Posted on 01/20/2005 12:54:58 PM PST by Jay777
Nonsense. The universe is discrete, which means their are very hard boundaries we must work within. This provides very tidy building blocks from which everything can be built and uncovers all the semantic handwaving.
How do you define "life" in terms of conformation differences between two physical regions of discrete space? The point of all this, which you apparently missed, is to give a meaningful grounding to any definition you might come up with. Everything is reducible to algorithmic information, so what are the measurable mathematical differences between something that is living and something that is dead? We have fuzzy heuristics for every day use, but what is the universal definition that I can use to measure anything?
"Fool's game", indeed. What is constructive about making handwaving assertions in the absence of meaningful definitions?
First of all, "everything is reducible to algorithmic information" is an assertion. Unless you back it up, it sinks to the status of an "opinion." In order for you to back it up, you have to come up with a universal algorithm. But for you to do that, you must possess universal knowledge. Now, unless you can find a way to extricate yourself from the Universe, as it were to find and occupy some "Archimedean point" outside the Universe from which to observe it in toto, the only knowledge you have of the Universe is what you can view from "inside of it." That will necessarily be a partial view. And therefore, from the perspective of your position in space and time, you cannot know all of the Universe. Which by the way continues to evolve. So even if it were possible that you could know everything about the Universe at a particular point in spacetime, you would still not have universal knowledge. For the future may contain new elements -- and probably will.
Now perhaps you might say you can derive the entire Universe abstractly, i.e., not by means of observation, but via abstract mathematics. And you may well be able to derive a Universe thereby. But my question then would be: Would that derived Universe match up with the one we actually have in every detail, at every point in space and time, including the yet unmanifested future? On what could you base an affirmative answer?
And at the end of the day, would your algorithm describe the Universe -- or only you? How could you tell?
As for "the measurable mathematical differences between something that is living and something that is dead," I suppose you'd have to look at the correlation between increasing entropy and decreasing Gibbs free energy: At some critical threshold, life passes into non-life. Theoretically, that is the point at which the living organism "stops communicating"; i.e., ceases to successfully process information. I guess that would be your "measurable mathematical difference."
Or so it seems to me. FWIW.
Thanks for writing, tortoise!
This reminds me of the old argument against the kid who says that he KNOWS God does not exist.
The professor asks the kid if he knows everything there is to know.
The kid says "no."
The professor askes the kid if he knows half of everything there is to know.
The kid says "no."
The professor says, "Let's assume you DO know half of everything there is to know. What if proof of God is all in the OTHER HALF?"
p.s.: Please tell me why I am wrong to suspect that, in saying you believe the Universe is reducible to an algorithm, you are implying that the Universe is "designed." And then please tell me: How can an algorithmically-based Universe be a random process? Or is the algorithm itself a pure accident? In which case, it would seem to me you'd have a devil of a time trying to "reverse-engineer" it.
LOL RobRoy! That is simply beautiful! Thanks!
Everything is reducible to algorithmic information, so what are the measurable mathematical differences between something that is living and something that is dead? We have fuzzy heuristics for every day use, but what is the universal definition that I can use to measure anything?
/////////
The science of computer modeling is so new that there is trouble identifying the"known unknown" and the stuff we think we know-- but don't know.
There is a great deal of computer modeling work currently going on for molecules of both organic and inorganic chemistry. Because of the success of these models, this conversation would be greatly facilitated by some granular data which would establish what the differences are between the "shape", "force", "direction" and even "complexity" of these models.
From there one might go on to say something more general--but without the fuzziness-- about the difference between the living and the dead.
Everything is reducible to algorithmic information, so what are the measurable mathematical differences between something that is living and something that is dead? We have fuzzy heuristics for every day use, but what is the universal definition that I can use to measure anything?
/////////
The science of computer modeling is so new that there is trouble identifying the"known unknown" and the stuff we think we know-- but don't know.
There is a great deal of computer modeling work currently going on for molecules of both organic and inorganic chemistry. Because of the success of these models, this conversation would be greatly facilitated by some granular data which would establish what the differences are between the "shape", "force", "direction" and even "complexity" of these models.
From there one might go on to say something more general--but without the fuzziness-- about the difference between the living and the dead.
Sounds like a good plan to me, ckilmer! Thanks so very much!
wow. good answer.
This will not be constructive unless you stop using a rather pedestrian and ambiguous definition of "algorithm". I'm using it in a very strict sense. Let me say it again:
Everything that exists is algorithmic information. A rock, a tree, a cloud of hydrogen atoms floating in interstellar space, space itself. If algorithmic information implies "design", then your definition of "design" is meaningless since everything that exists in all possible spaces is "designed" by definition. We do not need a new word for "exists" in mathematics.
The more basic problem is that "design" is another one of those ambiguous and fuzzily defined "I know it when I see it" terms, like "alive". Until you come up with a strict and unamibiguous definition of "design", it cannot be used as a term in any kind of rigorous theoretical construct.
(The even uglier problem is that the pseudo-mathematical term "design" as it is being used her runs afoul of the Invariance Theorem, which makes it discardable ipso facto.)
The "quantized continuum model" seems to be the wrong model for the difference between life and non-life. For where is the "smooth gradation" between life and death, when death, when it occurs, is instantaneous fact? A "smooth gradation" may well apply to descriptions of declining health, which may or may not result in death. But that's not what we're talking about here. We're speaking of the physical difference between the living state and the dead state. This is a stark difference: We do not speak of something as being "partially dead," after all, except figuratively (that is to say, not as matters actually stand in reality). The something is either dead or it is not.
You can argue otherwise, I suppose. But to reason thusly is to deny observation and experience. So why do it?
You could call it the Grand Unifying Assertion.
No, to reason thusly is to deny a Judaeo-Chritian world view. In my opinion one ought to be careful citing 'observation and experience' when what one is really citing is the dogma of one's particular religion.
We encounter people with cognitive functions all the way along a continuum, from fully alert and aware, to deeply vegetative. I would say observation is very much consistent with a continuum between life and non-life. In fact, if it were really an either/or thing, decisions whether to continue medical treatment would not be so difficult.
What percentage dead would you consider yourself to be?
But we are not speaking of a continuum of cognitive function. We are speaking of life and death. Whether a thing is dead or alive does not depend on our observation of it. A corpse will rot just as well despite the presence or absence of an observer.
Arguably, there is a continuum of cognitive function that pertains to individuals, as well as to populations (as you suggest). We might say that cognitive function increases from infancy, reaches a peak somewhere on the spectrum, and then begins to decline with age. But this would be a generalization. And to speak of a continuum of cognitive function pertaining to a population is also a generalization.
But the living vs. non-living question is not a question of this type. There is a specific answer, and only one specific answer to the question: Is the organism dead or alive? It seems you are trying to change the subject, RWP.
Re: As to whether I am coming at this problem through a filter of religious dogma: as a dogmatist yourself, how would you really be in a position to know?
The difference between life and non-life is not so difficult to determine, in my opinion.
In terms of the precise moment that a human is dead, and the soul exits the body, that can be a bit vague, and the assumption that there is a soul to leave the body is as you say a religious assumption (though not only judeo-christian).
But at the cellular level, its not so difficult. We tend to think of a cell as a very simple building block, but in fact it is quite a complex mechanism, with quite a complex series of processes and moving parts that are necessary for it to renew itself as well as to fulfill its function in the larger organism. It has a series of events that must occur, and must occur in a certain sequence for it to renew itself. The moment it begins to fail would be fairly clear cut, and the moment it fails completely would not be that difficult to determine, its just a function of having a microscope sufficient to the task.
There would be a series of failures that would precede the final failure, but still the moment of death at the cellular level would be a fairly discrete and observable event.
The loss of a single cell to a complex creature like an animal does not lead to the death of the animal, but the death or failure of enough would lead to a cascading effect leading to the final catastrophic collapse of the whole organism. In purely animal terms, when the last brain cell stops processing, the animal is dead. When, in the case of a human animal, the soul departs and if there might be some physiological marker of that passage is not so easily defined, at least as of yet.
If you're a hospital administrator trying to decide whether or not to continue treatment, life with hope for recovery, and life with no hope for recovery can be a tough call in some of the more difficult cases. But dead is usually pretty clear-cut.
Again, the assertion, tortoise: "Everything that exists is algorithmic information." It should be obvious to you that "everything that exists" is also something more than algorithmic information -- even given the case that your assertion is true. The reduction to algorithm in the sense you seem to indicate would drain all the life out of the world, leaving only a sterile machine in its wake. Life itself would become reduced to an abstraction.
I haven't given a definition of "design." But if I were to do so, it would not take the form: "everything that exists in all possible spaces is 'designed'... for that would not be a definition of design, rather it would be an (implicit) definition of "tautology." Any definition defines. The question is whether the definition is "any good" as a description of reality.
You do seem to give a definition, of Universe: the Universe is that which is specified by/reducible to an algorithm. And as for this result, it really doesn't seem to matter much in what "very strict sense" you are using the word "algorithm." Now it seems the Invariance Theorem applies to correlated movements of points in mathematical spaces; But life is more than movement in mathematical spaces, correlated or otherwise....
This -- life -- is the part you always seem to want to drop out of view. Notwithstanding, the fact that there is an invariant character to such correlated movements indicates a universal behavior; and if the behavior is universal, this suggests it cannot have arisen by accidental means.
Or so it seems to me, for whatever it's worth to you; and I suspect that approaches zero at the speed of light.
Small is different: Computer simulation tools explore the nanoworld
eureka alert/Georgia Institute of Technology ^ | 17-Feb-2005
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1346147/posts
Posted on 02/18/2005 10:47:36 AM PST by ckilmer
Contact: David Terraso david.terraso@icpa.gatech.edu 404-385-2966 Georgia Institute of Technology
Years ago, when Uzi Landman and his colleagues set out to uncover some of the rules that govern why a non-reactive metal like gold acts as a catalyst when it is in nanoclusters only a few atoms in size, they didn't sit down in a lab with the precious metal. Instead, they ran computer simulations and discovered that gold is a very effective catalyst when it is in clusters of eight to two dozen atoms. They also found that electrical charging of gold is crucial to its catalytic capabilities. Six years later, the team has verified their earlier predictions experimentally, and they stand ready to further explore environmental effects on catalysis.
This practice of partnering computer simulations with real-world experiments is becoming more vital as scientists delve deeper into realms where the actors are measured on the nanoscale, Landman told a group of scientists Thursday, February 17 at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
"Small is different," said Landman, director of the Center for Computational Materials Science and professor of physics at the Georgia Institute of Technology. "We cannot use the way physical systems behave on the large scale to predict what will happen when we go to levels only a few atoms in size. In this size regime, electrons transport electricity in a different way, crystallites have different mechanical properties and gold nanowires have strength twenty times larger than a big bar of gold, and inert metals may exhibit remarkable catalytic activity. But we know the rules of physics, and we can use them to create model environments in which we can discover new phenomena through high-level computer-based simulations."
Computers are constantly becoming more powerful and capable of conducting more detailed explorations at the same time scientists across the globe are increasing their interest in the science of the small. The intersection of these two trends, said Landman, is allowing scientists to investigate realms that are too small for today's technology to explore experimentally.
So will you, if you get untreated gangrene.
But the living vs. non-living question is not a question of this type. There is a specific answer, and only one specific answer to the question: Is the organism dead or alive? It seems you are trying to change the subject, RWP.
Not at all. I dispute it is an either-or question. There may occasionally be a legal necessity to come down on one side or the other, but then the law often has to draw lines where no lines exist.
At the end of life we only sometimes have to confront this question; often death is rapid and catastrophic. At the beginning of life, we clearly go through a continuum of brain development, from a few slightly differentiated cells, to a fully developed brain. When do we have a human consciousness? That's the $64,000 question, isn't it?
On the other hand, if you're only talking about the animal functions of life, some human cells stay alive for hours or even days after the person's clinical death. Some bits of us are dead already; some other bits will significantly outlive our cerebral cortices.
Re: As to whether I am coming at this problem through a filter of religious dogma: as a dogmatist yourself, how would you really be in a position to know?
This, of course, is just a cheap ad hominem. Christianity, of necessity, implies subscription to certain dogmas. I can't imagine why a Christian would find it objectionable to say so. On the other hand, claiming that a person who subscribes to no religion has dogmatic beliefs - why, that's just a slur, isn't 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.