(2018-01-05, 11:31 PM)Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Wrote: [ -> ]The arguments about this center around what it means for information in the environment to transmute into information in the genome. Clearly there have to be environmental pressures to make anything interesting happen. Any pressure is, in some sense, "rigging" the simulation. But that's the way it works in nature, too.
I don't doubt that in certain contexts, a process in which a population is subjected to random mutation after which the fittest amongst the population by some fitness criteria are selected can result in a... well, fitter... population, and, by some reasonable definition, an increase in information (in the population and/or its members). For example, in a Numerical Methods class at university, we were taught about and required to implement a
genetic algorithm the purpose of which was to find a relatively optimal ("fit") solution to a numerical problem, and the algorithm worked just fine - one might say that its result was "informative".
I do think the critics of the "ev" program have a point in that (in my words, not theirs) that which is "fittest" is decided in advance, and that the program is merely being guided - by design - to that preconceived outcome, but that's not really what concerns me, because I take your point that (again, in my words, not yours) under the neo-Darwinian model, even in nature where there is no explicitly preconceived outcome, there might be seen to be implicit outcomes given the (admittedly loose) fitness criteria in play (based around capacity for reproduction, including both surviving for long enough to do so as well as attracting a mate).
The real question for me is whether this process is sufficient to explain the (information in the) life on this planet, given the many objections to its sufficiency that have been raised in this thread... and I won't even try to rehash them, but I do here express my appreciation to those who have raised them. Again, this has been a fascinating thread and I'm sure it will continue to be.
Laird Wrote:I don't doubt that in certain contexts, a process in which a population is subjected to random mutation after which the fittest amongst the population by some fitness criteria are selected can result in a... well, fitter... population, and, by some reasonable definition, an increase in information (in the population and/or its members). For example, in a Numerical Methods class at university, we were taught about and required to implement a genetic algorithm the purpose of which was to find a relatively optimal ("fit") solution to a numerical problem, and the algorithm worked just fine - one might say that its result was "informative".
Indeed. And we don't even need evidence that such a thing will work. From Marvin Minsky:
"The Process of Evolution is the following abstract idea:
There is a population of things that reproduce, at different rates in different environments. Those rates depend, statistically, on a collection of inheritable traits. Those traits are subject to occasional mutations, some of which are then inherited.
Then one can deduce, from logic alone, without any need for evidence, that:
THEOREM: Each population will tend to increase the proportion of traits that have higher reproduction rates in its current environment."
Quote:I do think the critics of the "ev" program have a point in that (in my words, not theirs) that which is "fittest" is decided in advance, and that the program is merely being guided - by design - to that preconceived outcome, but that's not really what concerns me, because I take your point that (again, in my words, not yours) under the neo-Darwinian model, even in nature where there is no explicitly preconceived outcome, there might be seen to be implicit outcomes given the (admittedly loose) fitness criteria in play (based around capacity for reproduction, including both surviving for long enough to do so as well as attracting a mate).
I might go so far as to say that some outcomes are preconceived, where "preconceived" is defined as a collection of pressures that result from the pre-existing environment. Of course, I'm misusing "preconceived" a bit, since we usually think only of intelligent beings as conceiving things.
Quote:The real question for me is whether this process is sufficient to explain the (information in the) life on this planet, given the many objections to its sufficiency that have been raised in this thread... and I won't even try to rehash them, but I do here express my appreciation to those who have raised them. Again, this has been a fascinating thread and I'm sure it will continue to be.
I think the process is sufficient to explain any level of complexity,
given enough time. So the question is: Has there been enough time?
~~ Paul
(2018-01-06, 11:23 PM)Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Wrote: [ -> ]I think the process is sufficient to explain any level of complexity, given enough time. So the question is: Has there been enough time?
To me, that's like saying: "The process of monkeys typing randomly on keyboards is sufficient to produce a comprehensible story of any length,
given enough time".
The arguments raised in this thread, particularly around irreducible complexity and the bleakness of the protein landscape lead me to a tentative conclusion that's... not exactly affirmative.
(2018-01-07, 12:25 AM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]To me, that's like saying: "The process of monkeys typing randomly on keyboards is sufficient to produce a comprehensible story of any length, given enough time".
The arguments raised in this thread, particularly around irreducible complexity and the bleakness of the protein landscape lead me to a tentative conclusion that's... not exactly affirmative.
Hope you like this.
Is the Universe Finite or Infinite? Minding bending implications.
https://youtu.be/Al9EyNoCsRI
(2018-01-06, 11:23 PM)Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Wrote: [ -> ]I think the process is sufficient to explain any level of complexity, given enough time. So the question is: Has there been enough time?
~~ Paul
It would be interesting to see an attempt to answer this. Given that it is necessarily sufficient to explain
some level of complexity, for the time given (per the theorem you mention), we would need to know what that is before anyone could say that it is insufficient.
Linda
(2018-01-06, 11:23 PM)Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Wrote: [ -> ]I think the process is sufficient to explain any level of complexity, given enough time. So the question is: Has there been enough time?
~~ Paul
No human ever can grasp the immensity of long spans of time, it's impossible to intuitively comprehend a span of 100 years which many humans are capable of living until they do. I find it a foolish ID ideology statement there has not been enough time.
(2018-01-07, 02:01 AM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]Hope you like this.
Is the Universe Finite or Infinite? Minding bending implications.
https://youtu.be/Al9EyNoCsRI
When you resort to answering the monkeys typing on keyboards objection with "But maybe there are infinite monkeys and infinite keyboards", you might have reached the end of your rope and tied a knot in it...
Off the topic of evolution: sure, the video is interesting, but I wonder whether its claims contain hidden assumptions. For example: is it
necessarily the case that in an infinite universe there will be a duplicate you in a duplicate environment within some given spatial extent? Isn't it possible that the circumstances of "you in your environment" are uniquely dependent on the complete configuration of the entire rest of the (infinite) universe, such that there is and can only be one such circumstance in that infinite universe?
Just a question, not an argument - I simply think that we need to interrogate claims like these.
(2018-01-07, 02:07 AM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]It would be interesting to see an attempt to answer this. Given that it is necessarily sufficient to explain some level of complexity, for the time given (per the theorem you mention), we would need to know what that is before anyone could say that it is insufficient.
Linda
Let's not stretch the theorem beyond what it concludes, which is only that "Each population will tend to increase the proportion of traits that have higher reproduction rates in its current environment". It doesn't (1) preclude the possibility of a stasis being reached, and, which might be stating the same concept in different words, (2)
entail any creation of new "more productive" traits not present in the original environment - it's logically possible in the theorem's premises that all mutations are destructive or otherwise non-conducive to higher reproduction rates.
It also ignores the possibility that
some traits - that happen to be observed - are not plausibly inherent in the process from the beginning (i.e. via mutations), and can only be achieved through either massively implausible luck (the monkeys typing on keyboards) or through some sort of creative intervention from outside the process.
(2018-01-07, 02:26 AM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]When you resort to answering the monkeys typing on keyboards objection with "But maybe there are infinite monkeys and infinite keyboards", you might have reached the end of your rope and tied a knot in it...
Off the topic of evolution: sure, the video is interesting, but I wonder whether its claims contain hidden assumptions. For example: is it necessarily the case that in an infinite universe there will be a duplicate you in a duplicate environment within some given spatial extent? Isn't it possible that the circumstances of "you in your environment" are uniquely dependent on the complete configuration of the entire rest of the (infinite) universe, such that there is and can only be one such circumstance in that infinite universe?
Just a question, not an argument - I simply think that we need to interrogate claims like these.
Hidden assumptions such as?
To have a causal link as you are imagining necessarily means there has to be faster than light communication. However, causal links travel at the speed of light (EMR and gravitational waves) and have affect only when they encounter matter such as you. Matter necessarily travels slower than C. Quantum entanglement if you are thinking that conveys no information, therefore no causal link there. Think of all the atoms in the universe as a deck of 52 playing cards. The permutations amount to a very large but finite number, so too the arrangement of atoms.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uNS1QvDzCVw Ponder the rational of this video.
P.S. How to count past infinity.
https://youtu.be/SrU9YDoXE88
(2018-01-07, 03:24 AM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]Hidden assumptions such as?
Hmm, you couldn't infer one from my post? OK, let me infer it for you: hidden assumptions such as that nothing constrains
any configuration of matter of a certain spatial extent from being repeated elsewhere in the universe.
(2018-01-07, 03:24 AM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]To have a causal link as you are imagining necessarily means there has to be faster than light communication.
A rejection of the assumption needn't require a causal link faster than light, just a limitation on potential configurations of matter based on (potentially as-yet-undiscovered) rules of physics in the context of the full (infinite) state of the universe, but I'm not really trying to mount a serious argument here anyway, just posing the sort of question that we might ask of the presentation.
(2018-01-07, 03:24 AM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uNS1QvDzCVw Ponder the rational of this video.
Hmm. You're trying to tutor me in basic high school maths?
(2018-01-07, 03:24 AM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]P.S. How to count past infinity. https://youtu.be/SrU9YDoXE88
No offence at all, but I don't have the patience for that video right now, especially given that its title is a logical impossibility (unless it's followed up with: "Oh, wait, you can't"). Obviously a click-bait tactic, which is fine and all, but I'm not in the mood to sit through 24 odd minutes of who-knows-what based on a misleading attempt to gain my attention. Maybe I'll watch it later - it must say something interesting given that it has over 9 million views.