Replies

Granted, we're only at the level of modeling the simpler biological realities at this point, but that's irrelevant to my point that the correlation does exist, and it is functionally predictive.

Modeling observed biological systems does not by default mean that they can arise without an intelligent agent. It simply means that you're modeling something that has been successful. It says nothing about cause or origin aside from the fact that there is no precedent established that biological systems can form themselves and arise on their own. Just as your work requires an intelligent agent (you) other complex information systems require intelligence as well.

Information just does not happen. Increasing chemical complexity violates the 2nd law and is not observed to happen spontaneously within nature without a known intelligent agent behind it.

Modeling observed biological systems does not by default mean that they can arise without an intelligent agent.

Of course not. The assertion in question was whether or not simple information patterns can, when scaled up, correlate to meta-biological processes, that's all. If you notice, I mention that this correlation does not imply causation, nor was I trying to assert that it did.

It says nothing about cause or origin aside from the fact that there is no precedent established that biological systems can form themselves and arise on their own.

Eh... this is actually an interesting point of open debate among myself and my colleagues. I can assure you that the biological mechanisms that we have modeled in the Software Ecosystem were not intentionally placed by any human being, they are instead what could be called the net affect of the intentions and will of all human innovators within the system.

So on one hand, of course, the complex information system arose from "design", in that, it arose from the actions of human beings, but it was not any form of _intentional_ design or engineering, but more an unintentional offshoot of thousands of designers all jockeying to win a finite number of computer cycles for their particular creations.

Which raises an interesting question, if an intelligent agent designs unintentionally, is it still intelligent design?

Information just does not happen. Increasing chemical complexity violates the 2nd law and is not observed to happen spontaneously within nature without a known intelligent agent behind it.

Interesting assertion. On one hand, I can give you countless examples in the computational/simulation world where purely random processes "increase information and complexity", as there as an entire field dedicated to the practice (Evolutionary Algorithmic Computation). Granted, that's still within the artificial "Created" world of binary computation, so I can see why you might dissent to that example. On the other hand you mention that "Increasing chemical complexity" is not observed to happen within nature without an "intelligent agent" behind it, I assume then that you agree that any life-form should be considered an "intelligent agent", as all biology increases chemical complexity of the immediate environment around it during it's life-cycle. Would you say that's a fair assertion or am I missing something? Thanks MetMom!