|
Author
|
Topic: The Origin of Biological Information
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 06. March 2006 21:39
The title of this thread intigues me as it is very similar to the title of a paper I published In Rivista di Biologia in 2000 - "Ontogeny, Phylogeny and the Rrigin of Biological Information." It is available on the side bar at Uncommon Descent. One will see that my view is that the information was always there as more recently expressed in the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis.
IP: Logged
|
|
Doug Wedel
Member
Member # 1901
|
posted 06. March 2006 21:41
quote:
The digits of Pi you selected:
1) are an expression of mathematics.
Please remember that I was responding to Professor Dembski's article in which he was using 100-digit numbers which were all "an expression of mathematics."
quote:
2) are encoded in decimal format.
Dembski's numbers are mostly in binary, but are you going to hold that against me?
quote:
3) are calculated using a computer;
4) are communicated using computers etc.
I will get to that ;-)
IP: Logged
|
|
Irving
Member
Member # 535
|
posted 07. March 2006 07:15
Doug,
The point is that Pi is a specification. Given that the specification is expressed mathematically, there are no un-guided selection pressures in raditative physics that would physically manifest such a decimal enumeration...regardless of time and the numer of random mutations...there is no selection pressure to "build-up" such an enumeration since Pi is independent, and detached from the physical properties present.
IP: Logged
|
|
Doug Wedel
Member
Member # 1901
|
posted 07. March 2006 10:22
I'm changing directions here. I don't think I'm getting anywhere by trying to clear up what seem to me at least to be ambiguities and imponderables associated with "complex specified information." Plus I feel like maybe I'm treading on some toes or something ;-) So instead I now hope to emphasize what we have in common. I was referred by a poster here to the very impressive writing of the Texas mathematician Granville Sewell.
quote:
As you prepare you[r] revelation, I recommend you include a cogent refutation of:
A Second Look at the Second Law, Granville Sewell
When I actually read Sewell's work I found nothing to refute. To the contrary, to me it was kind of thrilling to read someone who writes with both pristine logic and the power of conviction.
I would like to offer here a couple of quotes from Sewell with which I wholeheartedly agree, and then propose some "common ground". These quotes are from "A Second Look at the Second Law."
Here for example is a very important point that Sewell makes that I have not quite heard before:
quote:
if an increase in order is extremely improbable when a system is closed, it is still extremely improbable when the system is open, unless something is entering which makes it not extremely improbable.
Here is Sewell's ode to a pile of rubble:
quote:
Natural forces may turn a spaceship into a pile of rubble, but not vice-versa -- not because the exact arrangements of atoms in a given spaceship is more improbable than the exact arrangement of atoms in a given pile of rubble, but because (whether the Earth receives energy from the Sun or not) there are very few arrangements of atoms which would be able to fly to the moon and return safely, and very many which could not."
And finally in the closing paragraph of his superb essay, he expresses the feelings of rejection and disdain that all of us I guess in here have felt when we have _dared_ to bluntly express our amazement at the chain of "logic" on which the central dogmas of the received wisdom 0rest:
quote:
The development of life may have only violated one law of science, but that was the 'supreme' law of Nature, and it has violated that in a most spectacular way. At least that is my opinion, but perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps it only seems extremely improbable, but really isn't, that, under the right conditions, the influx of stellar energy into a planet could cause atoms to rearrange themselves into nucler power plants and spaceships and computers. But one would think that at least this would be considered an open question, and those who argue that it really is extremely improbable, and thus contrary to the basic principle underlying the second law, would be given a measure of respect, and taken seriously by their colleagues, but we aren't.
It is my guess that most posters and readers here agree with the general thrust of Sewell's argument. But there's something beyond just agreeing that life grossly violates thermodynamics; we in here think we know the missing ingredient. It's intelligence. The standard scientific approach is to suppose that the design of organisms arises from the recombination of genetic material along with point mutations; we agree with Sewell that this is thermodynamic folly. Organisms, with their trillions of humming just-in-time factories do not spring up by accident from the jostling sea of atoms in the thermodynamic soup. Something additional is indeed required, and we -- I think -- agree to call that thing intelligence.
If we do agree on these things, then I wonder if we can't get a "definition of terms" out of this. What is intelligence? I wonder to what extent we could agree in here with the axiomatic statement that
intelligence is what drives life uphill against the thermodynamic gradient?
And how do you like an even more abstract version of this definition:
intelligence is what increases order in a system"?
IP: Logged
|
|
David L. Hagen
Member
Member # 323
|
posted 07. March 2006 14:21
Doug
Re: Encoding: cf "2) are encoded in decimal format."
I know of no natural process in a closed system that encodes into decimal digits. So yes, I would consider a list of decimal digits to be evidence for intelligence.
Similarly, origin of the the amino acid code, and the 8 unit monosacharide code need to be explained. The DNA code has not just two bits per location but a three unit codon.
Separate from being encoded is the issue of whether the digits are random or show CSI.
On your proposed comments regarding intelligence, those are two of many that can be made.
Suggest making definitions of life relating to information or energy into a separate thread, and maintainin this thread on the origin of information.
IP: Logged
|
|
Irving
Member
Member # 535
|
posted 07. March 2006 16:29
quote:
intelligence is what increases order in a system
At the least it needs appended to read intelligence is what increases order in a system subject to randomness. An open system subject to outside influence may increase order in accordance with that outside influence....guided or un-guided.
IP: Logged
|
|
Doug Wedel
Member
Member # 1901
|
posted 07. March 2006 16:43
quote:
On your proposed comments regarding intelligence, those are two of many that can be made. Suggest making definitions of life relating to information or energy into a separate thread, and maintain this thread on the origin of information.
Thank you for your suggestion. I guess it is a little much ;-) I was trying to see if I couldn't state my little problem for you in the terminology that you like to use, i.e. "complex specified information" (CSI). I came to the conclusion that I couldn't because I couldn't get a clear enough idea of what the term means. I know what complexity is – there's a formal operational definition of it in algorithmic information theory. I know what "specified" means – I just read Yockey on this point today. But when it comes to "complex specified information" (CSI) it eludes me. In this dialogue we have already established that there is no operational definition of CSI. There is absolutely no _formal_ way to distinguish a random number from one that contains CSI. Further, when we find a number which we all agree contains CSI – eg. the 100-digit string taken from pi – I am then told that this number was not _directly_ designed, that it is part of the pageant of mathematics, et cetera, and that mathematics itself, even decimal notation, is obvious evidence of a designer. The mind reels.
What I am proposing to do in here is to show how information can be gotten through pseudorandom number generation and artificial selection. If we can't agree on exactly what information is, then we'll all be wasting our time, and we will come to the end and one side or the other will echo the poet's words "…that is not what I meant at all."
Perhaps instead of invoking Sewell I should have just come out with it and said that for the purposes of this discussion I would like to propose the following axiomatic definitions:
(1)data is physical input transduced into a form suitable for algorithmic information processing
(2) information consists of patterns of data correlated with a positive or negative impact on the evolutionary probabilities of the organism (I will describe an operational way to assess and measure this impact).
(3) intelligence is defined as the "force" (call it MT for Mysterium Tremendum) that increases order in a system, remembering that the system which we are speaking of here, although it demands some energy, is not itself thermodynamic in nature, but rather, a data processing domain in which nonmaterial information consists entirely of patterns of switches, and in which order can be increased for arbitrarily small amounts of energy.
quote:
An open system subject to outside influence may increase order in accordance with that outside influence...guided or unguided.
What do you mean by "outside influence"? It sounds like some kind of "invisible hand".
IP: Logged
|
|
David L. Hagen
Member
Member # 323
|
posted 07. March 2006 17:26
I should have said "could" instead of "can". Irving's additions are helpful.
Do you know of any natural process of the four forces that encodes to decimals without intelligence?
quote:
(2) information consists of patterns of data correlated with a positive or negative impact on the evolutionary probabilities of the organism
Defining infrmation in terms of evolution begs the question regarding an origins theory.
Recommend that you try to define information on an objective basis independent of evolution.
quote:
although it demands some energy, is not itself thermodynamic in nature, but rather, a data processing domain in which nonmaterial information consists entirely of patterns of switches, and in which order can be increased for arbitrarily small amounts of energy.
That would make it a non-physical system.
All physical systems have a minimum amount of discrete (or quantum) energy change per bit of data depending on the method of information storage.
For practicality, I recommend you stick with physical systems.
If you use such a loose definition of "information", you will be claiming that one hundred zeros followed by a one has much more meaning than a one. Possibly if specifying a pattern, but not if recording a physical magnitude. At least distinguish between information and envelope "padding" which many do not do.
Recommend you take a careful look again at the definitions oand use of CSI to narrow your definition of "Information".
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 07. March 2006 17:43
Irving,
At the core of this thread is the word information and your definition on page one "...Information is independent of the natural environment" led later to your use of the word mimicry with regards to information in nature "Nature can mimic low-complexity information" and that seems to me exactly what Mr. Darwin concluded, then formalized and the community of scientific investigators have since enhanced and is the root cause of all of the confusion! Am I completely wrong?
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 07. March 2006 17:48
Doug,
(1) & (2):
Do they exist without humans?
(3):
Do chemical reactions exhibit intelligence or simply mimic the process?.
IP: Logged
|
|
Doug Wedel
Member
Member # 1901
|
posted 07. March 2006 18:24
Thanks very much for your help. When you say
quote:
Defining inf[o]rmation in terms of evolution begs the question regarding an origins theory.
...I agree that I shouldn't be talking about "organisms" in my definition. I am trying to frame my argument in terms of formal systems, so I am seeking to model informationa first in cellular automata like the one John von Neumann used many years ago in his great work on the "Theory of Self-Reproducing Automata." So I should have said something like this:
In this model, information consists of patterns of data correlated with a positive or negative impact on the evolutionary prospects of an automaton which is one of many mechanistically engaged in modelling or simulating evolution on a computer.
quote:
I recommend you stick with physical systems.
An information processing system is very different from a thermodynamic system even though the former is not entirely disengaged from the latter. Information has no weight. If all the information that was ever created on all the computers that ever existed were downloaded onto one huge hard drive the precise weight of the hard drive would not change. Thus, information processing, though connected by a difficult to define nexus to the thermodynamic realm, is nevertheless in a realm of its own when it comes to discussions, definitions, and measurements of "order" and "disorder".
quote:
(1) & (2):
Do they exist without humans?
Yes, data and information are ubiquitous in the animal kingdom although I would make a distinction when it comes to signal processing in bacteria, which I at least consider to be a "lower order" of information processing.
A very well studied example of what I'm talking about is when a photon of sunlight impacts a rhodopsin molecule in an animal's eye and sets in motion a sequence of events that results in the transduction of that input signal into pure "data" that can then be analyzed and searched for patterns, edges, et cetera.
Suppose this molecule of rhodopsin is in the eye of a salamander, and the tiny bit of data created by the single photon soon becomes part of a perception by the salamander of the existence of a species of arthropod. Either through "instinct" or some type of "learning" the salamander has associated the particular arthropod shape with the valence for a tasty treat, and out comes the tongue in the flicker of an eye. Here you see the complete cycle:
SIGNAL -transduction-> DATA -processing-> PATTERN RECOGNITION -pattern evaluation-> ACTION
IP: Logged
|
|
Irving
Member
Member # 535
|
posted 07. March 2006 19:39
Doug,
quote:
Further, when we find a number which we all agree contains CSI – eg. the 100-digit string taken from pi – I am then told that this number was not _directly_ designed, that it is part of the pageant of mathematics, et cetera, and that mathematics itself, even decimal notation, is obvious evidence of a designer. The mind reels.
The mind can reel, but that's not very helpful is it? You can't address CSI without addressing the concept that a specification is an independent, detachable pattern. I've yet to see in your postings where you've addressed that fundamental concept. The issue does NOT soley rest within the number itself. The only use of a mathematical value, was to pick a specification that all can agree is an independent, detachable pattern from a physical environment. The concept can be demonstrated without the use of numbers at all... I can understand the difficulty in grasping CSI. I would suggest that over half of the critiques of CSI that I've seen are based upon a failure to grasp the significance of the independent, detachable requirement. But regardless, the tone appears to be drifting into condenscension.
quote:
What do you mean by "outside influence"? It sounds like some kind of "invisible hand".
Oh, something like Gravity. Planetary orbits are a regular, ordered pattern. Nature is full of them. The reason being that some physical property is enforcing that order. Thus order in an environment not so physically constrained (i.e. susceptible to randomness) would have a design inferrence.
IP: Logged
|
|
Irving
Member
Member # 535
|
posted 07. March 2006 19:52
IF,
quote:
At the core of this thread is the word information and your definition on page one "...Information is independent of the natural environment" led later to your use of the word mimicry with regards to information in nature "Nature can mimic low-complexity information" and that seems to me exactly what Mr. Darwin concluded, then formalized and the community of scientific investigators have since enhanced and is the root cause of all of the confusion! Am I completely wrong?
No. Your even close...though I'm not sure Mr. Darwin expressed himself in terms of information & complexity.
But to put it in those terms, Darwin concluded that Nature can "build-up" high-complexity information through RM / NS of low-complexity information. But my expression of Dembski's concept, is that Nature cannot use RM / NS to "build-up" complex information....since complex "information" is independent from the environment such that Natural Selection is prohibited from operating upon it.
Note, I'm referring to complex information not just complexity. Certainly, RM / NS can "build-up" very complex structures. But RM / NS cannot "build-up" to that which it is unaware.
IP: Logged
|
|
Doug Wedel
Member
Member # 1901
|
posted 07. March 2006 20:18
David Hagen wrote:
quote:
If you seek to demonstrate the “origins of biological information” by “natural selection”, you have undertaken a futile logical impossibility.
1) By definition, “natural selection” cannot operate until you have at least that first self reproducing cell.
Natural selection can be modelled without the "wetware". In particular I propose a computer model of automata engaged together in coevolutionary trials. As to whether this kind of mathematical construct is theoretically capable of generating any "free lunches", I would refer you to the same article I cited earlier in this thread, "Coevolutionary Free Lunches", published in Dec '05 IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computing, and written by the same two mathematicians who wrote the original "No Free Lunch Theorems".
quote:
The first functioning reproducing cell requires that biological information be in place together with a method of processing that information: reading, processing and reproducing
I agree with you 100% on this. This very point was what drove Francis Crick himself to conclude in "Life Itself" that there was nowhere near enough time for DNA to "evolve" -- whatever that means -- in the time since the cooling of the earth, and that therefore, DNA must have come from another planet!
What I don't agree with is any suggestion that the first cell had to be in place before biological information could start to develop. I would agree that at least a MODEL had to exist which could simulate, among many other things, combinations of amino acids. This will be the model that some in here will say contains in advance all the information that will ever be gotten out of the system. But I don't think this objection will survive my demonstration ;-)
IP: Logged
|
|
Doug Wedel
Member
Member # 1901
|
posted 07. March 2006 20:33
quote:
The mind can reel, but that's not very helpful is it? You can't address CSI without addressing the concept that a specification is an independent, detachable pattern. I've yet to see in your postings where you've addressed that fundamental concept. The issue does NOT soley rest within the number itself. The only use of a mathematical value, was to pick a specification that all can agree is an independent, detachable pattern from a physical environment. The concept can be demonstrated without the use of numbers at all... I can understand the difficulty in grasping CSI. I would suggest that over half of the critiques of CSI that I've seen are based upon a failure to grasp the significance of the independent, detachable requirement. But regardless, the tone appears to be drifting into condenscension.
Please be assured I am not being condescending. I consider this forum to be outstanding in the diversity of its views and its openness to nonorthodox ways of viewing these matters. But I was startled the response to my question about who designed Pi. To my perhaps simple-minded Boolean way of trying to sort through these matters, I thought it was like an Aristotlean syllogism:
Pi contains complex specific information.
The only way to prove that maybe CSI isn't a good sound concept would be to point to a number that contains CSI
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic