Re: Information as an Emergent form of Entropy


"Raving" <raving.loonie@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1189361853.529716.121800@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
"Friar Broccoli" <EliasRK@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1189353167.702530.60010@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In an effort to logically link entropy and information (not too
sure why - but mostly to permit a single attack against the
entropy based "where does the order come from" argument and the
information based "where does the complexity come from"
creationist/ID arguments) I am considering the following model
of emergent reality:

1) There are various levels of reality (emergent states)
a) dimensions > time/space etc

b) strings (which can be modeled as arising entirely from
interactions between dimensions - personal hypothesis, not
central to this argument)

c) fundamental particles/forces - photons, electrons,
protons, neutrinos, gluons, gravitons etc that may arise
from strings

d) chemical elements/planets - which arise from fundamental
particles/forces

e) life - which arises from "d"

f) consciousness - which arises from life

2) For each of these emergent states a set of rules applies that
one would probably not have predicted could exist based on
the next level down of reality. (ie. one could hardly have
predicted the rules of etiquette/political correctness from
an examination of primitive life let alone from the periodic
table)

3) Entropy is largely a function of levels c/d while information
is the analogous property that arises from e/f.

For the reader so inclined I would appreciate just about any
type of comment; from an attack, to a reinforcing example, to
"what the hell is this supposed to mean".

In the past at least one person (Ernest Major) has attacked my
position that entropy is largely an electro-chemical phenomenon.
Am I safer here, confining it as a product of the fundamental
forces/materials?

Also PIP has stomped on my speculation that gravity is a
primary causal force/mechanism for generating negative entropy.

No comment this time on gravity. But, since I am currently working
my way through a second reading of E. T Jaynes's book "Probability
Theory: The Logic of Science", I'll try to say some things about
(thermodynamic) entropy and information from a Jaynesian perspective.
Yes. I am also also influenced by Jaynes's efforts regarding
'biological complexity'.

I'm not familiar with any work by Jaynes along those lines. Have a cite?

Jaynes is something of an expert and pioneer regarding thermodynamics.
Back in the 1950s and 1960s he produced several papers and books which
provide a fresh look at Gibbs's foundational work on thermodynamics.
That work by Jaynes has become the foundation of a whole new approach
to non-equilibrium thermo, culminating in the recent paper by Dewar.
Roderick Dewar
J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 36 (2003) 631-641
http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0005382
Yikes. This stuff hits too close to home. ... BTDT (dabbled)

To oversimplify, in Jaynes's account, thermodynamic entropy is intimately
related to information (i.e. to a metric of how much we know). And
Shannon entropy and Shannon information are part of the same package.
In a sense, thermodynamic entropy is not a feature of the real world at
all, according to Jaynes. It isn't something we measure. It is a number
we calculate and assign to some situation in the real world to capture
what we know about the situation (or rather to quantify how much we don't
know.)
Here is the predicament. ...

Information is an inherently biological concept that has been
developed within the paradigm of physical science.

The strong suitability for the 'information' concept to describe
biological process and thus to be included as an essential and
intensive part of 'Biological Theory' is grotesquely sheared and
perverted by the prevailing
defined-view of 'information' as it is successfully and extensively
applied to the physical sciences.

As far as dualities *can* go, this one takes the cake, IMO.


So, from this viewpoint, entropy is not something which arises at
your levels c & d. It is something that arises when a level-f
entity tries to talk about a situation at levels c or d without
having all the details. Of course, level f entities like to talk
about situations that were happening long before any level f entities
were around to talk about them - situations like the Big Bang. So
in some sense, when a galaxy formed at levels c and d, the 2LoT
applied and entropy increased, even though there was no one there
to decry the loss of information. ;-)
I hope to go back and respond to the OP directly. ...

My posting as provided in the link below should give PiP some pause
for consideration.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/dd6e8c253e8ba98b

Excerpt:
'Biological process' created the mind in it's own image

If you had written 'selective evolutionary process' instead of
'biological process', then your aphorism would be in accordance
with some theories of mind and also with some theories of the
neural mechanism of mind. But, somehow, I don't think you had
either of these analogies in mind.

I am quickly reaching the following perverse viewpoint: (Yes, I know
that it makes me look ridiculous.)

1) NS is inconsequential for evolutionary process. NS describes the
"follow on" consequence or a posteriori. (It is confusing.) Yeah, I am
dabbling with heresy. I am suggesting that ToE neither explains
evolution, nor is ToE (Darwinian, NS) primarily involved with a theory
that describes evolving biology.

Well, in trying to make sense of this, I find that my main difficulty
arises when you describe NS as a 'follow on' to the emergence of the
human mind. Which seems to me to involve some rather non-standard
ideas regarding the place of temporal order in causality. Interesting.
But could you clarify?

2) An alternate explanation of 'Evolutionary Process' invites a heroic
performance of stuttering and mumbling. Words, thoughts and foci
escape me. I just know .. (Ultra yuk.)

I'm sure none of this helps you at all in formulating a response to
"where does the complexity come from". Are you sure that responding
is something you ought to be doing?
There is something of which I am quite confident ...

The concept of entropy is misleading for those who are interested in
biological process.

In my experience, it is misleading for almost everyone.

The concept of an ensemble is the 'Achilles Heel' of physical
science.

THAT does NOT mean that physics is wrong. Rather, it indicates that
there is more to reality than that which is described by the current
physical paradigm.

Hmmm. As I understand it, the concept of an ensemble is the way
physical science deals with the realization that there is more to
reality than we can see. Everett's, or Leibniz's many worlds.
But you are apparently saying something different.

The current physical reality and the unseen, unappreciated,
unexplored, neglected reality are commensurate with each other. It
could not be otherwise.

Expand on that, por favor. And in return, I won't embarrass you by
asking for your alternate explanation of "Evolutionary Process".

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Theory of beliefs, belief fields
    ... [This post is complex but I dont want to develop further the beginning ... leading to OBVIOUS ORDER, or, NO ENTROPY. ... It is schizo-Phrenics who commit the mistake of wanting no more voices. ... what people prejudge or conceive will be synchronous to what reality IS. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Information as an Emergent form of Entropy
    ... There are various levels of reality ... Entropy is largely a function of levels c/d while information ... that describes evolving biology. ... THAT does NOT mean that physics is wrong. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Is evolution an example of decreasing entropy?
    ... wade wrote: ... >> Statistical entropy and thermodynamic entropy are one and the same. ... > real thing that has real units associated with it and these units ... Units have nothing to do with reality. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Entropy reversals are naught but virtual.
    ... Observe the dark energy and matter and you'll change your mind about entropy. ... Cheat the house by changing the rules. ...
    (sci.physics)
Loading