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

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, December 20, 2011, 18:32 (4721 days ago) @ David Turell

Please ignore the last incomplete entry, a few minutes ago.

If you prove mathematically that you can't tell the difference between design and chance, for any left-brainers out there, it stops being a debate. >

Please no offense: Did you look at the graph? No math needed there. Just matching a term (n^2) with its line on the chart. Ignore everything else on that site but the graph at the bottom of the page.

All you have shown me are graphs with one algorithm faster than another, and another graph where they aren't, and a final one with differing function lines. Does that n2 line means design and chance are the same? If so, I don't see how Chaitin has really proven anything when he has added fudge factors. I understand what his attempt is, and this is a first go at it, but I must wait to see if his approach has any future. I'm sure we all must wait. To me, logically, chance and design are diametrically opposed and probably should work at very different speeds.

No. The n^2 line is his improvement algorithm. The first attempt was the exponential line. His goal apparently seems (to me) to be to get performance of "uphill random walks" to match closely to that of design.

Remember though, his goal has little to do with Design vs. chance. Its everything to do with creating a mathematical underpinning to put biology on the same firm footing that sciences like physics have.

As for the two being diametrically opposed... I still have no clue why you would think that. If you take the entire problem space, perfect design on the bottom, completely random on the 2^n line... the growth of life can take on any shape that stays within those two curves. This means quite plainly, that life's growth can be any mixture of chance AND design, which is a case to my knowledge, neither made by an ID proponent nor explicitly rejected by an opponent.

For your case, David, you really don't want that random walk algorithm to get any better. If he can get random performance that gets close to what we observe in the fossil record, it will mean that from a mathematical perspective-->you cannot make the distinction "chance OR design." Your diametrical opposites cease to be. This then (in my view) completely halts a materialistic approach to reconcile God, of which, I consider your attempt a form of this. It reduces Intelligent Design to the assumption of naturalism: "supernatural phenomenon at best, cannot be differentiated from natural phenomenon," only with the vigor of a proof. I will be forced to stick to old Gnostic texts for any glimmer of the divine...

--
\"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.\"