Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Robert Marks of the Evo Info Lab on “Information — what is it?”

kairosfocus
June 29, 2013
Intelligent Design
1
Categories
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

As promised earlier today, here is the vid of Dr Marks on Information and search success:

This clip will be especially revealing:

whats_info_clip

So also will be this:

where_did_info_arise

And now, the challenge is on the table — where are ever so many celebrated algorithms bringing info in to the search problem? (Hint: algorithms as a rule are designed.)  END

Comments
WJ: I have been remiss. S4S implies an incremental scan of the power set of a set -- its set of subsets. Cardinality of a power set for a set with n members is p = 2^n. Where of course the match between spaces and possible search algorithms becomes a real headache. Some searches will even be anti-searches. Substituting a blind search in the power set is not going to be a better answer, period. KFkairosfocus
August 8, 2013
August
08
Aug
8
08
2013
01:52 AM
1
01
52
AM
PDT
What I also find interesting is how the search for a search that can find the target is at least as difficult a search as the search itself - targetting a search that can target the information. If that is true, one wonders how difficult it would be to find a search process that can produce virtually unlimited amounts of information as humans can apparently do. Any of us can trivially throw out immense strings of specified information (as text) beyond the beyond search capacity of billions of universes, and yet finding just such a search mechanism (as if Darwinism was ever up to the task) is at least as hard as the search itself. That capacity in itself, it seems to me, directly implies that humans have access to a non-physical, unlimited source of information, and have a spectacularly unlikely means of instantiating it into the physical world as thought, text or spoken word.William J Murray
June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT
BA77: The intuitive insights of geniuses are proverbial, and the same Tesla would build a new AC machine in his head, run it there for two weeks then take it apart again and inspect the wear. That beats the IC engineers who used to lay out ICs in their heads in 3 d. KFkairosfocus
June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT
The following video is far more direct in establishing the 'spiritual' link to man's ability to learn new information, in that it shows that the SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test) scores for students showed a steady decline, for seventeen years from the top spot or near the top spot in the world, after the removal of prayer from the public classroom by the Supreme Court, not by public decree, in 1963. Whereas the SAT scores for private Christian schools have consistently remained at the top, or near the top, spot in the world:
The Real Reason American Education Has Slipped – David Barton – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4318930 United States Crime Rates 1960 - 2010 (Please note the skyrocketing crime rate from 1963, the year prayer was removed from school, thru 1980, the year the steep climb in crime rate finally leveled off.) of note: The slight decline in crime rate from the mid 90s until now is attributed in large part to tougher enforcement on minor crimes. (a nip it in the bud policy) http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm AMERICA: To Pray Or Not To Pray - David Barton - graphs corrected for population growth http://www.whatyouknowmightnotbeso.com/graphs.html Bruce Charlton's Miscellany - October 2011 Excerpt: I had discovered that over the same period of the twentieth century that the US had risen to scientific eminence it had undergone a significant Christian revival. ,,,The point I put to (Richard) Dawkins was that the USA was simultaneously by-far the most dominant scientific nation in the world (I knew this from various scientometic studies I was doing at the time) and by-far the most religious (Christian) nation in the world. How, I asked, could this be - if Christianity was culturally inimical to science? http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2011/10/meeting-richard-dawkins-and-his-wife.html
Of related note:
The History of Christian Education in America Excerpt: The first colleges in America were founded by Christians and approximately 106 out of the first 108 colleges were Christian colleges. In fact, Harvard University, which is considered today as one of the leading universities in America and the world was founded by Christians. One of the original precepts of the then Harvard College stated that students should be instructed in knowing God and that Christ is the only foundation of all "sound knowledge and learning." http://www.ehow.com/about_6544422_history-christian-education-america.html The Fallacy Of The Doctrine Of Separation of Church and State - video http://www.prageruniversity.com/History/The-Separation-of-Church-and-State.html
bornagain77
June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT
William J Murray, and you would have some rather impressive empirical support for that belief that there is a source for knowledge: Gifted people being able to instantaneously know answers to complex problems is also something that argues forcefully against the notion that our minds are merely the 'emergent' products of molecules in motion;
Electrical genius Nicola Tesla was born in Serbia in 1856,,, his father was a clergyman. Excerpt: While walking in Budapest Park, Hungary, Nikola Tesla had seen a vision of a functioning alternating current (AC) electric induction motor. This was one of the most revolutionary inventions in the entire history of the world. http://www.reformation.org/nikola-tesla.html
The boy in this following video rivals, or surpasses, Nikola Tesla as an example of innovative ideas coming fully formed to the mind without any need for trial and error:
Bluejay: The Mind of a Child Prodigy – video http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7186319n
At the 11:50 minute mark of this following video 21 year old world Chess champion Magnus Carlsen explains that he does not know how he knows his next move of Chess instantaneously, that ‘it just comes natural’ to him to know the answer instantaneouly.
Mozart of Chess: Magnus Carlsen – video http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7399370n&tag=contentMain;contentAux A chess prodigy explains how his mind works – video Excerpt: What’s the secret to Magnus’ magic? Once an opponent makes a move, Magnus instantaneously knows his own next move. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504803_162-57380913-10391709/a-chess-prodigy-explains-how-his-mind-works/?tag=segementExtraScroller;housing
This ability to 'instantaneously' know answers to complex problems has long been a very intriguing characteristic of some autistic savants;
Is Integer Arithmetic Fundamental to Mental Processing?: The mind's secret arithmetic Excerpt: Because normal children struggle to learn multiplication and division, it is surprising that some savants perform integer arithmetic calculations mentally at "lightning" speeds (Treffert 1989, Myers 1903, Hill 1978, Smith 1983, Sacks 1985, Hermelin and O'Connor 1990, Welling 1994, Sullivan 1992). They do so unconsciously, without any apparent training, typically without being able to report on their methods, and often at an age when the normal child is struggling with elementary arithmetic concepts (O'Connor 1989). Examples include multiplying, factoring, dividing and identifying primes of six (and more) digits in a matter of seconds as well as specifying the number of objects (more than one hundred) at a glance. For example, one savant (Hill 1978) could give the cube root of a six figure number in 5 seconds and he could double 8,388,628 twenty four times to obtain 140,737,488,355,328 in several seconds. Joseph (Sullivan 1992), the inspiration for the film "Rain Man" about an autistic savant, could spontaneously answer "what number times what number gives 1234567890" by stating "9 times 137,174,210". Sacks (1985) observed autistic twins who could exchange prime numbers in excess of eight figures, possibly even 20 figures, and who could "see" the number of many objects at a glance. When a box of 111 matches fell to the floor the twins cried out 111 and 37, 37, 37. http://www.centreforthemind.com/publications/integerarithmetic.cfm
Quotes of note:
I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by men who were inspired. I study the Bible daily…. All my discoveries have been made in an answer to prayer. Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727), considered by many to be the greatest scientist of all time Inventor - George Washington Carver Excerpt: "God gave them to me" he (Carver) would say about his ideas, "How can I sell them to someone else?" Christianity Gave Birth To Science - Dr. Henry Fritz Schaefer - video http://vimeo.com/16523153
The following video gives deep insight into how serious the problem of 'knowledge acquisition' is to the worldview of atheistic materialism:
Kurt Godel - Incompleteness Theorem and Human Intuition - video (notes in description of video) http://www.metacafe.com/watch/8516356/
bornagain77
June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT
I wouldn't so much say that humans create information as say that humans are a conduit through which information can enter this universe that otherwise wouldn't be here. IMO, humans draw information from an unlimited source and instantiate it into physical representation here.William J Murray
June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT
So we as humans are creating information? What if you could design a computer program so that it could create intelligence. And that intelligence started creating. Is it only at that moment that information is being created from within the program?ForJah
June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT
FJ: I have been too busy to monitor this, forgive that. I will say that you start with an assumption that is deeply questionable, so the problem is the assumption not its implications. Every worldview must stand on its own bottom and any worldview that implies that like the matrix the world we live in is a grand delusion, decisively undercuts its own self, as it undermines trust in our minds, senses and consciousness. Such can be ruled out as not credible absent direct evidence which by their very nature they undermine, and so they are self referentially incoherent. We need not worry about such. I suggest that no material, algorithmic or chance driven and/or merely mechanically necessary system is capable of generating FSCO/I, so that the very existence of this -- cf the posts in this thread -- is evidence that there is more to reality than such things want to imagine. Using your mind to imagine and construct a notion that undermines the mind, is its own refutation. So BA's comment that your very statement of denial is illustrative of the self referentiality and self undermining, is apt. And, we see one of the uses of design theory, it puts us back in a reasonable domain of thought where our mindedness is significant. (And the latest headlined silliness on how split brain people sometimes act in confused and split ways disproves that mind is more than brain wiring and processing is its own refutation, likewise. As in, so, your own wiring and the like are leading you tot hat view. Ooopsiee!) KFkairosfocus
June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
05:16 AM
5
05
16
AM
PDT
I mean that still didn't answer my question. If the supposed "God" made this universe than it would be that of the Avida program or similar. If we see that within the Avida program information is not created than how can we assume we create information if we live with-in a similar system. It's a paradox that is quite nerve racking and I would appreciate a less sarcastic response.ForJah
June 29, 2013
June
06
Jun
29
29
2013
09:19 PM
9
09
19
PM
PDT
Hmmmm, how about “information doesn’t even exist” is information. If you count being self-referentially incoherent as going “off track,” that might be a place for you to start looking.Barry Arrington
June 29, 2013
June
06
Jun
29
29
2013
09:01 PM
9
09
01
PM
PDT
I have a question about this. Let's assume that the universe IS an Avida like program. That means that humans are a product of the algorithms of it and therefore do NOT create new information. Even code is not "new information". This seems to make the whole concept of information a self-refuting. That also means our own algorithms from within the system do not create new information. So therefore, if by the world-view of the athiest, you just proved not only that human beings do not create new information, which destroys the positive case for intelligent design, but it also seems to show that information doesn't even exist in the first place. Can someone tell me where I have gone off track?ForJah
June 29, 2013
June
06
Jun
29
29
2013
08:10 PM
8
08
10
PM
PDT

Leave a Reply