Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Upright Biped’s summary on information systems in cell based life

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

UD participant Upright Biped (of Complexity Cafe U/D: Biosemiosis) has commented recently in the what is knowledge thread, replying to frequent objector CR by summarising key aspects of the role of information systems in observed cell based life. His remarks are well worth headlining:

__________________

UB, 195: >>We can start by summarizing the core physical requirements of the system we are trying to explain: an autonomous self-replicator with open-ended potential (i.e. it can describe itself or any variation of itself).

The system requires:

1) a sequence of representations in a medium of information.

2) a set of physical constraints to establish what is being represented.

3) a system of discontinuous association between representations and referents, based on spatial orientation (i.e. a reading-frame code)

4) functional coordination (semantic closure) between two sets of sequences; the first set establishes the constraints that are necessary to interpret the representations, and the second set establishes a system whereby the representations and their constraints are brought together in the specify way required to produce a functioning end product – an autonomous self-replicator. Coordination is required because changes to the first set affect the second set.

Did you follow all that? You have to have a medium of information, representations, constraints, discontinuous association, a reading-frame code, and semantic closure in order to create a material system capable of Darwinian evolution. Each interdependent piece has a physical manifestation, and each brings a critical capacity to the system.

So … when you remove the translation machinery in order to simplify the system (to meet your ideological requirements), you remove the capacity of the system to specify objects among alternatives. You remove the physical capacities that are enabled only by having a medium of information organized within a system (i.e. RNA, for instance, is only a medium of information when it is organized as such, otherwise it’s just another molecule with its particular characteristics, determined by energy). In other words, you remove the very system that enables Darwinian evolution to exist, not to mention removing the very thing that enables biological organization in the first place.

Thus, what are you then left with? You are left with a system that can only organize itself based upon the energy of the individual and collective components in the system (i.e. your “no-design laws”). But, magnetism does not establish a medium of information. Thermodynamics does not create a reading-frame code. Dissipative processes do not coordinate semantic closure among unrelated sequences of symbols. In other words, you have nothing but your prior assumptions.

So now that we have a lay of the land, we can take a look at your claims:

Claim #1: Darwinian evolution is the source of the translation apparatus.

This claim is dead on arrival. The only way to resuscitate this claim is through a) massive equivocation of terms, and b) abject denial of molecular science. In other words, it’s right up your alley.

Claim #2: Only high fidelity replication requires translation.

You need to get your head straight. The simpler system you are talking about is not a semiotic system that merely operates with poor fidelity, it is a non-semiotic system that operates by pure dynamics. It doesn’t establish a medium of information; it cannot specify objects among alternatives, and it obviously cannot achieve semantic closure. In an effort to save your theory, you can certainly start to equivocate on terms like “specify” and “medium of information”, but at the end of the day, the only thing that such an entity can lead to (be the source of) will be determined solely by dynamics. Thus, I asked you the clarifying question: Does the non-semiotic system you assume preceded and created the semiotic system have to specify the semiotic system that follows it? If so, then how does it do that?

You have no response to that question that doesn’t also include repeating your claim and assuming its true.

The bottom line is that there is no conceivable environment at the origin of life on Earth that inanimate matter operating under physical law (your “no-design laws” for crying out loud) where purely dynamic properties such as electromagnetism, hydrophobicity, etc., will push and pull and cajole molecules and constituents into simultaneously creating a sequence of symbolic representations, interpretive constraints, a system of discontinuous association, a reading frame code, and semantic closure. In short, the issues surrounding the origin of a semiosis in the cell are not about “fidelity”, they are about organization instead.>>

__________________

Again, food for thought. END

PS: As debate points have been raised, here is a summary of protein synthesis, from Wiki:

Protein Synthesis (HT: Wiki Media)

This should be seen i/l/o this more complete overview of the whole synthesis:

 

Here is Yockey’s info-system view:

Yockey’s analysis of protein synthesis as a code-based communication process

And, here is a summary of the wider metabolism set:

 

Comments
A truly sad sad day. Hugh Masekela passes. https://www.theguardian.com/music/2018/jan/23/hugh-masekela-obituary Absolutely one of the all-time greats, and a lovely gentle man. Rest in peace Bra Hugh!Upright BiPed
January 23, 2018
January
01
Jan
23
23
2018
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT
The funny thing is, UB is referring to segmenting physical systems into a Semiotic triad (which virtually no one think leads to the conclusion of ID, anyway) I'm pointing out there is a more fundamental way to segment physical systems into a generic constructor, substrate and input/outputs. Someone could just as well make the claim that any such segmentation repents an irreducible complex system as well. In fact, knowledge is information that is well adapted to play a causal role in being retained when embedded in a storage medium. Constructor theory is about knowledge. Yet, when presented with this more fundamental mode of explanation, UB seems to have some affinity for continuing to segment the translation system, in particular, into a Semiotic triad that he has yet to argue for. Knowledge is a constructor because it can play that role again and again due to being retained when copied. The causal role it plays is as being a constructor.
2.15 Knowledge The most important kind of abstract constructor is knowledge. Knowledge is information which, once it is physically instantiated in a suitable environment, tends to cause itself to remain so: it survives criticism, testing, random noise, and error- correction. (Here I am adopting Popper’s (1972) conception of knowledge, in which there need be no knowing subject.) For example, the knowledge encoded in an organism’s DNA consists of abstract genes that cause the environment to transform raw materials into another instance of the organism, and thereby to keep those abstract genes, and not mutations or other variants of them, physically instantiated, despite the mutation and natural selection that keep happening. Similarly, the ideas constituting the abstract constructor for preserving the ship of Theseus would have had to include not only some relatively arbitrary information about the historical shape of the ship, but also knowledge of how to cause Athenians to preserve those ideas themselves through the generations, and to reject rival ideas. Now consider again the set of all physically possible transformations. For almost every such transformation, the story of how it could happen is the story of how knowledge might be created and applied to cause it. Part of that story is, in almost all cases, the story of how people (intelligent beings) would create that knowledge, and of why they would retain the proposal to apply it in that way while rejecting or amending rival proposals (so a significant determinant is moral knowledge). Hence, from the constructor-theoretic perspective, physics is almost entirely the theory of the effects that knowledge (abstract constructors) can have on the physical world, via people. But again, the prevailing conception conceals this.
So, where did that knowledge come from in the case of the genome? That's where Neo-darwnisism comes in. The constructor theory of life supplements it. That knowledge it is genuinely created over time, rather than having always existed at the outset or having spontaneously appeared in organisms when they were created, etc. We can transition from the environment as constructor of a primitive cell to the genome as a constructor, and the gradation between them. This is natural in constructor theory because the cell can be described as a network of replication specific tasks with subtasks and subtasks that eventually end up in non-replication specific tasks.critical rationalist
December 23, 2017
December
12
Dec
23
23
2017
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT
@Mung
Do you know what a semiotic system is?
Again, since we have a more fundamental theory of information, at best, UB has a *claim* of irreducible complexity in the case of the translation system. But that has all of the hallmarks of all irreducible complexity claims. It's based on ignorance. For example, News posted a story about describing all kinds of unknown functionality in RNA explored by viruses. But that's still stuck in the current conception. The constructor theory of life describes the cell as a network of replication specific tasks that eventually transition to generic tasks. So the entire transition from the environment replicating primitive cells to current day cells is already right there, which we can identify by constructor theory. It's happening right now in each of our bodies. There just was no way to segment physical systems into a constructor, substrate and input/outputs in the current conceptions of physics.critical rationalist
December 23, 2017
December
12
Dec
23
23
2017
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT
UB, I haven't read any of these papers. Are you familiar with any of them? Thanks. The Convergence of the Philosophy and Science of Information https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joseph_Brenner2/publication/300245400_The_Convergence_of_the_Philosophy_and_Science_of_Information/links/573f346508ae9ace8413403b/The-Convergence-of-the-Philosophy-and-Science-of-Information.PDF Philosophy of Information: Revolution in Philosophy. Towards an Informational Metaphilosophy of Science http://www.mdpi.com/2409-9287/2/4/22/pdf Philosophy Of Information: Revolution in Philosophy https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joseph_Brenner2/publication/318581089_Philosophy_Of_Information_Revolution_in_Philosophy/links/5a3008eb458515a13d852d84/Philosophy-Of-Information-Revolution-in-Philosophy.pdf Cognitive Informatics: From Information Revolution to Intelligence Revolution https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Yingxu_Wang/publication/283753244_Cognitive_Informatics_From_Information_Revolution_to_Intelligence_Revolution/links/564c0df608ae4ae893b82076/Cognitive-Informatics-From-Information-Revolution-to-Intelligence-Revolution.pdf Measures of Information http://www.mdpi.com/2078-2489/6/1/23/ Information and Inference http://www.mdpi.com/2078-2489/8/2/61/pdf Information and Meaning http://www.mdpi.com/2078-2489/7/3/41/ Digital Information and Value http://www.mdpi.com/2078-2489/6/4/733/pdf Information and Semiosis in Living Systems: A Semiotic Approach https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joao_Queiroz2/publication/216816466_Information_and_Semiosis_in_Living_Systems_A_Semiotic_Approach/links/0a2f01a37a4213d42dbcce4e/Information-and-Semiosis-in-Living-Systems-A-Semiotic-Approach.pdfDionisio
December 20, 2017
December
12
Dec
20
20
2017
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT
.Dionisio
December 20, 2017
December
12
Dec
20
20
2017
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT
@mung
Do you know what a semiotic system is?
Do you know what is physically necessary for symbols to be possible in both classical and quantum systems?critical rationalist
December 20, 2017
December
12
Dec
20
20
2017
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT
critical rationalist:
Can we continue now?
Do you know what a semiotic system is?Mung
December 20, 2017
December
12
Dec
20
20
2017
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT
You mean like I'm able to acknowledging rockets can be launched into space by pretending Newton's laws are true, in reality? Is that a problem for general relativity, which suggest that something completely different is happening there in reality? I can also acknowledge that you can plant a small garden pretending the flat earth theory is true. For the most part, you'll be just fine, even though it suggests something completely different is happening there, in reality, as well. That is, until you tried to take it seriously, in that we do not need to worry about, say, the impact of astroids, etc. Can we continue now?critical rationalist
December 20, 2017
December
12
Dec
20
20
2017
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT
CR, when you are able to acknowledge that storing information in a "quantum storage medium" is a semiotic system, we can continue this conversation.Upright BiPed
December 20, 2017
December
12
Dec
20
20
2017
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT
By "not getting it" I mean what I wrote in my comment.
IOW, you seem to think by presenting an incomplete theory of information that fails to address cloning at all, this somehow makes your incomplete theory of information immune to the problem of cloning in quantum systems.
Perhaps you have forgotten that you asked what is physically necessary for information to exist in a storage medium. If you didn’t want the answer, then why bother asking? Apparently, you disagree with what is necessary for information to exist, yet you lack any specific criticism of the answer you were provided. Again, you haven’t actually presented a comprehensive physical theory of information. That is unless you think information just magically appeared in organisms, And you ignore the fact that recipe (information) must be copied when a cell self-replicates, per Von Neumann. And there is the interoperability principle that defines what tasks must be possible to for symbols to exist. To be clear, that entails a theory of information that is more fundamental that symbols. This is why you’re left with merely a claim of irreducible complexity, with all of it’s flaws. And that claim fails because knowledge in constructor theory is a new mode of explanation that scales to include a unification of information in both classical and quantum systems. And it does not need a knowing subject. What tasks are possible, what tasks are impossible and why is knowledge. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FarXx3IVgws This allows us to explain the kinds of transformations necessary for cells to replicate in various levels of fidelity. And even exactly describe transformations in current day cells as a network of tasks with subtasks that eventually reach generic transformations that are not replication specific. We don’t need to bring symbols into the mix at this level. Nor do we require knowing subjects, intention, anthropomorphic meaning, etc. (I’m baffled as to why you think someone presenting a theory of information that (1) explains what is necessary for symbols to exist and (2) does so across both classical and quantum systems would somehow think symbols are impossible in quantum systems. I mean, if you actually thought this, it’s right there in the theory itself. And it would be trivial to point how that assumption would conflict with the theory I was presenting. ) The translation system doesn’t just make proteins. Specific aspects of it aspects of it It consist of information It must be copyable. And if it is copiable, that means there must be specific physical tasks that are necessary for information to be passible at all. Nor is constructor theory about the idea that something is merely possible in some naive sense. See this video about removing probability, incluidng the concept of credence, from science.critical rationalist
December 20, 2017
December
12
Dec
20
20
2017
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT
you still haven’t got it.
If by "not getting it" you mean I watched with everyone else while you publically sawed off the branch you were sitting on, then yeah, I didn't get it. A quantum storage medium is a semiotic system, CR. Get over it. cheers :)Upright BiPed
December 18, 2017
December
12
Dec
18
18
2017
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT
@UB Apparently, you still haven't got it.
03. Theory C also requires a specific transformations to occur (cloning), but those specific transformations in quantum systems are impossible (violates the laws of quantum physics).
C cannot make exact statements about information in quantum systems because those transformations are not possible in quantum mechanics.. As such, it does not scale to quantum mechanics. I've used this terminology before in the case of Newton's laws and even the laws of thermodynamics. This is nothing new. It's not even clear that you've provided a theory of information. I keep asking one and you keep falling to provide one. "I've even suggested Shannon's, which you seem to suggest has nothing to do with it. There are symbols in the genome" is not a physical theory of information. IOW, you seem to think by presenting an incomplete theory of information that fails to address cloning at all, this somehow makes your incomplete theory of information immune to the problem of cloning in quantum systems.critical rationalist
December 18, 2017
December
12
Dec
18
18
2017
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT
UB: CR, your counter-argument is that the semiotic model does not scale to a “quantum storage medium”. But a quantum storage medium is part of a semiotic system (just as I told you months ago). CR: That’s not my counter argument.
CR, congratulations, in your quest to protect your theory from valid criticism, you’ve graduated from mere dissembling and deception, to telling outright falsehoods.
”Just as the scope of Newton’s laws does not scale to very high velocities required to build GPS satellites, your “theory of information” does not scale to the level of quantum storage mediums”critical rationalist, Nov 6, 2017
The quote above was posted to me by someone commenting under the name “critical rationalist”. Are you not that “critical rationalist”? Are you a different critical rationalist? Are you asking us to believe that there is another critical rationalist posting here? If not, then you clearly made your claim (many many times, ad nauseam). Do you not remember harping for weeks about Newton’s law’s not scaling to general relativity, and demanding that I respond? Or perhaps you will want to claim that this quote is too old? Here is a later example:
“your “theory of information” does not scale to quantum storage mediums” -- critical rationalist, Nov 8, 2017
And yet example another (weeks) later:
“UB’s theory of information is an approximation which does not scale”. -- critical rationalist, Nov 29, 2017
And another example, later still:
“UB’s theory of information does not scale”critical rationalist, Dec 6, 2017
And even another example from this very thread:
“Since your theory of information does not scale” -- critical rationalist, Dec 9, 2017
Your claim has been answered CR. It is false. You’ll have to learn to accept it. Your counter example of a quantum storage medium requires semiosis to function. Just as I told you, months ago.Upright BiPed
December 18, 2017
December
12
Dec
18
18
2017
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT
@UB
CR, your counter-argument is that the semiotic model does not scale to a “quantum storage medium”. But a quantum storage medium is part of a semiotic system (just as I told you months ago).
That's not my counter argument. Let me repeat it for you.
Unless you have a theory of information that says all information must be interpreted in the sense you’re implying, or it’s not information, then all you have is a claim of irreducible complexity. And we all know how well that turned out in the case of the bacterial flagellum.
Is there something about the above that you do not understand?
You now realize this, but you are intellectually incapable of acknowledging errors in your theory, so you’ve chosen to simply refuse to give an specific example of a quantum storage medium because it would immediately invalidate your claim.
This has been my argument from the start. You're just now realizing it. If there is anything I've "just realized", is that your argument is simply a claim of irreducible complexity. Let me try yet again. 01. Based on theory C, we think information is limited to X, Y and Z. 02. Oh look. Theory C has problems. If C refers to Shannon's theory It has a curricular definition of distinguishability, even in classical systems. 03. Theory C also requires a specific transformations to occur (cloning), but those specific transformations in quantum systems are impossible (violates the laws of quantum physics). 04. There is quantum information. So, there must be a more fundamental theory information that works even when those transformations (cloning) is in impossible in quantum systems. 03. If only we had a way to bring information into fundamental physics theories? 04. Constructor theory of information (Q) does just this and, in doing so, solves both problems above. 05 Based on theory Q, we no longer think information is limited to X, Y and Z. Nor do we think it needs knowing subjects, etc. 06. Your argument becomes a claim of irreducible complexity. Of course, I can't even tell if your theory of information is based on Shannon's because you still haven't provided one. Despite being asked to. Repeatedly.critical rationalist
December 18, 2017
December
12
Dec
18
18
2017
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT
CR, your counter-argument is that the semiotic model does not scale to a "quantum storage medium". But a quantum storage medium is part of a semiotic system (just as I told you months ago). You now realize this, but you are intellectually incapable of acknowledging errors in your theory, so you've chosen to simply refuse to give an specific example of a quantum storage medium because it would immediately invalidate your claim.Upright BiPed
December 18, 2017
December
12
Dec
18
18
2017
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT
CR @ 146 "The question is irrelevant." I will translate from CR-speak into plain English: UB, the answer to the question destroys my argument; therefore, I will refuse to address the point you raise and write literally thousands of words on other subjects hoping no one notices. CR, you are a piece of work. Thank you though. With enemies like you . . .Barry Arrington
December 18, 2017
December
12
Dec
18
18
2017
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT
Wait- all bacteria flagella are irreducibly complex AND there aren't any stochastic processes that can produce one.
Not to mention that News referenced an article indicated a significant amount of previously unknown functionality in RNA. That doesn’t bode well for any irreducible complexity argument.
That doesn't follow. Clearly you don't have a clue as to what IC is. Not only that you don't have an explanation for functional RNAs.ET
December 18, 2017
December
12
Dec
18
18
2017
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT
@UB The question is irrelevant. And, unlike you, Ive pointed out what it is irrelevant, rather than just asserting it. It's irrelevant because, without a theory of information that scales, all you have is a claim of irreducible complexity. A bacterial flagellum is based on an arrangement of matter. It does not "work" in the absence of that arrangement. That too is a claim of irreducible complexity. Unless you have a theory of information that says all information must be interpreted in the sense you're implying, or it's not information, then all you have is a claim of irreducible complexity. And we all know how well that turned out in the case of the bacterial flagellum. Not to mention that News referenced an article indicated a significant amount of previously unknown functionality in RNA. That doesn't bode well for any irreducible complexity argument. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/viruses-hijack-junk-non-coding-rna-turns-out-many-non-coding-functions-have-not-been-identified/ Of course, I've added for such a theory of information before. Far more times that you've asked for an example. Yet you still haven't provided one. So what gives?critical rationalist
December 18, 2017
December
12
Dec
18
18
2017
05:46 AM
5
05
46
AM
PDT
@Dionisio Some things are the way they are because "that's just what some inexplicable mind that exists in an inexplicable realm that operates by inexplicable means and methods for reasons we cannot comprehend, wanted them to be that way" is a good explanation?
Note that the problems we see around wouldn’t have existed had we remained in Eden.
It's not even clear that we were in "Eden". Nor have you explained how you know what God is like. Q1: How have you infallibly identified an infallible source of what God is like? Q2: Assuming you somehow managed that, how have you managed to infallibly interpreted this infallible source of what God is like?critical rationalist
December 18, 2017
December
12
Dec
18
18
2017
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT
Upright BiPed @142 Don't expect that to happen anytime soon, if at all.Dionisio
December 17, 2017
December
12
Dec
17
17
2017
07:49 PM
7
07
49
PM
PDT
@141 Wrong! Totally wrong! God, revealed to His people in the Christian scriptures, is not a "god of the gaps", but the God of the whole show. If God were anything close to what atheists describe, I would be the leader of worldwide atheism. :) Thank God that's not the case. Far from it. Completely different. The known -not the unknown- clearly points to complex functionally specified informational complexity, which has been empirically proven to be solely the product of an intelligent mind. The unknown only serves as a strong motivation to keep researching. Oh, well, the unknown also serves as the badly needs gaps Neo-Darwinism relies on while still hoping to someday find some kind of explanations. Note that the problems we see around wouldn't have existed had we remained in Eden. But we chose not to, because we prefer to do things our ways, like in Paul Anka's famous song, popularized by Frank Sinatra, whose rendition stayed 75 weeks in the UK Top 40, a record still today. That song, along with John Lennon's "Imagine" made the favorite hymn in Hades.Dionisio
December 17, 2017
December
12
Dec
17
17
2017
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT
Still unable to offer a single real-world example, eh CR? (#46, #47, #51, #57, #58, #73, #75, #78, #82, #83, #87, #89, #94, #98) No?Upright BiPed
December 17, 2017
December
12
Dec
17
17
2017
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT
Of course. God did it and God cannot be explained. So the appearance of things that God did must remain inexplicable. Otherwise, God couldn’t have done it.critical rationalist
December 17, 2017
December
12
Dec
17
17
2017
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT
No known theories -whatever their names- can seriously and coherently explain the appearance of a single bacteria or a eukaryotic multicellular system, for example. Other opinions are gossiping chat for pop tabloids.Dionisio
December 17, 2017
December
12
Dec
17
17
2017
02:05 AM
2
02
05
AM
PDT
Quantum mechanics represents a more fundamental theory of physics than classical physics. This doesn’t mean that quantum physics is not a theory of physics at all. It is a more fundamental theory of physics. Classical physics cannot describe physical systems at the very small scale. So, it cannot make exact statements about information in quantum systems. The constructor theory of information “works” (scales) across both classical and quantum systems because constructor theory is a new mode of information that represents a more fundamental theory of physics.critical rationalist
December 16, 2017
December
12
Dec
16
16
2017
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT
@origenes The very definition of a constructor is part of a physical system that can perform a transformation without undergoing an overal net physical change itself. It’s that lack of change that, in part, allows the constructor to perform that transformation again. And if it is a composite, then the entire compositon needs to, at a minimum, phyiscally end up back in the state where it started at the end of the transformation. On the other hand, substrates are part of a physical system that we want to transform. The goal is to cause lasting change. A constructor cannot be a substrate because substrates change. Constructors effectively do not. In a task, some waste products can be part of the output. The waste is a byproduct of the construction, not the substrate, even though it would represent a change in some sense. We don’t intentonally want to bring the waste product about. But we could just as well divide the system up so that same waste product is the desired result. So, what is waste and what is the substrate can be exchanged depending on what the task is. I do not want to tell you that constructors are more fundamental because that would be a misrepresentation. That would be like saying “Constructor theory’s constructors are more fundamental.” Which isn’t what Deutsch is saying. Rather, constructor theory is more fundimental than any of our existing theories. It would underly all other existing theories in the current conception of physics. Yes, there is no room for constructors in the current conception of physics. That’s because the current conception is limited to descriptions that take the form of initial conditions and laws of motion. There is no way to divide up a physical system as constructors, substrates and inputs / outputs. It is in this sense that constructor theory is genuinely a new mode of explanation and is more fundamental that explantions in the current conception of physics.critical rationalist
December 16, 2017
December
12
Dec
16
16
2017
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT
Deutsch mentions it ‘in passing’: “… most constructors are themselves composite objects”. This means the glaringly obvious: constructors come from matter & law and obviously depend on the substrates that make them. It follows, as clear as day, that constructors cannot be fundamental to physics. This is clearly incoherent, yet it is exactly what constructor theory proposes — see #118. In post #102 I asked CR four questions. What followed was multiple posts CR not answering those questions. In post #118 I concluded that:
CR does not want to tell us that constructors and their tasks depend on matter & law. Why not? Because he, like Deutsch, wants constructors to be “more fundamental”
The kind reader knows that I am correct, see Deutsch’s admission above. What was CR’s response?
CR #120: No, constructors transform physical substrates.
So, let us get this straight: I say “constructors and their tasks depend on matter & law” and Deutsch says: “most constructors are themselves composite objects”, which means the same thing. But CR’s response is “No.” Combined with not answering my questions, this tells me to stop debating with CR.Origenes
December 16, 2017
December
12
Dec
16
16
2017
05:35 AM
5
05
35
AM
PDT
However that specific range of materials is absolutely vital to the function of the hammer — that fact cannot be validly abstracted away. Not being dependent on one single specific matter, but, instead, on a range of materials, doesn’t make the hammer independent from matter, or foundational to matter or “abstract.” The fact that I can use three different types of fuel for my car doesn’t make my car “abstract” in any way.
Constructor theory is the generalization of the theory of quantum computation. What does the theory of quantum computation imply? Any object can simulate any other object, including a hammer. So it is about what is possible an why ("knowing how".) It's in this sense that saying something is possible is significant. We can bring it about if we have the "why". And it will be possible in many different ways. Unless something is forbidden by the laws of physics, the only thing that could prevent us from achieving it is knowing how. So, it's about knowledge, not the constructor. It's as if you think things serve a purpose because they were created with some kind "essence" about them that has nothing to do with knowing how.critical rationalist
December 15, 2017
December
12
Dec
15
15
2017
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT
In the prevailing conception there is no place for his constructors. Deutsch does not like that. He does not agree with that. He wants to see that differently. Capiche?
Does not like? Does not agree? He wants to see the current conception differently? It's the current conception, which has limitations. That's it. What does one likes or agrees with have to do with it? Again, constructor theory underlies our most fundamental theories in the current conception of physics, which includes general relativity and quantum mechanics. And, in turn, our current conception of general relativity underlies other theories, etc. To have principles about laws implies there are laws to have principles about. it's unclear how could "not agree" or not like something that would be obey those principles.critical rationalist
December 15, 2017
December
12
Dec
15
15
2017
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT
CR@
CR: He doesn’t “agree”? Huh?
Yes, he doesn’t agree with the prevailing conception. Again:
Deutsch: … most constructors are themselves composite objects. So, in the prevailing conception, no law of physics could possibly mention them …
In the prevailing conception there is no place for his constructors. Deutsch does not like that. He does not agree with that. He wants to see that differently. Capiche?
CR: This is yet another indication that you do not understand constructor theory.
I am beginning to think that it is you who has a problem with understanding.
CR: Saying constructor theory is more fundamental and can genuinely contribute new content doesn’t mean the current conception has not been successful.
Correct. But your point misses the mark, since nobody says it is the same thing; I certainly didn’t.
CR: Constructors are abstract in the same sense that a universal computer can be made of cogs, transistors, vacuum tubes, etc. How you make them is inessential to the deep laws of computation. Yet there are no non-physical computers or constructors.
A universal hammer is also “abstract” in the exact same sense.
CR: Yet there are no non-physical computers or constructors.
Exactly. The fact that we can make hammers (or computers) from all sorts of materials means that certain specifics are irrelevant to the function, which means that a range of materials can perform that same function. However that specific range of materials is absolutely vital to the function of the hammer — that fact cannot be validly abstracted away. Not being dependent on one single specific matter, but, instead, on a range of materials, doesn’t make the hammer independent from matter, or foundational to matter or “abstract.” The fact that I can use three different types of fuel for my car doesn’t make my car “abstract” in any way.
CR: For the umpteen time, …. without being a theory of everything.
And for the umpteenth time: not in my wildest dreams would I hold that this incoherent nonsense is a theory of everything.Origenes
December 14, 2017
December
12
Dec
14
14
2017
06:42 PM
6
06
42
PM
PDT
1 2 3 6

Leave a Reply