|
Author
|
Topic: Granville Sewell and the Second Law of Thermodynamics
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 09. March 2007 11:49
LE: quote:
You clearly have no understanding of the topic being discussed and are simply attempting to disrupt discussion with your random incoherent blither.
Thanks, LE. I love you too.
I'm sorry, LE, but I see nothing incoherent or incorrect in my statements. Maybe you can point out the problems.
LE: quote:
Both shanon information theory and theories of computer information processing recognize that closed communications channels and conventional computer systems don't create information.
I never said anything about channels or conventional computer systems creating information. Non-deterministic processes are sources of information in both the Shannon and AIT frameworks. This is an uncontroversial fact. If you disagree with it, we can discuss it in detail.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 09. March 2007 12:22
Quote: Non-deterministic processes are sources of information in both the Shannon and AIT frameworks.
So lets here what kind of magical non-determiistic processes you believe can create information. Where do you locate these magical processes? Keep in mind that you also have to be able to develop testable non-trivial predictive theories with these non-deterministic processes.
[ 09. March 2007, 12:25: Message edited by: LifeEngineer ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 09. March 2007 15:24
2ndclass
quote:
John does. Or he doesn't. Depends on what day it is.
Obviously darwinistic opinion is steadfast. According darwinistic opinion (whatever stormy wheather outdoors is) the evolution doesn't violate 2nd law. I suspect darwinists they even believe 2nd law supports evolutionary process and 2nd law is a motor of selfish gene propagation.
According darwinism random development of complex local structure like that of human brain, speech or whale echolocators increase the overall entropy in Solar system (or in the Universe).
(Yet "evolution" of computers seems to contradict this belief - Eniac produced much more heat as Apache server.)
quote:
Challenging a fundamental law of physics is either Nobel Prize material or crackpottery. Since nobody has received a Nobel Prize for overturning the 2nd Law ... well, you can fill in the blank yourselves.
What we see is the energy of light emitted by the sun transformed into complicated organic chemicals inside living organisms via photosyntesis. Plants serves as food for animals. I do not see increase of entropy of solar system by this process at all. On the contrary - energy of light is transformed into complicated living structures with instincts etc...
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 09. March 2007 15:28
LE: quote:
So lets here what kind of magical non-determiistic processes you believe can create information. Where do you locate these magical processes?
Well, let's see, how about a random number generator? To preempt any objections, let's make it quantum-based. Suppose it generates this 30-digit number: 870460103203667191707149883692. 30*log2(10) = 100 bits of Shannon self-information. Since the sequence of digits is uniformly random, it's incompressible, which means that there is also about 100 bits of AIT information.
quote:
Keep in mind that you also have to be able to develop testable non-trivial predictive theories with these non-deterministic processes.
Where did that requirement come from? We're not talking about predictive theories; we're talking about whether non-deterministic processes can generate Shannon and algorithmic information. It's a trivial fact that they can.
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 09. March 2007 16:04
Martin: quote:
According darwinistic opinion (whatever stormy wheather outdoors is) the evolution doesn't violate 2nd law.
That's not darwinistic opinion, it's basic physics.
quote:
According darwinism random development of complex local structure like that of human brain, speech or whale echolocators increase the overall entropy in Solar system (or in the Universe).
You're conflating complexity with negentropy.
quote:
(Yet "evolution" of computers seems to contradict this belief - Eniac produced much more heat as Apache server.)
I'll assume you're joking here. Quibble: Eniac was a specific physical machine, while Apache is software that runs on a variety of hardware platforms, and could theoretically be ported to run on a machine made out of vacuum tubes just as Eniac was.
quote:
What we see is the energy of light emitted by the sun transformed into complicated organic chemicals inside living organisms via photosyntesis. Plants serves as food for animals. I do not see increase of entropy of solar system by this process at all. On the contrary - energy of light is transformed into complicated living structures with instincts etc...
Energy from the sun catalyzes biological activity on the earth, included the increase of biocomplexity, before it radiates back into space at a lower frequency. The overall entropy change in this process is positive, not negative.
But you're correct in noting that the entropy of the solar system is not increasing. Since the solar system is steadily losing energy, its entropy is also decreasing, while the entropy of the universe as a whole is increasing.
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 09. March 2007 17:03
2ndclass:
quote:
That's not darwinistic opinion, it's basic physics.
We are talking about life here. The life is object of biological research. Physics cannot explain process of meiosis, mimicry, development of embryo and evolution - its beyond it's scope. Entropy of living organism is evidently different from unanimate object. I don't know if evolution observe 2nd law. If you consider 2nd law for allmighty principle (platonic idea) that was valid before Bing-bang and is independent from matter and will be valid for ever, good for you.
quote:
I'll assume you're joking here. Quibble: Eniac was a specific physical machine, while Apache is software that runs on a variety of hardware platforms, and could theoretically be ported to run on a machine made out of vacuum tubes just as Eniac was.
Yeah, you got me.
quote:
Energy from the sun catalyzes biological activity on the earth, included the increase of biocomplexity, before it radiates back into space at a lower frequency. The overall entropy change in this process is positive, not negative.
Did somebody measure it?
I suppose that lot of solar energy is bound in living organisms. As life expanded this energy increases. Maybe life hindern and slow-down process predicted by 2nd law, don't you think?
Anyway, so or so, 2nd law has no relation to evolution, because it doesn't govern it at all.
[ 09. March 2007, 17:04: Message edited by: Martin ]
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 09. March 2007 18:19
Martin: quote:
Entropy of living organism is evidently different from unanimate object.
How is it different?
quote:
If you consider 2nd law for allmighty principle (platonic idea) that was valid before Bing-bang and is independent from matter and will be valid for ever, good for you.
Whether the 2nd Law is platonic depends on how broadly we define the 2nd Law.
quote:
Did somebody measure it?
No, entropy cannot be measured directly. But a simple model of the earth's absorption and emission of radiation shows an increase in entropy.
quote:
I suppose that lot of solar energy is bound in living organisms. As life expanded this energy increases. Maybe life hindern and slow-down process predicted by 2nd law, don't you think?
I suspect that the amount of energy stored biologically is negligible compared to the amount of energy that passes through our earth system.
quote:
Anyway, so or so, 2nd law has no relation to evolution, because it doesn't govern it at all.
Obviously the 2nd Law is a far more fundamental principle than biological evolution. All scientific principles are related, but not always in a way that's immediately useful. Nobody studies plate tectonics in terms of quantum mechanics.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 10. March 2007 02:50
Martin
Don't waste your time with 2ndclass. He is a "prescribed" Darwinian mystic, convinced that there never was any purpose in the universe.
I see no evidence that thermodynamics has contributed a scintilla to our understanding of either ontogeny or phylogeny.
"Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance."
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 134
So much for thermodynamics and quantum mechanics as well.
"Everything is determined ...by forces over which we have no control."
Albert Einstein
"A past evolution is undeniable. a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 10. March 2007 14:18
You are right John. Reading a philosophical treatise from professor Nikolai Lossky (disciple of Wundt who was expelled by communist from Russia after Revolution) I hit on the reference to Leo Berg and his conception of Nomogenesis in his book. Russian philosphers accepted evolution generally - but of course no darwinistic explanation of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Lossky
[ 10. March 2007, 14:19: Message edited by: Martin ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 11. March 2007 02:04
Martin
Leo Berg, in my estimation, was the greatest evolutionist of his day and perhaps of all time. He was completely objective and considered the views of his contemporaries with respect. Nevertheless, he stuck to his convictions and rejected every aspect of the Darwinian model just as Bateson had, whom he cited. He has been cynically ignored not only by the Darwinians and the Christian Fundamentalists but even by some of my other sources. I think some of that is due to Nationalism. Schindewolf, who certainly agreed with much of what Berg had presented in Nomogenesis, gave him only a passing reference in his book. Grasse, listed him in his bibliography but gave no reference to him in the text. I don't believe Goldschmidt ever mentioned him at any time. Neither, to my knowledge, did Robert Broom. Berg's claims probably seemed too far out at the time to be considered seriously, yet I know of not a thing he ever concluded that has been demonstrated to be without foundation. In my opinion, even his estimate of "tens of thousands of primary forms" remains well within the realm of possibility. There is no reason whatsoever to insist on a monophyletic evolution and several sound reasons to question it.
That is what allows me to make the prediction that one day they will be discussing Bergian evolution when Darwinian evolution has finally become a mere footnote next to the Phlogiston of Chemistry and the Ether of Physics. That should have happened in the latter part of the 19th century when Selection, like the Ether of Physics, had also failed the acid test of experimental verification.
I don't intend to wait as everything in Nomogenesis can be accommodated within the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis.
Berg said it all when he referred to both ontogeny and phylogeny -
"Neither in tne one nor in the other is there room for chance."
Nomogenesis Or Evolution According To Law, page 134.
So much for Darwinian mysticism. It is the biggest hoax in the history of science.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 12. March 2007 08:57
Quote: Where did that requirement come from? We're not talking about predictive theories; we're talking about whether non-deterministic processes can generate Shannon and algorithmic information. It's a trivial fact that they can
Demonstrating the capacity to generate data is not the same as the capacity to generate information. A simple interative program with a command "Let N=N+1" can generate an infinite stream of new data. You don't need anything as complex as a quantum number generator. Also note that there is no doubt that there are relationships that qualify as non-deterministic. None of that is relevant.
The creation of information question as it relates to scientific analysis of evolution is not about random number generators. In simple terms a human being appears to be more complex or involve more information than a pile on non-living bog slim. What created this increase in information? In another example, a scientist solves a problem that has been unsolved for decades. Where did the increase in information associated with the solution come from?
In a more formal mathematical sense, we consider a system that has 1) environmental input, 2) processing algorithms (that can be viewed as a second form of input), 3) internal processing, and 4) environmental output. The question is whether such a system, be it the human brain or evolving life systems can create information.
If we plan on using this framework to perform formal scientific analysis, then we need to add the additional criteria that input-output relationships must be testable, predictive or deterministic.
Despite the fact that this a clearly defined mathematical logical problem, and despite the fact that there is only one actual logical solution to the problem, there are an endless number of myths and silly beliefs constructed around the problem. Many people seem to believe that if such a system is truly intelligent it could generate information. Some people believe if the system using a simple random search process, the system can eventually geneate the information needed to expain life forms. Some creationists apparently believe that a god could have front loaded in an algorithm of sufficient complexity to explain existing life forms.
Many individuals, like 2ndclass don't appear to even understand the problem.
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 12. March 2007 10:10
LE: quote:
Demonstrating the capacity to generate data is not the same as the capacity to generate information.
When it comes to Shannon (which is the kind of information that you're talking about, see your post from March 8) or AIT, the capacity to generate random data is the same as the capacity to generate information. I gave you a specific, quantitative example. Instead of addressing it, you responded with hand-waving.
If you think that insults and vague assertions will convince people that you know what you're talking about, you're only fooling yourself. You're a transparent phony. Try cracking a book on information theory so you can address the specifics.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 12. March 2007 11:01
To suggest that an imaginary random number generator is the answer to the scientific issue of generating information is childish to say the least. But it is silly to get distracted by the likes of 2c.
In a broad general context, the generation of information issue is the question of "Where does knowledge or information come from?" One year humans are incapable of building a spaceship to the moon and a few decades latter, humans have designed and built such a spaceship and successfully sent it to the moon and back. In another context, one year, the earth has no life forms and a few 100 million years latter the earth has lots very complex life forms. Where did the information involved in solving both the rocket problem and the life form problem come from?
Formal mathematical and scientific analysis provides us with useful structures for analyzing both the theoretical and the real world questions of information creation. These structures also provide us with the opportunity to analyze some of the rather silly flawed attempts to solve the information generation problem.
2C, although he clearly doesn't understand it refers to one of more common academic 'information generation' myths. The logic underlying this myth is something like:
1. Intelligence must involve the creation of information.
2. simple deterministic systems can't generate information.
3. At least in theory, there must exist indeterminant systems or processes that produce output that is non-deterministic.
4. Since we know that intelligent systems exist, and given 2 and 3, we conclude that intelligence must involve a non-deterministic process.
5. Since we know that process that are non-deterministic at one level can be deterministic at another level (so called emergent properties), we conclude that intelligence must be a non-deterministic process that emerges at a higher level into a deterministic process.
The logic in the above argument is total childish rubbish, but not surprisingly, it is accepted, in one form or another, by lots of academic soft science practioners.
Anyone out there want to take a shot at explaining why the above argument is rubbish?
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 12. March 2007 11:57
LE, a good place to start to learn about Shannon's information theory would be Shannon's own papers here and here. You can also consult any digital communications text, or, cheaper and easier, Schaum's Outline.
For algorithmic information theory, Li and Vitanyi's book is a pricey way to go, but Vitanyi has a paper specifically about randomness w.r.t. AIT here.
Can you please tell me how my example from March 9 runs afoul of these, or any, texts on Shannon or algorithmic information theory. If not, then a retraction of your insults would be the honest and honorable thing to do.
Also, since I have given you references from which you can learn about Shannon and algorithmic information theory, can you please give me a reference that explains your notion of information. Thank you.
[ 12. March 2007, 12:04: Message edited by: 2ndclass ]
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 12. March 2007 12:12
It is interesting how many people believe that the ability to perform google searches qualifies them to pretend to be experts on subjects for which they can demonstrate no useful knowledge. Is 2C still pretending that a random number generator generates information? Does he claim random number generators are intelligent? Can they create life? But we can probably guessw that 2Cs only interest in being here is to disrupt discussion. His inability to present logical arguments is not, of course, relevant to his ability to disrupt discussion.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
