[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>> supernatural as a matter of principle. Passing over the slippery   
   >>> nature of what counts as supernatural, I disagree. The actual   
   >>> restriction is to phenomena which behave, at least statistically, in   
   >>> a regular way, or to put it simply science assumes that "evidence   
   >>> means something", i.e. empirical observation is an epistemologically   
   >>> valid source of knowledge.   
   >>> Occasionalism is the position that there are no natural processes;   
   >>> instead God does everything. Progressive creationism can grade into   
   >>> occasionalist evolutionism, but God, episodically or steadily,   
   >>> magicking new species into existence is not occasionalist.   
   >>>   
   >>> Philosophical naturalism is the position that nothing is   
   >>> supernatural; occasionalism is the position that everything is   
   >>> supernatural. Most religious views lie somewhere between those two   
   >>> extremes.   
   >>   
   >> Most Christian views require at times irregularity (occasional   
   >> occasionalism?), however they not antithetical to the pursuit of   
   >> science. As I've said here before, identifying and demonstrating that   
   >> boundary would be where science itself points to a creator. bmmmm   
   >   
   > I believe that the usual phrasing would be "an interventionist god".   
   >   
   > Did you intend to claim that the stochastic nature of radioactive decay   
   > is points to a creator?   
      
   No. But the minimal necessary complexity of a sustainable,   
   self-replicating entity, yes.   
      
   >   
   > Your first problem is distinguishing unrecognised regularity from   
   > irregularity. Your second problem is in leaping from irregularity to   
   > creator. An unknown is not necessarily supernatural, and the   
   > supernatural is not necessarily a creator god. Your third problem is   
   > that this looks like an appeal to "the God of the gaps".   
      
   Agreed, these are all problems/challenges, and should be acknowledged   
   and considered.   
      
   >>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> The nature and measurement of information seems slippery. As you   
   >>>> mention, is it Kolmogorov complexity or Darwkin's "incomplete record   
   >>>> of the historical environment", or something else?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> ID posits a lawlike conservation of information, which I find   
   >>>> intuitively appealing, but Dembski's efforts to formally define this   
   >>>> have yet to land it seems.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> My intuition goes the other way. Hardware random number generators   
   >>> create information out of "nothing".   
   >>   
   >> But not information that is specified (as in CSI), which is the   
   >> critical distinction, and why Dembski and others give this so much   
   >> attention.   
   >   
   > That's a substantial retreat from conservation of information.   
      
   I'm not unreasonably unwilling to give a few yards.   
      
   >   
   > It seems to me that by claiming the genomes contain complex *specified*   
   > information you're assuming what you're trying to prove.   
      
   Genes are typically hundreds units long (i.e. complex) and code for   
   functional proteins among a vast majority of nonfunctional combinations   
   (i.e. specified). So no question-begging there.   
      
   As for the non-coding regions of the genome, that raises questions of   
   the functional proportion and degree of specificity.   
      
   >   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> If the laws of physics are invariant with respect to time-reversal   
   >>> then information (in some senses) is conserved. But while T-violation   
   >>> has not been observed, physicists believe that the laws of physics   
   >>> are CPT- invariant, and as CP-violation has been observed this   
   >>> implies that T- violation also occurs. There is also the black-hole   
   >>> information paradox, wherein black holes appear not to conserve   
   >>> information.   
   >>>   
   >>> Creationists have been known to argue that evolution is impossible   
   >>> because of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, ignoring that the law does   
   >>> not preclude local decreases in entropy. (If the creationist 2LOT was   
   >>> true, life would also be impossible.) Similarly, even if an analogous   
   >>> law of information existed it would not preclude evolution (and   
   >>> life); just as life (and evolution) exports entropy into the   
   >>> environment, they could import information from the environment.   
   >>> Dembski et al could retreat to the question of the ultimate source of   
   >>> the information, but that is just the cosmological argument redux,   
   >>> and not an argument against the factuality of evolution.   
   >>>   
   >>> For an analogy, consider the connectome - the set of connections   
   >>> between neurons. In the same was as DNA this can been seen as   
   >>> containing information. In most animals (C. elegans is an exception)   
   >>> this is not fully defined by the genome. So a proportion of the   
   >>> information in the connectome must be imported from the environment   
   >>> (whether sensory inputs or biochemical noise).   
   >>>   
   >>> Turning again to the question of conservation of information.   
   >>> AlphaZero, starting with nothing more than the rules, bootstrapped   
   >>> itself to superhuman levels of play in, inter alia, Go and chess. Did   
   >>> that process increase information? In that case where did the   
   >>> information come from?   
   >>   
   >> As I’ve mentioned on t.o before, in the past I worked as an engineer   
   >> programming Field programmable Gate Arrays (FPGAs). At the time, I   
   >> read an article which utilised a genetic algorithm to develop an FPGA   
   >> circuit for a clocked counter of some sort. It turned out to be a very   
   >> efficient solution, but humanly incomprehensible because it appeared   
   >> to utilise parasitic capacitances or some other secondary analogue   
   >> effect. The device used was programmed with a 2kbit configuration   
   >> file, and so it appeared that 2,000 bits of information (presumably   
   >> qualifying as complex specific information) had been created de novo   
   >> by an evolutionary process. I wrote to William Dembski at the time,   
   >> who responded with an interest in investigating the example further,   
   >> but offered an initial assessment that information had been “smuggled   
   >> in” to the system by an intelligent designer (i.e. the creators of the   
   >> experimental set up).   
   >>   
   >> My point being (without claiming anything definitive) the information   
   >> may be from sources such as the intelligent system/algorithm   
   >> designers, or from a brute force search of the entire soluition space   
   >> (or enough of it to outperform humans).   
   >   
   > The whole point of using genetic algorithms is that, in suitable   
   > domains, they greatly outperform brute force searches. They are   
   > vulnerable to hanging up on local maxima, but this can be in part   
   > addressed by annealing.   
   >   
   > I find the "smuggled information" response underwhelming. If a genetic   
   > algorithm can import information from an "artificial" environment set up   
   > by human experimenters then why can't it import information from a   
   > "natural" environment? At which point you're back at the cosmological   
   > argument again.   
      
   In this case the device was programmed with (as I recall) 2 kilobits of   
   data, starting with a random sequence and ending with the refined   
   sequence. That is, it appears that a quantifiable amount of information   
   has been created.   
      
   Hence my question to Dembski. I understand your underwhelm. It does seem   
   to warrant further study and explanation.   
      
   One way to look at this would be to ask, can RM+NS potentially produce   
   say just 2 bits of information (e.g. a single advantageous point   
   mutation)? Regardless of one's overall position, I think you'd have to   
   concede that it could, even if you dismissed it as trivial. What about 4   
   bits? 8 bits? At what point would we discomfirm the ID assertion that   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)