[edsheppa]

You just keep repeating yourself, without backing up the why .... If you want to convince me, demonstrate to me where I'm wrong.

First, I have only an intuitive understanding of what your ABc's mean. You need to sharpen it a bit if you'd like a better critique.

Second, your cat turning into a laser pointer (plus some left over mass and/or energy) isn't an inconceivable natural event, simply a very improbable one. Atoms can be transmuted and moved and molecules rearranged by application of outside forces. One can imagine an advanced civilization arriving and demonstrating their superior technology by doing it. Then one simply leaves them out of the equation and supposes the equivalent exquisitely timed forces arriving from distant space and converging on your cat. Again, it's very, very improbable but not inconceivable.

Third, my intuitive understanding of what you mean by B is that it is the limit of what is possible within the system. The system we're discussing is biological life for which the limit is all possible DNA configurations that can be reached from the initial conditions we infer by the mutations, etc. we know occur in nature. A genome entailing a brain is IMO definitely within the system. What is primarily at issue is the probability of this outcome.

So, to summarize without, I hope simply repeating myself, I reject you assertion that the B in this case excludes the human genome.

[Hajman]

First, I have only an intuitive understanding of what your ABc's mean. You need to sharpen it a bit if you'd like a better critique.

Sorry about that. My A<=B is a shorthand for the output <= input statement. And A>B is a shorthand for the output >& input statement.

Second, your cat turning into a laser pointer (plus some left over mass and/or energy) isn't an inconceivable natural event, simply a very improbable one. Atoms can be transmuted and moved and molecules rearranged by application of outside forces. One can imagine an advanced civilization arriving and demonstrating their superior technology by doing it. Then one simply leaves them out of the equation and supposes the equivalent exquisitely timed forces arriving from distant space and converging on your cat. Again, it's very, very improbable but not inconceivable.

Actually, it may be inconceivable. Such as some parts of the laser will most likely shift into energy, which may be lost to the end system (once it's shifted into energy, with the dynamics of matter and energy interaction, it may be impossible for the original energies and matter to be shifted over to the cat from the laser. The cat might come from parts of the laser, but the shift would be incomplete). Not everything is possible. For example, a paradox (which is conceptually possible, but not physically possible, as far as we know by applying the primary premise that that logic works.). Time + events is not a catch-all equation for everything (though it can be for alot of things. But these things must be demonstrated to be valid).

Third, my intuitive understanding of what you mean by B is that it is the limit of what is possible within the system. The system we're discussing is biological life for which the limit is all possible DNA configurations that can be reached from the initial conditions we infer by the mutations, etc. we know occur in nature. A genome entailing a brain is IMO definitely within the system. What is primarily at issue is the probability of this outcome.

Actually, the limits, as far as the evolutionary algorithms I've seen, are an inate part of the system. Probability needs to be coupled with how the information shifts. If we map evolutionary changes, Micro changes can be mapped to a horizontal axis. However, Macro changes are mapped to a vertical axis (in an information increase mapping). Yes, it may be possible, but does information theory allow it? If we have to apply "it's possible, therefore it happend", we're not working with a very solid theory here. Just because it's possible doesn't mean it did happen. Also, just because we might be able to figure out a way to do it doesn't mean nature will do it that way (or even allow it done that way).

Personally, I don't like information theory divorced from Evolution theory. Your explaination gives the what, but not the why (and "it's probable" isn't a very valid why. Science doesn't work like that). It basically meets the form "because it did". I don't accept that. There's a couple of observations I make about Evolution. 1) Micro Evolution works on one information scale, and Macro Evolution requires an extra information scale (the 2 dimensional horizontal and vertical mapping up above). (A<=B is the horizontal mapping, or the increase of existing structure/information. A>B would be the vertical mapping, or addition of structure/information). This I get from my current understanding of information theory. 2) The evolution of creatures (both living and virtual) all falls under the Micro Evolution scale. Our direct observations tell us that Evolution happens along a horizontal scale, keeping within the range of A<=B. Math theory tells us that no matter how many iterations of a function that falls squarely under A<=B you give, you won't be able to shift it to an A>B function (vertical scale, Macro Evolution), unless the function is more then an A<=B function, or if there's a conversion function from A<=B to A>B. In either case, it's up to you to show either 1) The function is more then an A<=B function (through observation. But if you have a theory about how, feel free to share it. However, it won't be valid until it's been demonstrated, like any other theory), or 2) There's a conversion function to change the Micro Evolution A<=B function to an A>B function (also through observation. You can share a theory about it if you have one, but again, it won't be valid until it's demonstrated). To put it in simple terms, it's up to the Evolutionists to prove that Macro Evolution can happen (I won't take assumptions as 'fact', as many Evolutionists around here seem to do. If you don't take Historical Evolution as 'fact', then I have no quarrel with you. I'm quite enjoying this chat).

-The Hajman-