|
Author
|
Topic: Granville Sewell and the Second Law of Thermodynamics
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 18. March 2007 09:31
Design or design by intelligence can be scientifically analyzed in terms of information. The question of concern here is thus 'how does or should hard science ID define information and the 'creation' of information involved in designing complex biological life forms. The issue is also "How does hard science ID define the information and creation of information involved in other types of intelligent behavior and intelligent problem solving?"
The first lesson to be learned from the discussion here is that "Information is that the specific definition of information used in a particular scientific application is the definition developed by the scientists doing the analysis?"
Shannon information, for example, was apparently developed as a techique for analyzing information transmitted through communications channels. In order to use the definition or assumption that there was no net change in information in a closed system or channel, he defined information so that the loss of information in a noisy channel was exactly offset of the creation of surprisal value information. Contrary to the misconceptions of those who would apply thermo-dynamic conservation of energy to information processing, shannon did not discover or demonstrate conservation of information in closed systems, he simply defined shannon information to satisfy the conservation of information assumption/definition.
What does this mean for ID science? It means that an ID scientist has the right to define information is such a manner that information is not created inside a human mind or inside the processes that intelligently design complex life forms.
ID scientists have the right or prerogative to define information such that it is not created inside a closed system such as a human mind. Furthermore, the use of this prerogative can not be restricted by Darwinists or Academic AI proponents or by creationists. Right?
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 18. March 2007 13:03
Ok then, suppose we find something that is created inside the human mind. What if this thing were to look like information, smell like information, and taste like information? It would not be information because it would not fit our definition. What should we call such a thing were it discovered?
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 19. March 2007 07:46
Melvin,
The scientific analysis of intelligent behavior and intelligent design involves or requires a definition of information. I am suggesting or proposing that 1) we define information in terms of solutions to goal directed problems, and further that 2) we define the process of creating this information or output in such a way that the output is logically or mathematically determined by a)external input data and b)inputted processing algorithms. In other words, I am proposing a definition of information creation that does not depend upon or require or permit information to be generated by a closed system.
I am asserting or proposing that productive formal scientific analysis of all intelligent behaviors can be performed using this type of concept/assumption/definition of information.
The fact that I make this proposal does not preclude you from 1) producing a scientific demonstration of some observable behavior where minds create information or 2)developing a definition of information that allows closed systems to create information and showing that your definition can produce productive scientific analysis.
The key point here is that definitions of information are at the discretion of the scientist developing productive scientific analysis. Any of the 'experts' are welcome to develop their own definition and demonstrate its scientifc usefulness, but they are not permitted to reject proposed definitions on an a priori basis. Scientists are only justified in rejecting a proposed definition when they can produce more useful predictive theories using their alternative definitions.
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 19. March 2007 13:25
LE: quote:
In order to use the definition or assumption that there was no net change in information in a closed system or channel, he defined information so that the loss of information in a noisy channel was exactly offset of the creation of surprisal value information.
Pure baloney. You're simply making this up.
quote:
...he simply defined shannon information to satisfy the conservation of information assumption/definition.
Still baloney.
quote:
What does this mean for ID science? It means that an ID scientist has the right to define information is such a manner that information is not created inside a human mind or inside the processes that intelligently design complex life forms.
ID scientists have the right or prerogative to define information such that it is not created inside a closed system such as a human mind. Furthermore, the use of this prerogative can not be restricted by Darwinists or Academic AI proponents or by creationists. Right?
Nobody has ever said that ID scientists can't define information any way they please. In fact I've repeatedly asked you for your definition of information. How about if you exercise your rights by declaring your definition.
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 19. March 2007 13:45
Melvin quote:
When a computer compresses text with Huffman coding it is using the Huffman algorithm [or derivative there of]. Therefore, the table of codes was generated by the algorithm and so, as you are well aware, I will always claim it was generated by the programmer, in this case Huffman.
Yes, the meanings of the codewords are determined by the algorithm and by the text itself (the ensemble). So you could say that the meanings are assigned, at least in part, by Huffman. Just as we could say that the addition operation of a calculator is, in a sense, performed by the designer.
The Huffman algorithm assigns meanings in such a way that compression is maximized, but meanings could be assigned randomly instead. (This would make for terrible compression, but that's not the point.) In that case, who's assigning the meanings? Is it the programmer who decided to assign them randomly? But in that case, it's the random process, not the programmer, that decides which meaning goes with which codeword.
quote:
When writing the decompression program, the intelligent agent responsible must be aware of the ensemble code or the decompression will fail to deliver the original information with fidelity. Now, I don’t do this sort of thing for a living but am I not correct?
Correct. The code table needs to be included with the file, or sent with the message, or somehow communicated to the decompressor.
quote:
I don’t know how important it is for us to engage once again in the calculator adding debate as it pertains to the compression of text in that we have both said our piece. Incidentally, I wrote a portfolio problem for my students entitled “2ndclass” in which I asked them to define addition, explain how it is done, and decide if a calculator could perform the task. It came down about 50/50.
That's quite the honor. Did you get an good philosophical discussion out of it?
quote:
Maybe we will have to leave it as you say, “It would follow that if information is useful, it must have meaning.” Or, do you have some other example of meaningful information where no intelligent agent is to be found?
I can think of other computer examples, but of course computers and software can be ultimately traced back to humans. Since I'm not sure what it means for something to have meaning to something, we would probably have to define that in order to come up with examples.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 19. March 2007 13:46
Quote: Pure baloney...Still baloney.
A good description of 2Cs knowledge of and ability to contribute to the discussion.
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 19. March 2007 15:32
quote:
Quote: Pure baloney...Still baloney.
A good description of 2Cs knowledge of and ability to contribute to the discussion.
Hey, a response! It was of the "I know you are but what am I" variety, but it's progress.
Since I've told you exactly why your claims are baloney (a corrupted message can have more surprisal than the original message), perhaps a better response would be to show that I'm wrong.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 20. March 2007 07:50
ID science starts with the common sense observations like 1)the Golden Gate bridge involves a more complex design and more information than a log dropped across a stream, 2) a life form involves a more complex design and more information than a rock, 3) a human involves a more complex design and more information that an bacteria, and 4) a bird involves a more complex design and more information than an airplane.
If you start with the common sense observation that some thing have more complexity and more information than others, then to incorporate those observations into a formal scientific analysis you need to be able to define information in such a manner that it can increase (and decrease) and you need to define logical processes or operations capable of creating information. You also need to able to distinguish between information created by intelligent processes and information created by non-intellignet processes.
As anyone who actually understands the issue should recognize, definitions of information and intelligent processing already exist that are logically compatible with the above common sense
observations. Not only do the definitions exist but they are widely used in many types of formal analysis.
The problem is not defining information or the intelligent creation of information. The problem, apparently,is that large numbers of wannabe experts are incapable of understanding the definitions.
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 20. March 2007 10:15
LE: quote:
As anyone who actually understands the issue should recognize, definitions of information and intelligent processing already exist that are logically compatible with the above common sense
observations. Not only do the definitions exist but they are widely used in many types of formal analysis.
I would ask what these widely used definitions are, and where these formal analyses are published, but we all know that LE, bless his heart, suffers from a psychological disorder that prevents him from answering questions.
quote:
The problem is not defining information or the intelligent creation of information. The problem, apparently,is that large numbers of wannabe experts are incapable of understanding the definitions.
Here's a thought. How about if you state the definitions before you accuse people of misunderstanding them. I know that this whole rational discussion thing is foreign to you, but getting things in the right order would be a good baby step.
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 20. March 2007 11:18
LifeEngineer,
I agree with 2ndclass. The only thing I know about your definition for information is that it precludes a closed system as the creator of information. You don’t have to explain it to me. Just site some source where I can read up on the definitions you are using.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 20. March 2007 14:58
Maybe if I gave you a couple of hints, the light bulb will come on. Information or knowledge, in common usage, is the solution to a problem or more formally the goal compatible solution portion of a search area. There are widely used formal concepts of information that arise from these common sense concepts.
But my quess is that neither one of you knows enough about the concept to recognize widely used concepts and I also doubt if either of you are particularly interested in learning. I could be wrong, but that how I read your questions/responses. Interestingly, the two of you are coming from opposite sides of the ID issue.
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 20. March 2007 17:30
LifeEngineer,
I am not five years old and I don’t want hints. Congratulations, you have succeeded in developing a total disinterest in me for anything you have to say. I will just completely ignore any and all posts made by you and you are free to do the same of mine.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 20. March 2007 17:51
LE: quote:
There are widely used formal concepts of information that arise from these common sense concepts.
I'll give you a couple of hints right back. For over a year now you've been alluding to formal concepts, formal math, definitions, etc. There are entire threads at ARN dedicated to trying to get you to actually produce these things, or to at least point to where they're published (which they surely must be if they're "widely used"), but you have come up with zip. Zilch. Nada.
If I were wrong about this, you would respond with something like this: "Your accusations are completely false. I produced the definitions, math, etc here, here, and here."
But you won't respond this way, because your allusions are fabricated.
Here's how it looks from my perspective: In lieu of actually learning stuff, you convince yourself that you already know it. You have consequently developed deeply-ingrained habits of evasion, vagueness, and outright fabrication in order to maintain this self-delusion. The only person you're fooling is yourself.
IP: Logged
|
|
David L. Hagen
Member
Member # 323
|
posted 21. March 2007 00:11
2ndClass
On equation (4) Sewell states: quote:
“Thus in an open system, (4) means the decrease in entropy cannot be more than the entropy exported through the boundary.”
On March 7th you asserted: quote:
“For instance, we can't apply it to a large cloud of matter floating in space, which will tend to condense rather than diffuse over time.”
Please clarify - for the matter to condense, would it not have to radiate or loose energy through the boundary and thus satisfy Sewell’s statement? Similarly contraction by gravitation is still only satisfying natural laws. Neither radiation nor gravitation form codified information with grammars etc. per Werner Gitt’s heirarchy of information.
I do not see anything in your comment that gives any basis for codified information to refute Sewell.
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 21. March 2007 08:00
David: quote:
2ndClass
On equation (4) Sewell states:
quote:“Thus in an open system, (4) means the decrease in entropy cannot be more than the entropy exported through the boundary.”
On March 7th you asserted:
quote: “For instance, we can't apply it to a large cloud of matter floating in space, which will tend to condense rather than diffuse over time.”
Please clarify - for the matter to condense, would it not have to radiate or loose energy through the boundary and thus satisfy Sewell’s statement?
That's correct; energy would disperse. The point is that Sewell applies equation 4 to other things besides energy. For instance, he applies it to carbon atoms diffusing in a solid. As I said on March 7, he's fine up to that point, but then he seems to imply that it can be be applied to matter in general, which it can't.
quote:
Similarly contraction by gravitation is still only satisfying natural laws. Neither radiation nor gravitation form codified information with grammars etc. per Werner Gitt’s heirarchy of information.
I do not see anything in your comment that gives any basis for codified information to refute Sewell.
I'm not sure if you're saying that codified information cannot be formed through natural laws. I don't see how any constraints on the formation of codified information can be inferred from equation 4, so I guess I'm not following your line of reasoning.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
