|
Author
|
Topic: The Microscopic Implications of "Specification."
|
William Brookfield
Member
Member # 565
|
posted 11. July 2009 18:49
I have just been enjoying reading the new book Signature in the Cell and it is very well done. Hopefully, I will have time to post a review of it at Amazon.com and discuss it further here. It has a great deal to say and much that applies to this thread regarding "information."
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
William Brookfield
Member
Member # 565
|
posted 17. February 2010 09:05
I would just like to add (if I may) another example of “ real information.”
Consider the case of Mt Rushmore. Mountains (clashing tectonic plates plus erosion) are simply not in the business of growing or sculpting faces. “Faces” are a part of another world -- another dimension of activity – a human ID dimension. The faces on mount Rushmore can be examined at many levels of magnification and both microscopic and macroscopic elements can be combined into a large set of pertinent correlations.
What we find in the shapes on Mt Rushmore is the existence of materially transcendent correlations (symmetries). Symmetries between say the left side of any given “face” and the right side the “face” –the left side of any given “nose” and the right side of any given “nose” common to all of the “faces.”
I put the words “faces” and noses” in quotation marks because intelligent visiting aliens (of say, the distant future) may well not recognize human faces – it is instead the large set of geometric/mathematical correlations that they would recognize, causing them to infer design. Such correlated symmetries have no causal antecedent in the material world of plate tectonics and wind and soil erosion.
Given the massive number of correlations at the microscopic level extending into the macroscopic, the mountain has clearly been imprinted with a large amount of what I would call “real information.” While I have not personally catalogued these correlations there is no reason why this could not be done for every face and the faces as a collective, such that the argument for design could be made. Of course in this case the argument does not need to be made and the time could perhaps be better spent on other cases because we already know Mt Rushmore is the product of intelligent design.
I would be interested to hear from others regarding these ideas. While I have had a passionate interest in ID for many years and have studied the randomness/order/information continuum since 1992, I am not a qualified mathematician or scientist. I am instead a live one-man boogie band. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
[ 06. March 2010, 21:31: Message edited by: William Brookfield ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 06. May 2010 11:48
Hi William,
I just posting now to see if I still can. I will read up to see if I can make any positive contribution to this thread.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 07. May 2010 12:37
There is no question in my mind that all of organic evolution was programmed in advance of its appearance. The major problem now is how all that information was coded and subsequently decoded as the evolutonary scenario unfolded. Personally, I don't see any way at present to approach this problem, but information theory is not my forte. I can only say that I agree with Robert Broom that there was a Plan, a word he capitalized much to the distress of the Darwinians who responded by pretending that he never existed. The ruling Darwinian establishment led by Richard Dawkins and Paul Zachary Myers continues the tradition that Darwinism is settled science and anyone who criticizes it either never existed or is a subject for contempt.
[ 11. May 2010, 14:41: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
William Brookfield
Member
Member # 565
|
posted 13. May 2010 21:54
quote:
Hi William,
I just posting now to see if I still can. I will read up to see if I can make any positive contribution to this thread.
Hi Mel,
Thanks for dropping by. Most of the activity is now at the Evo info lab and at the new BIO-complexity journal
As for me, I have gone off on a bit of a "tangent" lately. A hobby if you will. Along with ID matters I have been contemplating the Goldbach problem and I have started writing an article, but my various diagrams might require a video...
An Analysis of the Goldbach Conjecture
Copyright 2010 William Brookfield
Abstract: The Goldbach conjecture, from 1742 is the longest standing problem in the history of mathematics. I am here proposing that the validity of the Goldbach conjecture is axiomatic to the number system itself. I also propose that a stronger conjecture is applicable to all numbers (even, odd and prime) greater than three and that this equidistance conjecture lies at the heart of the Goldbach Conjecture. In order to facilitate this analysis I divide the number system into two complete but distinct sets – the set of all “rectangulars” (non-primes) and the set of all “non-rectangulars” (primes).
Key words: Goldbach conjecture, primes, effective conditioning primes, largest effective conditioning primes, number theory.
Introduction: Equidistant spacing is axiomatic for the whole number system (two is necessarily equidistant from both one and three). All prime multiples are equidistant (up-down symmetric) 3,6,9,12. Six is equidistant from both three and nine. The adjacent remainders of these, up-down symmetric multiples (of say, “3”) are also up-down symmetric (4-5, 7-8, 10-11 etc.) The “primes” are necessarily, the up-down symmetric remainders (the perfect negative image) of the set of all up-down symmetric smaller* prime multiples -just as the set of all odds is the “perfect negative image” of the set of all evens. The validity of the Goldbach conjecture is dependent upon up-down symmetry or “equidistance” (plus prime availability produced by system finiteness). There being no possible source of up-down asymmetry (in the number/prime/multiple system) the Goldbach conjecture is necessarily true for all finite even numbers).
The Goldbach Conjecture:
“Every even integer greater than 2 can be expressed as the sum of two primes”
Instead of focusing on the even number itself, my analysis has addressed the mid-point of all even numbers. The mid- point for the number 20 for instance is 10 and the Goldbach pairs (for the number 20) are necessarily equidistant from its mid-point. I.E., 10+3=13 and 10–3=7. This is what I mean by “equidistance” or “up/down symmetry.” It is upon this internal symmetry that the Goldbach conjecture is based. With system finiteness producing primes and the equidistance axioms of the number system itself forcing the primes into Goldbach pairs (before the midpoint), the Goldbach conjecture is verified (and has always been verified) not by secondary mathematical proof, but by the fundamental axioms of the number system itself.
*The largest effective conditioning prime for any given even number is given by the square root of the even number rounded down to the nearest prime.
[ 13. May 2010, 21:59: Message edited by: William Brookfield ]
IP: Logged
|
|
DaveScot
Member
Member # 1545
|
posted 26. May 2010 12:45
Hi William,
Saw your note on Shallit's quiz. All the answers are indeed yes provided we're talking about Kolmogorov complexity. I had to think about the one about deletions possibly increasing Kolmogorov complexity for a moment though but then it occurred to me if I take a repeating string xyzxyzxyz and delete one character the Kolmogorov complexity increases as it would take more bits to describe with the pattern broken!
The thing of it is that Kolmogorov complexity and genetic complexity are apples and oranges. Or actually more like black and white.
A good analogy is to look at what happens to Kolmogorov complexity when an ice sculpture melts and the water evaporates. The Kolmogorov complexity of the evaporated water is orders of magnitude greater because it would require scads more information to precisely describe the state of all those molecules whereas when they were in the sculpture huge numbers of them were in orderly crystals that are much easier to precisely describe.
Similarly if we disintegrated Jeffry Shallit's genome into its constituent atoms and flushed them down the toilet the Kolmogorov complexity would be much larger in the sewer but it wouldn't be very useful to Jeff in that condition.
If Jeff doesn't understand how Kolmogorov complexity is quite different from genetic complexity then he's got absolutely no business lecturing students about information theory.
If he does understand the difference he's being intellectually dishonest.
I suppose it could be both and the answer to following quiz question would shed some light on it:
1) Is it possible to delete neurons from Jeff Shallit's brain and it makes him smarter?
IP: Logged
|
|
William Brookfield
Member
Member # 565
|
posted 26. June 2010 21:02
Hi Dave,
Thanks for your comment. Yes you are correct. One can produce a K-complex mess by smashing window panes -- or smashing bricks -- or smashing bricks and glass together -- or smashing genetic information with random mutations. This raw K-complexity is not structural/functional/informational K-complexity however.
Just as houses have walls and tightly regulated (non-random) inputs and outputs so do living cells have cell walls and tightly regulated inputs and outputs. Living organisms are notable not for their random raw-K-complexity but for their "built up," holistic non-random *specified* K-compexity. All of this has been said over and over again for many years in many ways.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic