Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2018 - 10:49am PT
|
DMT wrote.
Is there information in purely physical processes? Example of my question: how do atoms know how to arrange themselves into molecules? It appears that not all atoms can arrange themselves into all molecules, in fact only very specific atoms can arrange themselves into certain molecules. There appears to be rules governing those arrangements.
Who looks after those rules? Who's interpretation is it?
Do the atoms, and in fact the very fabric of those atoms, contain both the rules and the interpretation of those rules?
Or is it the backdrop of the universe, this reality we inhabit, that contains the rules by which the language of matter is interpreted and arranged?
Good question, but more to the point for life on earth are the local rules dictated by the DNA molecule. Those rules are actually pretty simple; Any nucleotide can substitute for any other in the chain but, for the cross-links, A must go with T and C with G. With these simple rules, the DNA molecule stores information. It is both physical and information-storing.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2018 - 11:34am PT
|
With these simple rules, the DNA molecule stores information. It is both physical and information-storing.
It's either not information or it's not purely physical. You can't have it both ways.
The "mystery of life" just is the "mystery of information." And your options are two:
1) We call determined, physical structures and processes "information." (BTW, genuine randomness is NO help to you here; it's the opposite of what you need.)
2) We recognize the genuine information implies intentionality (that does not exist apart from life), independent processing, and rules that cannot exist IN the information itself.
If you go the route of (1), then you suddenly find yourself unable to distinguish between intention-based, genuine information and the "physical processes" that just happen, as my "HELP" example above demonstrates.
If you go the route of (2), you have to explain the locus of the "processor" and the "rules," which are not, as you blithely assert, IN the "information" itself, as my SSL cert example demonstrates.
Evolutionary thinkers necessarily conflate (1) and (2), but they are totally distinct senses of "information." You can't smuggle in all the benefits of (2) while insisting that (1) is really, really the case.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2018 - 11:50am PT
|
I started to add this as an edit to my last post, but it is actually quite appropriate with respect to your last post.
The properties of the DNA molecule are only part of the evolution equation, of course. The other two parts, IMO, are:
1. Parents procreating to make children, and
2. The two primary selection pressures of
- differential survival (roughly, "natural" selection)
- differential fecundity (roughly, sexual selection)
These are what give the system intentionality.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2018 - 12:33pm PT
|
These are what give the system intentionality.
You are smuggling in intentionality.
First, parental intentionality has nothing whatsoever to do with the information-relevant intentionality you presuppose at the level of DNA. Just because parents say, "We intend to get it on," does not even relate to the informational intentionality you need to account for in DNA.
Second, parental (human) intentionality itself needs an explanation in terms of purely physical processes; that explanation would need to emerge from an explanation of the intentionality in the information of DNA rather than act as an explanation of the information in DNA.
"Natural selection" doesn't have intentionality AT ALL. That is core evolutionary doctrine! Give up that doctrine, and you are then doing something like (at least) Lamarckism and at worst some sort of deism/theism.
So, you are smuggling in an intentionality that remains entirely unaccounted for.
|
|
nafod
Boulder climber
State college
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2018 - 12:36pm PT
|
Please tell me the meaning of the following string of characters:
T9OYDLuNBSqpCdQzWMsUtD97ypkj1/DfRoQ9LoVZq+bZ6up9DU1IZS34trGQxlo
YSScnGyKngmD5TEGY4r1pBRDpAtFDoTyM5izfnZpET2gPa2lGCkM3paQhRmkdyA
sXwWfq7APEp43FWRlot3F6v/uyL223ucDLLcQJzJ56YBiobfT4cAg7yRUXVNu+h
mwfB2tnGkxWxMbRU+RxVh/XYAMDBsqpaiBnFheduMYY/9hm/8mpZlbm87bo5mBDBkbR If you tell me the probability distribution this measurement came from, I can tell you the amount of information it carried.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2018 - 01:07pm PT
|
^^^ It's an SSL cert. You tell me.
And, BTW, that definition of "information" is so barren that it really fails to explicate in the relevant senses.
See, this is a core problem with discussions of this nature: Definitions are moving targets, and evolutionists change them up to suit their desired purpose at the moment.
Another example is "species." There are at least four widely used definitions, and evolutionists conflate and switch around these definitions as desired.
What robust evolutionary theory needs to account for is reproductive isolation, and I mean genuine isolation (infertile or no offspring resulting from inter-species mating) rather than "just don't tend to get it on." Reproductive isolation between disparate "sorts" of creatures is everywhere we look. Yet, somehow these all emerged from one initial organism. So, how did the "uninterrupted chain of life" get all broken out into these entirely disparate "chunks"?
But, to "account" for what we observe, evolutionists mix and match between ecological speciation, taxonomic/morphological speciation, phylogenetic speciation, and biological speciation. Only the last concerns genuine speciation in the sense that evolutionary theory needs to account for: reproductive isolation.
But when people tout evidences of "evolution happening all around us," they refer to taxonomic or ecological speciation for Darwin's Finches, phylogenetic speciation for bacteria, taxonomic speciation for fruit flies and Peppered Moths, and so on.
They refer to ring speciation as the shining example of genuine biological speciation (reproductive isolation), but there is actually no example of ring speciation that the research scientists touting this or that example didn't themselves later repudiate. In fact, we have exactly zero examples of genuine reproductive isolation occurring "before our very eyes" or even within the time frame we've been studying it.
So, biologists refer to paleontologists as the keepers of the evidence, but fossils necessarily reveal only morphological variation. However, we see LOTS of that around. For example, in the "feline family." But note that "cats" contains dozens and dozens of "species." However, that taxonomic categorization of "species" is based upon vast morphological differences rather than reproductive isolation, because we have learned that all known "species" of cats can interbreed, even though many of them "just don't happen to do so" in most conditions.
Reproductive isolation is what evolutionary theory needs to account for, but the "evidences" it touts are not about THAT, and "speciation" is a moving target.
Same with "information." There are many definitions, and you've got to stick with the one that is relevant to the principles/parameters under discussion.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado & Nepal
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2018 - 01:48pm PT
|
Speaking of which, I misunderstood what you were saying about microprogramming for language. i thought you were referring to Chomsky's theory of transformational generative grammar which was developed with English (and to a lesser extent all Indo-European languages as the model).
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2018 - 02:16pm PT
|
^^^ Thanks, Jan.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2018 - 07:33pm PT
|
many things are "moving targets"
because we are learning, expanding our knowledge.
species in the Darwinian sense has been problematic almost from the very beginning.
the fossil record, amazingly, does provide genetic material (though not back millions of years)
and the relationship between morphology and genetics is a work in progress, though the deep time fossil record will necessarily be morphological
I don't see evolution, in the modern sense, threatened by any of this, indeed, I believe it is greatly strengthened by it. Evolution is an essential insight into how life today came from life before, it is used to redefine clades, (where morphology was the dominate method of categorization previously).
A tremendous number of insights come from considering the evolution of genetic material.
In some ways you can view life on Earth as a 4.1 billion year chemical reaction (even though Jan objects to this characterization).
The chemical reaction is the genetic material interacting with the environment.
If you are looking for a propositional basis of "true" and "false" in an absolute sense, you are going to be disappointed by science, as the propositions change, the definition of the terms in the propositions change, and the degree of "trueness" and "falseness" seems to be less digital than you might want.
Of course, you are entirely free to choose not to participate in science that you find "objectionable" by eschewing any medical treatment that results from these same scientific insights.
Interestingly, the "propositional" basis may be a consequence of the dynamics of the universe, to wit, mathematics (and logic) comes from the physical universe and its properties. These are ideas that originate in thinking about a pre-geometric description.
What if propositional systems aren't "privileged" as some assume they are?
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2018 - 08:00pm PT
|
you can view life on Earth as a 4.1 billion year chemical reaction
An awe-inspiring perspective. Chemical reactions take place on time and size scales we have no direct experience of.
When it comes to difficult questions, consider what happens during a so-called chemical reaction. Two atoms or molecules collide and, let us say, join. Can we say when and how the transition occurs? In some sense we cannot:
Because of the rules of quantum mechanics, the transition state cannot be captured or directly observed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transition_state
Largo only wishfully says the same for subjective experience.
When we discuss change on this thread, let's not underestimate the strangeness of simple(?) chemical reactions.
But they happen.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2018 - 08:22pm PT
|
Can we say when and how the transition occurs?
I think the answer to this may very well be that it is not a physically meaningful question to ask.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2018 - 08:48pm PT
|
Of course, you are entirely free to choose not to participate in science that you find "objectionable" by eschewing any medical treatment that results from these same scientific insights.
There is better science and worse science. Evolutionary theory is in the latter camp. Because of how it "changes" (as you euphemistically say), "perpetually moves the target and fudges definitions" (as I realistically say), it is little better than astrology.
And chemical reactions over even billions of years don't amount to genuine information nor intentionality. We observe both, yet the evolutionary model fails to account for it if speculation and wishful thinking are abandoned, as they are in better science.
Nothing you've said gives the slightest account of or evidence for the idea that some original organism could be, by any known process, the basis of the wildly varied "chunking" we see today.
At present, there is no solid empirical evidence for genuine speciation. There is only wishful extrapolation based on fudging crucial definitions. And the same problem exists regarding mind and intentionality.
Finally, proponents of the (hopeful) idea that "chemical reactions" somehow produced life are not recognizing the real problem of information. There is a profound chicken/egg problem in DNA, RNA, or even any "information" that might exist in amino acids.
I'm totally on board with the idea that someday science might come up with better answers to these questions than we have at present. But at present, there are excellent reasons to be dubious. And philosophers have further excellent reasons to believe that on some of these questions science is incapable in principle of providing answers.
Have a great night, all.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2018 - 08:52pm PT
|
...it is little better than astrology.
no, that would be a very poor conclusion.
Information itself is an interesting idea, and one that is fraught with human bias freight. There is a lot of recent physics that starts to cull that apart from what might be considered physical.
At present, there is no solid empirical evidence for genuine speciation. There is only wishful extrapolation based on fudging crucial definitions.
except that evolution is consistent with the fossil record,
except that evolution predicted genetic material,
except that evolution predicted the age of the Earth.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2018 - 08:56pm PT
|
A tremendous number of insights come from considering the evolution of genetic material.
Ah, one last point on this one.
If "evolution" just means "change" or even "adaptation," then I know of nobody denying it!
But what "evolution" means in the contentious sense is something like, "change/adaptation that is unlimited in scope, such that genetic change can produce brand new 'kinds' of organisms that are reproductively isolated from the 'parent' species," well, THAT is highly contentious and is not supported by the evidence we actually do have.
That's why when I'm asked if I'm an "evolution denier," I say, "Well, that depends on what you mean by the term."
Whether you use the term "species" or not is pretty much irrelevant, as long as you keep the focus firmly on reproductive isolation. What we don't have evidence of is the "evolution of species" in that sense. But that's the only sense in which "evolution" is even debatable.
Now, good night all.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2018 - 08:57pm PT
|
you already said good night, but you can't help yourself... can you
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2018 - 09:03pm PT
|
except that evolution is consistent with the fossil record.
Actually, there are countless reasons why evolution is NOT consistent with the fossil record, not the least of which is that the fossil record is "chunked" from the "lowest" strata to the "highest."
What you do NOT see in the fossil record is what evolution predicts: A slow, systematic morphological change from single-celled organisms through multi-celled organisms on to small, simple creatures, on to more complex creatures, etc., to the present.
Instead, you see amazing complexity from the start. You see "chunking" from the beginning. You see long periods of no change followed by spurts of change so rapid that entire books have been written and theories composed trying to explain away the problem that this fact illuminates.
It is an amazing oversimplification to say that the fossil record is anything even approaching a neat, clean verification of evolutionary theory. The fossil record is HIGHLY and entirely interpreted "evidence," and people tend to see exactly what they are looking for there. But that is NOT science. That IS exactly what astrology is.
Now I really am going. Maybe I'll have time to respond more tomorrow.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2018 - 09:03pm PT
|
re: "what happens during a so-called chemical reaction. Two atoms or molecules collide and, let us say, join."
(1) Can we say when and how the transition occurs?
(2) I think the answer to this may very well be that it is not a physically meaningful question to ask.
What a strange commentary. From our resident scientists, no less. (Aside, is it any wonder the public's so confused these days along w so much of this thread? Rhetorical question.)
The very term of art "mechanism of action" originates in chemistry, most notably organic chemistry. Then it's further utilized in biochemistry and molecular biology.
It's fair to say the bulk of these sciences (or subsciences) is the study of MOA after MOA after MOA after MOA. Times hundred or times thousand. And the meat and potatoes of MOA study is "when and how the transition occurs."
Take any test in organic chemistry, first semester, second semester, third semester, etc etc and virtually every question problem on the test requires the student to describe step by step, structure by structure, stereobolically, the "when and how of the transition" from reactant to product.
I believe Moose knows something about MOAs.
https://www.amazon.com/Organic-chemistry-Sixth-Morrison-Boyd-ebook/dp/B07B8PW5BY/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1529640239&sr=8-2&keywords=morrison+and+boyd+organic+chemistry+6th+edition&dpID=41fhQx4FODL&preST=_SY445_QL70_&dpSrc=srch
Beta: start here: alkane alkene alkyne chemistry (ch 1, ch 2, ch3!). Basic as you can get. It's all about stereochemistry and transition states. It's the basis of the entire epistemology.
Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-radical_halogenation (one of hundreds)
Some folks spend decades in these structures and transition steps and MOAs. Imagine what they know. Imagine their mental libraries. Imagine their intuitive grasp of all this chemistry.
I had the opportunity to learn these subjects in classes from no less than three nobel prize winners. You guys?
Perhaps the most remarkable thing of all that is grasped/internalized across several years of study/investigation in these subjects/sciences is that indeed structure and transition states and mechanisms of action exist in the first place and that they run true on such a nano or pico scale. Truly a mind-bending phenomenon to consider.
But of course without the input, the due diligence and "heavy lifting" all this naturally enough goes rather unnoticed and underappreciated.** But - as with climbers and aging - what can you do? (Rhetorical question.)
**by the bulk of H. sapiens, let alone internalized into their belief systems for better living (even though this is now the 21st century, supposedly the information age, and all this "epistemology" is accessible).
...
Hey, sorry, I forgot. "We're just talking here." (Shootin the sh#t, ala WB-esque.)
Be well.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2018 - 09:49pm PT
|
Ed: I think the answer to this may very well be that it is not a physically meaningful question to ask.
Ha-ha.
YES!
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2018 - 10:02pm PT
|
Just for you, my favorite "postmodern" "sympathizer"...
[Click to View YouTube Video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HgzsltWwK8
Extra Credit: Note the commentaries here. Despite the mass confusion, the science illiteracy, the postmodernist bs, the anti-science, anti-reason, anti-progress stances/outlooks seemingly everywhere - in public, on these climbing threads, in social media, in our sociopolitics - these expert knowledge systems (here in chemistry) are getting out there, they are getting accessed and internalized - at least by those (mostly young people?) with the interest for it. Just check out these commentaries and how excited and thankful the commenters are. Quite a breath of fresh air compared to many a post here, eh? So while there's life there's hope.
Meanwhile... Civilization builds.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!