Freethought & Rationalism Archive

seebs · 12-21-2002, 08:10 AM

Having seen the "no new information" argument a dozen or more times, I have a suggestion:

Rather than getting bogged down in debates over whether or not we've seen "new information", perhaps we should start by *defining* information. It seems to me that, if we adhere to a rigorous definition similar to that used in information theory, we will magically make the problem go away, because it's quite clear that mutations "add information" in such a model.

liquid · 12-21-2002, 08:51 AM

Well pretty much - there are many different ways to define information, several to define randomness... but I've yet to see any actual mathematical treatment of information but creationists, except Dembski's filter, which I have to say I've never actually seen a direct copy of...

I'd certainly be interested...

seebs · 12-21-2002, 09:28 AM

I think a good starting point would be the compsci definition. "Information is the minimal number of bits to express something".

With this definition, it is immediately obvious that most mutations add information.

Principia · 12-21-2002, 10:15 AM

Off-hand, there are several definitions of information that come to mind, such as Shannon's (which I believe is the one seebs is using) or Kolmogorov's. In a previous discussion, I had a link that discussed just how nebulous the concept of information really is -- I'll look for the lost site.

From the many threads that I have read where IDiots and Creationists invoked the concept of information, it is usually associated with an agency (Designer, God, man, etc.). But imo, that is just their way of arbitrarily defining information to require an agency so that they can demonstrate a need for an agency (eh? circular argument?).

The other main point that is usually lost is just how one measures information in a system. The notion is often tossed around without specifying any rigorous and practical manner to quantify it. For instance, anyone who has played with fractals will know that any given fractal image requires non-zero information to capture. But, where is the information in the image -- is it in the arrangment of numbers that makeup the image itself, or perhaps the equation that describes it? Anyway, certain information measures are not typically computable.

Well, I'm not sure where seebs is taking this, but there is my 2 cents.

[ December 21, 2002: Message edited by: Principia ]</p>

seebs · 12-21-2002, 10:24 AM

The nice thing is that you can generalize a bit from Shannon's description. I'd say, if we use the equation used to calcualate the fractal (along with any information about resolution and iterations), that's a good starting point.

The neat thing is, this is probably the most correct way to approach the question of where "new information" enters the genome; any mutation that we would instinctively think of as "increasing information" probably adds at least one bit of information.

Principia · 12-21-2002, 10:34 AM

Quote:

The neat thing is, this is probably the most correct way to approach the question of where "new information" enters the genome; any mutation that we would instinctively think of as "increasing information" probably adds at least one bit of information.

The other dubious point I forgot to mention is the notion of 'displacement' of information. Dumbski loves this one. So the big Metaphysical question is what is the source of all information and where does it reside? For instance, mutations may in fact add information (and for sure, duplication adds mucho information -- however much 'mucho' really is). But where did the mutations come from? Did it arise at the expense of some information fund? Is there truly a law of conservation of information? All very nebulous concepts ... but that's exactly how you'd expect people who believe in fringe ideas to take their stand.

[ December 21, 2002: Message edited by: Principia ]</p>

Principia · 12-21-2002, 10:40 AM

I found <a href="http://www.ils.unc.edu/~losee/ci/node2.html" target="_blank">the site</a>. It's a non-technical essay, but an interesting read.

12-21-2002, 08:10 AM	#1
seebs Contributor Join Date: May 2002 Location: Saint Paul, MN Posts: 24,524	Information theory. Having seen the "no new information" argument a dozen or more times, I have a suggestion: Rather than getting bogged down in debates over whether or not we've seen "new information", perhaps we should start by defining information. It seems to me that, if we adhere to a rigorous definition similar to that used in information theory, we will magically make the problem go away, because it's quite clear that mutations "add information" in such a model.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-21-2002, 08:51 AM	#2
liquid Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: UK Posts: 1,440	Well pretty much - there are many different ways to define information, several to define randomness... but I've yet to see any actual mathematical treatment of information but creationists, except Dembski's filter, which I have to say I've never actually seen a direct copy of... I'd certainly be interested...

12-21-2002, 09:28 AM	#3
seebs Contributor Join Date: May 2002 Location: Saint Paul, MN Posts: 24,524	I think a good starting point would be the compsci definition. "Information is the minimal number of bits to express something". With this definition, it is immediately obvious that most mutations add information.

12-21-2002, 10:15 AM	#4
Principia Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: anywhere Posts: 1,976	Off-hand, there are several definitions of information that come to mind, such as Shannon's (which I believe is the one seebs is using) or Kolmogorov's. In a previous discussion, I had a link that discussed just how nebulous the concept of information really is -- I'll look for the lost site. From the many threads that I have read where IDiots and Creationists invoked the concept of information, it is usually associated with an agency (Designer, God, man, etc.). But imo, that is just their way of arbitrarily defining information to require an agency so that they can demonstrate a need for an agency (eh? circular argument?). The other main point that is usually lost is just how one measures information in a system. The notion is often tossed around without specifying any rigorous and practical manner to quantify it. For instance, anyone who has played with fractals will know that any given fractal image requires non-zero information to capture. But, where is the information in the image -- is it in the arrangment of numbers that makeup the image itself, or perhaps the equation that describes it? Anyway, certain information measures are not typically computable. Well, I'm not sure where seebs is taking this, but there is my 2 cents. [ December 21, 2002: Message edited by: Principia ]</p>

12-21-2002, 10:24 AM	#5
seebs Contributor Join Date: May 2002 Location: Saint Paul, MN Posts: 24,524	The nice thing is that you can generalize a bit from Shannon's description. I'd say, if we use the equation used to calcualate the fractal (along with any information about resolution and iterations), that's a good starting point. The neat thing is, this is probably the most correct way to approach the question of where "new information" enters the genome; any mutation that we would instinctively think of as "increasing information" probably adds at least one bit of information.

12-21-2002, 10:40 AM	#7
Principia Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: anywhere Posts: 1,976	I found <a href="http://www.ils.unc.edu/~losee/ci/node2.html" target="_blank">the site</a>. It's a non-technical essay, but an interesting read.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.