Open Mike: Cornell OBI Conference—Can you answer these conundrums about information?
June 29, 2013 | Posted by News under Cornell Conference, Informatics |
To facilitate discussion, we are publishing the abstracts of the 24 papers from the Cornell Conference on the Origin of Biological Information here at Uncommon Descent, with cumulative links to previous papers at the bottom of each page.
An excerpt from Introductory Comments by Robert J. Marks II for Section One, Information Theory & Biology:
All agree there is information in biological structure and function. Although the term information is commonly used in science, its precise definition and nature can be illusive, as illustrated by the following questions:
• When a paper document is shredded, is information being destroyed? Does it matter whether the shredded document is a copy of an un-shredded document
and can be replaced?
• Likewise, when a digital picture is taken, is digital information being created or merely captured?
• The information on a DVD can be measured in bits. Does the amount of information differ if the DVD contains the movie Braveheart or a collection of randomly generated digital noise?
• When a human dies, is experiential information lost? If so, can birth and experience create information?
• If you are shown a document written in Japanese, does the document contain information whether or not you know Japanese? What if instead, the document is written in an alien language unknowable to man?
The answers to these questions vary in accordance to the information model used. However, there are properties of information common to all models. As noted by Norbert Weiner [1, 2], the father of cybernetics:
“Information is information, neither matter nor energy.”
…
Care to take a stab at answering any of these questions? Mikes are live.
Note: All conference papers here.
See also: Origin of Biological Information conference: Its goals
Origin of Biological Information conference: Origin of life studies flatlined
27 Responses to Open Mike: Cornell OBI Conference—Can you answer these conundrums about information?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
semi related note:
“The theoretical (information) density of DNA is you could store the total world information, which is 1.8 zetabytes, at least in 2011, in about 4 grams of DNA.”
Sriram Kosuri PhD. – Wyss Institute
Information Storage in DNA by Wyss Institute – video
https://vimeo.com/47615970
I’ll attempt these questions, just for fun. My answers are purely my own opinion.
• When a paper document is shredded, is information being destroyed? Does it matter whether the shredded document is a copy of an un-shredded document and can be replaced?
Yes. I worked in a specialty laboratory for five years and we had to shred many reports due to HIPAA compliance regulations. The information might not mean anything to someone unfamiliar with pathology reports, but it was (protected) information nonetheless.
• Likewise, when a digital picture is taken, is digital information being created or merely captured?
Truthfully, I don’t know. I would say both. You are creating a digital image in pixels of something, but you are also capturing an image of something at a particular moment in time.
• The information on a DVD can be measured in bits. Does the amount of information differ if the DVD contains the movie Braveheart or a collection of randomly generated digital noise?
If the amount of information is the same number of bits, then the answer is no. However, the bits that contain the movie “Braveheart” are presumably more informative and entertaining than the bits that contain randomly generated noise.
• When a human dies, is experiential information lost? If so, can birth and experience create information?
Yes. There is an African proverb that states “when an older person dies, a library is lost” (my paraphrasing). The adage of attending “the school of hard knocks” tells us that experience leads to information that we use in life; if our experience was good, we repeat our actions. If not, we avoid those actions. I don’t know about birth creating information, because I don’t think anybody can really remember that far back into their lives. My earliest memories begin at age 2.
• If you are shown a document written in Japanese, does the document contain information whether or not you know Japanese? What if instead, the document is written in an alien language unknowable to man?
Yes, the document contains information regardless of whether or not I can read it. And yes, if aliens write something down and we can’t figure it out, it doesn’t mean that it’s not informative. It’s informative to the aliens. For some reason, the line “It’s a cookbook!” is in my head now.
When a paper document is shredded, is information being destroyed? Does it matter whether the shredded document is a copy of an un-shredded document and can be replaced?
If there are only 2 copies in existence, and one is destroyed…the information remains. So though the first is destroyed, the information remains. But if the second is destroyed, the information is destroyed.
So one copy is like a subset of the Information Whole. 1000′s of copies could be destroyed with no degradation of the whole. Yet one copy (if the last) would destroy the whole. Very strange.
I hate to nitpick, but “illusive” is not what the good professor had in mind (or at least I hope not). This isn’t a good omen for a work that has supposedly been reviewed prior to publication by someone, somewhere.
Interesting question – good topic for a seminar. My first reaction is the thought that all information must reside in a medium (although I’m open to objections). Also, according to some papers I’ve briefly read, information is always a message, which requires a sender and a receiver (among other things). So if no one can read a message from a sender is it information? Did the Rosetta Stone contain information before it was deciphered? Do encrypted messages contain information if no one has the key? More questions than answers . . .
owendw writes, information is always a message, which requires a sender and a receiver (among other things). So if no one can read a message from a sender is it information?
If there is a sender, then logically there must be a receiver. If the message does not get to the intended receiver, this does not mean that there is no information contained in the message.
Here is one of the scenarios among many, which I have used over the years to finally resolve to myself that information is in the mind of the beholder so to speak. The upshot is that without the existence of mind as a factor to permeate any particular problem involving information theories, the problem is nonsensical. I will come back to my motivations for this thinking at the end.
The scenario I can propose starts out as follows. Shannon based his work on statistical communications, in which a desired signal is transmitted over a channel and is corrupted by a “noise” signal or mathematically speaking a stochastic disturbance arithmetically added to the injected signal. He confined his theory to the case of Gaussian noise with flat spectrum, called ‘white noise’. Shannon proved that to pack the most, that is the absolute maximum transfer rate of information into a given power level of a signal channel, the signal to be injected at the source end must also appear as absolutely stochastic. The methods for doing this can never be absolutely perfect, but in modern systems this was effectively accomplished in the ’90′s, and one example of the success of this was the appearance of 56k dial-up modems, and notice how that was the upper limit of what could be done over phone lines. The methods for arriving at this plateau have been called ‘turbo codes’ and have been in practice multiple digital coding techniques applied in cascade to randomize the information bitstream to a high degree of randomness. Now with background done, here is the interesting stuff:
1. Notice how I used the words “appear as absolutely random” above. This in itself connotes an intelligent observer.
2. It just so happens that one of the physical effects of point #1 above is that the information transmitted will have a power spectrum that is flat (or very nearly so in practice), equivalent to white noise.
3. So a person with a degree of intelligence can apply a spectrum analyzer to a channel operating at maximum capacity and have no way to tell if even ANY information is being transmitted, because the channel appears to be only consisting of white noise.
4. But a person with knowledge of the coding and modulation techniques used at the source can possibly demodulate and decode the information and with discernment understand the transmitted information.
5. So points 3 & 4 indicate in themselves that the concept of information can only make sense in the context of mind. If that isn’t enough:
6. Suppose the person mentioned in point #3 has the ability to interrupt the power to the transmitter. Does this confer any ability to extract any information from the scenario? It turns out that it is so. If after cutting power, the observer notices that there is a power drop in channel signal, then he can infer that information transmission has been cut, but not with certainty as the bit stream interrupted may have been digitized Gaussian noise, although extremely unlikely. So the observer has answered a yes/no question, maybe by use of some means of destruction.
7. Suppose the person mentioned in point #3 applies the spectrum analyzer to the channel after power has been cut. Is there any informational value in this? The answer turns out to be yes. In this case the observer is extracting information from a process or processes. The observer, by examining the noise spectrum can infer information about the noise source. The noise source can be black body radiation, Johnson noise in his equipment, or even cosmic background radiation. Any “peaking” in the noise spectrum would be with the highest level of certainty coming from a man-made source. If such peaking is at multiple(s) of 60 Hz then the source of such peaking can be inferred to be operating on a power distribution line. All of this is to show that information is in the “eye” and mind of the beholder.
I hope that I can convince with the above that when Darwinists talk of codons, when popular media speak of the genetic code, they are talking information storage, with no reservation. But that when Darwinists assert that information does not imply mind, they are just whistling Dixie. And since you’ve heard Dixie before, any new rendition is superfluous, that is to say, information free. In other words, meaningless.
If there is any reason/interest to relate why I’m involved in information theory at present, I’ll go into it.
Since information, like beauty or goodness, is not a property of physical matter, it must therefore exist in a separate but complementary realm. You can call this realm “spiritual” if you will but what is certain is that it is just as real as the physical realm.
“owendw writes, information is always a message, which requires a sender and a receiver (among other things). So if no one can read a message from a sender is it information?” – Are memories information? Memories aren’t sent or received unless they are shared with or without a medium. They can be withheld from others but instruct or guide the individual that has them. An individual can teach others the principles learned from his memory without sharing the experience.
To answer a few of the questions posed in the OP I think it is necessary to distinguish between classical information and quantum information. Dembski and Marks show conservation of classical information in that it is held classical information cannot be created by material processes but requires an ultimate source of Intelligence to explain how it came into existence:
Whereas quantum information shows ‘conservation’ of information to a more foundational level of physics in that it is held that quantum information cannot be created OR DESTROYED by any known material processes:
Moreover, classical information is found to be a subset of ‘non-local’ (beyond space and time) quantum information by the following method:,,,
The following put ‘meat on the bones’ to the preceding paper,,
Quantum entanglement is shown to be related to ‘functional information’ (i.e. Quantum information) here;
Moreover quantum information/entanglement is shown to be at the deepest level of biology, and can be said to be what is ‘holding life together’,, to be what is holding life to be so far out of thermodynamic equilibrium with the environment (10^12 bits measured for a ‘simple bacteria).
One clue of quantum information ‘holding life together’ is that Quantum information/entanglement is shown to pull DNA together:
Moreover, quantum information is found to explain protein folding as well;
In fact I would be very surprised if quantum information/entanglement was not soon found to be the ultimate source for how ‘biophotons’ are able to influence biological molecules ‘at a distance’
Quantum computation by quantum information is implicated in some pretty spectacular stuff in molecular biology:
Of note: DNA repair machines ‘Fixing every pothole in America before the next rush hour’ is analogous to the traveling salesman problem. The traveling salesman problem is a NP-hard (read: very hard) problem in computer science; The problem involves finding the shortest possible route between cities, visiting each city only once. ‘Traveling salesman problems’ are notorious for keeping supercomputers busy for days.
Since it is obvious that there is not a material CPU (central processing unit) in the DNA, or cell, busily computing answers to this monster logistic problem, in a purely ‘material’ fashion, by crunching bits, then it is readily apparent that this monster ‘traveling salesman problem’, for DNA repair, is somehow being computed by ‘non-local’ quantum computation within the cell and/or within DNA by the non-local quantum information/entanglement inherent within;
It is good at this point to remember, as I pointed out at the beginning of this post, that quantum information is ‘conserved’ in the strictest sense of physics in that it cannot be created nor destroyed by any known material means. And in remembering that very important point of conservation, it is good to point out what happens at the moment of death:
Quantum information/entanglement thus gives us a very plausible mechanism for explaining how Near Death Experiences are possible;
The panoramic life review mentioned in the preceding video is very interesting in that it strongly suggests that even if we tear the last copy of a piece of paper containing information up, the information will never be truly completely lost to reality. Along that line, to show how that may be possible, it bears worth remembering what John Archibald Wheeler (1911-2008) held and what Anton Zeilinger currently holds about the nature of reality:
Supplemental note:
The argument for God from consciousness can be framed like this:
Verses and Music
It pains me to say it, but UD has actually posed some interesting questions. I would love to hear what the regulars have to say. And succinct replys please (BA77 Im looking at you)
1. My guess is that each time you shred a document, you destroy a copy of the information.
2. My guess is that a camera/photocopier/etc creates a copy of the information (the fact that it is digital is irrelevant)
I suspect that all these questions are merely a result of no definition (or too many) of information. If we had a clear definition, the questions would all disappear.
Well Graham2, I don’t know what I can contribute to your understanding of information for there are many other commentators on UD who you have spoken with that are much more qualified than I to get details from on information and yet, if I recall correctly, you still believe functional information can magically arise by material processes without the need for intelligence even though you have ZERO examples of functional information arising in such a manner. Be that as it may, I kind of liked the lesson I picked up from Dr. Stephen Meyer on information a few years back:
As a Christian Graham2, I personally can tell you some information that I definitely don’t ever want to see being erased in any way, shape, or form. My name from the book of life!
And for something that is barely related to all this, or perhaps it is strongly related,, but anyways, as you have probably seen before if you have read any of my posts on Near Death Experiences, in this following video, at around the 3:22 minute mark, the 3-Dimensional world ‘folds and collapses’ into a tunnel shape around the direction of travel as a ‘hypothetical’ observer moves towards the ‘higher dimension’ of the speed of light,,
Approaching The Speed Of Light – Optical Effects – video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5733303/
and Graham2, as I repeatedly point out when I reference that video, the 3-Dimensional world folding and collapsing into a tunnel shape, as a ‘hypothetical observer’ moves towards the higher dimension of the speed of light, finds correlation to Near Death Experience testimonies of people who go through a tunnel to a higher heavenly dimension,, to a ‘realm of light’ if you will,,
But the reason I bring up the 3-Dimension world folding and collapsing into a tunnel shape Graham2 is that people are talking about shredding paper documents in this thread, yet with the correct structure of reality now being revealed being as follows:
Then I think some people really have the wrong perspective on just how important information really is as to the overall construction of reality, and I hold that the proper way to look at all this is the reverse as to how materialists look at it:
I know, I know, Revelation is a highly symbolic book of the Bible and is not to be taken too literally,,, but with the structure of reality resting on a information/consciousness basis as far as I can tell from quantum mechanics, and with the tunnel that is revealed by relativity, then that particular scripture, regardless of just how symbolic it may be, really sticks out for me,,, Who knows,, What if???
BA77: Is any of that screed relevant to the questions ?
I am genuinely interested to see what answers the regulars come up with, when the earth rolls round to the US time zone I guess.
as to: “BA77: Is any of that screed relevant to the questions ?”
Yes. Meyer’s quote specifically. And if you deal the issues raised in that quote honestly then it leads you deeper into the issue of whether information is real or merely platonic, and the answer to that question is that it is real, as I also referenced with my notes.,,, But I hold little hope of you ever dealing honestly with the first issues raised by Meyer’s quote, thus, of course, nothing I said will make sense to you!
Groan. Alright, take a guess at the 1st question, explaining your answer by some reference to what you think information is.
Remember now, succinct.
As stated in post 10, to answer a few of the main questions posed in the OP I think it is necessary to first distinguish between classical information and quantum information.
Moreover, classical information is found to be a subset of ‘non-local’ (beyond space and time) quantum information by the following method:,,,
The following put ‘meat on the bones’ to the preceding paper and shows that quantum information can delete classical information,,
Moreover, Graham2, you, as a materialist, believe that information ‘emerges’ from a material basis, but that is wrong, the correct structure of reality is found to be that material reduces to a quantum information basis,,
So the answer to the question is that, from the perspective of the classical world, yes information can be copied and deleted at will, but in the quantum world information cannot be created or destroyed.
supplemental note:
i.e. Quantum mechanics shows information to be real not platonic!
So you are not going to try to answer the questions.
Fair enough.
I’d be happy to answer the questions in the OP, but first, a bit of disambiguation is in order.
Information has identifiable properties because it has material effects; and in fact, the translation of information turns out to have a material signature which is singularly unique among all physical phenomena. Parsimony therefore places all forms of information in a single class of thing, based on their singlular physical reality.
In any case, you can go through each of these properties and build a compound definition of information that can be used to identify it among all other things. Firstly, information is about something. It is form (the incomplete form of a thing) recorded in the arrangement of a medium. In other words, it is not the form itself; but is an abstraction of form. Secondly, information is a class of thing which must operate within a local system in order to produce an effect. Information is therefore the form of a thing instantiated in the arrangement of medium which can evoke a specific effect within a local system. Thirdly, information (as an arrangement of matter) must be physicochemically arbitrary to the effect it evokes (this is a physical necessity of the system). Therefore, information is the form of a thing instantiated in the arrangement of a material medium, which can evoke a specific effect within a local system, where the arrangement of the medium is physicochemically arbitrary to the effect it evokes.
If you cover those bases, you may have an instance of information.
Here’s the kicker – if you could not see (experience, demonstrate, measure) the material effect of an instance of information, you could not distinguish that instance of information from any other arrangement of matter. And here’s a second kicker – because information requires a system to produce an effect (i.e. a semiotic system), the required existence of that system draws two considerations into view. The first is the fact that the system must be capable of producing the effect specified by the information. This means the system must have the appropriate protocol(s) to do so. A protocol is a second arrangement of matter that establishes the otherwise non-existent relationship between the arrangement of the medium and its resulting effect on a system. Missing or altered protocols obviously have an impact on the production of those effects. Secondly, because the effects of information are not established globally by inexorable law (but are instead established locally by having the appropriate protocol in a system) the products of these systems are therefore subject to error, change, and noise. We humans, as investigating agents, have rightfully tended to describe those useful (functional) products of semiotic systems as “information” (i.e. meaningful text, the means by which a bat finds food in the darkness, a bee’s dance, an ant’s pheromone). On the other hand, we generally describe those products of such systems that do not contribute to function with such words as “error”, “change”, and “noise”. In keeping with this useful distinction, in order to confirm an instance of “information”, that information must produce unambiguous function within a system. One can certainly suggest that the production of error/change/noise is equivalent to the production of function (which is tantamount to saying that the production of non-fruntion is the same as the production of function) but that is far more of a comment about the existence of an actual semiotic system (a singularly unique physical phenomenon) than it is about the useful distinction between function and error/change/noise. And besides, if we go there, we put ourselves in the position of misunderstanding the role of information within physical systems. And on a more practical front, we would eviscerate the word “information” of all its meaning, and we would immediately need a new word for those arrangements of matter that actually produce the unambiguous function that pervades the living kingdom.
- – - – - – - – - –
So to the questions in the OP:
Yes the recorded information is destroyed (because the medium is destroyed, even if the form it was originally about remains). And obviously, a new recording can replace the destroyed recording.
Form is being captured; information (i.e. a record of form contained in the arrangement of a medium) is being created.
If noise is the same thing as information, then we’ll need a new word for “information”.
I think there are parts of this question that should be obvious, but on the whole, this question may not be defined enough to answer, and if it was as clear as it could possibly be, perhaps no answer could be given.
Assuming the document contained information from the start, the document still contains that information regardless of whether you have the protocols to understand it. You simply cannot demonstrate it, nor can you confirm that it is there.
How disappointing, looks like this OP will fade away unnoticed. I was really keen to see what the ID crowd had to say. If you want to carry on about the ‘source’ of ‘information’ etc etc, you should at least have thought about these questions.
Why fain false disappointment Graham2 ? , as an atheist, no matter what anyone else says or shows you to the contrary, you will, as far as I can tell, always maintain that Intelligence had no part whatsoever in the generation of any information that we may be looking at. Thus, since you come to the table with a stacked philosophical deck, I certainly see no reason for your disappointment save for propaganda purposes.
I think I mentioned it before: the source of the information mentioned in the OP is irrelevant to this discussion (I think). You are just making all that up. Amazing as it may seem to you, I am genuinely interested in the questions, particularly the one about the forign language (does the Voynich manuscript contain information?).
The information may be a train timetable, its not important to the questions posed.
and its ‘feign’ … look it up.
Well Graham2, apparently you are concerned enough with information to correct me on my spelling of the word ‘feign’ but are not concerned enough with information to bother with the bigger questions of where does it actually come from (save to deny that it comes from Intelligence). Go figure.,,, You say, in indignant defense to my observation that you are really just a insincere atheist in all this with an agenda, that you are “genuinely interested in the questions, particularly the one about the forign language”, (in a statement where you ironically misspelled the word foreign right before you corrected me on the word feign), but I hold that you are not truly concerned with how all this relates to ‘foreign’ information,,, because in DNA, as the following article points out, we are dealing with a ‘foreign’ language that has a far greater impact on our lives than any undecipherable train timetable (if that’s what it is) could ever possibly have on us.
Ironically, the authors of the preceding paper did not want to sully their paper with ID and said this,,
So here we have people who, like Francis Crick, believe in panspermia, yet have no relation to ID, but regardless find overwhelming evidence that the genetic code is a ‘foreign’ language. I would think that that particular ‘foreign’ language question, since it in fact resides right inside of you and you could not live without it, would far outweigh any undecipherable train schedule. But apparently not with you atheists! Apparently you guys know that the DNA code, though far, far, more complex than any code ever devised by man, is not a foreign language but is the result of stochastic processes, but, hypocritically, are willing, when it suits your shallow purposes, to concede a foreign language may be present on a undeciphered document
I think the questions posed in the post are interesting. Thats it. No agenda, no tricks.
I will only try one more time to explain that the OP (and I) are not not discussing the source of the information, just the questions posed.
You can copy/paste as much as you like.
Graham2, I really don’t think you are sincere. But be that as it may, let me ask you a personal question. Since there is no evidence of purely material processes every generating ant functional information why do you believe that material processes can do as such?