Can Chance Produce Information?
I don’t think chance can produce information. In a comment on HH’s blog, I came up with an argument which I’d never really heard before. I want to know what you think.
Can chance create meaningful information?
How would it be distinguished from meaningless garbage? To illustrate what I mean, consider the Library of Babel: Jean Luis Borges wrote a short story in which every possible book, ie every possible combination of letters, was contained in an infinite Library (which represents the Universe). Every truth was contained in the Library, but maddeningly the library is useless for finding truth.
This is because, in the extraordinary even you found a book that wasn’t filled with nonsense, it could just as well be garbage as truth (and statistically it’s a good deal more likely to be the former). It’s a great story, I recommend reading it.
My point is that even if chance could produce ‘information’ it would be indistinguishable from junk, and so would not be information. This would be so except when some other information was available for use as criteria – and, ironically, if and only if that other information did not arise by chance (because if it was produced by chance the other criteria would itself be indistinguishable from the myriad of other, similar but junk criteria. In fact, there would be infinite sets of junk ‘information’ and matching criteria, both for and against).
What do you think? If you can spot a hole in it, I’d love it if you pointed it out. (HH?)
Comments
May 1st, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Will have a think through that one and post shortly.
I remember hearing the following illustration from my science teacher:
This basically settled the argument for everyone in the room. Later I read about this example being used elsewhere with a short critique by a Christian:
May 1st, 2008 at 4:09 pm
2 holes. Ironically, JPJ just provided both of them.
I’ll leave the first one as it is, because it’s fine. The critique though that she provided is almost there, with one small addition.
Information is what we get from analysing data. Without that analysis it’s not information at all, it’s just junk. Which makes the CAT example really good – to the english speaking of course it’s information. But to those who don’t understand english, it’s junk. That’s because, based on a previous understanding, information arises from analysis of the provided data. In biology, you could say DNA is junk, it’s data. But the analysis is the method that the cell uses to take that DNA and USE it. If the DNA was just sitting on its own, say in a vacuum, it’s useless. It becomes information when it is used to code for proteins and whatnot.
Consider this Hayes – we consider CAT to be a 3-letter chunk of information… Just as each separate letter is a singular chunk of information. But if a robot pulled those same 3 letters out of a hat with no one to see it, is it junk or information?
Conclusion: Information “theory” is pseudo-science. One main reason being that information as you define is not universal – it becomes information only because you say it is.
May 1st, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Will reply to this when I get a chance. But I’m not convinced. jpj or anyone else care to comment?
May 2nd, 2008 at 7:09 am
Problems with the argument – I don’t believe the 2 holes are anything more than phantasms, glitches – misidentifications. Both are predicated on ascribing ‘us’ with greater significance than is warranted under the thorough going application of the premise.
It isn’t analysis, ‘us’ analyzing data – that changes anything or ‘makes’ information in a world of chance. I don’t believe the ‘Post-modern’ ‘reader response criticism’ assertion – ‘it becomes information only because you say it is by virtue of your analysis’ – is either coherent, cogent or consistent. We don’t provide any extra permutations in the universe, unless of course our claim is to introduce new ones from outside it.. (We already know what to think about people who claim that!)
The ‘identification’ or ‘discovery’ of patterns which gives rise to meaning is ruled out by the assertion of the premise. Only the presence of a like ‘us’ being – an intelligence that is separate from the closed system of the universe/library of chance can introduce that.
To unpack this a little: Have I lost sight of the reality that I am part of this universal library? (To ask this is of course in & of itself absurd given the premise but nevertheless) – or can I provide a criteria because I am really not one of the ‘every possible combinations’ contained within the universe? – Isn’t that the logical contradiction?
I am clearly inseparably part of the universe in whatever dimensions it actually presents itself. To claim I provide that criteria by doing analysis – is a very big claim indeed – I would suggest extreme in its arrogance or delusion.
Or to put it yet another way:
It seems to misunderstand the ascription that this is a chance universe, – by claiming as a being (ie only potentially some of the information within that universe) that you provide a meaningful arbitrating criteria. Unless of course you claim to be coming from outside the ‘closed system’ that is the universe & not a product of it – ie not another chance happening along with everything else.
To claim that is a big call – tantamount to a claim to deity. (Tantalising at one level isn’t it that the Bible says in at least one place ‘you are all gods’?)
I prefer an epistemic humility which is where I think the argument leads – Yes it presents us with a self referencing paradox – it is infinite & vicious – for to conduct the enquiry is to already acknowledge that ‘Yes there is meaning in the universe’ – but it clearly can’t be coming from me – for I am an entity bound up in this universe, nor can it be coming from the universe itself – for the criteria is not readily apparent. The meaning I seek must come from outside – it is impossible to ascribe it from within a chance universe/existence.
Further comments:
I think the argument is highly suggestive but not conclusive. That is because I also believe at one level it will not be satisfying for ultimately we will not decide the question: “Did I arise by chance or not?” by intellect alone. In the end I think the battle ground is not cognitive ability but affective inclination – that I suggest is perhaps more what is contentious here.
May 2nd, 2008 at 9:09 am
Try speaking in English. I don’t see 2 problems with the holes whatsoever, I see you claiming there are holes then using a lot of big words trying to confuse people.
When I have time Hayes I’ll find a refutation of “information ‘theory’” and link you.
May 2nd, 2008 at 10:07 am
Another problem with your library example – you’re only considering that a book is either perfect or total garbage. It just might as well be part garbage, part useful information (gasp, kind of like DNA). Once again it all depends on the method of analysis. An alien wouldn’t get much use out of the human library, it’d ALL be junk.
Anyways the whole point is moot – information quite obviously can arise from chance, and Natural Selection prevents those harmful changes from propagating.
More later, going to a friends place to watch BattleStar Galactica
May 2nd, 2008 at 10:17 am
Thanks for your analysis IllyaKuryakin! You know that feeling when you have done something, say a painting, and think it is pretty good… and then you look over at the person next to you and see that their painting makes yours look like a finger-painting by comparison? That’s how I feel – you’ve taken this to another level and I’m a little lost in it. I’ll sit down this weekend and work through it.
HH, the book analogy works just as well applied to any sentence, or even word, within the book. Try to address the argument, not nitpick the analogy.
I don’t consider that you have shown that “information quite obviously can arise from chance”. I’ll explain why this weekend.
May 2nd, 2008 at 10:19 am
Sorry Hayes but at the base level, and taking “information” to mean “proper English words” as you seem to be, the chance of ‘information’ arising by chance is quite obviously non-zero.
May 2nd, 2008 at 11:53 am
I most certainly am not taking information to mean proper English words. The library is an analogy.
What makes words information?
May 2nd, 2008 at 4:48 pm
We do.
May 3rd, 2008 at 6:52 am
Perhaps I’ve been unclear.
I’ll concede that, at present, chance can produce something which we recognise as information. I meant that from the beginning, though my wording (especially of this post’s title) was confusing.
From the post:
So clearly, a robot picking the letters C-A-T at random has produced information. This is because we have “some other information … for use as criteria”.
In the post I continued with the following, and I think it is in this that the crux of my argument lies – so let us now turn to it:
“if and only if that other information did not arise by chance“
If chance produced the criteria, the criteria would itself be indistinguishable from the myriad of other, similar but junk criteria. In fact, there would be infinite sets of junk ‘information’ and matching criteria, both for and against.
By analogy, yes chance can produce C-A-T but that which makes CAT meaningful is not chance, it is intelligence from outside the system. Ergo, chance alone has not produced meaningful information.
May 4th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Your analogy unfortunately falls apart in the real world. You’re thinking that language arrived fully formed, a gift from God.
Obviously though language is a constantly evolving communications medium. You could say language itself arose by “chance”, although you might have to ask a linguist – not a creationist linguist though. They’ll tell you a charming yet pointless story about the tower of babel.
Other than “God did it” where exactly do you think language CAME from, Hayes?
I’ll post this question on Ask The Atheist, so I can give you a better and clearer response.
May 4th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Didn’t read past this, since it showed that we haven’t met in argument yet:
“You’re thinking that language arrived fully formed, a gift from God”
No I’m not. I don’t have a view on that one way or another.
[ok I gave in and kept reading]
Suppose language arose by chance. (Which, by the way, is quite an assumption given our present argument) What then? We still apply our intelligence to the two chanced phenomena, no?
May 4th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
Thank you comrade healyhatman –Let me try another language level & another tack:
“Arguments falling apart in the real world’ – ‘language fully formed’ – ‘gift from God’ – ‘Other than God “ – rather narrowing the playing field aren’t we? & seizing the high ground?!
‘Language arrived fully formed from God’ – Doesn’t language as a set of symbols arise as beings have meanings to transfer? But that again begs the question in a universe of chance – where did the meanings come from?
By what authority do we assert our claims to meaning or intelligence or wisdom?!
Isn’t there is an inherent absurdity in proposing the original information question? Aren’t we already working with meaning? Yet the question pushes us to a place where meaning can’t exist. Why? Because we exist in this library!
& it doesn’t matter whether we are talking big m Meaning or small m meaning – the problem is still evident.
It seems to me the question of whether the universe of chance can supply us with real knowledge is not unlike the similar question of whether the universe can supply us with the answer to how big anything really is.
I love to think of MIB (Men in Black) & particularly the ending. In it at one point there is a hunt for a whole other universe that is contained on a necklace. & at the end – the movie pursues that idea in the other direction highlighting how small our universe may actually be as our universe becomes marbles in the hands of enormous being’s children. What we are lacking is something that provides real information which the universe itself isn’t providing – about size. The criteria with which to measure.
So the struggle about knowledge at one level is – given our own existence – how can we pursue this question meaningfully?! . . . which we seem to be . . . & yet . . . so many claim this is a meaningless existence & people have formulated whole religious systems to try to escape the dilemma.
‘In the real world’ – if anything is clear it is God is certainly not ruled out as we think about where real information or language came from – (or indeed in any sphere).
May 7th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
There’s an answer posted for you on Ask The Atheist.
http://asktheatheist.com/question/can_chance_produce_information