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

_{kairosfocus

December 4, 2017

Design inference, Food for thought, ID Foundations, Origin Of Life, rhetoric, Selective Hyperskepticism, specified complexity}

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:

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

@Origenes
Some questions:....
Read the actual papers I've referenced, rather than a popular article, then ask your questions. Your example...
According to constructor theory, the most fundamental components of reality are entities—“constructors”—that perform particular tasks, accompanied by a set of laws that define which tasks are actually possible for a constructor to carry out.
While constructor theory is more fundamental than quantum mechanics or general relativity, this is no way suggests a claim about what the most fundamental components of reality are. IOW, this is coming from the author of the popular article, not the authors of constructor theory. You did read the papers, right? If not, start here. For example...
1.3 Constructor theory would underlie all other scientific theories The theory of relativity is the theory of the arena (spacetime) in which all physical processes take place. Thus, by its explanatory structure, it claims to underlie all other scientific theories, known and unknown, in that requires them to be expressible in terms of tensor fields on spacetime, and constrains what they can say about the motion of those fields. For example, any theory postulating a new particle that was unaffected by gravity (i.e. by the curvature of spacetime) would contradict the general theory of relativity. Another theory that inherently claims to underlie all others is quantum theory, which requires all observable quantities to be expressible in terms of quantum-mechanical operators obeying certain commutation laws. And so, for example, no theory claiming that some physical variable and its time derivative are simultaneously measurable with arbitrary accuracy can be consistent with quantum theory. Constructor theory would, in this sense, underlie all other theories including relativity and quantum theory.
Note the explicit wording here. Nowhere does the paper say constructors are most fundamental entities of all reality. Rather it describes constructor theory in relation to our existing most fundamental theories, in that it underlies them. Given that the author is a Poppperian, this should come as no surprise.
The logic of the relationship would be as follows: Other theories specify what substrates and tasks exist, and provide the multiplication tables for serial and parallel composition of tasks, and state that some of the tasks are impossible, and explain why. Constructor theory provides a unifying formalism in which other theories can do this, and its principles constrain their laws, and in particular, require certain types of task to be possible. I shall call all scientific theories other than constructor theory subsidiary theories.
As for the rest of your questions, "which laws and why" is found in subsidiary theories that uses the formalism of constructor theory to describe them.critical rationalist_{December 11, 2017
December
12
Dec
11
11
2017
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT}

According to constructor theory, the most fundamental components of reality are entities—“constructors”—that perform particular tasks, accompanied by a set of laws that define which tasks are actually possible for a constructor to carry out.
Some questions: Where do these constructors come from? Why are they preforming tasks? Where do the laws come from? How do laws impose their instructions on constructors?Origenes_{December 11, 2017
December
12
Dec
11
11
2017
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT}

@UB
CR: Darwinian evolution is the source of the translation apparatus.
Incorrect. Did you miss #81?
@Origenes From the paper…
These claims, stemming from the tradition of incredulity that living entities can be scientifically explained, [14], highlight a problem. The theory of evolution must be supplemented by a theory that those physical processes upon which it relies are provably compatible with no-design laws of physics. No such theory has been proposed; and those claims have not been properly refuted. Indeed, the central problem here – i.e., whether and under what circumstances accurate self-reproduction and replication are compatible with no-design laws – is awkward to formulate in the prevailing conception of fundamental physics, which expresses everything in terms of predictions given some initial conditions and laws of motion.
So, no, it’s not just (1) and (2) above. Neo-darwnism is supplemented by both constructor theory of life, which includes aspects of the constructor theory of information.
Want to try again? For the umpteenth time, is there no one willing to actually address the arguments actually being presented, as opposed to a straw man?critical rationalist_{December 11, 2017
December
12
Dec
11
11
2017
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT}

Apparently, the author of the post assumed constructor theory was a theory of everything, based on the Scientific America article, and it all went down hill from there. What’s particularly ironic is that Deutsch doesn’t think there will ever be a theory of everything. That’s why his latest book is titled “The Beginning of Infinity”. We will always be just scratching the surface, and there will always be new, more fundamental problems to solve (think Hilbert’s infinite hotel. Guests will always have room numbers that are close to the beginning of all numbered rooms). The author cannot personally cannot conceive of how constructor theory could be useful at something it doesn’t actually do. Therefore, the paper must have no actual content and merely represent and attempt to make someone sound smarter? Fortunately, science does not consist of what the author can conceive of based on a popular science article and the first reading of a subsidiary theory. What is this constructor theory? It's a sequence of worthless would-be smart sentences sold as a "theory of everything" and a "unifying theory of classical and quantum physics" and "all information in them" which also "defines all forms of information" and transforms all of our knowledge to "claims that some tasks are impossible”. Constructor theory is a theory about laws. Specifically, the “theory” part constructor theory is is what I described in my comment. Namely, that it’s possible to express all scientific theories through a dichotomy of which physical transformations are possible, which specific physical transformations are impossible, and why. Subsidiary theories are ways of expressing specific scientific theories in constructor theoretic terms. Nor does is its goal to unify classical and quantum physics. That is not in the SA article, not is it in the referred paper. So, this is yet another misconception. Principles of thermodynamics already are laws about laws. The Constructor theory of thermodynamics, which is a subsidiary theory, helps us make exact statements as described here. That’s not merely the vague claim that somethings are not possible. And it solves problems. There are aspects of information that cannot be expressed in the current conception of physics, which is addressed in the Constructor theory of thermodynamics - another subsidiary theory. This is because constructor theory isn’t about the initial conditions and laws of motion. The initial conditions are not fundamental. Again, this is apparently, completely lost on the author. It’s unclear how this has no useful content and merely an attempt to sound smarter.
But equally importantly, the comments they are making about things like quantum information are just totally wrong. They want to "unify classical physics and quantum mechanics" and the concepts of information in them. But this is complete nonsense. The frameworks can't be unified because they contradict one another. More clearly, quantum mechanics is right in Nature around us while classical physics is wrong. Classical physics is a limit of quantum mechanics – classical physics is approximately valid in some extreme enough situations accurately described by quantum mechanics – but not the other way around. One should never try to unify a thing that is right with a thing that is wrong. It's like pouring gasoline on the fire – and I won't even tell you which of these two elements is right and which of them is wrong.
Strangely I can’t find the quote “They want to ‘unify classical physics and quantum mechanics” anywhere in the paper or the article. What gives? From the paper…
Likewise quantum information theory, as it stands, never gets round to specifying what it is referring to as ‘quantum information’, nor its relation to classical information. It is not, despite the name, a theory of a new type of information, but only a collection of quantum phenomena that violate the laws of classical information. A new theory of information is needed, within physics but at a deeper level than both quantum theory and Shannon’s theory. In this paper we provide that, via constructor theory (Deutsch 2013).
So, the entire idea that “the comments they are making about things like quantum information are just totally wrong.” is apparently based on a “wrong” interception of the paper or the article.
Moreover, the information has always meant the same thing "in" classical physics or quantum mechanics. Information is independent. The concept of information exists independently of particular theories in physics. However, particular theories in physics differ in what they say about the form that information can take and how the information about the past that we already know is linked to the information about the future that we may only predict.
This is equivocation. Informational content is not the same as a theory of what is physically required for that information that scales.
Does it prove that the information means something completely different in quantum physics?
Again, a reference to content, not theory, etc.critical rationalist_{December 11, 2017
December
12
Dec
11
11
2017
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT}

A: For the umpteenth time: seeing is the source of sense organs. B: Seeing is enabled by sense organs; these are the material conditions. A: My theory is more fundamental. B: Then give me a real-world example. A: I don’t have to give you an example, because that would prove you right — my theory is more fundamental. B: When you give me an example of seeing, CR, it’s going to turn out to be by a sensory organ. A: A HA! Yes! But, as I said already, that would show you right, which is yet another vague criticism. So, that is merely a claim of irreducible complexity, which is NOT a theory of information! IOW, you seem to have some objection to constructor theory, but have yet to make it explicit, beyond what appears to be some kind of incredulity. So, I’ll ask for the umpteenth time: is there anyone here that will actually address the argument being presented? What gives?Origenes_{December 11, 2017
December
12
Dec
11
11
2017
03:44 AM
3
03
44
AM
PDT}

CR: Darwinian evolution is the source of the translation apparatus. UB: Darwinian evolution is enabled by semiosis, and these are the material conditions. CR: It’s unclear to me and you must be confused. That system does not scale. UB: I think you have a serious misconception about this topic. CR: But I’m referring to a quantum storage medium. UB: Then give me a real-world example. CR: I don’t have to give you an example -- my theory is more fundamental. UB: When you give me an example, CR, it’s going to turn out to be semiotic. CR: A HA! Yes! But that’s merely a claim of irreducible complexity! :)Upright BiPed_{December 10, 2017
December
12
Dec
10
10
2017
11:27 PM
11
11
27
PM
PDT}

segue notedUpright BiPed_{December 10, 2017
December
12
Dec
10
10
2017
10:34 PM
10
10
34
PM
PDT}

That a real-world example from you argument against semiosis requires semiosis in order to function.
And that's not merely a claim of irreducible complexity?critical rationalist_{December 10, 2017
December
12
Dec
10
10
2017
10:23 PM
10
10
23
PM
PDT}

Thank you DATCG. Love the parrot. Sir, this parrot is no more!!Upright BiPed_{December 10, 2017
December
12
Dec
10
10
2017
10:09 PM
10
10
09
PM
PDT}

CR: So, what is left to object to? UB: That you can’t provide a single real-world example of what you are talking about. CR: I’ll ask yet again, what would any such example of a “quantum storage medium” indicate other than a claim of irreducible complexity?
That a real-world example from you argument against semiosis requires semiosis in order to function.Upright BiPed_{December 10, 2017
December
12
Dec
10
10
2017
10:07 PM
10
10
07
PM
PDT}

UB, real world application examples cannot be provided by CR because the real world does not exist in Constructor Theory. And for readers, do not be deceived. An opinion of Deutsch and Marletto's Constructor Theory from Lubos Motl... https://motls.blogspot.com/2014/05/constructor-theory-deutsch-and-marletto.html
If you happen to forget similar factoids, Deutsch is one of the philosophical babblers who likes to say ludicrous things about the allegedly unavoidable naive many-worlds interpretations of quantum mechanics, and so on. What is this constructor theory? It's a sequence of worthless would-be smart sentences sold as a "theory of everything" and a "unifying theory of classical and quantum physics" and "all information in them" which also "defines all forms of information" and transforms all of our knowledge to "claims that some tasks are impossible".

"Where is the beef?" the ladies would surely ask in this case, too. If you try to find any content inside these texts, you will inevitably fail. There is no content. It's just a stupid game with words and a couple of mathematical symbols.
More from Lubos...
Their "work" is all about imposing a meaninglessly contrived language upon people. Moreover, Ms Marletto's understanding of energy – dominated by the question whether it can be obtained for free – is exactly the same childish misunderstanding of the concept that Feynman would humiliate in his text Judging Books By Their Covers. "Energy makes it go" was written as an answer to all questions in the book. Feynman pointed out that the children wouldn't learn a damn thing. They could have written "Wakalixes make it go" just as well. Moreover, the statements aren't really true because energy isn't what makes things go. It's just being converted from one form to another etc. Some of the most experienced readers already know that a kettle may heat water. Fortunately, the authors allow us to formulate even such statements in a more "natural" and more "profound" way: For instance, a kettle with a power supply can serve as a constructor that can perform the task of heating water. LOL, it's a constructor. Who would have thought? One would think that a kettle isn't constructing anything – in the same sense as cranes do. But if you want to become so high that you confuse construction workers with cooks, it may be a great idea to unify cranes with kettles. And raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens. Bright copper kettles and warm woolen mittens. Brown paper packages tied up with strings. These are a few of my favorite things. Engineers and cooks are the same thing, after all. They are constructors. OK, what is a constructor? You study the paper and you find out that it is a meaningless word that may represent anything and that may be inserted into any sentence for pompous fools to look even "smarter". Instead of saying that X does Y, you must say that X is a constructor that is prohibited to do things different than Y. It isn't really quite the same thing and the whole expansion of the sentence is bringing you nothing of value but you don't care. I can't resist to compare these awkward sentences to yet another quote by Feynman who was reading some "smart" texts by participants of an interdisciplinary conference. "The individual member of the social community often receives his information via visual, symbolic channels." He(Feynman) didn't know what the first sentence of a(the) text could have possibly meant. He must have been stupid! However, he didn't give up and finally figured out what the sentence meant. "People read." The Deutsch-Marletto texts are made uselessly contrived in the very same sense as the sentence involving visual, symbolic channels. There is no point of talking about a "constructor". This redundant concept doesn't help your understanding of anything in Nature or mathematics. But equally importantly, the comments they are making about things like quantum information are just totally wrong.
DATCG_{December 10, 2017
December
12
Dec
10
10
2017
09:49 PM
9
09
49
PM
PDT}

I’l ask yet again, what would any such example of a “quantum storage medium” indicate other than a claim of irreducible complexity?
[crickets] Funny how that works. UB gets to demand I answer questions, but he doesn't have to answer one himself. Again, if a semiotic system, classical or quantum, can be explained in physical theory of information as a network of specific possible tasks, then what is your argument other than a claim of irreducible complexity?critical rationalist_{December 10, 2017
December
12
Dec
10
10
2017
09:38 PM
9
09
38
PM
PDT}

That's yet another vague criticism. Again, see #86. Are you saying the translation system is a real world example of something that cannot be expressed in constructor theoretic terms? If so, why? UD Editors: No, he is saying you have not provided a real world example. Everyone knows you can't CR. Why don't you just admit that. Or are you saying the translation system is a real world example of information that cannot be more fundamentally expressed in the subsidiary theory of information? If so, what aspect of information are you referring to? UD Editors: No, he is saying you have not provided a real world example. Everyone knows you can't CR. Why don't you just admit that. Wouldn't that require presenting a rival physical theory of information that fundamentally explains just as much as the subsidiary theory of information, plus the delta of whoever problematic aspect of the translation system supposedly indicates?critical rationalist_{December 10, 2017
December
12
Dec
10
10
2017
09:23 PM
9
09
23
PM
PDT}

UB, I applaud your patience. I feel like I've just read(watched) a Monty Python skit. Where the guy signs up to argue. Except he's arguing with himself in the mirror, a Constructor Mirror. Or, maybe the scene of the Dead Parrot(i.e. Neo-Darwinism), dilly, dilly, silly, neo-Darwinism is not dead, it's upheld by a Constructor nail. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218 Or to simplify it down to task and sub-task. What is possible and not possible. Constructor Theory is the boat. The man is a Neo-Darwinist.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37W9lFQ783U LOL :) will you ever get him to answer your question? CR's going round in circles... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2szNtnS7Bh4DATCG_{December 10, 2017
December
12
Dec
10
10
2017
09:12 PM
9
09
12
PM
PDT}

So, what is left to object to?
That you can't provide a single real-world example of what you are talking about.Upright BiPed_{December 10, 2017
December
12
Dec
10
10
2017
08:49 PM
8
08
49
PM
PDT}

@Barry The question has been answered. A quantum storage medium, like all other scientific theories, is defined by what physical transformations must be possible, which transformations are not possible, and why. That's what it means to make exact statements in constructor theory. If there was some unique exception regarding an specific example, then it couldn't be exact, right? So, any suggestion that I haven't answered the question must somehow be accompanied with some criticism of the very idea of constructor theory itself, or criticism of the subsidiary theory of information presented. Furthermore, since the theory describes what physical transformations are required for symbols to be possible in both classical and quantum systems, it would not imply that symbols are incompatible with quantum storage mediums. Right? So, what is left to object to? UD Editors: CR, the depth and breadth of your ability and willingness to lie is truly astonishing. You have plainly not answered the question by providing an example (or admitting there is none). Yet you say "the question has been answered. Staggering.critical rationalist_{December 10, 2017
December
12
Dec
10
10
2017
08:42 PM
8
08
42
PM
PDT}

CR @ 86 says to UB: "Perhaps you object to the very idea behind constructor theory?" No, I'm pretty sure he objects to your gutless refusal to answer a simple question. Here, I'll ask it again in case you missed it:
Do you have a specific example of the “quantum storage medium” that you are talking about? Yes, or No?
Barry Arrington_{December 10, 2017
December
12
Dec
10
10
2017
07:02 PM
7
07
02
PM
PDT}

@UB Perhaps you object to the very idea behind constructor theory? Specifically...
1.1 Construction tasks Consider an automated factory for producing goods to a particular specification. Though its purpose may only be to produce those goods, the laws of physics imply that it must transform something into them and, typically, also use other resources and produce waste products. Very few such transformations happen spontaneously; that is to say, almost all require a constructor, which I shall define as anything that can cause transformations in physical systems without undergoing any net change in its ability to do so. I shall call those physical systems the constructor’s substrates: constructor input state of substrate(s) ??????? output state of substrate(s). (1) A transformation, regarded as being caused by a constructor, I call a construction. Constructors appear under various names in physics and other fields. For instance, in thermodynamics, a heat engine is a constructor because of the condition that it be capable of ‘operating in a cycle’. But they do not currently appear in laws of physics. Indeed, there is no possible role for them in what I shall call the prevailing conception of fundamental physics, which is roughly as follows: everything physical is composed of elementary constituents such as particles, fields and spacetime; there is an initial state of those constituents; and laws of motion determine how the state evolves continuously thereafter. In contrast, a construction (1) is characterised only by its inputs and outputs, and involves subsystems (the constructor and the substrate), playing different roles, and most constructors are themselves composite objects. So, in the prevailing conception, no law of physics could possibly mention them: the whole continuous process of interaction between constructor and substrate is already determined by the universal laws governing their constituents. However, the constructor theory that I shall propose in this paper is not primarily the theory of constructions or constructors, as the prevailing conception would require it to be. It is the theory of which transformations input state of substrates ? output state of substrates (2) can be caused and which cannot, and why.
Are you suggesting here is a problem the theory part of constructor theory? Specially, that...
.... the idea is that the fundamental questions of physics can all be expressed in terms of those issues, and that the answers do not depend on what the constructor is, so it can be abstracted away, leaving transformations (2) as the basic subject matter of the theory. I shall argue that we should expect such a theory to constitute a fundamental branch of physics with new, universal laws, and to provide a powerful new language for expressing other theories. I shall guess what some of those laws may be, and explore the theory’s potential for solving various problems and achieving various unifications between disparate branches of physics and beyond, and propose a notation that may be useful in developing it.
Is there some universal problem with this theory? Or perhaps you think translation system is an exception, for some reason, in that it is not possible to model the translation system, in particular, in a more fundamental, constructor theoretic terms of possible and impossible physical tasks ? Or, to rephrase, can we not express what's happening there in a more fundamental way of possible transformations of matter? If not, why? IOW, you seem to have some objection to constructor theory, but have yet to make it explicit, beyond what appears to be some kind of incredulity.critical rationalist_{December 10, 2017
December
12
Dec
10
10
2017
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT}

CR, symbols are possible in both mediums because a system of discontinuous association has been organized and established in both mediums, i.e. a semiotic system.
That's not an explanation for why symbols are possible. This seems to be a key point of confusion, as any explanation for why symbols are possible must be more fundamental than any theory of information in our current conception of physics or even symbols. We can explain why they are possible based on what physical transformations must be possible. And, to be exact (so it can scale) that same explanation must also accommodate the fact that some possible transformations in classical systems are impossible in quantum systems. From the constructor theory of information...
1 Introduction In some respects, information is a qualitatively different sort of entity from all others in terms of which the physical sciences describe the world. It is not, for instance, a function only of tensor fields on spacetime (as general relativity requires all physical quantities to be), nor is it a quantum-mechanical observable. But in other respects, information does resemble some entities that appear in laws of physics: the theory of computation, and statistical mechanics, seem to refer directly to it without regard to the specific media in which it is instantiated, just as conservation laws do for the electromagnetic four-current or the energy-momentum tensor. We call that the substrate-independence of information. Information can also be moved from one type of medium to another while retaining all its properties qua information. We call this its interoperability property; it is what makes human capabilities such as language and science possible, as well as biological adaptations that use symbolic codes, such as the genetic code. [...] Much of Shannon’s theory is about unreliable transmission and measurement, and inefficient representations, and how to compose them into more reliable and efficient ones. But here we are concerned with the fundamental issues that remain even in the limiting case when all error rates have been reduced to their physically possible minima and there is no redundancy in the message being transmitted. In that limit, receiving the message only means distinguishing it from all the other possible messages. And in that regard, Shannon’s theory is inadequate in two ways. The first is that it cannot describe information in quantum physics, because certain prohibitions that quantum theory imposes – such as the impossibility of cloning – violate the kind of interoperability that is assumed in Shannon’s theory. Consequently the type of information studied by Shannon is now called classical information.
From the constructor theory of life....
2.1 Information Replication when regarded as copying is intimately connected with information. This has inspired some information-based approaches to fundamental problems in biology, [24]. Until recently, information had no place in fundamental physics: expressions such as “information being instantiated in a physical system” were inherently approximate, or fuzzy. But the constructor theory of information has now incorporated information within fundamental physics, [17], providing an exact, physical characterisation to those expressions, as follows. A set of attributes ? is an information variable [17] if the task of per- forming any permutation over ? (allowing for waste), and the replication task over ?, as in (1), are all possible. The attributes of an information variables are called information attributes. An information medium is a substrate some of whose attributes constitute an information variable. Information media must obey the interoperability principle [17]: the composite system of two information media with information variables ?1 and ?2, is an information medium with information variable ?1 × ?2. This is a physical principle: it requires there to be interactions such that information is “copiable” from one information medium to any other. Thus, whether or not information media exist, i.e., whether or not information can be instantiated in physical systems, depends on the laws of physics. The intuition about replication being central to information is now expressed as a physical law: laws of physics permitting information media must allow information variables - i.e., replicable sets of attributes as in (1). A physical system M instantiates information if it is an information medium in one of its information attributes (belonging to some information variable ?) and that the task of giving it any other attribute in ? (allowing for waste) is possible. This is an exact physical requirement: for this to be possible, certain interactions must be available in nature. It is also an intrinsic, coun- terfactual, property of M. A constructor C for the replication task on some information variable ? 10 C is called a copier of ?. Of its substrates, one - the target - is changed from having the attribute N to having the attribute (X,W); the other - the source, initially having one of the attributes X in ?, to be replicated - remains unchanged (but it may change temporarily during the copy process). Therefore (by definition of a constructor) C and the source substrate with the attribute X constitute a constructor C[X] performing the task TX = {N ? (X,W)} on the target. The information attribute X in the source acts as a constructor, instructing C to perform the task TX on N. See the figure 2.1. Figure 1: Two equivalent representations of a copier C (waste W omitted). On the left, C is a constructor with two substrates (represented by lines): the source, that remains unchanged; and the target, that is changed. On the right, C and the source substrate with the attributes X constitute the constructor C[X] performing thetaskTX ={N?X}onthetarget,forallX??. Thecopierisasimple example of a programmable constructor. In general, a programmable constructor is a constructor V that has, among its input substrates, an information medium M that can have any of the attributes P in an information variable, with the property that M with any of those information attributes is itself a constructor. The information instantiated in M is an abstract constructor - an instance of “information with causal power”, [25]. V [P ] is a constructor for the task TP , P is the program for the task TP and TP is in the repertoire of V . For example, V could be the ribosome, P the sequence that, when inserted in V , would cause V to perform the task TP of constructing a particular polypeptide chain.
And how are things described in constructor theory?
Constructor theory’s main elements are tasks. A task T is the abstract specification of a transformation T ={x1 ?y1,x2 ?y2,... ,xn ?yn} as a set of input/output pairs of attributes {xi}, {yi} of the substrates (the physical systems being transformed). Tasks form an algebra under parallel and serial composition, and are composable into networks to form other tasks [17].
So, the translation system can be described, at a more fundamental level, as a network of transformations that must be possible under the laws of physics.critical rationalist_{December 10, 2017
December
12
Dec
10
10
2017
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT}

@UB
Since no example of the “quantum storage medium” you are referring to is forthcoming, it is pointless for me to continue asking.
First, I have presented a paper of a fundamental theory that brings information into physics, which describes what is physically necessary for a quantum storage medium. Second, as I pointed out, that same paper explicitly explains how symbols are possible in both quantum and classical storage mediums. So, yes, it's pointless for you to keep asking for something with the intention of "showing" symbols in classical or quantum mediums, when that is implicitly indicated in the paper and not in question. So, apparently, you're still confused as what the problem is, and therefore, why it is relevant. I'l ask yet again, what would any such example of a "quantum storage medium" indicate other than a claim of irreducible complexity? Is it pointless to keep asking? Is your steadfast refused to provide an answer an admission of the issue?critical rationalist_{December 10, 2017
December
12
Dec
10
10
2017
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT}

Scratch my request in #82. Since no example of the “quantum storage medium” you are referring to is forthcoming, it is pointless for me to continue asking. Your steadfast refusal to provide one is already an admission of the issue.Upright BiPed_{December 10, 2017
December
12
Dec
10
10
2017
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT}

So, CR, since you don't have the intellectual will to stop yourself, I'll simply ask again: Do you have a specific example of the "quantum storage medium" that you are talking about? Yes, or No?Upright BiPed_{December 10, 2017
December
12
Dec
10
10
2017
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT}

@Origenes From the paper...
These claims, stemming from the tradition of incredulity that living entities can be scientifically explained, [14], highlight a problem. The theory of evolution must be supplemented by a theory that those physical processes upon which it relies are provably compatible with no-design laws of physics. No such theory has been proposed; and those claims have not been properly refuted. Indeed, the central problem here – i.e., whether and under what circumstances accurate self-reproduction and replication are compatible with no-design laws – is awkward to formulate in the prevailing conception of fundamental physics, which expresses everything in terms of predictions given some initial conditions and laws of motion.
So, no, it's not just (1) and (2) above. Neo-darwnism is supplemented by both constructor theory of life, which includes aspects of the constructor theory of information. From an earlier comment....
Now, on to the question of “what are the core physical requirements” for this system we are trying to explain. If only there was some problem or criticism that motivated people to actually work on this very question in detail? [...] Note that the term “no-design laws” refers a set of “core physical requirements” (our current laws of physics, including quantum mechanics). It’s not a new set of laws. Rather, it’s referring to existing, general purpose laws and resources, that are not design-specific. In fact it’s the absence of a new set of yet to be proposed laws that somehow contain the design of self replicating cells, already present. While this was not specifically directed at ID or UB’s claims [...] it is still relevant to the question at hand. This because this criticism results in asking the question: which physical laws (“core physical requirements”) are compatible with high-fidelity replication.
So, I'll ask for the umpteenth time: is there anyone here that will actually address the argument being presented? What gives? One strategy to attack a theory one finds objectionable is to present a false version of it, then point out how it is false. How is your comment any different?critical rationalist_{December 10, 2017
December
12
Dec
10
10
2017
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT}

@UB #78 No, I'm not. With a theory of information that is more fundamental than symbols, what you're left with is a claim of irreducible complexity. That's a whole different argument. Or was that just your argument all along? And it's one that has been addressed by providing a more fundamental, description of new-darwnism. Namely, by modeling the entire spectrum of replication fidelity as variations of constructors in constructor theory.critical rationalist_{December 10, 2017
December
12
Dec
10
10
2017
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT}

Origenes, exactly!Upright BiPed_{December 10, 2017
December
12
Dec
10
10
2017
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT}

CR, symbols are possible in both mediums because a system of discontinuous association has been organized and established in both mediums, i.e. a semiotic system. You are now being openly irrational and deceptive. You've landed in the unfortunate position where if you provide an specific example of the "quantum storage medium" you are talking about, it will immediately invalidate your argument. My advice: When the horse is dead, get off.Upright BiPed_{December 10, 2017
December
12
Dec
10
10
2017
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT}

UB @75 CR's theories may be incoherent, they are consistent nevertheless. (1) Knowledge does not require a knower. (2) Information does not require a semiotic system. All that is required is for constructors to spontaneously self-organize into information/knowledge, semiotic systems and knowers, for no reason at all.Origenes_{December 10, 2017
December
12
Dec
10
10
2017
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT}

@UB, Let me rephares as a question... If, to allow us to make exact statement about information that scaled to both classical and quantum information, we had to develop a more fundamental theory of information that was so more fundamental it explained why symbols are possible in both types of media, what would be the impact of that significantly more fundamental theory of information be to your argument? Furthermore, why would you think a paper that explains how symbols are possible in both classical and quantum mediums would imply that symbols in quantum media are impossible?critical rationalist_{December 10, 2017
December
12
Dec
10
10
2017
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT}

Are you concerned that if you finally provide an example of your “quantum storage medium” we will find exactly what I told you months ago? (i.e. that using quantum effects to encode data in a medium is a semiotic system, and thus your entire set of objections are a massive misconception on your part).Upright BiPed_{December 10, 2017
December
12
Dec
10
10
2017
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT}

CR has failed to make the slightest dent in UB’s argument; yet he continues to spill hundreds and hundreds of words into the combox, proving once again that he believes “typing” is a synonym for “arguing.”
Wouldn't the degree that one can identify what is or is not relevant to a subject depend on the degree that one understands that subject? That is, if you or UB are mistaken on this subject, could you not just as well be mistaken as to what is or is not relevant? Or I could be mistaken about UB's argument or some other key aspect of the subject. Repeat the same question doesn't help in that sense. This is why I have suggested that UB's argument might actually be a claim of irreducible complexity of how the call describes itself, instead of a based on physical theory of information. In fact, I'd suggest that we don't even agree on what information is, let alone a physical theory of information would be, or if you and UB think any such theory is actually possible. Definitions are only useful in that they allow us to communicate ideas that they represent. The criticism of "that doesn't fit the classic definition of X" is a fallacy. One could just as well argued that the ability to split an atom didn't fit the classic definition of "atom" at the time. After all, the origin of the word is French...
late 15th century: from Old French atome, via Latin from Greek atomos ‘indivisible,’ based on a- ‘not’ + temnein ‘to cut.’
Yet, atoms can be split.critical rationalist_{December 10, 2017
December
12
Dec
10
10
2017
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply