Jump to content


Photo

Subtractive Creation Model


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 lifepsyop

lifepsyop

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 656 posts
  • Age: 30
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Maine

Posted 10 June 2017 - 11:11 AM

This is a simple Creation model that crossed my mind the other night and I sketched up an image for it.  Actually it's so simple I'm surprised I never thought of it before.

 

I've only ever seen Divine Creation depicted as an "additive" process, where individual creature types would be shaped into existence out of nothing.  "Poofed into thin air" if you will.  This additive process you could say is similar to assembling an automobile out of many little pieces of raw material.

 

But what if we look at the reverse idea... of designs being chiseled out of a shared primary state, or a "subtractive" creation process.

 

We start with a design space.  In this design space is the totality of all potential information that will be used to create different types of living things. The "raw material".  This is the original "block" of information.  This design block is then sectioned into differentiated smaller blocks, like a sculptor chiseling out basic shapes to later refine..  The different sections are then refined into their own unique shapes and then split up into smaller and smaller blocks which are themselves refined.

 

The effect of this is that each subsequent block retains the raw material of the previous sequence of blocks it "descended" from, thus giving an effect of a "nested hierarchy". 

 

For example, the original block of life is divided into a block designed for vertebrate bodyplans, and a block designed for invertebrate bodyplans.  The vertebrate block is then sectioned into a block for amphibians and a block for mammals.  The block for mammals is then section into a block for elephants and a block for humans, and so forth.  This way it's sort of like taking the evolutionary "tree of life" and flipping it upside down.  (of course the connecting branches between major groups are totally imaginary)

 

This subtractive model would predict a "nested hierarchy" of information that evolutionists often tout as proof positive for their beliefs.

 

When all the sections are refined to their final variety of types and introduced into the natural world, and begin to reproduce, they of begin to further differentiate and diversify based on mutation and environmental pressures.  These varieties of course are limited to loss, activating or deactivating information that was already present.

 

Seems like an elegant idea, just wanted to throw it out there.

 

 

bijgn9.jpg



#2 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 642 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 10 June 2017 - 02:09 PM

But what if we look at the reverse idea... of designs being chiseled out of a shared primary state, or a "subtractive" creation process.
 
We start with a design space.  In this design space is the totality of all potential information that will be used to create different types of living things. The "raw material".  This is the original "block" of information.  This design block is then sectioned into differentiated smaller blocks, like a sculptor chiseling out basic shapes to later refine..  The different sections are then refined into their own unique shapes and then split up into smaller and smaller blocks which are themselves refined.

i believe this might be pretty close to what evolution is, except i do not believe each section is refined.

i believe that instead, DNA uses a sandbox concept where if some "refinement" doesn't work it is scrapped.

yes, i agree that the cell does not gain any significant information from the outside, it rearranges what it already has, and it must do this while maintaining cell functionality.
this almost certainly implies a sandbox.

i also believe that there are some very important concepts that still needs discovered concerning evolution, a transposon language or code, and a molecular language or code.

good post.

#3 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 432 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • France

Posted 11 June 2017 - 08:10 AM

That's an interesting view, certainly the first hypothesis I see that even tries to generate a nested hierarchy.

 

Is there a reason this process would have been used for life, but not for other entities in the world (atoms, rocks, stars and planets...)?

 

Also, on this:

 

When all the sections are refined to their final variety of types and introduced into the natural world, and begin to reproduce, they of begin to further differentiate and diversify based on mutation and environmental pressures.  These varieties of course are limited to loss, activating or deactivating information that was already present.

 

You talk about subtractive creation as starting from "the raw material for life" that contains all the potential information for life, and then dividing that raw material up into smaller, more refined types, like a sculptor removing rock from the original block. Surely this means each type contains less information than the larger block it is a part of; that's what 'subtractive' means; so the "all animal life" block might contain the information for both vertebrate and invertebrate body plans, but the vertebrate block contains only the information for vertebrate body plans, etc.

 

Is this an accurate description of the process you're talking about? If so, then what is the dividing line between the loss of information involved in refining and creating the "types", and the loss of information involved in the differentiation within those types after they begin to reproduce?



#4 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 642 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 11 June 2017 - 09:27 AM

You talk about subtractive creation as starting from "the raw material for life" that contains all the potential information for life, and then dividing that raw material up into smaller, more refined types, like a sculptor removing rock from the original block. Surely this means each type contains less information than the larger block it is a part of; that's what 'subtractive' means; so the "all animal life" block might contain the information for both vertebrate and invertebrate body plans, but the vertebrate block contains only the information for vertebrate body plans, etc.
 
Is this an accurate description of the process you're talking about? If so, then what is the dividing line between the loss of information involved in refining and creating the "types", and the loss of information involved in the differentiation within those types after they begin to reproduce?

the "loss" of information could be the deactivation of genetic sequences, the sequences aren't actually lost.

another area to consider is HGT, these might provide the triggers for the major transitions of evolution

in my opinion, the cell hasn't gained or lost much information since its inception.
the only way i know of that the cell can lose information is if a type 2 transposon is cut and pasted and later scrapped.
the question about this is, will the transposon be chopped from the DNA strand, or will it just be deactivated?

type 1 transposons seem to have tags associated with them, maybe this is what happens to type 2 transposons, they are tagged with the protien they produce.

#5 lifepsyop

lifepsyop

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 656 posts
  • Age: 30
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Maine

Posted 11 June 2017 - 04:35 PM

 

Is there a reason this process would have been used for life, but not for other entities in the world (atoms, rocks, stars and planets...)?

 

Doesn't all physical matter "descend" through a hierarchy of events from a common source?

 

 

You talk about subtractive creation as starting from "the raw material for life" that contains all the potential information for life, and then dividing that raw material up into smaller, more refined types, like a sculptor removing rock from the original block. Surely this means each type contains less information than the larger block it is a part of; that's what 'subtractive' means; so the "all animal life" block might contain the information for both vertebrate and invertebrate body plans, but the vertebrate block contains only the information for vertebrate body plans, etc.

 

Is this an accurate description of the process you're talking about? If so, then what is the dividing line between the loss of information involved in refining and creating the "types", and the loss of information involved in the differentiation within those types after they begin to reproduce?

 

Think of the blocks more as design spaces for different potential organizational patterns, rather than literal chopping away of information.  When a mason splits stone, he may have a smaller stone but he hasn't reduced its "stoniness" in any way.  So think of the blocks of life as sharing the same quality of potential information as it's previous state, but now that information can be organized in a unique fashion.  I guess it is misleading of me to show the blocks getting smaller in the image. It is differentiation of design, not actual reduction of material.

 

Computer program analogy works too I suppose.  You can copy a file of data as much as you want without actually reducing the data.  And then go on to refine the copies.



#6 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 432 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • France

Posted 11 June 2017 - 10:46 PM



Is there a reason this process would have been used for life, but not for other entities in the world (atoms, rocks, stars and planets...)?

 

Doesn't all physical matter "descend" through a hierarchy of events from a common source?

 

It isn't thought to do so in ways that lead to a nested hierarchy, no. And physical matter by and large doesn't fall in a nested hierarchy.

 

To get a nested hierarchy you don't just need things to descend (let alone "descend") through "a hierarchy of events"; for one thing the process needs to include the things "descending" from each other and not just a common source (that's what leads to the "hierarchy" in the nested hierarchy). For another, every entity "descending" from another must share enough of its characteristics via this descent that they are noticeably more similar to each other than entities that didn't "descend" from each other are; that's what makes the things fall into a classification that reflects their line of descent in the first place. If you have a "descent" process that doesn't pass on characteristics in this way, where a thing's characteristics are dictated almost completely by factors other than which thing it descended from, then the things won't fall in a nested hierarchy, they'll fall in whatever organization scheme matches the factors that do dictate that thing's characteristics. We see this with stars, which don't fall in a nested hierarchy. The way conventional astrophysics says stars form could be called "descent", since later-generation stars are thought to form from the gas left over from the supernovae of other stars, but it's not an idea astrophysics came to in order to explain a nested hierarchy because there is no nested hierarchy to explain. The classification stars do fall into seems to be caused by a star's mass and age and the physics consequences of those.

 

 

 

Think of the blocks more as design spaces for different potential organizational patterns, rather than literal chopping away of information.  When a mason splits stone, he may have a smaller stone but he hasn't reduced its "stoniness" in any way.  So think of the blocks of life as sharing the same quality of potential information as it's previous state, but now that information can be organized in a unique fashion.  I guess it is misleading of me to show the blocks getting smaller in the image. It is differentiation of design, not actual reduction of material.

 

Computer program analogy works too I suppose.  You can copy a file of data as much as you want without actually reducing the data.  And then go on to refine the copies.

 

I don't think I understand quite yet; I think I see what you are saying with the mason ending up with less stone but not reducing the "stoniness" of it, but is "stoniness" really the relevant aspect in that analogy? By which I mean, the final sculpture and the original block are equally "stony", but isn't the whole point of the transformation the sculptor puts so much effort into not about the stone's "stoniness", but about its shape? I mean, the point of the sculpting process is that there *is* a transformation, surely, from the raw material to the final product. Otherwise why not just keep the raw material. Is it not also the case that the process of going from "all potential life information" to "vertebrate life information" to "mammal life information" involves some kind of change or transformation in the information entities the creator is dealing with? If not, how is there a process happening at all?

 

Or for a different way of better understanding this, does the blocks of life sharing the same quality of potential information as their previous state mean that vertebrates contain the potential for the invertebrate body plan and vice-versa? If so, do you have more detail on the difference between the "animal" block of life and the "vertebrate" block of life, where the latter can be organized in a way the former cannot?

 

And I don't think that computer program analogy works at all, because you can copy a file without reducing the data but this involves not changing the file. I don't know what "refine the copies" means in computer science talk, but any manipulation that changes the copy's content will, well, change the copy's content. And I'm not sure how a manipulation that doesn't change the file's content can be analogous to a process that gets one from "vertebrates" to "mammals".



#7 lifepsyop

lifepsyop

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 656 posts
  • Age: 30
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Maine

Posted 12 June 2017 - 05:49 AM

 

 

To get a nested hierarchy you don't just need things to descend (let alone "descend") through "a hierarchy of events"; for one thing the process needs to include the things "descending" from each other and not just a common source (that's what leads to the "hierarchy" in the nested hierarchy). For another, every entity "descending" from another must share enough of its characteristics via this descent that they are noticeably more similar to each other than entities that didn't "descend" from each other are; that's what makes the things fall into a classification that reflects their line of descent in the first place

 

I'm just musing here, but can't rocks be nested within the physical processes (e.g. heating and cooling events) they've undergone to arrive at their present characteristics?  Don't such events pass on characteristics to the affected matter? 

 

 

 

I don't think I understand quite yet; I think I see what you are saying with the mason ending up with less stone but not reducing the "stoniness" of it, but is "stoniness" really the relevant aspect in that analogy? By which I mean, the final sculpture and the original block are equally "stony", but isn't the whole point of the transformation the sculptor puts so much effort into not about the stone's "stoniness", but about its shape? I mean, the point of the sculpting process is that there *is* a transformation, surely, from the raw material to the final product. Otherwise why not just keep the raw material.

 

Yes it is about shape. Think of the 'stoniness' as design potential.  No matter how much you section up raw stone, you still have the same potential for sculpting out a particular shape.  (not a perfect analogy because we aren't dealing with limitations of actual physical material but you get the idea)

 

 

 

 Is it not also the case that the process of going from "all potential life information" to "vertebrate life information" to "mammal life information" involves some kind of change or transformation in the information entities the creator is dealing with? If not, how is there a process happening at all?

 

Yes I think that's the point.  Once you design a "mammal shape", you now have a root template to base all sub-mammal shapes on.  You copy this template as you would a computer program, and further refine each shape and so on.  This is how nested groupings form.  From a design perspective, this is a far more elegant solution than making, say, a dog and a cat from scratch.

 

 

 

And I don't think that computer program analogy works at all, because you can copy a file without reducing the data but this involves not changing the file. I don't know what "refine the copies" means in computer science talk, but any manipulation that changes the copy's content will, well, change the copy's content. And I'm not sure how a manipulation that doesn't change the file's content can be analogous to a process that gets one from "vertebrates" to "mammals".

 

Not sure what you're confused about here.  Changing the contents is the whole point.

 

Master File

Make 10 copies

Edit each copy

Make 10 copies from each of the previous copies

 

Vertebrate program

Make 2 copies of this program, one for amphibians and one for mammals.

For the mammal program, make a copy for each mammal subgroup



#8 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 642 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 12 June 2017 - 10:02 AM

And I don't think that computer program analogy works at all, because you can copy a file without reducing the data but this involves not changing the file. I don't know what "refine the copies" means in computer science talk, but any manipulation that changes the copy's content will, well, change the copy's content. And I'm not sure how a manipulation that doesn't change the file's content can be analogous to a process that gets one from "vertebrates" to "mammals".

i believe the "computer program" analogy works quite well.
the kernal of phyla, roughly 2% of the genome, resides in ROM.
the other 98% is dedicated to a sandbox concept and can be thought of as read/write or RAM.

the cell apparently also uses a restart mechanism to effect cell differentiation.
this implies a self modifying program.

also, computer programs can order data in various ways.
the program hasn't changed, the data hasn't changed, but the output can be vastly different.

more on the "computer program" aspect:
https://ds9a.nl/amazing-dna/

#9 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 432 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • France

Posted 12 June 2017 - 02:17 PM

 

To get a nested hierarchy you don't just need things to descend (let alone "descend") through "a hierarchy of events"; for one thing the process needs to include the things "descending" from each other and not just a common source (that's what leads to the "hierarchy" in the nested hierarchy). For another, every entity "descending" from another must share enough of its characteristics via this descent that they are noticeably more similar to each other than entities that didn't "descend" from each other are; that's what makes the things fall into a classification that reflects their line of descent in the first place

 
I'm just musing here, but can't rocks be nested within the physical processes (e.g. heating and cooling events) they've undergone to arrive at their present characteristics?  Don't such events pass on characteristics to the affected matter?

 
Rocks don't fall in a nested hierarchy either. Linnaeus tried to fit them in one, figuring that if it worked for life it must work everywhere, and didn't get very far; modern geologists don't bother. 
 
I don't think "hierarchies" of successive events like you describe can easily result in nested hierarchies; more specifically you lose the "nested" part, or the plural. The events themselves would have to occur in a nested fashion (where only entities that were exposed to event A1 are then exposed to B3 or B4, and entities that were exposed to A2 are then only exposed to B1 and B5, and only entities that were exposed to B3 get exposed to C1, and so on). Otherwise your classification is basically a clear or fuzzy line: "objects that were exposed to event 1 [or to events on level 1]", "objects that were exposed to event 1 and 2 [or objects that were exposed to events on level 1 and events on level 2]", "objects that were exposed to event 1, 2 and 3 [or objects that were exposed to events on levels 1, 2 and 3]". The former is a line because the only important information is what's the last event an object was exposed to (I'm assuming the "hierarchy" of events means they happen in a specific order, so the last implies all the earlier ones), so every object can be described with one piece of information, i.e. the classification is one-dimensional, hence a line. The latter wouldn't be as simple but there would basically be two dimensions to the characteristics: the hierarchical aspect meaning what's the latest-level event the object was exposed to (which predicts that it was also exposed to events belonging to all earlier levels), and a transverse aspect corresponding to which events on each level it was exposed to, which would fall into whatever classification those events on each level fell into (and no particular classification along that dimension if the events themselves don't have a regularity to them). In other words something like a fuzzy cylinder with a certain length and a more-or-less-arbitrary cross-section at every point, meaning the clearest information we have about that cylinder is its length, which brings us back to the basically one-dimensional linear classicification (though "fuzzy" this time because the one dimension is no longer the only piece of information we need to describe the object, just the most useful one).
 
And the events that happen to rocks in particular I don't think are hierarchical in this way; warming, cooling, low or high pressures etc can happen at many different points and many different times in a rock's history.

 

 

I don't think I understand quite yet; I think I see what you are saying with the mason ending up with less stone but not reducing the "stoniness" of it, but is "stoniness" really the relevant aspect in that analogy? By which I mean, the final sculpture and the original block are equally "stony", but isn't the whole point of the transformation the sculptor puts so much effort into not about the stone's "stoniness", but about its shape? I mean, the point of the sculpting process is that there *is* a transformation, surely, from the raw material to the final product. Otherwise why not just keep the raw material.

 
Yes it is about shape. Think of the 'stoniness' as design potential.  No matter how much you section up raw stone, you still have the same potential for sculpting out a particular shape.  (not a perfect analogy because we aren't dealing with limitations of actual physical material but you get the idea)

 
I don't think I get the idea because that doesn't seem true to me at all; how you section raw stone definitely restricts what shapes you can sculpt from it. You cannot sculpt a sculpture larger than the raw stone you're sculpting it out of, if nothing else. I also don't understand what you mean when you say "it is about shape", and then talk about the "stoniness as raw design potential". If the "raw design potential" is analogous to the shape of a rock as it's being sculpted, then it must change throughout the creation process. If it is analogous to the stoniness of a rock as it's being sculpted, then indeed I see how it doesn't change but I also don't see how the end result of creation becomes analogous to the sculpture (of which the most important and remarkable aspect to the viewer is the shape, and it's what the sculptor has worked to create) and not the stoniness of the sculpture (which has remained unchanged by the sculptor, but changing it was never part of the creative process in the first place and thus it cannot be considered an end result of that creativity, unlike the shape of the sculpture).
 

 

 Is it not also the case that the process of going from "all potential life information" to "vertebrate life information" to "mammal life information" involves some kind of change or transformation in the information entities the creator is dealing with? If not, how is there a process happening at all?

 
Yes I think that's the point.  Once you design a "mammal shape", you now have a root template to base all sub-mammal shapes on.  You copy this template as you would a computer program, and further refine each shape and so on.  This is how nested groupings form.  From a design perspective, this is a far more elegant solution than making, say, a dog and a cat from scratch.

 
Templating and sub-templating in computer science and other practical applications involves adding and removing information though; for example class inheritance in computer science involves adding information in the form of new (and often additional) methods and properties, or removing it when you overwrite a parent method.
 

 

And I don't think that computer program analogy works at all, because you can copy a file without reducing the data but this involves not changing the file. I don't know what "refine the copies" means in computer science talk, but any manipulation that changes the copy's content will, well, change the copy's content. And I'm not sure how a manipulation that doesn't change the file's content can be analogous to a process that gets one from "vertebrates" to "mammals".

 
Not sure what you're confused about here.  Changing the contents is the whole point.
 
Master File
Make 10 copies
Edit each copy
Make 10 copies from each of the previous copies
 
Vertebrate program
Make 2 copies of this program, one for amphibians and one for mammals.
For the mammal program, make a copy for each mammal subgroup

 
But in computers this involves adding or removing information. Either the master copy contains all the information that the other copies contain, in which case every copy to be different must involve a loss of information, which you said isn't the case, or the copies involve changes or additions compared to the master copy, in which case the master copy doesn't contain all the information in the system.

That's how it would work in a computer; it might work differently in the process you're describing but if so the computer analogy isn't reflecting it.
 
Thank you for this discussion by the way, I find it quite interesting.



#10 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 642 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 12 June 2017 - 04:09 PM

But in computers this involves adding or removing information. Either the master copy contains all the information that the other copies contain, in which case every copy to be different must involve a loss of information, which you said isn't the case, or the copies involve changes or additions compared to the master copy, in which case the master copy doesn't contain all the information in the system.

That's how it would work in a computer; it might work differently in the process you're describing but if so the computer analogy isn't reflecting it.

apparently you don't have firm grasp of programming and computers.
we can take an easy example here.
go to the page where this thread is displayed, and at the top left you will see various options for ordering the threads, start date, last post, etc.
clicking on these options will give you a different ordering.
you didn't change the program or the data, but you DID drastically affect the thread display.
where did the information come from for these orderings?
it was always there, in the program, but by your actions you was able to "select around" the parts not needed.
the very same thing applies to such things as cell differentiation.

the major difference between computers and cells is that cells uses a self modifying program of sorts.
this is equivalent to you clicking the ordering buttons mentioned above.

#11 lifepsyop

lifepsyop

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 656 posts
  • Age: 30
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Maine

Posted 12 June 2017 - 05:45 PM

 

I don't think I get the idea because that doesn't seem true to me at all; how you section raw stone definitely restricts what shapes you can sculpt from it.

 

You're having trouble because you're wrapped up in thinking of it literally..I'm sure you know we're not dealing with actual raw stone here.. Let's move to virtual space. Are you familiar with 3D modeling on a computer?  Say I start with a simple cube model.  Now I can section this cube into 100 smaller cubes (or a million, or infinite number really)..  but I have not lost any potential design space in any of these cubes.  In each of those smaller cubes I can design anything I could have designed in the larger cube. (just zoom in the camera to see it up close)  This virtual cube's scale has zero effect on the actual complexity of design a modeler can extract from it.  Actually scale is totally unnecessary concept here.  Just say we copy the cube a hundred times.

 

Now say we refine one of the sub-cubes into a donut shape.  Now we copy that donut a hundred times.  The donut is now a template we use to model a variety of slightly modified donut shapes, and so on,  creating a nested hierarchy of design. 

 

 

 

Templating and sub-templating in computer science and other practical applications involves adding and removing information though

 

Think of the "information" as an alphabet.  It's not so much information as it is design potential.  I'm not adding or taking away from the alphabet by creating new strings of content out of it.  I don't suddenly run out of the letter E when writing a story, and I don't need to invent new letters to write certain words.  What is important is differentiation of design.  I write a book, and this book then becomes my template that I base variations of that book off of.

 

 

But in computers this involves adding or removing information. Either the master copy contains all the information that the other copies contain, in which case every copy to be different must involve a loss of information

 

Actually that is false.  To be different the copies could simply contain rearrangements of that information. But I'm not sure this is relevant.. see my previous comment.



#12 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 432 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • France

Posted 13 June 2017 - 01:45 PM

I'm afraid I'm still having trouble interpreting those analogies so I'll go back to the original proposition.
 

We start with a design space. In this design space is the totality of all potential information that will be used to create different types of living things. The "raw material". This is the original "block" of information. This design block is then sectioned into differentiated smaller blocks, like a sculptor chiseling out basic shapes to later refine..


I'm wondering at the importance of "differentiated" here. Your analogies seem to come in two types: analogies where we "divide" a whole into subdivisions and the subdivisions are not differentiated, and analogies where they are differentiated.

For an example of the former, the stoniness of a block of rock remains the same after you've divided it. A 3D modelled cube where scale doesn't matter is identical to any sub-cube made from it; making such sub-cubes and zooming in works out to the exact same thing, mathematically and practically, as copying the cube and disposing it and its copies in the same configuration that the sub-cubes are in.

It seems to me those analogies that don't involve differentiating the subdivisions must be missing an important aspect of the process you're describing, unless I'm wrong in thinking the differentiation is vital to it.

With the other type of analogy (like the alphabet that we make different strings and books from, or making donuts from the cube subdivisions) I have another point of confusion but first I must address something I think I may have misunderstood from the start. When, in an analogy with differentiated subdivisions, you compare the information between the whole and its subdivisions and say it's the same, are you are comparing the information in the original whole to the information of a given subdivision, or the information of the whole, or the information of the entire system, i.e. the original whole + the all the subdivisions, or something else?

For example in your alphabet analogy, where I assume the original whole is the alphabet and the subdivisions are new strings of content, you explicitly point out that you aren't "adding or taking away from the alphabet". It doesn't seem like you're talking about the information in any single one of the strings here, which is what I would have assumed originally.

This makes me wonder at my interpretation of phrases like this one:
 

So think of the blocks of life as sharing the same quality of potential information as it's previous state, but now that information can be organized in a unique fashion.


I took this to mean that a given single subdivision had as much potential information as the larger whole it was divided from, but I'm now thinking I might have misunderstood: maybe you meant that all the subdivisions together have the same quality of potential information as the whole, or that the quality of potential information in the whole has remained unchanged from the process of being subdivided.

It was to better understand this that I asked you earlier if the subtractive creation process means that the "vertebrates block" contains the potential information for the invertebrate body plan and vice-versa. I know that I write a lot so I understand when people don't address everything I say, but I feel that knowing the answer to this question would help me a lot in understanding how this process works.
 

But in computers this involves adding or removing information. Either the master copy contains all the information that the other copies contain, in which case every copy to be different must involve a loss of information

Actually that is false. To be different the copies could simply contain rearrangements of that information. But I'm not sure this is relevant.. see my previous comment.


I'm not sure what you mean by "rearrangements of information". You can rearrange data in the copies, but when you do that the rearrangement itself is a piece of information. And if you have two identical copies of a file, and then rearrange the data in one of them, there are two possibilities that I see: either we're tracking the arrangement of data, in which case the information in the system has increased (we need more words to describe how there are two different arrangements now), or we aren't tracking the arrangement of the data, in which case the information hasn't changed but the two copies are considered as still having the same content (just like we think of two glasses of water as both containing water; the position of each molecule is different in each glass but we aren't tracking those positions so for information and description purposes they are ignored).

As for relevance, it has some to the thing that confuses me about the analogies with differentiated subdivisions but I want to straighten out the question I have in the previous paragraphs first.


 

apparently you don't have firm grasp of programming and computers.


Interesting. What makes you think that?

#13 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 642 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 13 June 2017 - 02:38 PM

Interesting. What makes you think that?

because if you did, you would understand that the program itself contains the information you claim is missing.
in the ordering example mentioned above, all the information for the various orderings is contained in the program.
by clicking on the buttons, you haven't changed the program or the data, but you HAVE produced a "different animal".
so, what "clicks the buttons" in regards to the cell?
epigenetics, transposons, regulatory networks, and the control program of the cell.
there is also the very important requirement that the cell accomplish this while maintaining cell functionality.
this is the reason i say the cell uses a sandbox concept, to test these rearrangements before they are put into effect.

DNA is a lot more dynamic than what you might think, it isn't simply a "blueprint" that an organism is built from.
it undergoes continuous revisions and edits.

the above process perfectly explains how cells become differentiated, and in combination with retro transposons can explain how cells acquire immunity.

keep in mind that throughout the above process, no new information has been acquired by the cell, it has always been there.

#14 lifepsyop

lifepsyop

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 656 posts
  • Age: 30
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Maine

Posted 13 June 2017 - 03:01 PM

 

I'm wondering at the importance of "differentiated" here. Your analogies seem to come in two types: analogies where we "divide" a whole into subdivisions and the subdivisions are not differentiated, and analogies where they are differentiated.

 


The whole point is that they are differentiated.  Sorry if there was confusion about that.  When I speak of copies, I am referring to the creation of templates for subsequent refinement.

 

For an example of the former, the stoniness of a block of rock remains the same after you've divided it. A 3D modelled cube where scale doesn't matter is identical to any sub-cube made from it; making such sub-cubes and zooming in works out to the exact same thing, mathematically and practically, as copying the cube and disposing it and its copies in the same configuration that the sub-cubes are in.

 

See above.

 

 

 

With the other type of analogy (like the alphabet that we make different strings and books from, or making donuts from the cube subdivisions) I have another point of confusion but first I must address something I think I may have misunderstood from the start. When, in an analogy with differentiated subdivisions, you compare the information between the whole and its subdivisions and say it's the same, are you are comparing the information in the original whole to the information of a given subdivision, or the information of the whole, or the information of the entire system, i.e. the original whole + the all the subdivisions, or something else?

 

I don't really understand your question.  I'm sure part of the confusion is over the word "information" which I'm only using very loosely.. and the term 'information' is already a horribly ambiguous term to begin with, as you may be aware.  So my apologies for entering with that vocabulary.  (Hey it's just a rough draft!)

 

For example in your alphabet analogy, where I assume the original whole is the alphabet and the subdivisions are new strings of content, you explicitly point out that you aren't "adding or taking away from the alphabet". It doesn't seem like you're talking about the information in any single one of the strings here, which is what I would have assumed originally.

 

Maybe my comment below will provide some clarity.

 

 

I took this to mean that a given single subdivision had as much potential information as the larger whole it was divided from, but I'm now thinking I might have misunderstood: maybe you meant that all the subdivisions together have the same quality of potential information as the whole, or that the quality of potential information in the whole has remained unchanged from the process of being subdivided.

 

Good that you bring this issue up. I don't think any subdivision would necessarily lose any potentiality for design.  e.g. There's nothing stopping you from refining the donut back into a cube, is there?  I can't think of any reason to impose that limitation.  The point is that once you have designed the donut, it makes little sense to design completely backwards back to the cube - (it would refute your intention of changing the cube in the first place).  Now that you have a donut-template, you can copy and refine from that, and so forth.  In this way, a nested hierarchy of shapes branch out from the original grouping.

 

Your confusion probably comes in trying to weigh changing quantities and constraints of things, but there really isn't anything more than the constraint of one's application of intention. Very similar to a 3D modeler with the model of a cube.  I can potentially model and sculpt that cube into the shape of a human with a trillion+ facets... and from that human shape, conform it back into a simple cube again.  If you remove the human constraint of time, (and the hardware constraint of graphics rendering) the only thing I am constrained by is my own decision-making.  (actually for my 2nd draft I should use this for a better visual example)

 

On the subject of quantities, I think when I refer to a "totality" in the image, that refers to the totality of potential design decisions.  Think of an artist with a blank canvas.  The canvas is both empty and completely full of potential for design.  As soon as you begin making design decisions (adding marks to the canvas) you are removing the total amount of potential for what the final product may be.  Which is kind of an interesting way of looking at it.

 

The purpose of this 'creation hypothesis' is to show that deriving a series of branching templates from an original would create a large variety of types whose characteristics would then fall into a nested hierarchy.  They would have to because you'd literally be creating a nested hierarchy by your actions.

 

And, importantly, this type of design would not be some contrived series of events made to "look like evolution",  but a very simple and elegant design process that I've actually used myself many times without even thinking of it.

 

 

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "rearrangements of information". You can rearrange data in the copies, but when you do that the rearrangement itself is a piece of information. And if you have two identical copies of a file, and then rearrange the data in one of them, there are two possibilities that I see: either we're tracking the arrangement of data, in which case the information in the system has increased

 

I'm not sure I understand you're thinking here. If I have two copies of a book, and the chapters are reversed on the 2nd book.. are you suggesting the 2nd book now contains more information than the first?  That seems very strange to me but maybe you have a deeper understanding than I.  I'm still not sure of the relevance here but I'm happy to keep musing on the subject for now.



#15 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 432 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • France

Posted 18 June 2017 - 10:32 AM

I don't really understand your question.  I'm sure part of the confusion is over the word "information" which I'm only using very loosely.. and the term 'information' is already a horribly ambiguous term to begin with, as you may be aware.  So my apologies for entering with that vocabulary.  (Hey it's just a rough draft!)


Indeed; I'm fine with using words loosely, especially hard to define ones, and like to define them on a purely as-needed basis. This might be a point where the need arises. I'll discuss "information" more in response to the end of your post but for the main thing I'll try and understand your ideas independently of the use of the word "information".
 
 

Good that you bring this issue up. I don't think any subdivision would necessarily lose any potentiality for design.  e.g. There's nothing stopping you from refining the donut back into a cube, is there?  I can't think of any reason to impose that limitation.  The point is that once you have designed the donut, it makes little sense to design completely backwards back to the cube - (it would refute your intention of changing the cube in the first place).  Now that you have a donut-template, you can copy and refine from that, and so forth.  In this way, a nested hierarchy of shapes branch out from the original grouping.
 
Your confusion probably comes in trying to weigh changing quantities and constraints of things, but there really isn't anything more than the constraint of one's application of intention. Very similar to a 3D modeler with the model of a cube.  I can potentially model and sculpt that cube into the shape of a human with a trillion+ facets... and from that human shape, conform it back into a simple cube again.  If you remove the human constraint of time, (and the hardware constraint of graphics rendering) the only thing I am constrained by is my own decision-making.  (actually for my 2nd draft I should use this for a better visual example)
 
On the subject of quantities, I think when I refer to a "totality" in the image, that refers to the totality of potential design decisions.  Think of an artist with a blank canvas.  The canvas is both empty and completely full of potential for design.  As soon as you begin making design decisions (adding marks to the canvas) you are removing the total amount of potential for what the final product may be.  Which is kind of an interesting way of looking at it.

The purpose of this 'creation hypothesis' is to show that deriving a series of branching templates from an original would create a large variety of types whose characteristics would then fall into a nested hierarchy.  They would have to because you'd literally be creating a nested hierarchy by your actions.
 
And, importantly, this type of design would not be some contrived series of events made to "look like evolution",  but a very simple and elegant design process that I've actually used myself many times without even thinking of it.


So what I get from this is that when you talk about "potential information" you mean something like "accessibility" in the space of possible configurations; so, the original block might be the totality of all possible configurations there could be, and when it's "refined" this involves choosing a place/area in this configuration-space or changing/narrowing that area (donut-based configurations are different from "any configuration" or cube-based configurations, meaning if every configuration is a point in configuration-space, focusing on donut-like things means you're in a different "area" of configuration-space than if you were focusing on cube-like things), and the "potential information" you talk about being conserved is really the ability to go from one point of configuration space to any other point in that space. In that context, because that ability is completely conserved, then the choice to continue within a same template at every step is indeed a choice, not something that's constrained by factors outside one's control.

Is this an accurate description? Considering this I will go back to two questions I was curious about originally.

First, I wanted to know what the difference was between differentiation after creation, which involved loss of information, and differentiation during creation. If I take "information" here to be about the ability to go from one design to another, would it be correct to say the difference is in the reversibility of the changes? So the varieties generated from mutation and environmental pressures cannot "go back" to the original forms or completely different ones in a way that the first created forms can?

Alternatively, your example of the artist limiting their freedom once they add marks to the canvas suggests that maybe the reversibility ends, or is greatly limited in a way it never was before, once creation has happened - that the design plan for a lion can be re-oriented into being that of a tiger, or an ant, or a tree, at any point in the design process, but once a lion is actually created then the reversibility ends, and the now-flesh-and-blood lion cannot be turned into a tiger/ant/tree?


My other question was about why this process would be used for life but not other things, and your answer at the time suggested you think it has been used for other things. Your description of the process now seems to confirm this, because in your description it seems to be very general and many things you say make it clear you see this as a very generic creation process, that could be used by any designer to design many different things.

It also seems clear from your description that the nested hierarchy isn't the result of constraints forced by the process, but of the designer's choices within that process.

So if I am describing the process by which life was created and I want the person I'm talking to to conclude that life falls into a nested hierarchy, wouldn't I need to specify that the designer chose at every refining/templating step to stay within the parent template? This wouldn't be necessary if the choice were obvious, and things you've said suggest you think that it is (you ask why one would bother going back from the donut to the cube after going from the cube to the donut in the first place), but templating is only one design principle. Another is modularity, where you integrate many different elements from different templates into a whole. It is also sometimes the case that a designer needs to solve a given problem, and the best solution isn't a subset of the current template one is in; this would be a case where one could justify the choice of changing or combining templates. In other words, would it be accurate to say that the design process you've described allows a nested hierarchy, but doesn't necessarily predict one?

Almost all the examples you gave to illustrate the process involved the design of things that don't easily fall in nested hierarchies, so clearly it is possible and common to use that process and not end up with a nested hierarchy.

 

I'm not sure I understand you're thinking here. If I have two copies of a book, and the chapters are reversed on the 2nd book.. are you suggesting the 2nd book now contains more information than the first?  That seems very strange to me but maybe you have a deeper understanding than I.  I'm still not sure of the relevance here but I'm happy to keep musing on the subject for now.


There is less relevance now that I think I better understand your process independently of the word "information" (well, at least there is if my "better understanding" is actually accurate :)) but I'm happy to keep musing too.

To answer your question, I wasn't comparing the information in the first file with information in the second file; I was comparing the total information of all the files, in the case where a copy is rearranged vs where it isn't. It is clear that "I have two copies of a book" takes less data to describe than "I have two copies of a book and the chapter orders are inverted in one of them"; I needed to add the italicised portion to correctly describe the system. This might seem a bit strange with books, where order both matters and it doesn't: it matters because we can tell a "normal" book from a garbled one, but because the normal book has meaning that the garbled one doesn't it's easy to ignore the garbled one, or assume it's so trivial to go from one to the other that we forget there's an actual step involved, or that you need to specify that it's garbled. But consider cases where order matters for different reasons, like a recipe. If you rearrange the order of the steps in a recipe you're likely to not just get a garbled version of the original recipe; you get a different recipe. And it's easier to see that "one recipe + a reordered version of that recipe (which could be two recipes)" contains more information than "two copies of one recipe (which is basically one recipe)".

So to get back to the files, it's not that a rearranged file contains, on its own, more information than the original file; but it does contain different information than what is in the original file, namely the information that's related to the ordering of its content, meaning both together contain more information than the original file on its own did (or a set of perfect copies of the original file do). (again, that's only if order matters; if order doesn't matter then the rearranged copy can be considered identical to the original file. Just like two bags of identical scrabble tiles can be considered interchangeable)

But this doesn't seem to be the concept of "information" you were using at all, so it's only relevant insofar as you want to use the word "information" and want to understand why people might be confused.

#16 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 432 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • France

Posted 18 June 2017 - 10:34 AM

Interesting. What makes you think that?

because if you did, you would understand that the program itself contains the information you claim is missing.


I wasn't talking about a program, I was talking about files and file copies.

#17 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 642 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 18 June 2017 - 09:12 PM

I wasn't talking about a program, I was talking about files and file copies.

ok.
DNA only copys itself on cell division, and both copies are identical.
as soon as cell division is complete epigenetics and transposons make the DNA different from the original.
transposons make it different, epigenetics determine if these differences will be effective.

this sort of thing makes me question the validity of population genetics analysis.

as a matter of fact i question EVERYTHING associated with the modern synthesis.

like koonin said, the modern synthesis is gone.

#18 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 432 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • France

Posted 19 June 2017 - 02:43 AM

@what if: ok then.

The rest of your response isn't relevant enough to respond to in this thread but the subject is interesting enough that I might want to discuss it elsewhere; we'll see there and then :)

#19 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 642 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 19 June 2017 - 04:25 AM

@what if: ok then.

i've had a tough time getting a handle on what "information" means in regards to the cell and evolution.
i believe the computer program concept fits the criteria pretty well.
the ordering example i gave above shows how the program and data can remain unmodified, but yet can produce very different outputs.
this fits quite well with what is currently known about evolution.

The rest of your response isn't relevant enough to respond to in this thread but the subject is interesting enough that I might want to discuss it elsewhere; we'll see there and then :)

cool, but be advised that most of my sources obliterates the modern synthesis.
most will take that to mean evolution is false, and that isn't the case.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users