Eric Holloway: Algorithmic Specified Complexity

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

First off, @EricMH, thank you for participating in this exchange.

It was illuminating. I’m going to trying and articulate some of our main points of common ground here, and summarize where this stands. I’ll then close the thread. If you would to make any final comments, I will reopen for you. This has been a productive exchange though, and I look forward to the next one.

---

@EricMH

@EricMH, have you, Marks or anyone else in ID published any information theory grounded papers that solve real problems in biology? For comparison, almost every paper on my CV engages information theory as an engine for discovery. So I know this is certainly possible.

No, I do not believe so, and I agree this is a major problem. One could say it is because of persecution of pro-ID researchers in academia, which is certainly part of the issue. But, I think there has been too much focus on polemics and not enough focus on the science part.

@EricMH this is an important point of agreement between us. It is refreshing to see this honestly, which I’ve also observed from @Winston_Ewert and @pnelson. Thank you.

@EricMH

The issue is you seem to repeatedly equate “lack of application” = “theory in error”.

I think you are misunderstanding this. I am not criticizing it because it is not useful. I’m finding their to be theoretical errors, that can best explain as a result proofs being offered by people with little practical experience in this area. The real problem is the theoretical errors, which I can demonstrate wrong with simulation more effectively than arguing with symbols. Perhaps I am wrong on this, but the issue is not lack of application, but errors in the theory that I can demonstrate with simulation.

As one example, it appears Marks misunderstood that ASC must always be less than CSI. This turns out to be true if and only if we have a valid P function. As you say here, and then I summarize:

@EricMH

If you properly formulate P based on all possible chance and necessity causes, then yes, X with high ASC would give high probability something other than chance and necessity created X.

@swamidass

ASC (i.e. OASC) is guaranteed to be less than CSI, provided the implementation uses the correct P. If the wrong P is used, then ASC might be higher than CSI.

I should emphasize that this standard is not achievable in practice. Not a single ID computation of information in biology uses a valid P by this standard. Remember:

1. We do not know all natural causes, and we expect to find new causes.
2. Even for those we do know, we do not know how they interact to produce a P.
3. For those we do know, most need more information than is within a DNA sequence to accurately compute P.

Notice that all these factors collaborate to increase ASC:

1. An unaccounted natural cause that orders the data will make P invalid.
2. Inability to accurately model how different causes interact will make P invalid.
3. Ignoring critical information for computing P will make P invalid too.

For those three reasons, we can be certain that observed ASC may be wildly higher than CSI. Essentially our ignorance or inability to implement P is the most likely reason for high ASC, not CSI. None of this appears to dampen Marks enthusiasm that ASC is an empirical way of detecting CSI.

@EricMH

• Part of it is that ID theory has actually already been applied to a great degree, but not recognized as such, and independently from the ID movement. So, the real problem is that ID is too correct, such that it is already applied, and the practically implications are already well understood and considered to be obvious and uninteresting.

I disagree with the entirely. No one has a problem with information theory. The problem is how you apply it. There are major errors in how you are applying the theory to practice.

@EricMH

The other part is ID can provide new insights, but those are harder to come by, and due to a combination of 1 and a commitment to materialism, progress in these new areas comes much more slowly. However, this is the most interesting area to me, and why Jonathan Bartlett and I published “Naturalism and Its Alternatives in Scientific Methodologies ” and why I participate in Dr. Marks’ Mind Matters .

That might be true, but there is not usually a positive case being made. The ASC argument reduces to: “if we detect a pattern in data that we cannot adequately model, then assume it is intelligence.” That is a strange argument. As I said too, I can demonstrate we can construct a valid ASC that is always zero.

I’m glad to see some positive attempts being made recently by @Winston_Ewert. That is good news. We will treat him fairly. Understanding what is going on in the unexplained part of the data is difficult. It does take time, and it sounds like ID is just now starting to think about things this way. It is too bad it has been undervalued for so long. I find it puzzling also that none of the big names in the movement are engaged in this. It seems that this is not their priority. Why?

@EricMH

A final point that drives my interest is the ethical implications of ID and the investigation of intelligence. If we reduce to matter, as computer scientists assume, then this is an ethical solvent, humans have no value, and that’s why the scientific revolution has gone hand in hand with horrible atrocities. But, it is not merely a soft hearted matter of trying to save people. The psychopathic ubermensch would consider such motivations as irrelevant.

Nothing in evolution implies this. I just don’t understand what you are getting at here. Same goes for following paragraphs. This is not sensible. Nothing in science demonstrates that humans are reducible to matter. What exactly are you arguing against?

@EricMH

So, in a nutshell, information theory tells us that because I wrote this post, we can know God exists and humans have immortal, immaterial souls.

In a nutshell, that is the crux of the problem. This, to me, is equivalent to claiming that because 1+1=3, we can know God exists and that we have souls. I believe the latter, but dispute the former.

But isn’t it clear from what I said how the conclusion follows from the premises? It’s a pretty simple argument:

1. We can mathematically prove mutual information cannot be generated by determinism + randomness.
2. All natural processes consist of determinism + randomness.
3. Therefore, natural processes cannot produce mutual information.
4. Mutual information exists.
5. Therefore, something beyond determinism + randomness must exist.

It is a short step from 5 to get to the immaterial soul and the existence of God.

Recall, we demonstrated that #1 was false in our last exchange, for exactly the same reason. There is gap between theory and practice.

What I want to do next is show some examples of evolutionary algorithms that can design things without intelligence. They will not smuggle a target sequence into the simulation. They will not cheat. The will however show that a mindless process can produce mutual information. This does not violate the abstract level theory that determinism + randomness cannot increase mutation information. Rather it shows how this abstract proof based on unknowable quantities has not practical importance in the conversation about biology.

That conversation, however, is for another day. I appreciate a great deal your willingness to participate in this conversation. I’m looking forward to the next one.