[deleted]
Leaving aside whatever my theoretical point of view is: Is your position that "Symmetry breaking of less or no information leads to increased information?"
James
The World is Either Algorithmic or Mostly Random by Hector Zenil
Sure Robert. Thanks again.
Dear James,
What would be the metric here? I think it may be a tricky question. Take Bennett's logic depth and the obvious answer is that the complexity of the world (which you may want to match with 'amount of information') obviously increases, it couldn't be otherwise. But it all depends on the definition of information, if you are matching information with matter/energy my answer may or may not contradict thermodynamics (but note that the current theory of the universe also contradicts thermodynamics at the point where the physical laws we know does not longer apply). If it is Shannon information it may be misleading because Shannon's entropy inherits the caveats of probability (that is that one cannot talk about the information content of individual objects, nor meaning associated to information) but it may leave thermodynamics laws intact. While in algorithmic information one can define individual information content and characterize lack of meaning as random or trivial (i.e. as carrying very little or no information). In this case, I think information has evolved from an early state (when the universe was so dense that everything looked random) into the current more organized forms that we see today (e.g. it is almost certain that in the early universe there was no life, because it seems life requires a long computing period to emerge). So my first answer would be that the process of symmetry breaking actually creates but also also destroys information.
Concerning the typical definition of analog, I find your view interesting and I agree with you that there are certainly different ways to conceive an analog world. From general relativity (GR), for example, it is matter who has to cover a continuum (otherwise GR seems to collapse into classical mechanics) and as such even if one may not be able to divide matter the exercise is to think that relativity theory somehow implies that matter is infinitely divisible (a way to say that it cover a continuum). But if that wouldn't really be the case (that one can think of matter as infinitely divisible) I wonder whether this matter wouldn't actually be better described as being discrete. But if what you conceive to be continuum is an abstract conception of space as an indivisible entity that may be another legitimate definition of analog world.
And that is one of my points, the fact that one cannot even agree on what an analog world may be, while the digital view is basically crystal clear (in a digital world computational power is also well defined). You are right when saying that proving that something resembles to something else doesn't rule out other possibilities. Unfortunately (for the analog worldview supporters I think) we have been incredibly successful modeling the world with digital approaches, while we don't seem to be sure how to really tackle the question or even compare our world to whatever an analog world may mean. My argument is why would someone believe that something is what doesn't look to be rather that what it looks to be. And when I say 'look' I mean something more than only the semantic of the word, because I try to scientifically quantify how much the world looks like an algorithmic (digital) one, and the methodology is described in the essay with references to some of my papers.
Thanks.
[deleted]
Nikman,
I just want to add something to Hector's point that just because we don't have an algorithm for protein folding, doesn't mean that such an algorithm is impossible.
My personal opinion is that for all structures whose final state is certain (whether a folded protein or e.g. a completed jigsaw puzzle) a polynomial time -- and even strongly polynomial time -- solution is either a function of algorithmic complexity or the result of a random process, exactly as Hector has it. It seems unlikely that the protein folding process is random -- for the reason that a wrongly folded protein causes disease. Given the robustness of nature as a whole, a random folding to the left instead of the right should not make a difference to the system. However, since the system _is_ senstively dependent on the correct configuration, one reasons that the subsystem in turn depends on information feedback from the system. Complex systems research is a very exciting and relatively new discipline; I for one am hopeful that Hector's research gets the professional attention it deserves.
Tom
[deleted]
Hi Tom,
I am preparing a response to Hector's very helpful reply. I will respond to your remark:
"My personal opinion is that for all structures whose final state is certain (whether a folded protein or e.g. a completed jigsaw puzzle) a polynomial time -- and even strongly polynomial time -- solution is either a function of algorithmic complexity or the result of a random process, exactly as Hector has it."
We have opposite views. What I need to know from you is how you explain anything random being a process? What is it that you think random means? Better yet, please let me know how random even has meaning? What is random to you?
James
[deleted]
spherical universal biological turing machine the word of the day.
[deleted]
James,
I don't try to explain it, because I don't have to. There is simply no way _in principle_ that one can distinguish process from reality. We know that a process isn't random when it is algorithmically compressible. Everything else is pseudo-random (even "random" number generators). If the universe is its own algorithm (and it may be)that would be the meaning of "randomness," an algorithmically incompressible process. Because we know that some processes are algorithmic, however, we cannot say that the world is random -- we can only say, as Hector has brilliantly titled his essay, that _either_ the world is algorithmic or it is mostly random.
In any case, science is a rationalist enterprise that is indifferent to personal beliefs. One doesn't assign meaning; meaning is determined in results interpreted by theory.
Tom
[deleted]
Tom,
You can knock off that 'personal beliefs' criticism so long as you hold onto personal beliefs.
"I don't try to explain it, because I don't have to. There is simply no way _in principle_ that one can distinguish process from reality. We know that a process isn't random when it is algorithmically compressible. Everything else is pseudo-random (even "random" number generators). If the universe is its own algorithm (and it may be)that would be the meaning of "randomness," an algorithmically incompressible process. Because we know that some processes are algorithmic, however, we cannot say that the world is random -- we can only say, as Hector has brilliantly titled his essay, that _either_ the world is algorithmic or it is mostly random."
You either explain it or you do not have it. Yes process is reality. We know that process isn't random when we observe meaningful effects. If any process was random we wouldn't even recognize the problem. The reaons is that randomness can only mean meaninglessness. We can say that the world is definitely not random in any way because it continues to make sense. It is orderly. Orderliness results from meaningful control. There is no other kind of order, except in the purely imaginative theories of ideologues, I will respond to Hector separately.
James
[deleted]
James,
YOUR reality is orderly because you believe it to be. Nature is indifferent to your beliefs -- there's a bigger world that doesn't fit into your personal reality. Not because I believe it. But because it's demonstrably so.
Tom
[deleted]
tom,
"YOUR reality is orderly because you believe it to be. Nature is indifferent to your beliefs -- there's a bigger world that doesn't fit into your personal reality. Not because I believe it. But because it's demonstrably so."
Then explain how that is demonstrated; but, please do not include your personal beliefs. By the way, it is obvious that my reality is orderly because you and I are debating about it.
James
[deleted]
Dr. Crowell,
The universe cannot just 'be':
"The universe as a grand computer or quantum computer executes various algorithms, which are quantum bit processors for interacting fields. All of these need to be computable, and have a finite data stack for a standard scattering experiment. So there must be some sort of selection process, a sort of quantum Darwinism, ..."
It needs a power supply and it needs to be programmed.
James
[deleted]
James,
The "debate" is all in your mind. If you actually read Hector's essay, it should be clear to you how order emerges from random events.
Tom
[deleted]
Tom,
No! Either he or you explains "how order emerges from random events." without pretending that saying so makes it so. I asked you what do you understand by the meaning of random? If random has a meaning the it is: No meaning!
James
[deleted]
Again, James, it is you who assigns meaning. Not science.
Tom
[deleted]
Tom,
No! All effects include meaning. Your point, that I don't understand meaning; I understand that meaning has nothing to do with meaninglessness, in other words, mechanical ideology. Please disprove me by explaining where meaning comes from? I assume that you are not going to teach me that meaning comes from meaningless?
James
[deleted]
To Anyone Else,
If you are looking in on this conversation please understand that I do not get put off by graffitti. Either give scientific explanations or leave it alone.
James
[deleted]
It's clear that when you assign whatever meaning to phenomena that you please, no one can teach you anything.
[deleted]
Tom or anyone else,
Please give the starting point for existence. Is that starting point mechanical, meaning totally dumb, or what?
James
[deleted]
Tom,
"It's clear that when you assign whatever meaning to phenomena that you please, no one can teach you anything."
No!!! You enterred the arena by your choice now give the empirical evidence for meaning arising from lack of meaning. If there was no lack of meaning, then explain that?
James
[deleted]
Perhaps there is misunderstanding. Let us find out. For me analog means continuity with no exception. Whereas digital means separation among parts. I see no parts and no separation except in degree of effects and our ability to measure effects. All empirical evidence consists of measurements. Those measurements are always about imperfect measurements of changes of velocity of objects. We either go beyond that point of understanding or we accept dumbness as the guiding principle of the operation of the universe. If dumbness rules, then, we will not know it; because, dumbness never even could have gotten started being undumb.
James