Posted on 06/15/2003 10:36:08 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
Yes, I am seeing a turning away from randomness in evolutionists. The evidence is too strong against randomness already. As you say, at the beginning of this pathway process, I and you believe that there had to be intelligent design. However, the evolutionists seem to be trying to do several things. One is to distance themselves from the question of the origin of life. The second (at least from some of the arguments I have seen on this thread) seems to be that they really want to use the Cambrian explosion when the phyla came about as a starting point for the pathways (but I may be wrong in this).
What I was trying to point out was that for those who adhere to a materialistic explanation for the descent of species, even from such a starting point, there are big problems which cannot be solved by simple means. Yes, perhaps a very involved code could solve all the problems mentioned but then one is going beyond anything which would be possible to claim as a material explanation. Wolfram I believe claims (from what I have read on this and other threads) that complexity can come about as a result of 5-6 simple rules. I think because of the diversity of life it would take a lot of 'tweaking' and thus a lot of code to achieve what we see in living things.
Actually, the requirements for a state machine that can express all possible information structures is even smaller than you apparently think. The smallest Turing Complete "alphabet" that I'm aware of has only TWO operations, and I believe there is more than one of this order. In other words, everything that is possible (e.g. all structures and information constructs that can exist) can be created in a system with only 2 rules as a simple matter of stirring the pot.
This fact generally defies most people's intuition, but is nonetheless true. It is why I don't think getting a bootstrap machine is the hard part.
No, not everything is information. Perhaps according to Kolmogorov, but not according to me. The 'pattern' in Don Quixote may be as equally complex according to Kolmgorov's equations than a Tom Clancy novel, however the Don Quixote is more valuable just as the Iliad is more valuable than the latest crime novel. The theory is assigning value mathematically and you cannot assign values mathematically because there is no mathematical way to measure quality.
Here are some other examples which challenge the statement that all information is as valuable as another provided they are of equal complexity. Take this example:
1. the lottery result tomorrow will be 04, 06, 32, 45, 46, 54, 56.
2, the lottery result yesterday was 04, 06, 32, 45, 46, 54, 56.
Now tell me they are both of equal value?????? Not Kolmogorov value, but real life value. Or take another example:
1. someone yelling fire in a crowded theater
2. someone yelling hot dogs on a street corner>
Are you going to tell me that that information is of equal value? Of course not. Would the code for a smiley face on computer screen be as valuable as any of the numerous scientific formulas out there which may have the same Kolmogorov complexity? Of course not because information has to be measured not by its complexity or mathematical features but by its quality and its purpose.
Oh, and there is one problem with Kolomgorov complexity theory - it is descriptive not prescriptive. You can I am sure calculate the Kolmogorov complexity of every single book ever written, however that knowledge would not enable you to write a single one of them (It is like '42' as the answer for 'what is the meaning of life, the universe and everything'). The problem for cellular automata is how to pre-scribe changes not how to describe them.
I'm afraid that for rigorous discussion your opinion does not trump a huge swath of established mathematics. If you disavow mathematics, then I have nothing further to say because my argument assumes that mathematics is valid.
True, and an interesting point, however, since we are talking of natural phenomena, and of matter specifically, I do not think it applies - unless you can show us how it does.
Nonsense. While essentially all computer programs work on a yes/no basis, you cannot build a program that say does anything useful with just two machine code instructions. If all it took to make a living thing was two machine code instructions, this discussion would have never started. Yes, you can build quite complex programs using just the yes/no capabilities of a binary system, however - you still have to write the code to accomplish what you wish to accomplish. While one might be able to write an operating system that does as much as the present ones with less code, you certainly could not write them with two machine language instructions.
Further, as I stated in my previous post the problem is not one of describing life, but of pre-scribing it. You have to write the code which will give one mammal (the mouse) hard bones and legs and another (which some say is similar in many ways) soft bones, wings, and a fantastic sonar (the bat). Tell me how you pre-scribe all that from the first bacteria to those two animals with all the intervening species in between with two lines of code.
Oh, and as Columbo used to say - just one more thing. Turing machines have a halting problem, living things do not, so they are not a perfectly accurate model for living things just on that point alone.
Not what he said. He said only two internal states. This not the same thing at all. One can have a computer with only 4 symbols and 5 internal states (published in 2001 by Watanabe Shigeru; beating Minsky's 4 state 7 symbol machine in product mimimization.)
Of course, the ultimate in computer reductionism is the single instruction machine. Based on a RAM model, the instruction is: subtract memory location being pointed-at from the accumulator; if the accumulator is negative, skip the next location, else execute the next location. This mimics the working of both the IBM 650 and the Bendix G15. Such a single-instruction computer can simulate a universal Turing machine.
My universal Touring machines used to be Corvettes, but as I got older, I switched to Tahoes.
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. – Matthew 5:28
Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal [must] put on immortality So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
O death, where [is] thy sting? O grave, where [is] thy victory? - I Corinthians 15:49-55
It is very hard to describe what I have seen in my night travels using just language. Basically, time is meaningless. Past, future, now – doesn’t register. Likewise, distance and proportion are meaningless. At once on a flower, next embracing a galaxy. Light seems to be substantive but not the same as the brilliance of His glory. It is like wallowing in love and joy and worship – and it is always about God and Christ.
But please remember, I’m the “up Papa, pweese” flavor – it may be quite different for you. There certainly seems to be a lot going on in my night travels, but I’m not a “player” there either.
I can't even see this as a single instruction in interpretive language code.
But the greatest challenge will be determining whether or not it can explain all of biological life and consciousness – over the span of the geological record. That is a tall order indeed, and as tortoise has pointed out post 476, even abiogenesis by autonomous self-organizing complexity nevertheless requires “a semi-stable and suitable environment that lasts long enough for the bootstrap to bootstrap to interesting and better protected structures.”
I do take great comfort in the fact that mathematicians, information theorists and physicists are epistemologically zealous and most of the mathematicians (which includes a huge chunk of the others) are of the Platonist type (albeit weak or naturalized) - who will not rest until it all makes sense.
I have to admit I am rather astonished that hard-wired macros are now considered to be an "instruction." If I am to take such as an equivalence in understanding Kolmogorov Complexity then I no longer am in agreement with tortoise.
Basically, my understanding is that the Kolmogorov Complexity of an object is the length of the shortest computer program that runs on a computer and outputs that object. A short program outputting a very long number would not be considered complex by that rule.
But change the rules so that any size of macro can be hard-wired and presented as an “instruction” and I must disagree with the Kolmogorov approach to depicting complexity in biological systems. After all, an exhaustive macro subroutine, including numerous conditionals, memory arrays and symbolizations can easily be hard-wired.
Jeepers, there is no reason an entire subroutine couldn't be hardwired into a single "instruction." I could see whole sections of the Internal Revenue Code that would lend themselves to being hard-wired but that does nothing to explain biological autonomous self-organizing complexity.
I don't think you really do either. Do you see a difference in the state of abiding in Christ when one would embrace the Father and when one might embrace a Galaxy however that might occur, or when one might put one's arm around another person on Earth? Please don't think of the word "relation" as if it were a just a matter of a point of contact between things otherwise totally separate, as if it were bocci ball. ;-)
As for sins of the heart, well, they are sins of the heart, sins of intention in one's imagination, with emotional involvement that is ungodly in one's inner being. That is sin enough to be sin I think! however it may or may not extend from there, especially since "there" is to be of infused cohabitation with God's own spirit.
In these special experiences, I hear from you that you have a beginning a middle and an end of them. That would mean that they have sequence (and that doesn't disappoint me). I can understand that we might have a kind of elasticity and other kinds of facilities with events and sequences in our spiritual and heavenly state, but it seems that whenever angels (and demons) are mentioned they are mentioned as having experiences with sequential definition. The only being from the Word that I can be sure of having consciousness outside of any sequential definition would be God the Self Defined. This doesn't mean I disallow anything you are perceiving. As Paul said, we are seated in the heavenly places and hidden in Christ as we live and breathe and type (in one kind of darkly observed "typing" or another). ;-)
Yes ma'am, thank the Lord for his unspeakable gift! -- Himself.
However, I continue to disagree. In the example of an “instruction” which you gave, the program was using a location being “pointed at” for accumulation. In a Universal Turing Machine, it would read through. Even though both could perform the same function, a RAM machine is not the same for figuring Kolmogorov Complexity.
In other words, before introducing Kolmogorov Complexity – the computer/machine we are speaking of must be normalized or else it is apples and oranges. If a RAM machine can do it in one instruction because it is hard-wired, but a Turing machine requires 1,000 instructions – then the Kolmogorov Complexity of the result will depend on whether we are speaking of the “instruction” of the RAM computer or the equivalent Universal Turing Machine.
Also, it occurs to me we ought to be looking at biological autonomous self-organizing complexity with the same kind of “lens” that we use in quantum information theory – e.g. introduce von Neumann entropy for computational density matrices. IMHO, the variance in nature may be closer to quantum states than classical physics.
Indeed, God is above all else, including timelines and dimensions as well as sequences and eternity.
As to the matter of "relating" - I clearly see where such can be done while also "abiding." But to whatever extent there may be a difference - from my point of view, I'm so raptured by the abiding, I could be absorbed such that I would never relate again and be forever happy about it.
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.