Evidence for God from Science

DBowling wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 3:40 am

Nils wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 1:17 am

DBowling wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 3:52 pm

Nils wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 2:17 pm

You just chose to arbitrarily stop at the program execution, even though the program execution itself represents the algorithms and design of an intelligent mind.

You think that the piece of information "LRRL" shall be traced backwards to processes that don't contain the information "LRRL".

Absolutely...
Especially when the information that is generated is output from a process that is driven by algorithms developed by an intelligent mind.
You can't arbitrarily choose to ignore the intelligence generated algorithms that are the critical component of the program and then claim that the information cannot be traced back to those algorithms.

I don't "arbitrarily choose to ignore the intelligence generated algorithms". I just notice that they don't contain the piece of information we are talking about and that implies that it isn't possible to trace the information to them. I don't understand how you can defend the idea that you can trace something to a place where you know this something isn't.

I don't see how you can defend the premise that information produced by the computer program can't be traced back to the source of the program and algorithms that produced it.
The input that the computer processes may be unknown to the programmer.
But the algorithms and program that process the input to generate the new information were designed by the programmer.

To me you are trying to defend a position that is obviously fallacious.

The algorithms that process the input to generate the information can be traced back to an intelligent mind.
This shouldn't be difficult to understand.

If you will all permit me to redirect the conversation a bit in the hope of refocusing the issue Nils is not seeing (to the extent I understand his point of view).

Nils, it seems to me there are two facets you're not considering in your computer algorithm scenario, one DB and I alluded to before and another I would also like you to consider.

- The first one is when a random mutation of the algorithm occurs at indeterminate intervals. Every so often, a single bit is switched on or off in the algorithm. Please describe what you think will happen after N mutations.

- The second has to do with human replication of the algorithm. Any algorithm, no matter how simple or complex, can be replicated by the human mind. Granted, it may take much more time, perhaps even centuries, which makes it time-prohibitive. And of course it is prone to errors. But that's not the point at all. The point is, since an intelligent mind built the algorithm, an intelligent mind can follow the same instructions, with pen and paper let's say, until the same solution is arrived at. Granted, the computer can do it much faster (precisely what it was designed to do). My question to you is, not can a computer follow a set of instructions much faster than the human mind, of course it can. Rather, can a computer write an algorithm to solve a given problem without having been given the set of instructions in the first place?

DBowling wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 3:40 am

Nils wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 1:17 am I don't "arbitrarily choose to ignore the intelligence generated algorithms". I just notice that they don't contain the piece of information we are talking about and that implies that it isn't possible to trace the information to them. I don't understand how you can defend the idea that you can trace something to a place where you know this something isn't.

I don't see how you can defend the premise that information produced by the computer program can't be traced back to the source of the program and algorithms that produced it.
The input that the computer processes may be unknown to the programmer.
But the algorithms and program that process the input to generate the new information were designed by the programmer.

To me you are trying to defend a position that is obviously fallacious.

The algorithms that process the input to generate the information can be traced back to an intelligent mind.
This shouldn't be difficult to understand.

You say that:
"But the algorithms and program that process the input to generate the new information were designed by the programmer." and
"The algorithms that process the input to generate the information can be traced back to an intelligent mind."

I don't oppose to what you say here! It is true that the algorithm and the program can be traced back to an intelligent mind, I don't deny that but I claim another thing. I claim that the specific information that the algorithm and program found can't be traced back to the program code or the programmer. That is quite a different thing. You don't seem to understand the difference since you repeat saying that I deny what I don't deny.

As I said before, the algorithm/program is a tool. It is a tool designed by an intelligent programmer but still it is a tool. It operates on the input data and searches that data to find the information about the path, "LRRL" in my example. Before the search it had no information about the path, after the search it has. We seem to agree on that.
We agree that
1. the algorithm and program, its code and way to execute, can be traced back to the intelligent programmer.
We also agree that
2. the information "LRRL" is not known by the programmer and isn't included in the code in any way
You make the conclusion that
3. the specific piece of information "LRRL" can be traced back to the programmer.
How you come from 1. and 2. to 3. I don't understand. Please explain.

The tool (the program) and the input data create together the piece of information. The design of the tool can be traced back to a programmer. The piece of information can be traced back to the data because that piece of information is inherent in the data but it can't be traced back to the designer because that piece of data isn't present in any way in the programmer or even the program code.

If you don't agree, please note where and why.

Nils

We're getting closer...

Nils wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 1:41 pm The tool (the program) and the input data create together the piece of information.

Correct...

However
The Input is not new information... it's just data that represents something...
The program processes the data and represents that data in a new format.

So the 'newness' of the output is a function of the algorithms that were created by the programmer.
The newness is not a function of the input because even though the input is not known to the programmer, it represents a preexisting set of data that is not new.
The 'newness' of the output is a function of the program not the input data.

The design of the tool can be traced back to a programmer.

Correct

The piece of information can be traced back to the data because that piece of information is inherent in the data but it can't be traced back to the designer because that piece of data isn't present in any way in the programmer or even the program code.

Correct

However as I point out above
The 'newness' of the output is a function of the program (whose source is an intelligent mind) not the input data.

Byblos wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 2:27 pm

DBowling wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 3:40 am

Nils wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 1:17 am

DBowling wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 3:52 pm

Nils wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 2:17 pm
You think that the piece of information "LRRL" shall be traced backwards to processes that don't contain the information "LRRL".

Absolutely...
Especially when the information that is generated is output from a process that is driven by algorithms developed by an intelligent mind.
You can't arbitrarily choose to ignore the intelligence generated algorithms that are the critical component of the program and then claim that the information cannot be traced back to those algorithms.

I don't "arbitrarily choose to ignore the intelligence generated algorithms". I just notice that they don't contain the piece of information we are talking about and that implies that it isn't possible to trace the information to them. I don't understand how you can defend the idea that you can trace something to a place where you know this something isn't.

I don't see how you can defend the premise that information produced by the computer program can't be traced back to the source of the program and algorithms that produced it.
The input that the computer processes may be unknown to the programmer.
But the algorithms and program that process the input to generate the new information were designed by the programmer.

To me you are trying to defend a position that is obviously fallacious.

The algorithms that process the input to generate the information can be traced back to an intelligent mind.
This shouldn't be difficult to understand.

If you will all permit me to redirect the conversation a bit in the hope of refocusing the issue Nils is not seeing (to the extent I understand his point of view).

Nils, it seems to me there are two facets you're not considering in your computer algorithm scenario, one DB and I alluded to before and another I would also like you to consider.

- The first one is when a random mutation of the algorithm occurs at indeterminate intervals. Every so often, a single bit is switched on or off in the algorithm. Please describe what you think will happen after N mutations.

Byblos, I am not sure what you mean but this is my thought. If you have a program that runs on a computer and you change a single bit, in most cases the program will crash or at least not work properly so I don't understand why you bring this up. From you and from others (for instance Meyer) I get the impression that you think that there are processes/programs that change other programs randomly. I have never heard of that. I think the background may be a misunderstanding of the concept "code" thinking the 'DNA code' is in some way similar to 'program code'. I cite from the OP:
"Note that when Meyer discusses genetic programs he compares the RNA's genetic code with program code and that is a confusion. The equivalence in biology to the program code is our environment and the physical laws. The equivalence to the genetic code is the instruction LRRL (the labyrinth example) . The genetic code is instructions to for instance proteins to build biological structures and the labyrinth code LRRL is an instruction for a person or machine how to find the labyrinth centre. In https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7c9PaZzsqE about at 3:30 he erroneous compares the program code with the genetic code. "

- The second has to do with human replication of the algorithm. Any algorithm, no matter how simple or complex, can be replicated by the human mind. Granted, it may take much more time, perhaps even centuries, which makes it time-prohibitive. And of course it is prone to errors. But that's not the point at all. The point is, since an intelligent mind built the algorithm, an intelligent mind can follow the same instructions, with pen and paper let's say, until the same solution is arrived at. Granted, the computer can do it much faster (precisely what it was designed to do). My question to you is, not can a computer follow a set of instructions much faster than the human mind, of course it can. Rather, can a computer write an algorithm to solve a given problem without having been given the set of instructions in the first place?

This sounds as AI to me and that will perhaps be possible in the far far future, I think. Is this what you think about?
Nils

DBowling wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 2:32 pm We're getting closer...

Yes, but still some way to go .....

Nils wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 1:41 pm The tool (the program) and the input data create together the piece of information.

Correct...

However
The Input is not new information... it's just data that represents something...
The program processes the data and represents that data in a new format.

So the 'newness' of the output is a function of the algorithms that were created by the programmer.
The newness is not a function of the input because even though the input is not known to the programmer, it represents a preexisting set of data that is not new.
The 'newness' of the output is a function of the program not the input data.

The design of the tool can be traced back to a programmer.

Correct

The piece of information can be traced back to the data because that piece of information is inherent in the data but it can't be traced back to the designer because that piece of data isn't present in any way in the programmer or even the program code.

Correct

However as I point out above
The 'newness' of the output is a function of the program (whose source is an intelligent mind) not the input data.

I'm reading this again and again but I don't understand. Here is my view:

If we assume that the labyrinth is within a 10 x 10 square it can be computed (even if I'm unsure how) how many different possibilities there is. Let's call this number N and let's also assume that the probabilities are the same for every possibility. Then the possibility for every possibility is 1/N. I thins that N is at least 2^25.

The information the programmer has writing the algorithm/program is then that there are N possibilities with equal probabilities. When the program analyses the input data it will detect which of the N possibilities occured. This can be seen as a Shannon information channel and the information can be computed.

From Wikipedia about Information theory:
"Information theory studies the transmission, processing, extraction, and utilization of information. Abstractly, information can be thought of as the resolution of uncertainty."
and
"A common unit of information is the bit, based on the binary logarithm."
and
"Based on the probability mass function of each source symbol to be communicated, the Shannon entropy H, in units of bits (per symbol), is given by
H = − ∑i pi log2(pi)
where pi is the probability of occurrence of the i-th possible value of the source symbol."
(pi stands for p with index i, the probability of the i:th symbol)
I will not try to give the impression that I can explain this but as I understand it, if N is for example 2^25 and the probabilities are equal, then the information of transferring one symbol, one specific labyrinth is 25 bits.

Summarizing. There is the program running and when it inputs data it gets a piece of information which has the value 25 bits.

Then going back to your interpretation. You write: "The newness is not a function of the input because even though the input is not known to the programmer, it represents a preexisting set of data that is not new. The 'newness' of the output is a function of the program not the input data."
I think that it is the program/algorithm that represents the preexisting set of data. It is prepared to handle any of the N alternatives. What's new is the input that defines which of the N possible inputs that will occur. In my example the string "LRRL".

Nils

Nils wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2019 12:36 am

DBowling wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 2:32 pm We're getting closer...

Yes, but still some way to go .....

Nils wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 1:41 pm The tool (the program) and the input data create together the piece of information.

Correct...

However
The Input is not new information... it's just data that represents something...
The program processes the data and represents that data in a new format.

So the 'newness' of the output is a function of the algorithms that were created by the programmer.
The newness is not a function of the input because even though the input is not known to the programmer, it represents a preexisting set of data that is not new.
The 'newness' of the output is a function of the program not the input data.

The design of the tool can be traced back to a programmer.

Correct

The piece of information can be traced back to the data because that piece of information is inherent in the data but it can't be traced back to the designer because that piece of data isn't present in any way in the programmer or even the program code.

Correct

However as I point out above
The 'newness' of the output is a function of the program (whose source is an intelligent mind) not the input data.

I'm reading this again and again but I don't understand.

The key is your first statement...
"The tool (the program) and the input data create together the piece of information."

So let's look at the role of each of the two components that you mention...
1. Starting with the input. The input that is fed to the program is not new and it doesn't do anything. It is preexisting (not new) 'information' that is a mathematical representation of a preexisting labyrinth. The input is 'information', the input is not known to the programmer, but the input is not 'new' information.
2. The component in your statement above that does something to create the "new" information is the computer program. The computer program takes the preexisting information from the input and processes that information through a series of algorithms to create "new" information. Those algorithms that generate the "new" information were designed by an intelligent programmer. And if the programmer were given the same input that was given to the computer, the programmer would produce identical output to that of the computer if he used the same algorithms that he created for the computer program.

To be more precise, I would rephrase your statement this way...
"The tool (the program) acts upon input data (preexisting information) to create a new piece of information."

DBowling wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2019 4:02 am The key is your first statement...
"The tool (the program) and the input data create together the piece of information."

So let's look at the role of each of the two components that you mention...
1. Starting with the input. The input that is fed to the program is not new and it doesn't do anything. It is preexisting (not new) 'information' that is a mathematical representation of a preexisting labyrinth. The input is 'information', the input is not known to the programmer, but the input is not 'new' information.

YES

2. The component in your statement above that does something to create the "new" information is the computer program. The computer program takes the preexisting information from the input and processes that information through a series of algorithms to create "new" information. Those algorithms that generate the "new" information were designed by an intelligent programmer.

YES

And if the programmer were given the same input that was given to the computer, the programmer would produce identical output to that of the computer if he used the same algorithms that he created for the computer program.

Yes, but I don't understand the importance of this

To be more precise, I would rephrase your statement this way...
"The tool (the program) acts upon input data (preexisting information) to create a new piece of information."

YES, a bit clearer than my wording.

You didn't comment my last post. Do you agree?
Nils

Nils wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2019 12:25 am

DBowling wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2019 4:02 am The key is your first statement...
"The tool (the program) and the input data create together the piece of information."

So let's look at the role of each of the two components that you mention...
1. Starting with the input. The input that is fed to the program is not new and it doesn't do anything. It is preexisting (not new) 'information' that is a mathematical representation of a preexisting labyrinth. The input is 'information', the input is not known to the programmer, but the input is not 'new' information.

YES

2. The component in your statement above that does something to create the "new" information is the computer program. The computer program takes the preexisting information from the input and processes that information through a series of algorithms to create "new" information. Those algorithms that generate the "new" information were designed by an intelligent programmer.

YES

And if the programmer were given the same input that was given to the computer, the programmer would produce identical output to that of the computer if he used the same algorithms that he created for the computer program.

Yes, but I don't understand the importance of this

To be more precise, I would rephrase your statement this way...
"The tool (the program) acts upon input data (preexisting information) to create a new piece of information."

YES, a bit clearer than my wording.

You didn't comment my last post. Do you agree?

Actually I did...
My whole post was a comment on the following

Then going back to your interpretation. You write: "The newness is not a function of the input because even though the input is not known to the programmer, it represents a preexisting set of data that is not new. The 'newness' of the output is a function of the program not the input data."
I think that it is the program/algorithm that represents the preexisting set of data. It is prepared to handle any of the N alternatives. What's new is the input that defines which of the N possible inputs that will occur. In my example the string "LRRL".

The preexisting set of data is the input to the program that represents the preexisting labyrinth... not the program/algorithm as you assert.
As we agreed to above (I think) the program/algorithm takes preexisting input and generates new information as the output.

The algorithms in the program represent the reasoning processes of the intelligent programmer.
It is the program (which represents the reasoning processes of the programmer) that generates/is the cause of/is the source of the new information.

So the source of the new information can be traced back to the algorithms in the computer program which represent the reasoning processes of an intelligent programmer.

Nils wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2019 12:19 am

Byblos wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 2:27 pm

DBowling wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 3:40 am

Nils wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 1:17 am

DBowling wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 3:52 pm
Absolutely...
Especially when the information that is generated is output from a process that is driven by algorithms developed by an intelligent mind.
You can't arbitrarily choose to ignore the intelligence generated algorithms that are the critical component of the program and then claim that the information cannot be traced back to those algorithms.

I don't "arbitrarily choose to ignore the intelligence generated algorithms". I just notice that they don't contain the piece of information we are talking about and that implies that it isn't possible to trace the information to them. I don't understand how you can defend the idea that you can trace something to a place where you know this something isn't.

I don't see how you can defend the premise that information produced by the computer program can't be traced back to the source of the program and algorithms that produced it.
The input that the computer processes may be unknown to the programmer.
But the algorithms and program that process the input to generate the new information were designed by the programmer.

To me you are trying to defend a position that is obviously fallacious.

The algorithms that process the input to generate the information can be traced back to an intelligent mind.
This shouldn't be difficult to understand.

If you will all permit me to redirect the conversation a bit in the hope of refocusing the issue Nils is not seeing (to the extent I understand his point of view).

Nils, it seems to me there are two facets you're not considering in your computer algorithm scenario, one DB and I alluded to before and another I would also like you to consider.

- The first one is when a random mutation of the algorithm occurs at indeterminate intervals. Every so often, a single bit is switched on or off in the algorithm. Please describe what you think will happen after N mutations.

Byblos, I am not sure what you mean but this is my thought. If you have a program that runs on a computer and you change a single bit, in most cases the program will crash or at least not work properly so I don't understand why you bring this up. From you and from others (for instance Meyer) I get the impression that you think that there are processes/programs that change other programs randomly. I have never heard of that. I think the background may be a misunderstanding of the concept "code" thinking the 'DNA code' is in some way similar to 'program code'. I cite from the OP:
"Note that when Meyer discusses genetic programs he compares the RNA's genetic code with program code and that is a confusion. The equivalence in biology to the program code is our environment and the physical laws. The equivalence to the genetic code is the instruction LRRL (the labyrinth example) . The genetic code is instructions to for instance proteins to build biological structures and the labyrinth code LRRL is an instruction for a person or machine how to find the labyrinth centre. In https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7c9PaZzsqE about at 3:30 he erroneous compares the program code with the genetic code. "

No, no, you misunderstand me completely. I have no interest whatsoever to argue from Intelligent Design. As I stated before, I don't particularly like the ID argument and never use it. Where I'm coming from with the algorithm scenario is to tie it to a metaphysical concept called the Principle of Proportionate Causality (you knew I was going to go there at some point, right? ). The PPC states that what is in the effect must preexist in some way in the cause. In more common jargon, something cannot give what it does not have. One can then define in what way the effect might preexist in the cause. There are basically 3 ways, formally, virtually, or eminently. I'm not going to go into too much detail as to each but suffice to say that the issue you are having is that you think unless an effect (the ability of the algorithm to derive new information) is in the cause (the algorithm designer) formally (i.e. a direct link) then there is no link at all. That is simply false. In this case the cause is in the effect virtually. Without the programmer having designed the algorithm in the first place, there is no effect of producing new information.

Let me give you another example. Let us assume the multiplication of the numbers 45678/95452 X 7861321354 has never ever been done. For some reason, in the history of human and digital computation, that sequence has never come up and, therefore, the actual answer might seem like new information once it does occur. Does that mean when you feed these numbers into a calculator that, somehow, your calculator is responsible for creating new information? You can see how preposterous of an argument that is, right? But it's the same exact argument you're advancing with the algorithm. Yes, LRRL was not in the algorithm formally but it was in it virtually. The algorithm cannot possibly come up with any new information that wasn't already given to it by the designer of the algorithm.

I would suggest that you do some research on the Principle of Proportionate Causality and the different ways an effect must preexist in the cause.

Nils wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2019 12:19 am

- The second has to do with human replication of the algorithm. Any algorithm, no matter how simple or complex, can be replicated by the human mind. Granted, it may take much more time, perhaps even centuries, which makes it time-prohibitive. And of course it is prone to errors. But that's not the point at all. The point is, since an intelligent mind built the algorithm, an intelligent mind can follow the same instructions, with pen and paper let's say, until the same solution is arrived at. Granted, the computer can do it much faster (precisely what it was designed to do). My question to you is, not can a computer follow a set of instructions much faster than the human mind, of course it can. Rather, can a computer write an algorithm to solve a given problem without having been given the set of instructions in the first place?

This sounds as AI to me and that will perhaps be possible in the far far future, I think. Is this what you think about?
Nils

Lol, yes, you're right in that respect, I think about this stuff all the time. But you're wrong that what I stated was AI, not at all. What I'm asking you is if the hardware, devoid of any software whatsoever, not even an OS or machine code, can possibly produce a simple algorithm to add 1 + 1.

AI, by the way, is the exact opposite, an attempt to introduce free-thinking software.

I am surprised this is still going...
Maybe I should've be surprised.

Has Nils been able to show one example of information being created from noting? or from non-information ?

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 9:18 am I am surprised this is still going...
Maybe I should've be surprised.

Has Nils been able to show one example of information being created from noting? or from non-information ?

That's a negative, ghost rider.

DBowling wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2019 1:26 am Actually I did...
My whole post was a comment on the following

Then going back to your interpretation. You write: "The newness is not a function of the input because even though the input is not known to the programmer, it represents a preexisting set of data that is not new. The 'newness' of the output is a function of the program not the input data."
I think that it is the program/algorithm that represents the preexisting set of data. It is prepared to handle any of the N alternatives. What's new is the input that defines which of the N possible inputs that will occur. In my example the string "LRRL".

The preexisting set of data is the input to the program that represents the preexisting labyrinth... not the program/algorithm as you assert.
As we agreed to above (I think) the program/algorithm takes preexisting input and generates new information as the output.

The algorithms in the program represent the reasoning processes of the intelligent programmer.
It is the program (which represents the reasoning processes of the programmer) that generates/is the cause of/is the source of the new information.

So the source of the new information can be traced back to the algorithms in the computer program which represent the reasoning processes of an intelligent programmer.

I recant my "I think that it is the program/algorithm that represents the preexisting set of data." The word 'represent' can have lot of meanings and it's not of any interest to discuss my intention of using this word here.
But I am not sure what you mean by 'represent the reasoning processes'. Please explain.
And still, I am curious about what you think of "my view" in #80 and my discussion about the Shannon information leading to my summary: "There is the program running and when it inputs data it gets a piece of information which has the value 25 bits."
Nils

Byblos wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2019 12:00 pm

Nils wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2019 12:19 am Byblos, I am not sure what you mean but this is my thought. If you have a program that runs on a computer and you change a single bit, in most cases the program will crash or at least not work properly so I don't understand why you bring this up. From you and from others (for instance Meyer) I get the impression that you think that there are processes/programs that change other programs randomly. I have never heard of that. I think the background may be a misunderstanding of the concept "code" thinking the 'DNA code' is in some way similar to 'program code'. I cite from the OP:
"Note that when Meyer discusses genetic programs he compares the RNA's genetic code with program code and that is a confusion. The equivalence in biology to the program code is our environment and the physical laws. The equivalence to the genetic code is the instruction LRRL (the labyrinth example) . The genetic code is instructions to for instance proteins to build biological structures and the labyrinth code LRRL is an instruction for a person or machine how to find the labyrinth centre. In https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7c9PaZzsqE about at 3:30 he erroneous compares the program code with the genetic code. "

No, no, you misunderstand me completely. I have no interest whatsoever to argue from Intelligent Design. As I stated before, I don't particularly like the ID argument and never use it. Where I'm coming from with the algorithm scenario is to tie it to a metaphysical concept called the Principle of Proportionate Causality (you knew I was going to go there at some point, right? ). The PPC states that what is in the effect must preexist in some way in the cause. In more common jargon, something cannot give what it does not have. One can then define in what way the effect might preexist in the cause. There are basically 3 ways, formally, virtually, or eminently. I'm not going to go into too much detail as to each but suffice to say that the issue you are having is that you think unless an effect (the ability of the algorithm to derive new information) is in the cause (the algorithm designer) formally (i.e. a direct link) then there is no link at all. That is simply false. In this case the cause is in the effect virtually. Without the programmer having designed the algorithm in the first place, there is no effect of producing new information.

Let me give you another example. Let us assume the multiplication of the numbers 45678/95452 X 7861321354 has never ever been done. For some reason, in the history of human and digital computation, that sequence has never come up and, therefore, the actual answer might seem like new information once it does occur. Does that mean when you feed these numbers into a calculator that, somehow, your calculator is responsible for creating new information? You can see how preposterous of an argument that is, right? But it's the same exact argument you're advancing with the algorithm. Yes, LRRL was not in the algorithm formally but it was in it virtually. The algorithm cannot possibly come up with any new information that wasn't already given to it by the designer of the algorithm.

No, no you misunderstand me completely (excuse me for mimicking you) but we think in different ways. I'm not talking about causation, I'm talking about information and the Shannon interpretation that I describe in #80. Let's take your calculator example. You feed the calculator with 20 digits and two operators. The calculator is designed to take that information, do the calculation and present the result. Doing this it finds/creates new information, the result. The procedure can be seen a Shannon information channel that transfers 22 characters long messages ('symbols' in information theory) and the calculator decodes the message giving the result. This is new information to the system of the calculator and its designer (even if perhaps has been calculated somewhere else before). The calculator is designed by the designer to do this job, decoding 22 character messages (among other things) but the designer need not and certainly don't know this piece of information, the result, when designing the calculator. What the calculator does is to compute the result of the specific messages sent through the input, one out of the about 2^70 possible messages. The value of the information is then 70 bits.

This doesn't mean that the programmer isn't in some way responsible for or in some way causing the calculator producing the result. It only means that the programmer don't have the Information about the result of the specific calculation. That information the calculator finds out on its own (of course assuming that it is functioning as intended).

I would suggest that you do some research on the Principle of Proportionate Causality and the different ways an effect must preexist in the cause.

Nils wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2019 12:19 am

- The second has to do with human replication of the algorithm. Any algorithm, no matter how simple or complex, can be replicated by the human mind. Granted, it may take much more time, perhaps even centuries, which makes it time-prohibitive. And of course it is prone to errors. But that's not the point at all. The point is, since an intelligent mind built the algorithm, an intelligent mind can follow the same instructions, with pen and paper let's say, until the same solution is arrived at. Granted, the computer can do it much faster (precisely what it was designed to do). My question to you is, not can a computer follow a set of instructions much faster than the human mind, of course it can. Rather, can a computer write an algorithm to solve a given problem without having been given the set of instructions in the first place?

This sounds as AI to me and that will perhaps be possible in the far far future, I think. Is this what you think about?
Nils

Lol, yes, you're right in that respect, I think about this stuff all the time. But you're wrong that what I stated was AI, not at all. What I'm asking you is if the hardware, devoid of any software whatsoever, not even an OS or machine code, can possibly produce a simple algorithm to add 1 + 1.

To me this question is meaningless. A computer works with a processing unit (hardware) that executes code (software). Take away one of these components and it isn't a computer and can't do anything.

AI, by the way, is the exact opposite, an attempt to introduce free-thinking software.

Maybe.
Nils

Nils wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 1:49 pm

DBowling wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2019 1:26 am Actually I did...
My whole post was a comment on the following

Then going back to your interpretation. You write: "The newness is not a function of the input because even though the input is not known to the programmer, it represents a preexisting set of data that is not new. The 'newness' of the output is a function of the program not the input data."
I think that it is the program/algorithm that represents the preexisting set of data. It is prepared to handle any of the N alternatives. What's new is the input that defines which of the N possible inputs that will occur. In my example the string "LRRL".

The preexisting set of data is the input to the program that represents the preexisting labyrinth... not the program/algorithm as you assert.
As we agreed to above (I think) the program/algorithm takes preexisting input and generates new information as the output.

The algorithms in the program represent the reasoning processes of the intelligent programmer.
It is the program (which represents the reasoning processes of the programmer) that generates/is the cause of/is the source of the new information.

So the source of the new information can be traced back to the algorithms in the computer program which represent the reasoning processes of an intelligent programmer.

But I am not sure what you mean by 'represent the reasoning processes'. Please explain.

The algorithms and decision trees in the computer program are a digital representation of the logic and reasoning of the intelligent programmer who designed the computer program.

And still, I am curious about what you think of "my view" in #80 and my discussion about the Shannon information leading to my summary: "There is the program running and when it inputs data it gets a piece of information which has the value 25 bits."

The number of bits used to describe location information in the preexisting input is a key component of the format of the input data.
The program needs to know how the input data is formatted in order for it to accurately interpret and process the input data.

So even though the intelligent programmer may not know the content of the input data, the programmer has to know the format of the input data in order to design a program that can interpret and process that data.

So the source of the new information is the logic from an intelligent programmer not the format of the preexisting input data.

RickD wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 9:24 am

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 9:18 am I am surprised this is still going...
Maybe I should've be surprised.

Has Nils been able to show one example of information being created from noting? or from non-information ?

That's a negative, ghost rider.

That's surprising.
Just like it is surprising how many phone hasn't created new information BEYOND it's designed capabilities.