Replies

[[But “who” or what at level (ii) is “adding” or “accumulating” the info? It seems to me a person making this argument would have to attribute some form of “proto-consciousness” to molecules and/or atoms. Information doesn’t just “add itself” so to produce metainformation.]]

I guess I worded it wrong- I shoudl have said that mutation information ‘gets added’ blindly, and over time could add up to include enough changed information that the accumulated info by pure chance, resutls in higher instructions that, again, by pure blind luck, are able to manage lower info. Of course, all this higher info accumulations simply could not ammass enough higher instructions to account for the incredible complexity at al llevels, and this ‘pure blind luck’ arrangement of info would take such a long time to even begin to mimic the actual metainfo, that the species simply coudl not flourish long enough to wait for hte finished product of the necessary metainfo system. But just saying it could be a possible argument- although a remotely plausible one.

Let’s just use a really simplistic example that isn’t realistic, but which might illustrate the possible argument a bit more-

let’s say gene info includes instructions for the species to only see green- and let’s say th4 species lives in a purely green environment with no other colors available to view, and all it’s food source is green, but not very nutritious- Then osme mutaiton comes along, and info gets added to the genetic info of the species that includes the ability to see red- now, as well as green- there are no red colors available, but by pure luck, this mutation gets passed along to future kin, and somehwere along hte line, a red food source that is more nutritious ‘evolves’, and hte species can now distinguish between green and red, and begins to favor the red source, and begins to thrive

I know this is REALLY simplistic, and probably doesn’t even begin to argue how real metainfo coudl accumulate, but it’s all I could think of at moment to try to mount a remote coutner argument of how metainfo ‘might’ accumulate? And agin, this REALLY downplays the vast complexities of metainfo, but I’m just wonderign if perhaps isntead of backward looking, it might be more scientifically important to look forward and demonstrate that nature is realistically incapable of producing the metainfo- which, You and Alamo Girl have doem a great job so far- I’m just tryign to see all hte possible nagles, to discover how likely or unlikely a naturalistic argument might be at this point- although the impossibilites facign Mcroevo outside of the premise of this paper also render aguments not very reasonable, but just wondering if there might be an argument mounted here.

[[I’d love to see how the person advancing this gradualisitic piling up of “information” and its conversion to metainformation at level (ii) [from whence it is “passed along” to level (iii)], from the resources of (ii) and/or (i) will deal with this objection.]]

I’d liek to see the arguments too- JS claims this paper is ‘nothign new or original’, apparently trying to insinuate that it’s not important? But I’ve seen, as I told him, nothign to even come close explaining the naturalistic accumulation of info to arrive at metainfo from any TOE supporter yet- so it is quite apparent that this paper presents a far more important problem for TOE than the paper is being portrayed by soem to do.

I should have said that mutation information ‘gets added’ blindly, and over time could add up to include enough changed information that the accumulated info by pure chance, results in higher instructions that, again, by pure blind luck, are able to manage lower info. Of course, all this higher info accumulations simply could not ammass enough higher instructions to account for the incredible complexity at all levels, and this ‘pure blind luck’ arrangement of info would take such a long time to even begin to mimic the actual metainfo, that the species simply could not flourish long enough to wait for the finished product of the necessary metainfo system. But just saying it could be a possible argument— although a remotely plausible one.

I'd say "remotely possible," if I didn't understand that the very presupposition of "pure chance" or "pure blind luck" queers any argument that follows from it. So long as this type of argument is being used, I have no reason to trust it, let alone assess the "possibilites"is predicts.

I mean, think about it: To make a "necessity" of "pure, blind chance" the very necessity on which your argument rests automatically completely rules out any and all non-chance solutions to problems — in principle.

To me, there's something basically "wacky" about making "chance" a "necessity" at the deepest foundation of your "model." I mean, in this circumstance, you'd always be playing with "loaded dice."

Plus none of these people bother to consider what a random pile up of "information" can be about in the first place? Information — about what? What I'm trying to get at here is this: On what basis ought we to believe that information piling up randomly could ever "mean" anything at all?

I certainly agree with your statement, "...the species simply could not flourish long enough to wait for the finished product of the necessary metainfo system." Indeed, that's what the ToE's "pushing up daisies" model, which I would describe, (in terms of Williams' IC/AP model), as the inversion of levels (i) – (v); i.e., there's no "pull" from the higher levels (v) being "highest"), but a "push" from level (i), and from there on "up" through the levels. Until finally, we have — mirabile dictu! — level (v), "fully-loaded" with metainformation....

Jeepers, quite aside from the evident epistemological problems involved in the "chance is necessity" point of view, does this seem likely to you?

Thanks so much for writing, CottShop!