From: Walter Hicks (wallyshoes@mindspring.com)
Date: Sat Nov 15 2003 - 08:10:55 EST
NSS wrote:
> Some good questions have been raised. My short answer to Wayne is that my
> method is constructed to yield no false positives. Thus it will fail to
> identify innumerable instances of ID, but it when it does indicate an
> instance of ID, you can be sure ID is required. Especially problematic will
> be instances of ID designed to 'look natural' as an election scam would try
> hard to do. In the case you suggest, one instance would almost certainly be
> undetected by my approach, although there might be a particular component of
> the scheme that might yield a positive result. My priority is to avoid false
> positives while, at the same time, identifying instances that would
> *require* ID. I will define 'require' in a later post, in the course of my
> forthcoming explanation.
>
> With regard to Howard's concern, I think it would be incumbent on me to show
> that his view does not represent the method I propose.
>
> Walt's question is central to the discussion of computer simulations and the
> generation of functional information.
>
> The only way I can see myself proceeding in a way that would actually
> accomplish something, is to move ahead one point at a time. I ask Walt,
> Howard, and Wayne to have patience as I try to see if we can establish some
> generally agreed-to foundations. Eventually, all their questions will be
> addressed.
>
> It will help me if I can use html text in my emails. Will this be a problem
> for anyone? I'll refrain from doing so until I'm given the go-ahead.
>
> START:
>
> To begin, the Shannon approach to quantifying information does not generally
> distinguish between functional (or meaningful) information and
> non-functional, or meaningless, information. Thus the term 'information' is
> taken in its broadest sense possible, under Shannon information. Jack
> Szostak has raised this problem in his recent article ('Molecular messages',
> *Nature* Vol. 423, (2003), p. 689.) He doesn't go into a great amount of
> detail, but the bottom line is that functional information can be defined,
> in units of bits, as:
>
> If = -log2(Nf/N) (1)
>
> where Nf = number of states/sequences/configurations that are functional
> and, N= total number of possible states/sequences/configurations that are
> possible for the physical system under investigation.
>
> 'Functional' can be taken generally or specifically. Generally, 'functional'
> means that the state/sequence/configuration has some
> positive/meaningful/useful effect within a larger system. Within the large
> category of 'functional' will be any number of specific functions. Within
> genetics we are usually concerned with the specific function(s) of a given
> protein or regulatory sequence.
>
> Eqn. (1) also assumes that each possible state/sequence/configuration is
> approximately as probable as any other.
>
> Are we okay with using Eqn. (1) as my method to quantify functional
> information? If not, what might be your objection. Are there any questions
> about Eqn. (1) before I proceed? If someone wants the derivation, I can
> provide that (email me off list and I will send you a properly formatted
> derivation).
>
> Since Eqn. (1) is essential for any further progress, I will stop here. I am
> not a member of this list, so will not see your comments unless you email me
> directly, or Denyse forwards your post to me. I have more emails/day than I
> can handle already, so I cannot afford to receive the additional emails/day
> that being a member of the ASA list would produce. Thus this compromise.
This sounds good to me with one caveat. Things often sound good at first
presentation but subsequently produce bad results. As long as one cannot cause
it to yield some absurdity, then the above definition is fine with me.
I will add that, to me, a computer simulation is just one way to demonstrate the
effects of a physical law. The sun is an improbable object from a statistical
point of view. However, simple physical laws cause it to exist instead of a
cloud of atoms.
Walt
-
===================================
Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
In any consistent theory, there must
exist true but not provable statements.
(Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic
If you have already found the truth
without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Nov 15 2003 - 08:13:02 EST