Defining it so doesn't make it so.
Re: Reality has no need for anything contained in the concept of meta-info. The concept of meta -info is purely a creation of mind which is an instance of circular logic.
"Talk about circular reasoning- Reality absolutely does rely on higher instructions- Metainfo is NOT a ‘mind concept- but a biological reality as evidenced by the fact that systems of metainfo are intelligently constructed and display higher function by controlling the reactions that occure when lower instructions are affected for whatever reason- this isn’t a ‘concept’- htis is biological fact- reality- it’s not opinion, it’s not an assumption, it’s a verifiable reality.
Sayong so, doesn't make it so. The time development of complexity in biological organisms and systems is observed to always procede from simple to complex, in accordance with the laws of physics and in a fashion modeled by evolutionary algorithms. The end point complexity has never been found to be required in any of that. IOWs, info doesn't "flow" down, it's collected as a collection of successful physical possibilities, according to the mathematics of an evolutionary model.
[[Sayong so, doesn’t make it so.]]
Nope- sure doesn’t- but on the other hand, sayting it doesn’t make it so doesn’t make it not so- As well, it can be shown experientially that info can exist at hte physical level without hte need for being acted on to induce the instructions contained within the info- science shows this is a reality Spunket- Think genes that are turned off- these genes don’t function by doing what they wwre designed for- those instructions in the info lies in a static suspension awaiting an outside action to turn htem on again
[[The time development of complexity in biological organisms and systems is observed to always procede from simple to complex,]]
that is an a priori assumption AFTER the fact- We know complexity exists, and it’s nothign ut an assumption to claim it must have stepwise evolved especially when htere is no evidence to show it could, infact, it’s even worse- the evidence we do have shows it can’t. You are taking an intelligently designed complexity, looking to lower levels of complexity, and ASSUMING the higher level must have coem fro mthe lower. Miller made this same mistake when tryign to ‘explain’ the evolution of IC is blood clotting, but he simply proved that it woudl take a conciderable amount of intelligent design and careufl directing and controlling to actually achieve the higher level of complexity seen in land dwelling clotting systems.
[[The end point complexity has never been found to be required in any of that.]]
Really? Try removing it- This argument was destroyed in another thread
[[IOWs, info doesn’t “flow” down, it’s collected as a collection of successful physical possibilities, according to the mathematics of an evolutionary model.]]
If this is your position then show how it could- We discussed htis at length in another htread on life’s irreducible structures, and it was shown complexity can NOT arise in such manner. Piling info on top of info can NOT create a system of metainfo- there NEEDS to be a system of metainfo already inplace directing ANY changes so that they do not upset the whole works- the bottom down explanation discussed in BB’s thread here makes htis perfectly clear- as does hte other thread.
Beleive me, I tried arguing for a piling up stepwise process of info- but it didn’t take long to run into serious impossibilites involved in htis process. Metainfo is an absolutely necessary system I’m afraid- and pointing to more simplistic CHANGES in simpler complexities does nothign to show the more compelx complexities coudl arise- if anything- change in simpler complexities just lead to further simplified complexities as those natural changes woudl result in degredation IF there were no higher metainfo already present preventing changes from causing undue entropy and chaos.
Where did these plenipotential "evolutionary algorithms" of which you speak come from, spunketts?
If the universe is ultimately one "whole" — as conceptually I believe it is — then its ultimate "rule" will likely be found to be very simple indeed. What still needs to be accounted for, however, is the means by which such simplicity yields the complexity we see all around us in Nature.
The people who develop "evolutionary algortihms" are probably painfully aware of this problem.... .