Life Is Made of Unfair Coin Flips
31–40 of 87 posts
Re: Life Is Made of Unfair Coin Flips
#32https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-thermodynamics-theory-o...
Re: Life Is Made of Unfair Coin Flips
#33This seems overly broad because it would also apply to some or most machines.
Re: Life Is Made of Unfair Coin Flips
#34I initially read the title and thought this would be about why "[the origin of life, on earth, or in the universe] is the result of a series of unfair coin flips" and got almost too excited, but what the article was actually about is just as interesting! And, if true, it maybe even informs how we might go about answering the origin question too...
Re: Life Is Made of Unfair Coin Flips
#35Re: Life Is Made of Unfair Coin Flips
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
My understanding is that, in order to recognize information, you should at least compare it to the outputs of a source of entropy. It is a common mistake to conflate information and entropy. A bad analogy to mechanics is that the outputs of an entropy source are the frame of reference, the signal is a body and information might be whatever property you wish to analyze, such as velocity or acceleration.
> in order to recognize information, you should at least compare it to the outputs of a source of entropy. Again, this is correct for classical information theory which requires some frame of reference for "likelihood". But AIT claims a "global frame" over the minimal representation in all universal machines, the particular choice of machine being at worst constant overhead. You can argue, I think somewhat plausibly,…
My point is that if I ask you, “given a bit sequence A, is it an optimal program?”, your answer would probably be: “I cannot even say if this represents a computable function and, also, is it an optimal program compared to what?”. You must establish a frame of reference such as the Kolmogorov complexity of a given program.
Re: Life Is Made of Unfair Coin Flips
#37There is no individuality in information theory. There are only systems.
It's been debated whether or not there's individuality in evolutionary theory. You don't lose anything - and you may gain a lot - if you stop thinking of evolution as the survival of "fit individuals", and think of it more as the survival of complex ecosystems shaped by a blend of cooperative and competitive strategies with environmental feedback and randomness.
[1] The first example I can find is Schrodinger's book "What is Life?" published in 1944.
Re: Life Is Made of Unfair Coin Flips
#38Re: Life Is Made of Unfair Coin Flips
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
Change is necessary for survival as the environment shifts. Many organisms have a stable superstructure within which controlled change is accommodated--the seasonal timing of reproduction, the outer protein coat of a virus, the plasticity of the brain. The dichotomy isn't so much between change vs. stability, but where change happens, and in what way.
> Many organisms have a stable superstructure within which controlled change is accommodated--the seasonal timing of reproduction, the outer protein coat of a virus, the plasticity of the brain. Ok for the seasonal change, but I don't think all change is controlled the way you say. Individuals grow and adapt to their changing environment, and for this process to be optimal, entropy is necessary. This contradict the i…
The way out of your contradiction is to realize that full determinism is likely to lead to the death of the organism, which would not maximally propagate information. One view is that organisms allow change because the environment forces it upon them; another view is that the necessity for particular types of change has shaped organisms over time, until it becomes part of their nature.
Take global warming: there are certainly a large contingent of folks who would prefer to reject change (both mentally, and in action), even at the risk of death and suffering.
> Individuals grow and adapt to their changing environment
The growth is an extremely highly choreographed process. Individuals grow and adapt in extremely specific ways compared to the space of all possible ways that they could change.
Consider the brain: a brain that is capable of learning, absorbing new lessons, and then using them when appropriate is an extremely unlikely arrangement of matter, from a thermodynamic perspective.
Another perspective that helps resolve that matter, which the article touches upon, is that individuality exists at multiple levels of organization, and in particular stability at one level implies change at another.
Brains are a way for genes to maintain a higher level of stability: the learning, growth, and adaptation happens inside the brain (and also the body), while the genes that encode the recipe for creating the brain get a measure of stability.
In the absence of brains, genes would have to change much more frequently! So brains are a mechanism by which genes channel and outsource change to a different level of organization.
Another example: reflect upon the mental process that you are currently undergoing in our conversation.
Your brain is seeking to maximize its own stability. There is a fundamental principle that it refuses to overturn: that A and ~A are incompatible, that change and not-change do not fit together.
There are two options: you can reject entirely the line of thought and dismiss it as contradictory. This would minimize change, but also leave a potential gap in your model of the world. Knowledge gaps can be threatening - in the extreme case, it can lead to death and the destruction of the brain!
Or, if you find a piece of knowledge that can resolve the contradiction, then your brain gets to keep its fundamental principle, while also having an improved mental model that can help it navigate the world and avoid destruction.
Of course, a subset of the the brain's goal is reproduction of its own genes as well as transmission of its own ideas and knowledge (something that my brain admits to doing right now!), another example of a form of change channeled to maximize stability elsewhere.
In summary, to resolve your contradiction, realize that there are multiple 'individuals', which are really composite systems, at various levels of organization, each with its own goal of self-preservation. Notice where the change happens - it usually involves change being pushed off somewhere else!
This current meme in my head very much desires change - it would like your mind to change, in order for itself to have a higher chance of survival.
Re: Life Is Made of Unfair Coin Flips
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
> in order to recognize information, you should at least compare it to the outputs of a source of entropy. Again, this is correct for classical information theory which requires some frame of reference for "likelihood". But AIT claims a "global frame" over the minimal representation in all universal machines, the particular choice of machine being at worst constant overhead. You can argue, I think somewhat plausibly,…
I am delving into speculation here, since I am not familiar with AIT and I don’t know any other definition of algorithmic information besides mutual information as defined by Kolmogorov which, remember, relies on Kolmogorov complexity but is a separate concept. My point is that if I ask you, “given a bit sequence A, is it an optimal program?”, your answer would probably be: “I cannot even say if this represents a com…
> Kolmogorov complexity of a given program.
You seem fundamentally confused about the objects of study of information theory. They're not programs, they're e.g. strings of symbols. We measure by the information content of those strings based on likelihood / programs. Information theory asks "given some bit sequence A, how much information is in it?" not "is it an optimal program?" - instead we measure the information in it by constructing or otherwise proving facts about programs that generate or predict it. We talk about Kolmogorov complexity of strings (/ signals / states / whatever) as measured by programs, not Kolmogorov complexity of programs themselves.
Obviously programs are also themselves representable strings of symbols, and this is why we find the usual suspects of self-reference paradoxes in IT. But that doesn't mean the measure does not exist, or that it's not possible to find in lots of interesting, easily-computable cases. It's a bit like handing me a ruler and asking me how long it is - sure, if I don't trust any ruler I'll have a hard time measuring it. But I don't have to trust that specific ruler to do so, and the fact it's a device used for measuring itself is completely incidental to my measuring of it.