Several regulars have requested that I put together a short OP and I’ve agreed to do so out of deference to them. Let me be clear from the outset that this is not my preferred course of action. I would rather discuss in a more interactive way so that I can learn from criticism and modify my thoughts as I go along. OPs are a little too final for my tastes.
I want to emphasize that everything I say here is tentative and is subject to modification or withdraw as feedback is received,
It’s important to understand that I speak for no one but myself it is likely that my understanding of particular terms and concepts will differ from others with interest in ID. I also want to apologize for the general poor quality of this piece I am terrible at detail and I did not put the effort in I should have due mainly to laziness and lack of desire.
With that out of the way:
Background
For the purpose of this discussion I would like to expand upon the work of Phill Mcguire found here and stipulate that cognition can be seen as lossless data compression in which information is integrated in a non-algorithmic process. The output of this process is a unified coherent whole abstract concept that from here forward I will refer to as a specification/target. Mcguire’s work thus far deals with unified consciousness as a whole but I believe his incites are equally valid when dealing with integrated information as associated with individual concepts.
I am sure that there are those who will object to the understanding of cognition that I’m using for various reasons but in the interest of brevity I’m treating it an an axiomatic starting point here. If you are unwilling to accept this proviso for the sake of argument perhaps we can discuss it later in another place instead of bogging down this particular discussion.
From a practical perspective cognition works something like this: in my mind I losslessly integrate information that comprise the defining boundary attributes of a particular target; for instance,”house” has such information as “has four walls”, “waterproof roof”, “home for family”, “warm place to sleep”, as well as various other data integrated into the simple unified “target” of a house that exists in my mind. The process by which I do this can not be described algorithmically. from the outside it is a black box but it yields a specified target output: the concept of “house”.
Once I have internalize what a house is I can proceed to categorize objects I come across into two groups: those that are houses and those that are not. You might notice the similarity of this notion to the Platonic forms in that the target House is not a physical structure existing somewhere but an abstraction.
Argument
With that in mind, it seems reasonable to me to posit that the process of design would simply be the inverse of cognition.
When we design something we begin with a pre-existing specific target in mind and through various means we attempt to decompress it’s information into an approximation of that target. For instance I might start with the target of house and through various means proceed to approximate the specification I have in my mind into a physical object. I might hire a contractor nail and cut boards etc . The fruit of my labor is not a completed house until it matches the original target sufficiently to satisfy me. However, no matter how much effort I put into the approximation, it will never completely match the picture of an ideal house that I see in my mind. This is I believe because of the non-algorithmic nature of the process by which targets originate. Models can never match their specification exactly.
Another good example of the designing process would be the act of composing a message.
When I began to write this OP I had an idea of the target concept I wanted to share with the reader and I have proceeded to go about decompressing that information in a way that I hoped that could be understood. If I am successful after some contemplation a target will be present in your mind that is similar to the one that exists in mine. If the communication was perfect the two targets would be identical.
The bottom line is that each designed object is the result of a process that has at its heart an input that is the result of the non-algorithmic process of cognition (the target). The tee shirt equation would look like this
CSI=NCF
Complex Specified Information is the result of a noncomputable function. If the core of the design process (CSI) is non-computable then the process in its entirety can not be completely described algorithmically,
This insight immediately suggests a way to objectively determine if an object is the result of design. Simply put if an algorithmic process can fully explain an object then it is not designed. I think this is a very intuitive conclusion, I would argue that humans are hardwired to tentatively infer design for processes that we can’t fully explain in a step by step manner. The better we can explain an object algorithmically the weaker our design inference becomes. If we can completely explain it in this way then design is ruled out.
At some point I hope to describe some ways that we can be more objective in our determinations of whether an object/event can be fully explained algorithmically but as there is a lot of ground covered here so I will put it off for a bit. There are also several questions that will need to be addressed before this approach can be justifiably adopted generally such as how comprehensive an explanation must be to rule out design or conversely when we can be confident that no algorithmic explanation is forthcoming.
If possible I would like to explore these in the future perhaps in the comments section. It will depend on the tenor of feed back I receive.
peace
fifth,
If I change one minor word in a sonnet then the modified sonnet will be difficult to distinguish from the original one, but that doesn’t tell me that the sonnet wasn’t designed.
keiths said,
If I change one minor word in a sonnet then the modified sonnet will be difficult to distinguish from the original one, but that doesn’t tell me that the sonnet wasn’t designed.
I say,
Wait a minute, of course we know that if you change one word I will be able to distinguish your new string from the old one.
We can easily distinguish
there once was a lady from Natchez…………
from
There once was the lady from Natchez………..
our communication and the joke depend on this ability
peace
Keiths,
It’s important to know that the game gives you feed back.
It tells you that there is something different between the strings you just have to find out what it is.
For the second time in this thread, you’ve quoted me out of context, and deflected inappropriately. I’ve supplied here what you chose to omit — the answer I’d already given to the question you introduced. In essence, you never bothered to get on track. And, having looked into integrated information theory as you requested, I do not believe that you stand a chance of doing so. I’m not going to contribute to your rhetoric by discussing what you’ve omitted.
No one with any mathematical competence would copy a proof that uses terms not defined in the present context, and take that as a grand demonstration. You’d already revealed your incompetence when you “explained” that
You do not understand Maguire et al. (You refer familiarly to “Phil Mcguire,” but don’t even get his name right.)
To make sure I haven’t mischaracterized you, I sampled your comments at UD. A few months ago, you displayed incomprehension of both specified complexity and Kolmogorov complexity, along with imperviousness to instruction by people who clearly understood them. It seems that you care little for definitions, and argue on the basis of nebulous impressions. Here at TSZ, you tried to step in for Winston Ewert to address active information, and subsequently demonstrated that you neither understood it nor cared to learn about it.
Your invocations of the math of Maguire et al. are, thus far, nothing but posturing. If you can move beyond that, then do it. Stop whining about the people here. There’s nothing in the paper I can’t handle.
Hey Tom,
I never claimed to be an expert and I never claimed you weren’t an expert I’m just a guy on the internet feel free to ignore me,
Or just for kicks you might want to join the conversation.
peace
Tom said,
Stop whining about the people here.
I say,
I apologize
I did not think I did any whining. maybe I got a little frustrated in the lack of engagement from your side. But it is truly up to you if you want to offer any constructive criticism or not.
I will tell you that I do tend to mix and match ideas some and it’s obvious to everyone here that I fly fast and loose with detail. But please if you think I’ve made glaring errors with the gist of what I’m saying please show them to me.
Constantly telling me that I don’t understand without giving any specifics is not really helpful to me.
peace
PS what is the K complexity of the entire string of digits in Pi?
fifth:
No. If I change one word in the middle of the Encyclopedia Britannica, for instance, you will have a very hard time distinguishing the new string from the old one.
Your criterion doesn’t work:
keiths said.
No. If I change one word in the middle of the Encyclopedia Britannica, for instance, you will have a very hard time distinguishing the new string from the old one.
I say.
I love this sort of question it means you are finally getting it.
Do you think that perhaps it’s possible the Encyclopedia Britannica in it’s completed form could be partially explained by an algorithmic process?
For example gather articles filed under A and add them to articles filed under B
Once again thanks for this. This is the sort of thing that I had hoped this discussion would be about
peace
It’s certainly not infinite, as I explained to you at UD:
fifth,
I’ve “gotten it” all along, but you’re just now realizing that. It happens a lot in conversations with you.
fifth,
It doesn’t matter. According to you, the only question is whether it can be fully explained by an algorithmic process. If so, then it is not designed.
keiths says.
It doesn’t matter. According to you, the only question is whether it can be fully explained by an algorithmic process. If so, then it is not designed.
I say,
Yes and I would argue that the completed form of the Encyclopedia Britannica when viewed as a single text is not designed. Because It can be explained by an algorithmic process.
On the other had individual articles would be designed because they can’t be so explained.
Now an interesting question is if the entire Encyclopedia Britannica would appear designed to Rain Man.
By the way right now my game can’t handle strings as long as the the Encyclopedia Britannica but you would be surprised at how I can distinguish a small difference in a very long string.
peace
fifth,
You’re contradicting yourself again. Earlier you wrote this:
keiths said,
You’re contradicting yourself again. Earlier you wrote this:
Simply put if an algorithmic process alone (not including non algorithmically derived inputs) can fully explain an object then it is not designed.
I say,
Good catch
Interesting, So if I can distinguish a difference in all the smaller chunks then I can say that the hole compilation is designed.
I think I can buy that. I’ll need to think on it though. It would need to be all the chunks not just some of them.
What is the size limit for what constitutes an individual chunk?
I’m not sure at this point but there has to be some sort of minimum length. So far I’m using about 500 characters but it’s a pretty arbitrary designation at this point.
Off the top of my head I’d say to qualify as an input the individual chunks would have to themselves be integrated information. Ie I would need to be able to identify the original when the difference was small.
any way
Thank you again for the constructive line of questions. It’s much more fun when you give me something to think about.
Peace
fifth,
You seem to be making this up as you go.
Yet earlier you claimed to have a viable design-detection methodology. What gives?
keiths,
You seem to be making this up as you go.
Yet earlier you claimed to have a viable design-detection methodology. What gives?
I say,
I’m trying to tighten up my ideas that is why I came here. You have been helpful in that regard lately.
It was OMagain who brought up my game not me. I have no problem with talking about it I hope eventually to spring it on the world and work on some genuine hypotheses testing instead of the informal stuff Ive done so far.
I do think my methodology is valuable and I know it works in the limited realm that Ive used it in. I want to see if I can generalize it.
Up till now I have not thought of very large composite strings like the Encyclopedia Britannica. Thus far I had been working at the level of the crank shaft instead of the entire engine.
In order for my method to work I’ll need to be able to scale it to different levels of magnitude. You have helped me to get a handle on that and I think it’s definitely doable.
Its possible that your intention was not totally benevolent when it comes to my the method but I do thank you none the less. That is how discussions like this between different perspectives can work if we let them.
maybe you or others have some other questions like that last one. I hope so
peace
It would really help you when you lay your methodology out here, open to peer review, so to speak. Everybody will be more than happy to evaluate and test it.
So it detects design in strings, interesting…
I would love to explore things like this more I hope we can do that.
I had thought of long strings before just not long and composite strings.
For example one of the things that I do know is that there are strings like several consecutive digits Pi for example that are indistinguishable from random unless you know every single digit. Once you know the digits they become highly distinguishable.
For strings like this it’s a all or nothing deal.
I think this has implications for the existence of true rather than apparent randomness. Perhaps randomness really is just a statement about our ignorance and not an actual feature of the universe,
any way I ramble and work beckons
peace
Erik says
It would really help you when you lay your methodology out here, open to peer review, so to speak.
I say,
check out my comment on May 21, 2015 at 9:41 pm for a rough general overview
peace
here is the paper that served as the initial inspiration for my game
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1002.4592.pdf
be sure to play the game to get a feel for what I’m talking about
peace
Good to hear! Being here has also helped me tighten up my ideas. It’s sort of the point of the site!
All the digits of pi?
petrushka,
With the disclaimer that this is strictly from memory, fifth’s reasoning at UD went something like this:
1. The decimal expansion of pi is infinitely long and non-repeating.
2. Therefore it has infinite Kolmogorov complexity.
3. Therefore it is non-computable.
4. Any approximation to pi is finite and computable.
5. Therefore pi is designed, or can only be conceived of by non-algorithmic minds, or something.
As you can see, this line of reasoning has some… um, problems.
Offhand, #2 seems backwards. Or the opposite of correct .
http://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/27578/can-a-transcendental-number-like-e-or-pi-be-compressed-as-not-algorithmical
Pi is not a particularly difficult concept. It can be physically represented by inscribing a circle with a stake and string, then using a string to trace the circumference of the circle.
I can think of no principled reason why a sufficiently clever computer program could not arrive at the algorithm for generating pi.We already have formula generating programs to fit data to mathematical expressions, and we are still infants in this arena.
petrushka says,
Offhand, #2 seems backwards. Or the opposite of correct .
I say,
Yea I probably should have said the K complexity of Pi is unbounded.
The idea I was trying to get across is that PI in all it’s digits can not be computed.
Keiths said
5. Therefore pi is designed, or can only be conceived of by non-algorithmic minds, or something.
I say,
no that was not the conclusion
The conclusion was that the output of any algorithm approximating Pi will be distinguishable from Pi itself.
peace
But pi can be represented exactly by an algorithm, and the algorithm could, in principle, be derived by an evolutionary algorithm.
Which is to say, the concept of pi is computable.
But that is irrelevant to K complexity, which is why I said your statement is backwards. If the algorithm for defining pi exactly is finite and involves a finite number of steps to prove, the algorithm is computable.
petrushka says,
Which is to say, the concept of pi is computable.
I say,
By not computable I mean that a finite Turing machine can not produce all the digits in a finite amount of time.
This concept is what is often referred to as effective computable
from here
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/effective+computable
Sometimes I forget that there are some people that I have not had this discussion with.
peace
I have drifted off the tracks trying to locate your key point.
I thought you were trying to demonstrate that certain concepts were not computable.
petrushka says,
I thought you were trying to demonstrate that certain concepts were not computable.
I say,
When we are talking about numbers It’s called “Transcendental”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_number
There is nothing new that I’m claiming here this is just standard stuff.
peace
petrushka says.
I have drifted off the tracks trying to locate your key point.
I say,
There is no key point I’m just trying to firm up some ideas
If I had to narrow it to one thing I would hope folks understood why I’m focusing on the ability to distinguish m(z) from m(z′),when z and z′ are close as a way to identify designed objects.
That’s all
peace
petrushka:
fifth:
No, it isn’t “standard stuff”.
Mathematicians and computer scientists know that pi is computable. The claim that it isn’t computable is purely a fifthmonarchyman, out-in-left-field idea.
(Nevermind that you are painfully wrong.) My question is, how is this related to design detection? What does computability have to do with design?
fifth:
That’s incorrect, as I already explained.
Erik,
Fifth thinks that non-computabiilty is a design indicator. From the OP:
fifth,
I take you to be arguing that if something is easily distinguished from a randomly perturbed copy of it, then it can’t be designed.
Why you believe that, on the other hand, is a mystery to me.
@keiths
You pose the question to Fifth much better than I did. There’s this problem with his approach: Are copies not designed?
Also, on the example of non-computability, let’s assume that Pi is not computable, as Fifth claimed. So, is Pi designed?
Another example he brought:
And, between these two, the winner of the design contest is….?
His entire game is obviously irrelevant to design.
You are able to identify the exact difference and not simply that the strings are different? I suppose though that source code repositories are capable of this.
mung asks
You are able to identify the exact difference and not simply that the strings are different?
I say,
It depends on what you mean by exact difference. I’m looking at global patterns in the strings. I see that the original string has one or more characteristics that is not found in the algorithmically produced model.
for instance I might see that two numbers tend to be associated with each other more in the original than in the model. Often I can’t describe exactly what it is that is different I only know that the two strings are not alike.
Very rarely am I looking at a difference in a single identifiable character. Usually I stop the EA when the R squared is about 80% this is because I want it to be about looking for a difference in global patterns and not individual data points.
The whole point of information integration is that we are looking at the object as a unified whole not it’s constituent parts. I don’t think that computers do this sort of thing very well
Remember I’m not looking at actual words or numbers but parallel line graph representations of those things.
Peace
PS Mung do you sort of understand what I’m getting at with this method? I want to know if I’ve even come close to explaining myself and it’s hard to tell here.
eric says.
And, between these two, the winner of the design contest is….?
I say,
It’s obvious you don’t have a clue what I’m talking about. I just wish I knew if this was because I’ve done a poor job explaining or because you haven’t taken the time to look in to what is being said.
Can you give a quick summary as to why I think that we should be able to distinguish the original string from a model that is close to it if the original was designed?
Thank you in advance
peace
PS can any critic do this?
If it helps, I’m not understanding you. What would interest me is if you were claiming to have a method of distinguishing signal from noise, information from garbage. Without any clue at all, I don’t think you can tell whether any string of digits or symbols carries information or not. See here for example.
Hey Allen,
you said,
What would interest me is if you were claiming to have a method of distinguishing signal from noise, information from garbage.
I say,
I think that might be my very tentative claim.
As far as the picture goes
There are lots of ways to measure and represent an object as a numeric string. Based solely on the picture the first thing that pops into my head is to give each of the lines a numeric value possibly length or curvature or the distance from the first mark
The problem is that there are less than 50 lines in the picture and that is well below the 500 digit threshold that Ive been using. The reason I have been using minimum limit is to prevent the observer from simply memorizing every individual digit in the original string and using that knowledge to exclude the model.
I want the observer to integrate the global pattern of information instead of each particular value. No cheating allowed
I hope that makes sense
If we wanted to do a real word test at this level I think this would be a better candidate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voynich_manuscript
At least if we were looking at that particular level of resolution. There are a lot more lines for our string
Maybe we could increase the resolution level of the object in your picture in some way perhaps by looking at the variations in thickness of each line.
It would be fun to explore If I had access to it
peace
Wait. Looks like you are saying this:
1. You know the original was designed.
2. You are looking for differences in the model/copy.
Seriously, I have no idea why you are doing this. I thought you were detecting design somehow, but now you are saying that you are looking for differences. It does not look to be related to design at all, so I have no idea what you are doing.
First off, how do you know the original was designed? What is design, as per you?
eric says,
Wait. Looks like you are saying this:
1. You know the original was designed.
2. You are looking for differences in the model/copy.
I say,
Nope that is not at all how it’s done. That tells me all I need to know
Oh well maybe someone else is paying attention
thanks for playing
peace
The image was taken by me with my phone earlier this year of an object rediscovered recently after being long-buried in the crypt of a chapel in the French Pyrenees. The custodian of the object has promised to send me some better photographs. When I get them, I’ll make them available.
Regarding the Voynich manuscript, I’d be very impressed if you could demonstrate that it either contained genuine information or gibberish. But how could you convince me that the script contained information without translating it? And how could you prove that gibberish is indeed gibberish and not some really clever code?
Because of factors known to exist in language (proof might not be the word for it, though).
I’d seen this splash across the screens previously, so I Googled it and found it in seconds. An “entropy approach,” comparing the distribution of words in the text.
It’s sort of like evolution and its predictions, since the theory will never tell us what the next development will be, but it will tell us what patterns it will follow. Languages follow other patterns (although there are substantial similarities with respect to evolution, if significant differences) when a text is written, so even if you don’t know what it means, you can at least know that it’s a language, or a very good fake.
I can’t say that they’re right about the Voynich Manuscript, but it all looks plausible enough to me.
Glen Davidson
Glen Davidson says,
An “entropy approach,” comparing the distribution of words in the text.
I say,
Interesting. This approach seems to be reminiscent but not equivalent to what I’m describing.
To me it suggests there might be something here
peace
Alan asks
But how could you convince me that the script contained information without translating it? And how could you prove that gibberish is indeed gibberish and not some really clever code?
I say,
I agree with Glen Davidson that prove is a strong word but check out my comment on May 21, 2015 at 9:41 pm for a rough general overview
and here is the paper that served as the initial inspiration for my game
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1002.4592.pdf
be sure to play the game to get a feel for what I’m talking about
peace
[Note: I think he is referring to this comment — Neil Rickert]