Spontaneous generation of >500 bits of functional information as well matched sub-components

Posted on by

It’s a quicky:

1. In Conway’s life: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life
2. There is the Glider-Producing Switch Engine http://conwaylife.com/wiki/Glider-producing_switch_engine
3. It is coded by 123 “On Cells” but requires a space of 67×60 in a specific configuration.
4. That’s 4,020 bits, > UPB.
5. It contains well matched parts : 4bli,3blo,2bee,1boat,1loaf,1ship,1glider http://wwwhomes.uni-bielefeld.de/achim/moving.html
6. It occurs naturally out of randomly configured dust : http://wwwhomes.uni-bielefeld.de/achim/moving.html
7. It can evolve from a much smaller entity (“time bomb” – 17 active cells): http://conwaylife.appspot.com/pattern/timebomb

Thoughts?

111 thoughts on “Spontaneous generation of >500 bits of functional information as well matched sub-components”

  1. Phoodoo is just one big, ungrounded emotional blurt. He jumped on this thread and flapped his lip instantly, although clearly (as always) had no clue what he was talking about and it then became the “Phoodoo flaunts his ignorance”, show.

    Phoodoo, honey, would you mind answering my questions:

    Richardthughes:
    Quiz for Phoodoo:

    How old is the earth?
    When did the first life appear?
    What was it like?
    How do you know these things?

    Thanks!

  2. Richardthughes,

    I’m interested in neither FIASCO nor the present fiasco. I’d like to see you turn your post into a response to Ewert, Dembski, and Marks, “Algorithmic Specified Complexity and the Game of Life” (forthcoming). I’ve studied the paper, and would be interested in discussing it with folks here, provided that someone shovels guano.

  3. Hi Tom!
    Long time fan, hope you’re well.
    Although I think there is something in the notion that the game of life can create SC / Information, A paper that’s worthy is likely beyond me; not that I wouldn’t like to contribute in some way.

    I find ‘life’ fascinating and the designed ‘machines’ are creative marvels, I was wondering what the most complex thing that could naturally emerge was.

    I’d be happy to start a more academic thread (I was hoping the the tone here would be better but that has sadly slipped). I’m sure that Alan and Neil our two able moderators will Guano any off topic responses (even my own!). Would you care to join me in such a post? I’ll put the kettle on…

  4. Hi Tom,

    Nice to see you.

    I just started reading the Ewert/Dembsi/Marks paper, but after two and a half pages my hand-waving detector is already going off.

    Here’s what triggered it:

    In the game, determining the probability of a pattern arising from a random configuration of cells is difficult. The complex interactions of patterns arising from such a random configuration makes it difficult to predict what types of patterns will eventually arise. It would be straightforward to calculate the probability of a pattern arising directly from some sort of random pattern generator. However, once the Game of Life rules are applied, determining what patterns would arise from the initial random pattern is nontrivial. In order to approximate the probabilities, we will assume that the probability of a pattern arising is about the same whether or not the rules of the Game of Life are applied, i.e., the rules of the Game of Life do not make interesting patterns much more probable than they would otherwise be.

    [Emphasis added]

    They’ve run head-on into the problem that has bedeviled [Dembski’s] specified complexity all along: no one can calculate the relevant probabilities. If these guys can’t even estimate the probabilities in a vastly simplified universe like the Game of Life, what hope do they have of applying ASC to the real world?

    Just imagine trying to make this argument about the real world: “The laws of nature make it difficult to predict the probability of meaningful patterns arising from our initial conditions, so we’re just going to assume that they don’t make any difference, and that interesting patterns aren’t much more probable with the laws of nature than without.”

    I hope the paper gets better. This is certainly an inauspicious start.

  6. Richard,

    I purchased it here, but unfortunately the IEEE terms of use forbid me from sharing an electronic copy.

  8. Richardthughes,

    You will be pleased to know that none of it goes to them. If you yourself publish in that journal, you will have a different reaction. You will be annoyed by the realization that none of the revenue from reprints of your article goes to you.

    The same is true, as far as I know, for every other scientific journal.

  9. I rather doubt anyone gets wealthy publishing scientific journals. I suspect there could be a better business model involving mass subscriptions to archives, but maybe not.

Leave a Reply