such procedures, however, are of little use when searching to find a sequence of, say, 7 letters from a 26-letter alphabet to form a word that will pass successfully through a spell checker ...
Does that mean an evolutionary algorithm won't work to find perfectly spelled words because there are no hills to climb?Zachriel
December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
03:11 PM
3
03
11
PM
PDT
Off-topic, This article shows why computer models do not replace real testing. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33329828/ns/technology_and_science-science/Collin
December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT
Cheats!Adel DiBagno
December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT
Prothero: "They haven't created life in a test tube yet--but they are very close." Yeah, mostly by borrowing stuff from existing life and intelligently designing it.tragic mishap
December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT
off-topic: Don Prothero's review of 'Signature in the Cell' on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/review/R3L0KGTP0HY63N/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R3L0KGTP0HY63N I honestly thought it was written by the typical uneducated raving village atheist before I saw the name! Maybe I was right.halo
December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT
Dr Dembski, congratulations to you and Mr Marks.Upright BiPed
December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT
Clarification @ 1: "this paper" in the the last paragraph refers to Life's Conservation Law.R0b
December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT
Dr. Dembski, how in the name of all that is holy did you get this paper published considering all the problems with it exposed by Wikipedia? ;)tragic mishap
December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT
Dr. Dembski, Congratulations to you and Dr. Marks. I applaud you for stating your position in footnote 12, as well as the publisher for allowing you to do so. I'll repeat a question I asked in a previous thread since it's more appropriate here: In Section IV.B, you seem to be defining the term intrinsic target as an outcome to which the given process (or search) is biased, eg Conway’s evolutionary endpoints. Am I reading this correctly? Since every non-uniform distribution is biased toward some subset of the sample space, it would seem that every non-uniform distribution has an intrinsic target and positive active information. And since this paper makes it clear that intelligence is the source of active information, it would appear that every non-uniform distribution has an intelligent source. Is that the position of the EIL?R0b
December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply