Posted on 08/26/2004 7:41:29 AM PDT by Michael_Michaelangelo
The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories
Proceedings of the Bioligical Society of Washington August 25, 2004
Link to PDF only. No text.
(Excerpt) Read more at discovery.org ...
That would be me, not Junior.
BTW, I do believe that Darwin was a metaphysician. As I recall, that was his background and it would be doubtful to me that he could formulate a theory independent of his prior metaphysical thoughts. If he were alive today, he might make adjustments to his theory (particularly with regard to "randomness" or an absence of purpose).
Yeah-but tortoise: your concept of "information" seems to have more to do with the requirements of communication channels than with the meaning of what is being communicated. Did you ever plan to put that part of "real life" back into your picture?
We can't put "information" into the category of uniform laws of nature, for information refers to the order of contingent events. It is no mere abstraction, but indicative of the concrete order of the world, seeking to communicate, not "0s" and "1s," not sequences of binary bits, but actionable intelligence or meaning. It is not an "abstraction," or set of algorithmic rules for programming a computer (say), but the actual, concrete order of the world we live in and experience. The "geometry" lies behind the world of contingent phenomena we see, as a kind of blueprint of the possible ("formal cause" in the Aristotelian sense). But acting on the blueprint requires information. And information requires an interpretation of meaning in order to be useful to conscious, choosing, purposeful beings, like we humans.
BTW, the beginning of geometry certainly ought to be a "clue" to causation of form. (ahem...)
SPOTREP - !!!!
Your assumption is unfounded. What you are referring to is crusty old Shannon information theory, which does have some limitations. I am speaking from the standpoint of modern algorithmic information theory, which is universal and general. It applies to everything in "real life", both the static structure and the dynamics of the system (one can argue its utility in some extra-universal systems, though applicable).
We can't put "information" into the category of uniform laws of nature, for information refers to the order of contingent events. It is no mere abstraction, but indicative of the concrete order of the world, seeking to communicate, not "0s" and "1s," not sequences of binary bits, but actionable intelligence or meaning.
You are making your argument from a primitive and naive understanding of information theory. "Meaning" has an existence in information theory, the problem is that most people haven't the faintest idea of the scope and meaning of "meaning" in the mathematics, though it doesn't stop them from ascribing all manner of random properties to it. First crawl, then walk. All I can say is that you are approaching it from a hopelessly simple and pedestrian perspective, and your intuition is failing you.
Go get yourself a copy of Li & Vitanyi and study it for six months, to give yourself a firm footing in the basic theorems and concepts. Information theory is highly unintuitive, which is why almost everyone gets it at least partially wrong most of the time. It is seductive because it sounds simple and obvious on the surface (as far as most people get) when it actually very deep and complex and all the surface impressions are incorrect. I don't know anyone who fully groks the field who didn't devote themselves to it for at least a couple years.
Mega dittoes!!!
No, it's not even a survey but rather a weak attempt at a polemic. Meyer either ignores (or misstates) too many things for his article to be useful.
[js1138 writes:
That would be me, not Junior.]
.......................
I know. I was trying to embarrass as few people as possible.
(Just kidding. I had your & Junior's posts copied/pasted together & somehow deleted the bottom line of yours. Sorry.)
Earlier I referenced the four Aristotelian causes: the material, formal, efficient, and final. Yet Aristotle posited a fifth cause – actually it is the First Cause, the “uncaused cause,” the “unmoved mover” who/that moves everything else that comes into existence in the cosmos. We find in Physics, Book 4:
“Of the apeiron there is no beginning (arche) . . . but this seems to be the beginning of all the other things and to enfold (periechein) all things and steer all, as all those say who do not postulate other causes, such as mind or love, above and beyond the apeiron. And this is the divine (to theion); for it is immortal (athanaton) and indestructible (anolethron), as Anaximander says.”
Now Plato speaks of the apeiron as well, as the “divine ground of being.” And he imagines that man is physically, noetically, and spiritually connected with this ground, that indeed the human psyche (or soul) resonates “in between” the “poles” of the “apeirontic depth” and the epikeina, which is the utterly transcendent “beyond” of the cosmos. Sir Isaac Newton gives the Christian description of this ground: He terms it sensorium Dei.
I associate the apeiron or sensorium with an additional (uncompacted) fifth “timelike” dimension, which is how it is carried and manifested in the created things in time, I speculate by means of the primary universal vacuum field (of which all other fields of nature are the “daughter” fields), which is what mediates the “geometry” of the singularity throughout space and time (see below). We might designate this singularity as logos -- or even as Christians say, as the Logos of the beginning, which in either case definitely evinces the idea of mind or intelligence at work.
That adjective “timelike” is somewhat deceiving. But if I had said “timeless,” that might have put the matter beyond the reach of human understanding virtually on principle. The point is, as I conceive it, this fifth dimension is where transcendence and immanence “meet” to create and sustain a universe. The transcendent is timeless, eternal, the absolute; the immanent refers to concrete existence in the 4D “block” – which is contingent, and seemingly time-bounded. The point is, this field itself puts the transcendent and the immanent into resonant contact. For we all (indeed, all of nature) “participate” in this field, as well as in all its daughter fields.
When Aristotle says that the apeiron is the “beginning of all the other things,” which enfolds all things and steers all things, what comes to my mind is the singularity of the beginning, of the Big Bang. I imagine the singularity of the beginning as the full specification set of cosmic information, from which the physical and other laws of nature arise, and which further specifies constraining criteria that prevent the universe from being a random exercise. That is, there is implicit purpose in the creation event. And such “constraining criteria” are geometrical in essence.
Well, I still have a lot of work to do, to elaborate these ideas. But this will have to do for now.
A-G, I suggested to our mutual friend that he needed to take a look at First Cause. In his language, he calls it “Living Logic.” He posits it as the foundation of the laws of physics, of biology, and of consciousness. And I think he is right to do so. He just doesn’t seem quite to have gotten the “hang” of transcendence yet. Maybe he will. And then if he’s wise, he won’t push that point too hard in a scientific work: If he did, he’d probably lose half his prospective readership right there … if we may judge from the typical responses of the “scientific historians” (Meyer’s term) out there in FReeperLand….
Hope the immediately foregoing isn’t too “half-baked.” It’s the best I can do right now. This is a problem I’m taking with me on vacation, which starts Saturday. I’ll have two weeks to mull it over. Maybe I’ll write a better essay on this topic in due course.
Thank you, Alamo-Girl, for your subtle promptings…. You know how much I love this subject – as I know you do also.
Good night dear sister!
irrational-numbers-are-the-work-of-the-devil PLACEMARKER.
Really? Ever deal with channel capacity in communications? I am very familiar with "Shannon" however, I am not so well versed with "Kolmogorov complexity". OTOH, Tortoise is an expert when it comes down to Algorithmic Information Theory.
Here is a link to the book he mentioned:
http://homepages.cwi.nl/~paulv/kolmogorov.html
Why can't you get an honest job?
Since my field uses information theory, I should get a "real job" as well?
There is no information outside of creation science.
</spiritual warfare mode>
Maybe someone should inform Alamo and Betty that information theory is BS. Is there a divide here?
I'm not going to ping them because they are already following the thread.
Words have meanings that require context. Evolution can be a fact, a tag denoting a series of historical events, or it can be a process. There is no sophistry here, just words being used in the way words are always used.
The creationist hears the impeccably-credentialed archaeologist Nelson Glueck say, "It can be categorically stated" [that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a properly-understood Bible reference]
I assume that "properly understood", the Bible does not refer to a universal flood.
Hi. It's probably due to the amount of traffic at the site. As soon as it is available, I will post the new link.
Note that this is being posted over a network designed according the results of information theory.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.