Replies

Thank you so very much for your reply, for sharing your insights!

I thought perhaps discussing how species vary in their ability to ‘self-heal’ might further highlight the Shannon model is all. It seems to me that despite certain organisms ability to prolong life by replenishing their repair and mantainance abilities, there still seems to be a process of entropy at work. It would appear to actually be a strong case for metainfo inthat it woudl seem that a greater megainfo complexity is needed in order to control and prolong cell death. I think it also highlights the fact that you simply can’t get htis higher level of informaiton from Abiogensis- from chemical information, and I doubt that htis higher level of info could possibly come from a piling up of info due to mutaitons even if we were to try to concider life started out as biological simplicity rather than chemical.

I very strongly agree that maintenance and repair information (successful communication) should be discussed. It is the primary example given in the AP Model for inverse causality – or anticipating the need for something that hasn’t yet occurred.

At the lower level, the organism cannot know the need for repair and maintenance exists. It is not aware. It must be “informed” of this need.

Another even more fundamental example was brought up on this thread by Diamond as I recall. Namely that coding itself requires agreement on language between sender and receiver. The receiver must be able to decode an encoded transmission. Again, this is inversely causal (or as I prefer, temporally non-local.)

And at the very bottom of the abiogenesis ladder is the issue of where autonomy came from in the first place. At that theoretical level it is all a “soup.” Any message sent in its direction would be a broadcast to the soup. Things would have to become autonomous within that theoretical soup for successful communications to occur as we observe it today – otherwise there would still only be that theoretical soup.

me: [[The physical body of a higher organism is much the same. When the brain is damaged or ages, communications degrade throughout the organism. When it no longer sustains successful communications (brain death) – the rest of the body quickly follows.]]
you: This is intresting, as the body can still function somewhat if certain supports are put inplace which indicates that comunication also flows from other sources as well

Precisely so! The point I was trying to make is that the higher organism (e.g. man) is very complex indeed. It is not just a single processor – or the controlling processor – but more like a supercomputer with a controlling processor (brain) and many sub-processors (e.g. cardiovascular.) A brain dead person can be kept ‘alive’ to later harvest organs by physically simulating the receipt of the brain's control message: inhale, exhale.

True, and htis is an important point too- it’s the act of comunication that contributes to species succumbing to entropy, however, again, not to belabour hte point, but in the case of organisms prolonging death (They used to say these organism were ‘eternal’, now however I think opinion is changing on this) they are comunicating a message to replce repair and maintanance systems, however, I still think, knowing as little as I do about hte process, so I could be wrong, that this is simply a case of an organisms ability to prolong, not escape the effects of entropy.

Indeed, there is a double-edged sword in information theory and molecular biology. On the one hand, the successful communications keeps maintenance and repair going. On the other hand, it also sends messages for “programmed cell death.”

But the bottom line for me, is that no matter what message is being sent – the organism is alive while it is successfully communicating. Once communication comes to an end, the organism is physically dead.

By the way, for those Lurkers following the spiritual or theological side of this discussion – information (successful communication) is not physical. It does not die a physical death like the molecular machinery which facilitates successful communication in biological life or like the computers we are using will eventually succumb to entropy.

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life. – John 6:63

That of course would be another sidebar or fodder for a new thread, i.e. discussing and contrasting the Holy Spirit, spirit, soul and biological life. So I'll return to the subject of the AP Model and abiogenesis:

me: [[Moreover, as previously observed on this thread, the code itself is inversely causal or temporally non-local, it must anticipate that which has not yet happened.]]

you: Which brings us to an interesting secondary possible counter-argument- it is claimed, and perhaps verified, that the reason for earlier and earlier succumbing to effects of entropy, is that species had to reproduce- the more htey reproduce, the quicker they die (Now I’m not sure if this applies to every system or just to a select few, but it brings up an interesting issue of where, how, and could it possibly occure, issue of reproduction ability. Could hte info required for the complex system of reproduction arise from mutaitons- however, this would take an incredible indepth annalysis of al lthe systems and comunicaitons that go ionto the pprocess, and probably should be a whole htread of it’s own, with just hte highlights posted in htis thread if it is found this comunicaiton of info for htis particular system of reproduciton can’t arise by simpel piling up of info fro mthe bottom up as Macroevolution demands.

Indeed, this raises many interesting points as you said, e.g. concerning reproduction. And it also raises the origin of programmed cell death. Such things are relevant to a general discussion of the theory of evolution - at the earliest levels above abiogenesis or biogenesis.

And I agree such subjects would involve a lot of research and postings and thus might be good fodder for a new thread.

me: [[Wimmer, for instance, began with the message. When one starts with the message, bootstrapping life (in his case the polio virus) under laboratory conditions does not constitute a theory of abiogenesis.]]

you: And htta is hte problem with every so called laboratory ‘example’ of ‘life’- they MUST start with hte info already present, and they MUST intelligently control and manipulate and create designer cells in order to create even the simplest of functions within hte cells, but then the very next step becoems exponentially more complex and difficult, and involves an even greater itnervention of intelligence to control and manipulate and protect in order to violate the natural laws which macroevolution MUST obey.

Indeed, the investigator in these experiments is providing the necessary foreknowledge.

[[Another even more fundamental example was brought up on this thread by Diamond as I recall. Namely that coding itself requires agreement on language between sender and receiver. The receiver must be able to decode an encoded transmission. Again, this is inversely causal (or as I prefer, temporally non-local.)]]

Excellent point- I must have missed this- this shows predesigned compliance between the two- one can not exist without being predesigned to recieve from the other. Not sure htough if an argument can be made that this agreement ‘could arise’ in stepwise fashion- I strongly doubt it, but mym ind is too tired today to noodle this over much.

[[And at the very bottom of the abiogenesis ladder is the issue of where autonomy came from in the first place. At that theoretical level it is all a “soup.” Any message sent in its direction would be a broadcast to the soup. Things would have to become autonomous within that theoretical soup for successful communications to occur as we observe it today – otherwise there would still only be that theoretical soup.]]

Rhis rules out biological (which didn’t exist in the first place) to chemical comunication for sure- and although we have chemical to biolgical ‘creation’, what was created had nothign needed for sucessful comunication within itself in order to move to more complexity via billions of years of mutations.

[[But the bottom line for me, is that no matter what message is being sent – the organism is alive while it is successfully communicating. Once communication comes to an end, the organism is physically dead.]]

I fully agree withhtis- the sideargument though is that ID says everythign is subject to entropy, and since htere are organisms that prolong this loss of comunicaiton for very long times, then apparently not everythign is subject to effects of entropy (although they would have to prove these organisms are eternal) But again, I aghree, the issues of htis thread are abotu whether complex cominicatiosn can arise naturally, and not abotu how species vary in resisting cell comunicaiton death timelines.

I’m still just a bit bothered by whether information could arise stepwise via change- I think the evidence is quite strong that it couldn’t- but there’s still a very slight question about htis issue for me- the arguments for it would be a VERY long stretch for sure, an impossible stretch I bleeive,but I’m just not completely satisfied that there couldn’t be that long stretch counterargument. It just bothers me slightly. Everythign so far stated about metainfo is more than reasonable and compliant with natural laws and reasonability- but...

And it also raises the origin of programmed cell death. Such things are relevant to a general discussion of the theory of evolution - at the earliest levels above abiogenesis or biogenesis.

Programmed cell death is a relatively recent invention. Single celled organisms do not die of entropy or "natural causes."

And at the very bottom of the abiogenesis ladder is the issue of where autonomy came from in the first place. At that theoretical level it is all a “soup.” Any message sent in its direction would be a broadcast to the soup. Things would have to become autonomous within that theoretical soup for successful communications to occur as we observe it today – otherwise there would still only be that theoretical soup.

What a marvelous exchange between you and CottShop, dearest sister in Christ! Thank you for this superlative essay-post! It's definitely a "keeper."

BTW, your observation that inversely-causal information involves temporal non-locality is spot-on, IMHO FWIW.