Re: Non-beneficial Gaps

On Feb 13, 6:46 pm, "R. Baldwin" <res0k...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Wrong. In a terrain data information system, every possible data value
for
elevation is potentially meaningful or useful. Every possible sequence of
elevation values is potentially meaningful or useful.

Not from a given perspective of a particular life form in a particular
environment.

If you are going to restrict your view to "a given perspective of a
particular life form in a particular environment" then you should not begin
your argument with "All known language/information systems share a common
feature." I was pointing out that you were starting from a flawed premise
about the nature of known language/information systems, so life forms and
environments are not relevant.

All known language/information systems depend upon being viewed from a
particular perspective/environment. Character sequences, by
themselves, are meaningless without a particular context or
environment - like the English lanuage *system*. The same thing is
true of DNA sequences. A DNA sequence means nothing outside of the
context of a particular organism and environment. That is what is
meant by a language "system".

When a mutation produces a novel genetic sequence in a particular
living thing in a particular environment, the vast majority of
potential mutations will not be beneficial.  Even when it comes to
producing low-level single protein systems (<1000aa), most mutations
will be functionally neutral. Of those that do produce a functional
change (about 1%) most will be detrimental by a ratio of at least
1000:1.  As one considers higher-level systems, systems that require a
greater minimum structural threshold, the ratio of non-beneficial vs.
beneficial declines even further -  in an exponential manner.

You can go on making these unfounded assertions as long as you like, Sean.
That does not make these falsehoods any more correct. In any case, it has
nothing to do with my previous post, which was challenging your broad
assertions about languages and information processing *in general* and *not*
in the context of Biology.

All languages and information processing are done in context - the
same as biosystems.

Now how about addressing the snipped challenge? I'll restore the text for
your convenience below:

This is true of the English language as well as all other spoken or
written human languages, computer codes and programs, and even of
genetic information and protein-based biosystems.

Prove it. Let's take the APL programming language. Demonstrate this
exponential drop-off for APL, please.

Prove me wrong using any language/information system you want.

Let's start with the English language/information system.  What is the
ratio of potentially meaningful vs. meaningless 2-character sequences
are there?  Well, its around 1 in 7.  What about 3-character
sequences?  About 1 in 18.  What about 7-character sequences? About 1
in 250,000.

Extrapolating from a single analogy, eh?

It works exactly the same way with any meaningful language/information
you choose. There is no fundamental difference.

Exactly the same pattern is present in computer codes and programs.

And just how many computer codes and programs did you research in order to
reach this dubious conclusion, Sean? Not many, I'll bet. At the assembly
language level, for example, you are quite wrong. I've programmed in
FORTRAN, Basic, Pascal, C, APL,
custom script languages, dozens of assembly
languages, direct machine language, bit slice, PLDs, and custom machine
languages of my own design for custom machines. The simpler the language
structure, the less likely that increasing sequence length produces anything
like the kind of ratios you describe.

Systems of meaningful/beneficial function that require an increased
sequence length and/or specificity will be exponentially less common
in sequence space regardless of the coding language system you are
using. It is true of English, Spanish, Dutch, Russian, all the
computer languages you've listed, Morse Code, all biosystems, etc.

They are all essentially the same. They all code for useful
information with various character sequences. They all also have
essentially the same ratio and distribution of potential targets at
different minimum size and specificity requirements in sequence
space.

If you think I'm wrong to any significant degree for any existing
language system you know of, then by all means, prove me wrong.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


.

Relevant Pages

  • e-book
    ... History of the Language Sciences (Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaften/ ... The Supreme Court & the Politics of Minority ... Industrializing English Law: Entrepreneurship & Business ... Pharmaceuticals in the Environment: Regulatory and Nonregulatory ...
    (sci.bio.herp)
  • Re: Is MDA working for real enterprise projects?
    ... selection of the correct language. ... That is the basic idea behind the pure translation tools that do full ... any OOA model for its particular computing environment. ... AALs have a whole lot less code than the resulting OOPL sources. ...
    (comp.object)
  • Re: Paul Grahams Arc is released today... what is the long term impact?
    ... It's not a matter of characters it is a ... What makes you think that language is not intimately related to history? ... programming in machine code? ... allows for treating a sequence of words as a single unit and yet somehow ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Kolmorgorov_Complexity_and_Kim_=D8yhus?=
    ... There is no compression possible, ... compressed expression is shorter than the expressed string), ... makes no sense to ask whether the DNA-base sequence is shorter than the ... > language system code needed to compress and decompress the sequence. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: A new paradigm
    ... OOP being described in OOP language instead of in English. ... Many of us in the MV environment are business people who know what we are ...
    (comp.databases.pick)