[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>>>>> 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 information "can only come from a mind", or the   
   >>> "conservation of information"?   
   >>   
   >> I find it self-evident that demonstrating that 1 bit comes from a   
   >> source other than a mind that is be sufficient to disconfirm the ID   
   >> assertion that information "can only come from a mind". ("conservation   
   >> of information" is not equivalent, and is not sufficient to conclude   
   >> design.)   
   >>   
   >   
   > You didn't consider my explanation below, i.e. why we need to think   
   > stochastically.   
   >   
   >>>   
   >>> Is the resolution akin to entropy: entropy could potentially increase   
   >>> spontaneously in a closed system with a very small number of (say)   
   >>> gas molecules with different velocities, such that the hotter ones   
   >>> randomly moved to one region and the colder ones to another. However,   
   >>> as the number of particles increases, the probability of this   
   >>> occurring decreases exponentially.   
   >>>   
   >>> Inference: macroevolution (a non-trivial increase in information) is   
   >>> like entropy decrease in a stochastic ensemble (e.g. a spontaneous   
   >>> non- trivial temperature gradient).   
   >>>   
   >>> The former is in an open system, but I'm not suggesting direct   
   >>> equivalence.   
   >>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> (AlphaFold broke the back of the protein folding problem, but in   
   >>>>>> that case one could appeal to import from environment as the   
   >>>>>> source of the information in the trained model.)   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)