Re: [asa] Of motes and beams

This "solve-a-problem" perspective Ian mentions (and which appears to be
a necessary consideration in evaluating the success of genetic algorithm
research) sort of picks at the edge of my mind. Our human perspective
assumes (as also suggested by our Scriptures) that we and our kindred
life forms are the single culmination (and particular objective) of
God's Creation. My question is whether this is a correct assumption.
[There may be something moot here!] It would seem to me that it might
be AN outcome of significance, but do we really have enough insight into
the mind of God to know that it is We are?) THE solution to THE problem
presumably being addressed in Creation?

It is the remarkable thing about evolution, in whatever form it takes,
that it "explores". It arguably solves local problems (local in both
spatial and temporal senses), but its ultimate course(s) and
"accomplishments" are potentially many (and may or may not be under the
direct influence of God, depending upon ...well, how He elects - or not
- to interact with Creation at any given time. This process-determined
(as opposed to direction-determined) is of course a sticking point that
bothers so many who struggle with the whole concept of evolution. Our
human sense (for some, at least) is that Creation was put into place in
this particular form so that we and our kind would ultimately "happen".
Arguments have certainly been offered that Creation was designed so that
the emergence of life in some form, somewhere was an imperative. There
of course are many ways that God could cause His Creation to move in
accordance with His intent with little or even no continuing active
agency (front-loaded design, rule-and-initial-conditions "attraction" a
la chaos theory, etc.). I speak of agency here in the sense of activity
in the limited context of the physical world.

But even in our limited human thinking and perspectives, we can see that
God could act more directly and immediately (flash-boom instantaneous
creation and essentially static result) if creating and having humans
and all their related kinds about. That isn't the way we understand our
physical world to function. Why a flow of time? Why bother with death
and selection and all that stuff if there were a single focal "problem"
and "solution"? And why such an immense universe of places and things
and conditions?

But the the universe IS immense, beyond human ken, with stars and solar
systems beyond our ability to count or resolve them with eye or
instrument. And, the dynamics of the created universe proceed on
essentially numberless stages. For what purpose if humans and
human-related kinds of life were the sole objective?

Here's my point, I can't help but wonder if the "space" being explored
by this dynamic Creation of which we are a part does not have room for
many "solutions", and that "solutions" may not even be the proper way to
conceptualize the endpoint(s) of the operation of the grand universe,
since it implies counterpart "problems". I question the "problem" part.

It would seem to me that the "exploratory" nature of evolutionary
processes might not be about solving a problem in any conventional
sense. Our conceptualization of "problem" could easily fall a tad short
of how transcendent God ...uh...conceptualizes one. But is there a tiny
clue from his Creation? It appears that the "exploratory" character of
evolutionary processes is more about seeing where it goes and what's
there at the end of the day, rather than a point solution to a
particular problem.

That of course poses the real (and I'm sure, well recognized) difficulty
in the creation of an analogous genetic algorithm and determining its
success or failure, because the criteria for success needs to be a
predetermined component of the algorithmic evaluation. But that's (of
apparent necessity) a very closed definition of "success". I'm not sure
the magnitude of the universe, with its huge spectrum of places, and
conditions, and times, and unthinkable numbers of possible evolutionary
paths is likely to be linked to any given single definition of
"success", nor - I would speculate - is it likely that our concept of a
definition of "problem" even apropos.

Just a thought...or so it seemeth to me. JimA

Iain Strachan wrote:

>
>
> On 7/18/06, Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu
> <mailto:alexanian@uncw.edu>> wrote:
>
> The example is that humans have built-in abilities that can be
> used in new situations without meaning that they have evolved. It
> is a question of time scales. If a system can readjust itself to
> new circumstances in short periods of time, that cannot be called
> evolution.
>
>
>
> Can you explain why you say this? It's evolution if the principal
> mechanism of adjustment is mutation + natural selection. The
> timescale is irrelevant. You can make evolution happen in a computer
> simulation that runs in a fraction of a second, and it's still an
> evolutionary process. Admittedly the valuable applications of genetic
> algorithms are few and far between, but they do exist. I agree it
> doesn't _prove_ humans have evolved, but that wasn't what I was trying
> to prove - all I was saying is that you can't per se call evolution a
> bad thing, or say it has a "bad track record". If it didn't go on in
> your immune system you'd be dead very quickly, as tragically, victims
> of AIDS find out.
>
> For what it's worth, I was extremely sceptical about evolution of
> different species for a long time, based on my own experience with
> genetic algorithms, and how difficult it is to get them to solve any
> worthwhile problems. However, I'm reading a very helpful book at the
> moment that goes a long way towards answering the questions I had,
> namely "Darwin in the Genome" by Lynn Caporale. It is also refreshing
> that Caporale doesn't use her science as an excuse to bash religion
> (and explicitly says so). One of the key limitations of genetic
> algorithms appears to be that mutation is completely random (ie
> equally likely to strike at any point). However, a simple observation
> from Caporale's book (that the four bases A,C,G and T are slightly
> different), leads to the fact that mutation isn't equally likely
> everywhere - in fact there are localised hot spots where lots of
> mutations occur and areas where very few mutations occur. This is
> precisely what is going on in antibody evolution - the bit that binds
> on to the antigen mutates rapidly, and the fixed bit of the antibody
> (that sends some sort of signal for the rest of the sytem to act, as I
> recall) doesn't mutate. But the mutation process happens exactly as
> it does over generations - by inexact copying when a DNA molecule
> replicates itself. There is essentially no difference here between
> this type of replication, and when DNA replicates to produce sperm or
> egg cells, in that inexact copying gives rise to mutations.
>
> Iain
>
>
>
> Of course, the time scale of readjustment is of the order of the
> lifetime of the system.
>
>
>
> Moorad
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> From: Iain Strachan [mailto:igd.strachan@gmail.com
> <mailto:igd.strachan@gmail.com>]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 3:44 AM
> To: Alexanian, Moorad
> Cc: Vernon Jenkins; George Murphy; Don Nield; asa@calvin.edu
> <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
>
>
> Subject: Re: [asa] Of motes and beams
>
>
>
>
>
> On 7/18/06, Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu
> <mailto:alexanian@uncw.edu>> wrote:
>
> I am not sure I understand. When a human encounters a new
> mathematical problem and is able to develop a solution to it with
> the prior information he/she has about mathematics, can we say
> that the individual evolved or just that the human brain has the
> ability to "figure out" new situations with already existing
> elements?
>
>
>
> I wouldn't say that the solving of a mathematical problem, a
> sequence of logical steps based on some informed guesses, bears
> any resemblance to the evolutionary processes by which the immune
> system works. Unless you solve mathematical problems as in a
> cartoon I once saw depicting Einstein's blackboard, which had
> three lines on it: E = ma^2 (crossed out) E = mb^2 (crossed
> out) E = mc^2 (tick). No-one solves maths problems like that so
> to bring it up is an irrelevancy.
>
> Iain
>
>
>
>
> --
> -----------
> After the game, the King and the pawn go back in the same box.
>
> - Italian Proverb
> -----------

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jul 18 14:04:25 2006