|
Author
|
Topic: Mechanically Specific Relativity
|
Atom
Member
Member # 1840
|
posted 31. January 2006 10:19
Irving, how would you frame your specification in that instance? Is your objective independent pattern defined as the ability to replicate in any direction without seams? (The reason I ask is to get you to formulate your specification in a way that would differentiate it from your torn paper example.)
Thanks,
Atom
IP: Logged
|
|
KBC1963
Member
Member # 1868
|
posted 31. January 2006 12:56
Gentlemen,
I believe that I have found the solution, I have digested all the input each of you has put in on this subject and I have derived a way of looking at MSR that will be simple to explain and using simple math it will be demonstrable to the general public. The key that I hadn't previously correlated into the mix was "small incremental steps" and my solution will propose that there cannot be any chance involved effectively eliminating evolution from attaining at all.
IP: Logged
|
|
Atom
Member
Member # 1840
|
posted 31. January 2006 14:51
I'm all ears (or, ermmm, eyes.)
IP: Logged
|
|
David L. Hagen
Member
Member # 323
|
posted 31. January 2006 19:15
Irving
Please clarify the difference you see in:
quote:
Not quite "designed systems," but specified complexity.
I would understand "designed systems" as including creating "specified complexity." e.g., 1) 3D mechanical parametric CAD drawings with associated specifications("blueprints") or
2) the specification for a Integrated Chip licensable to a contract chip maker.
You asked about my examples:
"4) Locks and keys. . . .
6) Books with chapters."
For interface specifications of designed systems, one or more of more of information, energy and matter are specified.
"Locks & keys", specifies both:
4.1 Information -encoded in the key configuration/code, and
4.2 Matter - mechanical specifications for the key/lock.
Similarly
"Books with chapters" specifies
6.1 Information: Language (grammar, words, spelling) Layout, Story.
6.2 Mechanical: Printer specifications, paper, binding, size.
Per your question on the tears, see the definition:
"d) the correlating interfaces being configured to provide a prescribed function;"
I don't see any "prescribed function" for the tear, while I do for your chip and chess examples. (i.e., at least visual replication.) The "prescribed function" requires specifying one or more of the "information, energy or matter" configuration and flows.
A "prescribed function" of information, energy and/or material is "specified complexity".
quote:
"Now if they had developed independently"
Independent development would make it easier to recognize specification and design,. However, systems designed at the same time should not be disqualified. Besides, if we are examining an object after the fact, we may have no information as to when one or both were designed.
Thus "independent development" may be used as further evidence of design, but should not be a high level requirement.
Generalizing and clarifying your proposal, I propose the following summary statement:
"A design inferrence exists when the specified complexity of information, energy and/or material of the interface between two components exceeds the universal probability bound."
[ 31. January 2006, 19:16: Message edited by: David L. Hagen ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Irving
Member
Member # 535
|
posted 31. January 2006 21:19
quote:
Irving, how would you frame your specification in that instance?
I thought I did. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
A design inferrence exists when the specified complexity of the interface between two independently developed components exceeds the universal probability bound.
But then it could use some work...
IP: Logged
|
|
Irving
Member
Member # 535
|
posted 31. January 2006 21:32
David,
Well, in 1e of your previous formulation it looks like a tautology...
I'm merely treading lightly in that we are looking for a design inferrence as opposed to conclusiveness of design. Natural & Designed systems can contain many similar attributes...we're looking for those that are unique to directed processes.
Specified Complexity is independent of the local environment. Blueprints, CAD drawings, specifications, etc... must be shown to be "independent" of local conditions and selection pressures.
How do I know that the lock & key weren't once a single component? How do I know there wasn't a subsequent "paper tear" that resulted in one half now being called a lock, and the other half we now call a key?
You are correct, there is no proscribed function for the "tear." The "tear" is an unguided process creating mutation or selection in the environment. The probabilistic point I present is what is the likelyhood of two distinct "tearing events" providing the exact same specified complexity?
Certainly simultaneously designed components should not be disqualified; however, IMHO establishing the principle regarding independently developed systems is far easier. Thus if one cannot get consensus on that point, pursuing consensus on the much more difficult point would be a waste of time...one battle at a time as it were...
IP: Logged
|
|
David L. Hagen
Member
Member # 323
|
posted 01. February 2006 14:30
Good points Irving
In thinking back, I was trying to:
1) Describe what is intelligent design.
Then take that definition and turn it around to:
2) Describe what constraints are required to give a design inference.
I will try to be more clear on which is which.
Compare my previous examples e.g.:
quote:
2.1 Intelligent Designers form communication systems.
2.1.1 A highly specified communication system is evidence for Intelligent Design.
As you noted, independent design is easier to identify as design, but has the problem of evidence that they were independently designed.
Thanks for pointing out the tautology in 1e:
"1e) wherein the prescribed function is not otherwise achievable by a closed system of natural laws, nor of stochastic processes, . . . "
That was an unfortunate mix of describing ID and Dembski's 4th law conservation formulation.
Thus delete 1e and close the definition at 1d.
Then convert 1e to my proposed design inference statement above:
A design inferrence exists when the specified complexity of the interface between two independently developed components exceeds the universal probability bound.
quote:
How do I know that the lock & key weren't once a single component?. . .
The design of the lock and key can provide substanial specificity. e.g., precision 3D keys; safes with combination locks;
Paper tears: A will written on paper that is then torn into two is an example of design (in contrast to just two piece of torn paper.) This has been used where on person is given one piece, and the other is given separately to a banker. The matching of papers and script across them authenticates the bearer.
In the Iranian embassy takeover, shredded documents were pasted together to recover the infomation. i.e., evidence of design.
IP: Logged
|
|
Irving
Member
Member # 535
|
posted 01. February 2006 20:51
I think we're close in some areas, but perhaps not so in some others...
In your discussion of communication systems, can you describe what you mean by "specified" communication system. Obviously characterizing "specified" in ID terms...
Regarding tears and such...I would also consider plate tectonics and the coastlines of Africa and South America. My point is in differentiating between an unguided "tear," and a complex specified information. Such that my underlying point here is an investigation into ways in which to ascertain specified complexity without prior knowledge of the independent specification...
So a simple question then...
quote:
Describe what constraints are required to give a design inference.
What are you constraining here?
IP: Logged
|
|
David L. Hagen
Member
Member # 323
|
posted 01. February 2006 22:04
Irving
Re: A Highly Specified Communications Interface
One example of a specified communications interface is the Open Specifications and Documentation for the:
Myrinet Open Specifications and Documentation
using the:
VITA the VMEbus International Trade Association
Myrinet provides 10 GB/s ethernet communications to interface PC Clusters for high performance computing.
Myrinet Cluster Communications
This specified communications interface is used in a number of the supercomputers listed at:
Top 500 Supercomputers
Interface with Specified Complexity: This communications interface system appears to be a highly specified communications interface with specifications for the infomation transfer parameters, the electrical connection specifications, and physical connection specifications.
Design Inferences:
The onboard chips are very highly specified to achieve this performance. I would hazzard guess that their complexity is probably greater than the upper universal bound, and thus would give a design inference.
I think the interface could also be a good example of an interface having specified complexity and thus an reasonable inference of design.
Any computer types who would like to take a crack at estimating the specified complexity of the interface?
Anyone think there might be any takers on claiming that this was formed by small incremental changes within a closed system of natural laws?
(PS on the torn will, the specification would be in the location and meaning of the text extending across the tear. A bit harder to specify, by conceptually possible.)
IP: Logged
|
|
Irving
Member
Member # 535
|
posted 02. February 2006 17:57
David,
While the communication interfaces you point to are certainly complex, are they complex specified information?
I may be missing it, but I don't see in your posts thus far the framework which establishes specificity.
quote:
The second component in the notion of specified complexity is the criterion of specificity. The idea behind specificity is that not only must an event be unlikely (complex), it must also conform to an independently given, detachable pattern.
Being complex and useful isn't enough. It must conform to an independently given, detachable pattern. In what way are the interfaces you point to independently specified from the "nature" of the system? Is "system" even the right construct to be using here?
quote:
(PS on the torn will, the specification would be in the location and meaning of the text extending across the tear. A bit harder to specify, by conceptually possible.)
While the text across the tear indicates conclusively that the two halves belong together, I don't see how the text infers that the complexity of the tear itself was the result of directed (i.e. Intelligent) action. Natural processes (like a tornado) could certainly tear a Will into pieces...how do you infer that a particular tear was caused by intelligent activity?
[ 02. February 2006, 19:58: Message edited by: Irving ]
IP: Logged
|
|
David L. Hagen
Member
Member # 323
|
posted 02. February 2006 22:55
I gave a link to the Myrinet specifications above.
The actual 46 page specification document is at:
Myrinet-on-VME Protocol Specification Draft Standard VITA 26-199x 31 August 1998
Myrinet then made a product to conform to that specification. Others could presumably make a similar product that conforms to that open specification with similar interface performance. What else do you want or expect for a specification?
(PS on the paper, the text is the primary specification. A fancy scallop cut could also be used to cut it in half to provide a physical non stochastic specified cut.)
IP: Logged
|
|
Irving
Member
Member # 535
|
posted 03. February 2006 07:09
Okay. Then the specification exists independently, and two independent components are built to it. Thus:
The interface between two independently developed components represents specified complexity.
AND
A design inferrence exists when the specified complexity exceeds the universal probability bound.
I'm not sure how scalloping solves the problem. The importance is to demonstrate that the torn edge represents an independent specification....
Specific Complexity has been criticized since presumably one must know the specification in advance...and therefore is of little value outside of Human causation since we presumably only know human derived specifications.
My efforts are to identify ways to determine specified complexity without such fore-knowledge. Thus using the alignment between two indepently developed components against each other such that they define specified complexity within themselves.
I believe it works by moving the "independent" portion of the definition of specified complexity into the component development...such that we've done here.
My next advance was to move to a single component which can build a scalable architecture. Thus the replication interface helps to define specified complexity.
IP: Logged
|
|
KBC1963
Member
Member # 1868
|
posted 05. February 2006 13:56
Gentlemen,
I have finally finished a rough draft for the paper on MSR and I placed it in a new thread. Please check it out and give me some feedback in that thread.
IP: Logged
|
|
David L. Hagen
Member
Member # 323
|
posted 05. February 2006 23:57
KBC, we haven’t forgotten you. I see you have started another MSR forum: THE BIRTH OF MSR AND THE END OF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION. Below I try to provide some define basic definitions, and then make some propositions on scaling them. Would you prefer we continue Irving’s interface definition issues in another forum?
Irving
Thanks for your goal. Excellent perspective and objective. You propose:
quote:
The interface between two independently developed components represents specified complexity.
I think by “independently” you refer to forming the specification before or with the interfaced components. This is in contrast to claiming a specification after an interface is formed by natural law or a stochastic event. Cf Dembski’s shooting arrows at a target on a wall vs shooting arrows into a wall and then painting the target around it. See Dembski. No Free Lunch, Sec. 1.3, 1.4 p 6-18.
I propose to reword this to form the following
Interface Complex Specificity:
Complimentary interfaces of components satisfying an interface Fi specified before or with those components each exhibit the specified complexity of that interface specification.
Corollary:
A system capable of forming complementary interfaces having a specified complexity Fi has itself a specified complexity at least equal to Fi.
Complex Specified Interface Formation
The scalloped scissors are a simple method of forming complementary interfaces by a specified function. The “scalloping” can be made increasingly more complex. Let me propose a high tech pair of “scissors”: Lasers are used to cut a wide variety of sheet materials into components. E.g., Rolls of cloth into pieces according to prescribed patterns, or sheet metal into pieces for electronic components, or “jig-saw” puzzles.
For example, consider a laser cutting out a “key” with n independent bars, where each bar has a length of one of r steps. This appears to nominally have a specified complexity of about r to the n th power. Consider 150 independently specified bars where each bar is cut to one of ten steps. This nominally has a non-compressible specified complexity of 10^150. E.g., 3.34 mm wide “key” bars separated by 3.34 mm spaces along a 1 m interface where the bars have a resolution of 2 mm steps +/- 0.5 mm within +/- 10 mm wide transverse range.
Higher Complex Specificity
This example can nominally be increased to much higher complexity. Consider using a laser movable with a precision of 10 um, capable of cutting with at least a 100:1 length to depth ratio and capable of forming a 10 micron wide cut, that varies within a +/- 10 mm band that is 1 m long through a sheet that is less than 1 mm thick. This can nominally form a cut in the sheet equivalent to about 50,000 bars in a 1 m cut. (E.g., 1000 mm / (2x0.01 mm)). Each bar nominally has a resolution of about 1 in 1000. (E.g., 2x10/(2x0.01)).
Assuming the interface function Fi defining the points is non-compressible, this laser scissor can nominally form an line interface in a sheet with a superficial complex specificity of the order of 1,000 to the 50,000 power over one meter. I.e., this high tech cut function Fi forms an one dimensional interface in a sheet with a complex specified complexity of about 10 to the 150,000 power. Such complex specificity is presumably sufficiently greater than the nominal upper complexity bound of 10 to the 120 power to avoid argument!
This example forms a complex material interface in a sheet with a highly specified information content. This can conceptually be extended to two and then three dimensions.
From this examples, I submit the following propositions:
Complex Specified Interface between two surfaces:
A interface function Fi between two surfaces specified as a non-compressible sequence of n points with a non-compressible resolution of parts per r has a complex specificity of r to the n th power, or n log base2 (r) bits.
From this I posit the following scaling hypothesis:
Scaling Complex Specified Interfaces
Scaling an interface between two surfaces, specified by a non-compressible function Fi, does not increase the specified complexity of the interface.
Scaling has a lower bound of the greater of discrete components and the capability of the methods of assembly.
I presume the original interface specification, laser cutter, control system and program, would nominally have a complex specificity that would be at least that great. Are there any arguments or basis for holding that the specified complexity of this system is less than the specified complexity of the interfaces formed?
The capabilities of a interface forming system could nominally be deduced by reverse engineering the cut and modeling a posited laser cutter.
Wear and coatings can vary the interface match etc. To establish rigorous mechanical definitions that give a design inference, I expect we would need to incorporate the differences between component interfaces, the uncertainty in measuring, the transverse range of the variations, the relative positions of the components, the longitudinal distance relative to the longitudinal uncertainty etc. Any suggestions on evaluating the non-compressible specified complexity of an interface function would be welcome. More on that later.
Composite interfaces with designed and stochastic components.
On Irving’s tearing paper. Tearing is nominally a stochastic process, while the sheet of paper is itself a designed component. (Right off, I can’t think of any macro sheet systems that are naturally formed. Can anyone offer counter examples?)
A roll of paper is typically cut from larger rolls using slitters. The edges of a roll of paper may appear torn on a micro level. Yet at a macro level, the straight side edges are formed by designed systems. The transverse slits to demarcate paper sections are formed by highly designed systems. Paper torn along these slits will show a combination of stochastic tears and complex specified interfaces at the cuts. Similarly interfaces formed by laser scribing of electronic chips followed by breaking them apart will show surfaces that comprise both stochastic breaking and laser scribed edges. Thus, evaluation of interfaces needs to allow for both designed and stochastic components. (Note, the functions used to define the interfaces in toilet rolls and scribed dies are relatively simple compared to the non-compressible examples given earlier. The specifications of the electronics, power and physical interfaces on chips makes those interfaces much more complex.)
IP: Logged
|
|
KBC1963
Member
Member # 1868
|
posted 06. February 2006 08:00
"KBC, we haven’t forgotten you. I see you have started another MSR forum: THE BIRTH OF MSR AND THE END OF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION. Below I try to provide some define basic definitions, and then make some propositions on scaling them. Would you prefer we continue Irving’s interface definition issues in another forum? "
David,
You guys can definitely continue with this thread as is I am happy with everything. I just pulled the finished idea into another thread so that I could get the new baby checked out fresh.
so no worries as long as we can "evolve" ideas then all is good.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic