Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

# On a stochastic algorithm and its asymptotic behaviour

Share
Flipboard
Print
Email

While most people agree that simple laws/rules per se cannot create information, some believe that algorithms are capable to do that. This seems an odd idea, because algorithms, i.e. sets of instructions, after all can be considered complex laws/rules, or set of rules, sort of generalizations of rules.

The usual and simplest example some evolutionists offer to prove that algorithms can produce information is a stochastic algorithm that, by randomly choosing characters from the English alphabet, in a number of trials, finally outputs the phrase “methinks it is like a weasel” (or whatever else phrase with meaning). This way it seems to them that information is produced by randomness + laws, or even created from nothing. Let’s admit for the sake of argument that the phrase “methinks it is like a weasel” so produced is information. The questions are: (1) is that truly creation of information from nothing? (2) what really produces it?

Consider the following schema of such algorithm:

We have on the left a pseudo random number generator PRNG (like the Mersenne twister) that provides random numbers. In the middle, a set of instructions labelled “FORMAT” take the numbers, convert them in characters of the English alphabet (26 characters + space), and finally format them in a series of 28 character long strings listed vertically on a file (on the right). The total possible 28 character strings are Os = ~1.2*10^40 corresponding to a Shannon information of near Oi = ~4.5*10^42 bits. Only a very small subset of those strings are English sentences with a meaning (an interpolation based on a power law says Es = ~10^9 sentences). Therefore a very reduced amount of those combinatorial Shannon bits Oi is meaningful English information Ei = ~4.2*10^10 bits. (By the way, the recognition of the English sentences is a job requiring a linguistic intelligence – both in the syntax and semantics sense – that is hard to simulate mechanistically.)

Here we are interested in the asymptotic behaviour of the system, that is how it works when the running time tends to infinity. Given enough time our algorithm will output all possible 28 char strings and all 28 letter English sentences (“methinks it is like a weasel” included). If the program runs 10^29 seconds (10^12 times the age of the universe) on the fastest computer available today it will output ~10^41 sequences and any given sequence has 0.99976 probability of occurring. Considering the asymptotic behaviour, let’s finally wonder where Ei comes from.

Ei comes from the potentiality that the system contains just from the beginning. This potentiality is somehow front-loaded in the system and develops when the system is running. The potentiality will develop partially or totally dependently from the running time. The information potentiality, measured in Shannon sense is Oi bits, measured in English sense is Ei bits, as shown before. This system (as any closed system) cannot unfold more than its potentiality allows, because, after the production of Os, the sequences repeat and no new sequence is produced. The potentiality is entirely accounted for by the instructions pre-loaded in the algorithm (and obviously by the pre-existent computing environment available to run the program). These instructions (hosted and processed by the informatics infrastructure) define, in a compress way, the potentiality and how it can develop. About the concept of potentiality see here.

Answer to #2 question: given such potentiality is entirely due to the program (plus the computer), what really produces Ei is not the algorithm, rather the cause of its design, the designer. The information provided by the designer exactly accounts for what the program actually does, what the program could potentially do, and its asymptotic tendency. The programmer provides all information in potential/compressed form by design just from the beginning, then the algorithm per se creates zero information. Since the algorithm and its potentiality come from their programmer, also Ei comes from the programmer. The algorithm, its potentiality and all effectively produced (or potentially producible) strings are due to the system designer. The guidance given by the programmer is exactly the program, no more no less.

Therefore one can say that nothing new can be produced that isn’t already there. Nowhere there is something coming from nothing. Nowhere there is more arising from less. No “free-lunch”, as ID theory puts it.

At this point a Darwinist could argue: “since your example of randomness + laws creating information is analogous to my chance + necessity creating organisms, yourself have proved that Darwinism can work”. This argumentation is flawed for two main reasons:
(a) the stochastic system I described is entirely designed;
(b) organisms contain advanced organization, a far higher and qualitative thing, whose vertical hierarchical functional complex specified information is incomparable to the horizontal flat serialization of characters produced by my algorithm.

But this is a point worth of analysis in another thread.

Paul Giem #27 Yours is an excellent mathematical demonstration why we obtained two almost identical results via different formulas. By the way, you are right that mine is impracticable for such large values of T (yes, pocket calculators overflow just for far smaller values). One needs logarithms and in fact that is what I did. I know that you love, among other things, both metaphysics/theology and mathematics/science. This is a curious thing we share with some other IDers/UDers (if you look at my 48 previous UD posts you can find topics related to those different fields). I am proud you read my post and I hope to exchange ideas with you also in the future via this priceless ID blog. Again thank you. niwrad
Niwrad, Your procedure is exactly correct mathematically. However, calculators have trouble with such large exponents with numbers so close to 1, so for estimation purposes it is worthwhile recalling that for large x, (1 + 1/x)^x approximates e (and (1 - 1/x)^x approximates 1/e ) being accurate to the number of places that the x has exponents, that is, in this case 40 digits, which is plenty accurate for our purposes. That means that if we say that p1 is the probability that we will get the desired result in 1 trial (so that 1/p1 is a very large number), and T is the number of trials, as you did above, our 1 - (1 - p1)^T becomes 1 - (1 - p1)^((1/p1)*(T*p1)) or 1 - ((1 - p1)^((1/p1))^(T*p1) which can be approximated (to 40 places) by 1 - (1/e)^(T*p1) or 1 - e^-(T*p1) which is the end result of using the Poisson distribution Paul Giem
CLAVDIVS:
So, is natural selection eliminative? Or is it not?
It is eliminative and it doesn't operate. Joe
niwrad: Thank you for your answer. I agree. I have tried to specify that my perspective was merely empirical and scientific, as it always is in my discussions about ID, because I believe that ID is exactly that: a scientific theory. However, ID certainly has metaphysical implications, and I am obviously interested in them too. So, I really appreciate your contribution. gpuccio
gpuccio #22 Thanks for reading that old post of mine. We say different things but it is likely they are compatible, why not. Your viewpoint is cosmological, mine (in that old post) tries to be metaphysical. You argue in term of effects, results, proofs, history, scientific evidence... I argued in term of final causation, relations between the cosmos and its designing principle, time and non-time, potentiality and its deployment... In general, any speculation involves objects and the perspectives from which we look at them. Almost always we define the former, almost never we perfectly specify the latter. niwrad
Paul Giam #20 Thanks for your calculations by Poisson. I calculated the probability of occurring at least once in T (10^41) trials as 1 - (1 - p1)^T , where p1 is the probability of occurring in a single trial. Probably, given the big exponent, I rounded too much. niwrad
Paul: It's always a pleasure to hear from you! gpuccio
Niwrad, it appears that you need another small correction. Your assertion that
The total possible 28 character strings are Os = ~1.2*10^40
is correct, but not quite your assertion that
If the program runs 10^29 seconds (10^12 times the age of the universe) on the fastest computer available today it will output ~10^41 sequences and any given sequence has 0.9999 probability of occurring.
This is because with such large numbers, it is highly probable that some sequences will be represented more than once, and the probability of any one sequence being represented very closely approximates the Poisson distribution p(k) = (lambda^k) / (k! * e^lambda) where lambda is the expected number of times a given sequence will be found. In your example, approximately, lambda = 10^41 / 1.19725 x 10^40, which is approximately 8.352. Selecting k = 0, we have p(0) = 0.0002358 and 1 - p(0) = 0.99976. This is not much different, but you have seen how pedants can pick at irrelevancies. It is better to have them corrected beforehand. Paul Giem
Joe @ 10 So, is natural selection eliminative? Or is it not? e·lim·i·na·tive, adjective; e·lim·i·nate: to remove or get rid of; < Latin ?l?min?tus turned out of doors (past participle of ?l?min?re ), equivalent to ?- + l?min-, stem of l?men threshold + -?tus -ate CLAVDIVS
William J Murray, gpuccio Maybe I already dealt with the Designer's-intervention-in-time problem here: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/when-does-the-programmer-install-the-software/ niwrad
William J Murray:
or use an interface to “enter” the program as it is running and do various things provided by the nature of the running program.
That's my idea. I am absolutely for design intervention, in space and time, many times, through an interface. gpuccio
So, we can say - in some sense - that the universe is the computer and that the so-called "natural laws" represent an operating system. Life would represent a program running on that operating system. The user can act on the system in various ways - they can change the physical features of the computer, alter the operating system, alter the programs running on the operating system (like, say, life) or use an interface to "enter" the program as it is running and do various things provided by the nature of the running program. William J Murray
Joe: I agree. Is that in any way different from what I said in my post? gpuccio
gpuccio, Natural selection is just differential reproduction due to heritable random (as in happenstance) variation.
“Natural selection is the result of differences in survival and reproduction among individuals of a population that vary in one or more heritable traits.” Page 11 “Biology: Concepts and Applications” Starr fifth edition
“Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity—it is mindless and mechanistic.” UBerkley
“Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view.” Dawkins in “The Blind Watchmaker”?
“Natural selection is therefore a result of three processes, as first described by Darwin: Variation Inheritance Fecundity which together result in non-random, unequal survival and reproduction of individuals, which results in changes in the phenotypes present in populations of organisms over time.”- Allen McNeill prof. introductory biology and evolution at Cornell University
Non-random in that not every organism has the ame probability for survival. Joe
KF: OK, I was aware of that other possible meaning, although I have never really found it anywhere. So, just to understand: a) Billion = 10^9 is the common meaning, and maybe american in origin? b) Billion = 10^12 is the old, british meaning? gpuccio
gpuccio Thanks. I largely agree with your comments. Yes, "information" is a biggg tent. A tent where one of the jobs of IDers is to make many important distinctions. For example, I tend to use the word "organization" to avoid unpleasant misunderstandings. In this post I distinguish between Shannon and English information, but when one speaks of biology - the "temple" of organization - it seems to me "information" is even a too poor word. niwrad
Joe and CLAUDIUS: I would say that NS is not "something", but simply the description of a complex effect that takes place in a very specific scenario (replicators in an environment, competing for resources). In a sense, it is the algorithmic consequence of the process of replication, and therefore a consequence of the information already present in the replicators. There is great misunderstanding about NS, mainly as the result of the reification and mythology built by neo darwinism about it. For example, many are not aware that different causes can generate the negative or positive selection of a variation in information. Everybody seems to think that NS is mainly the result of some "fitness function" in the environment. But that is not always true. The environment needs not be implied in the process. For example, a mutation which inactivates some fundamental metabolic process is in itself incompatible with life, and therefore "negatively selected", but the environment has nothing to do with that. Finally, positive selection, although extremely limited, does exist. It is eliminative in the sense that it works through the elimination of the "old" information and the expansion of the "new" variant. The result, however, is the expansion of new information. It happens, even if it is always simple, and almost always "degenerative" in essence (Behe's "burning the bridges" concept), and it usually requires some extreme selecting condition in the environment. But it exists. The simple forms of antibiotic resistance are probably the best example, as very well described by Behe. gpuccio
So it has to operate on it in order to eliminate it? Something can't be eliminated without being operated on? The Origin of Theoretical Population Genetics (University of Chicago Press, 1971), reissued in 2001 by William Provine:
Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push, or adjust. Natural selection does nothing….Having natural selection select is nifty because it excuses the necessity of talking about the actual causation of natural selection. Such talk was excusable for Charles Darwin, but inexcusable for evolutionists now. Creationists have discovered our empty “natural selection” language, and the “actions” of natural selection make huge, vulnerable targets. (pp. 199-200)
Thanks for the honesty Will. Joe
Joe @ 7
Umm natural selection is a result and NS doesn’t operate on anything. Natural selection is eliminative, Graham2.
How can natural selection be "a result" that "doesn't operate on anything", and also be "eliminative"? If it's eliminative, then its operating on something to eliminate it, is it not? CLAVDIVS
Genetic and evolutionary algorithms, such as Dawkins' "weasel" utilize a goal-oriented targeted search via cumulative selection towards the target phrase. Remove the target phrase from the program and the program would never hit that target if all else is left the same. Joe
Graham2:
Is there any equivalent of natural selection operating on the results ?
Umm natural selection is a result and NS doesn't operate on anything. Natural selection is eliminative, Graham2. Joe