Garry DeWeese wrote:
> The SETI example is a good one. Should meaningful signals be received,
> the best explanation would be personal (agent causation). Is that
>> analagous to the high information content in genetic material so very
>> early in the history of life on earth?
Jeffery Mullins replied:
>>If the information content in DNA is similar to a meaningful language as
some have said, then I think the answer to your question is yes.<<
Glenn Morton observed:
I would like to point out a mathematical reality in regards to DNA sequences
and radio signals from little green men. In information theory there is a
measure of how complex a sequence is based upon how much the sequence can be
compressed by an algorithm. A highly ordered sequence
(oaoaoaoaoaoaoaoaoa....) can be represented by a very short algorithm. (For 1
to N: (print"01"): next)
However, a highly ordered sequence contains no information to speak of. A
sequence which has lots of information
(thecyclotronacceleratedtheelectrons...) requires a long algorithm to
represent it. This is called highly organized.
Now the interesting thing is that from an information theory perspective, it
is fundamentally undecidable whether a given string has information or is
merely random.
Hubert Yockey writes:
"Thus both random sequences and higly organized sequences are complex because
a long algorithm is needed to describe each one. Information theory shows
that it is *fundamentally undecidable* whether a given sequence has been
generated by a stochastic process or by a highly organized process. This is
in contrast with the classical law of the excluded middle (tertium non
datur), that is, the doctrine that a statement or theorem must be either true
or false. Algorithmic information theory shows that truth or validity may
also be indeterminate or fundamentally undecidable." _Information Theory and
Molecular Biology_ Cambridge University Press, 1992, p. 82
With a radio signal from space, if we do not KNOW the message, we can not be
sure that there IS a message. It is fundamentally undecidable. The only
thing we can do is to characterize the strength and complexity of the signal.
A DNA sequence with a lot of information in it, even purposely written
information
This ought to get a good one going. :-)
glenn
Although this is way out of my field, it always seemed to me that any sequence
which contians information is only useful (and therefore actually contains
information) if there is a way of either translating it or extracting it. This
may be obvious for encrypted messages, i.e. they may look just like random
letters. Consider what that does to the DNA code. With out a mechanism to
translate it into protein formation, it is useless. Does this mean we have a
chicken and egg situation for the "first" cell? Which came first, the DNA
message to make the translating proteins, or the translating proteins? :-?
Henry Erbes