Thanks for this info Burgy. There are quite a few really interesting
papers available. The one by Bill Dembski ["Intelligent Design as a
Theory of Information"] caught my eye as it involves some things
that we were discussing here not long ago. In particular, there
was a discussion about whether information could increase due
to random mutations. This all depends on how information is
defined. If defined a la Shannon or Kolmogorov then it seems
pretty clear that an increase in information is expected due to
random mutations. Steve Jones wanted to define information
in terms of specified complexity but this definition never was
particularly clear to me. The paper by Dembski (which I haven't
read completely yet) tries to make the definition of specified
complexity (he calls it CSI, complex specified information) more
concrete and objective. Looks very interesting. In particular,
he tries to develop a Law of Conservation of Information, which
is exactly what I had suggested to Steve needs to be done.
So, perhaps the debate can go on. Too bad Greg has left us.
The interesting questions seem to be:
1) is CSI objective and measurable?
2) does it correspond to biological information?
3) does it satisfy the axioms of information theory? (this would
be important if the answer is no and Dembski attempts to draw
from the results of information theory, I have no idea whether
this is the case).
4) What about the Law of Conservation of Information? Does
it really follow that there is such a law? Can we think of some
test cases for evaluating this law?
Let me illustrate a little. One thing I liked about Dembski's paper
is that he seems to be thinking about some of these things along
the same lines that I've been thinking. This helps me clarify some
of my ideas. A good example of this is the Law of Conservation of
Information. Dembski claims, and I fully agree, that deterministic
law will not result in an increase in information. This follows as a
very natural even obvious consequence of the algorithmic definition
of information. Does it follow from CSI? Hard for me to say now
since I'm still trying to get a handle on what CSI is and how to
measure it.
One final comment. It seems that Steve Jones has made a
valiant and commendable effort to catch up. As he seems to
be concentrating on messages that have his name in them
I figured I would mention his name to be sure he finds this.
I think the Dembski paper will help him organize his arguments
about organization so perhaps we'll have a more useful conversation.
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
Ohio State University
"Aw, Wilbur" -- Mr. Ed