From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Information in a glass of water (was Re: Probability of Evolution)
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 23:02:37 GMT

In article <ZBoDuB10w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes: 
>>>Isn't tea the mashed leaves of the tea plant. So doesn't tea contain at
>>>least the remnants of the DNA in the cells of those leaves? So isn't tea
>>>even more complicated than we think? 
>> 
>>Well go ahead and use a glass of water instead. You ignored that I strictly
>>looked at the information on the velocity and position of each an every atom 
>>the liquid. This information is indpendent of the liquid used.  
>> 
>>>And isn't a cell more than just a
>>>genome. Doesn't it also have several thousands of different types of
>>>proteins?
>> 
>>Where do you think the information in all those proteins relates from? That's
>>right, the genome. In fact, all the information in an organism ultimately rel
>>to the genome of that organism. 
> 
>No. You specified "one instant" of time. At one instant of time both the
>genome and the proteins are separately existing in the cell. Therefore the
>information content must be estimated for the entire contents of the
>cell.

  You have forgotten my post about all possible books have a lower information
content then any one particular existing book?  Likewise the collection of all
creatures has a lower information content then any one particular creature.

  If you are talking about the general information contained in "a" cell, then
one only needs that genetic information necessary to build the cell.  What you
are saying above is what is the information in some particular cell at some
particular time.  This is a high information content, but I'm willing to bet it
is still a little less than the particular glass of hot water at a particular
time.

>>Oh, oh, Kalki. Through this analogy you are revealing your lack of understand
>>of biology. Not wise, not wise.
> 
>So you say. But we think you are revealing your lack of understanding of
>physics, of information theory, and even of the basic principles of
>logic.

  As a mathematician I think that I can offer an expert opinion when I say that
you have shown nothing but a passing knowledge of any of information theory, and
have yet to demonstrate even that much as far as logic goes.

>>In a sense scientists have already done this in computer simulations. Some wo
>>even argue that life has been created in such simulations. Besides, if the la
>>of physics are so simple as you say, why do I get this feeling that you don't
>>understand them? 
> 
>No scientist (except God) has ever created life, either in a computer
>simulation or otherwise.

  Somebody who knows exactly how the research is going give me an idea about
when a scientist will be able to make a virus from scratch?  Since Kalki
considers them alive it would, in his above argument, make them a god.

>>Please answer these questions: Do you think that information cannot arise fro
>>natural systems? Or is a deity or an intelligence needed? 
>
>Information content is a quantitative measure which obeys rules similar
>to the rules of statistical mechanics and thermodynamics. As such it can
>be applied to any system which can be described by a finite string of
>symbols from a given alphabet.

  So information can arise by natural processes?  That makes the whole
information theory rather moot then, doesn't it?

 |  __L__
-|-  ___  Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
 |  | o | kv07@iastate.edu
 |/ `---' Iowa State University
/|   ___  Math Department
 |  |___| 400 Carver Hall
 |  |___| Ames, IA  50011
 J  _____