Life as Evolving Software... (Chaitin) (Humans)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, December 17, 2011, 16:28 (4724 days ago)

I'm trying to wrap up my *final* paper for the semester, and I came across this paper in my local hard drive search for references...

One of our mathematical heavyweights has been attempting to finally provide a formal mathematical framework for biology. To give you an idea of how important this is, it would be like trying to describe physics without the Standard Model.

Biology is anything BUT a unified field. It spans geology, chemistry, and even psychology.

This paper is the first in a series, where we're finally getting rigorous, mathematical treatments of biology. (It's not that dense of a read.)

http://www.umcs.maine.edu/~chaitin/darwin.pdf

I will be reading this paper (after I finish mine) and attempt to provide a plain-language summary of its results.

On a cursory read however, it is interesting to note that the preliminary two results here are NOT as huge as I think it would appear to ID advocates. (In fact uncommon descent was practically drooling because Chaitin cited Berlinski...)

He proves essentially an upper and a lower bound, perfect selection on the bottom, and a complete random walk (exhaustive search) on the top. I can tell you this, this is not the ammunition uncommon descent thinks it has. I said some years ago, that the difficult part for "proving" intelligent design, would be the fact that you must be able to separate what is designed from what came about randomly. If you can't do this, design claims aren't sufficient to move dust in a hurricane.

The reason this isn't powerful ammo, is that the only thing done in this paper is define what the worst case is, and what the best case is. These are important results, but they are only the first steps towards actual analyses.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"