The AP Model and Shannon Theory Show the Incompleteness of Darwin’s ToE

self | January 26, 2009 | Jean F. Drew

[allmendream]

Talk about flailing around. Your disjointed post had no relevance to the subject under discussion. You can call Pluto a “planet” an “extra solar body” or “zugzug” and it doesn't change anything scientific. But I wouldn't expect you to understand that.

[js1138]

Changes in the ability to metabolize new food sources, such as nylon, requires mutation.

[spunkets]

Re: Information doesn’t exist independent of the physcal machinery that gives rise to it

"That’s not what is being stated- it is beign stated that info exists independent of outside determinations- it exists without being acted upon"

As I said, reality can't be defined out of reality. Also, "being acted upon" is irrelevant. An underlying physical reality is required in order for any and every instance of information to exist. If any information exists, it exists as an instance of configuraiton in an underlying physics.

"the containment doesn’t act upon the information- it simply contains it- it takes outside infromaiton acting upon contained info to activate that info- Nature can not explain how either info can arise however, and htis is the cenrtral issue- not whether there needs to be a containment or not."

Information is not contained in the underlying physics. The underlying physics give rise to it as a real instance of information. THe underlying physics is not simply a box that contains info; the info is properties of the physical configuration.

Re: All that’s needed to know and understand Biology is contained in the underlying physics.

" That’s a fien and noble undertaking, but it doesn’t explain how info can arise- especially hte metainfo being discussed.

Information is the configuration of some underlying physics. 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. It says that the properties of an assembly, or configuration in an underlying physics must require more physics than what's contained in the physics it arises from. Science has never found that more physics is required to know and understand any assembly, or configuration than the physics required to know and understand any of the constituent parts, or configurations.

[CottShop]

[[Changes in the ability to metabolize new food sources, such as nylon, requires mutation.]]

they require being acted on- the act isn’t the change- nor is it the information being changed, cells are predesigned just as I described in previous posts and show anticipation especially when many systems are affected and have info triggered that goes on to trigger other infos etc.

[tpanther]

Thanks...I figured you might make the point much better than I could by appointing yourself omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent science snob once again.

Errr....I was talking about the classification of Pluto.

Good job!

Two thumbs up!

[js1138]

Changes in the ability to metabolize new food sources, such as nylon, requires mutation.

If you have a source that says otherwise, please provide a link.

[betty boop]

By algorithmic complexity, are you referring to the cellular machinery, or something else?

No. It seems cellular machinery would be in the province of genomic complexity — which in turn is governed by algorithmic complexity as the "instruction set" which tells the genomic instructions what to do. In short, the relation of algorithmic to genomic complexity is as "instructor to the instruction set." So to speak.

BTW, while I'm still thinking about it, I found it rather funny that the Szostak YouTube piece used Beethoven's "Ode to Joy" from the 9th Symphony as background music. For there is absolutely nothing in Szostak that could explain "joy," or "ode," or even "Beethoven."

[CottShop]

[[As I said, reality can’t be defined out of reality. Also, “being acted upon” is irrelevant. An underlying physical reality is required in order for any and every instance of information to exist. If any information exists, it exists as an instance of configuraiton in an underlying physics.]]

You’re talking points irrelevent to the idea that BB was talking about info being able to exist indepenedent of outside physical actions acting upon it.

[[THe underlying physics is not simply a box that contains info; the info is properties of the physical configuration.]]

Well yeah in a sense it is simply because the container isn’t responsible for the action of the information when triggered by outside forces- The coexistence of the container and the info has no bearing on the fact that info can and does exist indepenedent of outside forces acting upon it in hte direct manner specific to that information as it was intended to react as per the instructions contained withion hte info

[[Information is the configuration of some underlying physics.]]

That is is-

[[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.

The rest of your post is an excersize in confusion I’m afraid- Knowing somethign about parts and assemblies of physical structures is a much different issue than is the interconnected woprkings, controllings and directions of the actual information systems. You are assignign hte value of metainfo to the scientists by claiming htey don’t ‘need more physics’ in order to understand any asembly- Of course they don’t- they are mimicking hte end product of metainfo when they understand the mechanics and assemblies. your arguemt does nothign to rebuttal the need for metainfo- it only goes to strenthen it I’m afraid.

[editor-surveyor]

"In layman’s terms, explain Williams’ Autopoietic Model..."

If such were possible, I'm sure that BB would be up to it, but even then, would it be satisfying? - I have to contend that Williams’ Autopoietic Model cannot possibly scratch the surface of the real problem of supplying a source of life of ever increasing complexity.

Many simplists here; most of them being evolutionist 'groupies,' wish to maintain that an increase in information is possible by random means, but I wish to assert that even the transfer of a constant level of information is impossible by anything other than intelligent, guided means.

Even if we accept the presently known genetic code as a comprehensive plan, said plan still needs an intelligent reader. IOW, a roll of plans cannot build a hotel, an airplane, or a clay pot; it requires a foreman, and a skilled crew. We can see these elements in existance now, but where did the first information receivers come from?

[CottShop]

they require being acted on- the act isn’t the change- nor is it the information being changed, cells are predesigned just as I described in previous posts and show anticipation especially when many systems are affected and have info triggered that goes on to trigger other infos etc.

Not sure what you’re not understandign about htis?

[betty boop]

Physical theory covers the required underly pohysics of the machinery that makes possible any and every instance of information. Without the underlying physics, there can be no information.

So, what are you yelling at me about, spunketts??? I thought I made it very clear that I think life has a physical basis, or it couldn't exist in this world.

The problem is, however, that the information at the level of physics and chemistry cannot account for life. That's the Level (iii) "hit the wall" problem in a nutshell, right there.

[Filo]

That’s where you went off the rails.

Not quite

If 50 doctors pick drug A to be the best drug for hypertension while 50 other docs pick drug B to be the best drug for hypertension and write papers supporting their findings, science is very much, in the end, subjective when it comes to my decision deciding how to lower my blood pressure.

Not at all. Your doctor's choice about which drug to use is subjective, the doctors who chose which drugs to study might have been subjective, but the scientific process used to determine the efficacy of the drugs themselves is quite objective.

The research, studies, peer review, publication and so on are all guarantees that, in the end, the drugs will have been scrutinized sufficiently to give a solid estimation of the expected outcomes.

Now, if three different drugs went through three different trials and came out roughly the same for cost and effectiveness then you and your doctor are welcome to choose which to use as subjectively as you want.

The interpretation of science very much is subjective and scientists are influenced by politics, ideology and yes money, just like anyone else.

True, but that has nothing to do with the objectivity of the science itself.

Scientists are people and, as such, fallable. Science, however, will always settle on truth in the end.

Global warming immediately comes to mind.

And this is an excellent example of junk science (like ID) that is readily disproven by rigorous application of the scientific method.

[RSmithOpt]

Yup...was random we went to the moon by chance in 1969.

[editor-surveyor]

And even more random getting back :o)

[CottShop]

Betty- just to follow up on that- Information is contained in a container that equires higher info to sustain itself- the actual info might draw info fro mthe contianer to ‘sustain’ itself, however, the central issue is that the info can remain in a sustaining mode without performing it’s designed functions, and in this sense, it exists independent of higher info in regards to it’s specific functions- The function of hte informaiton isn’t to sustain itself, but to respond to change via outside information input.

[CottShop]

[[And this is an excellent example of junk science (like ID) that is readily disproven by rigorous application of the scientific method. ]]

If you wish to be taken seriously in htis thread, you’ll refrain from childish ad hominem attacks that are detached from reality

[spunkets]

"You’re talking points irrelevent to the idea that BB was talking about info being able to exist indepenedent of outside physical actions acting upon it."

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.

[Filo]

If you wish to be taken seriously in htis thread, you’ll refrain from childish ad hominem attacks that are detached from reality

Look above to where I defined ad hominem. It's hard for me to worry about criticism from someone using terms they clearly don't understand.

Then again, it's hard to take anyone seriously when they think that ID is anything but utter garbage.

[editor-surveyor]

"It's hard for me to worry about criticism from someone using terms they clearly don't understand."

Now look in the mirror for the paragon of illustrations of that principle.

[CottShop]

[[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.