From: tolman%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Kenneth Tolman)
Subject: Re: More wacky theory
Date: 9 Sep 92 21:24:45 MDT
Organization: University of Utah, CompSci Dept
Distribution: bionet

Thanks for the interesting comments.... 

>>  Events which propagate themselves forwards through time are information,
>>and those that do not are lost information.

>So... gaining and losing information come at the same cost? and in fact
>occur simultaneously?  (A flip-flop which is being 'set' at this moment
>is gaining the information of what I want it to store, but is destructively
>overwriting its old contents).

From this viewpoint, there are two types of information, "local", and
"universal".  The universal information can not go up with any deterministic
causal chains.  So if our flip flop were being deterministically flipped,
its universal positive change would be zero.  However, that bit which you
erased may or may not be a copy of something sitting elsewhere.  If it
is an "original", then you would be losing that information to heat 
dissipation, and the universal information would actually go down a bit. :)
The "local" information is doing... I am not sure, I don't really think
about that much, but it certainly is interesting to think about!

>Am I right in concluding that complexity = information content?

Yes, this is correct.

>(Human DNA is more complex than Mouse DNA, which is more complex than Amoeba DNA).

Yes, this is true too, probably.  Mighty mouse might be humans..

>Does your theory cope with Bell&Newell's ascertion (1973, Computers: 
>Structures and Examples) that a computer is more complex than a World War 
>II battleship, despite having fewer components?

I am not sure about this (either the original assertion or the answer as to
whether it copes)  However, I would like to be able to respond, so if
you could rephrase perhaps...

A computer is a logical masterpiece though, with a huge number of components
if you count each gate.  I also must admit that the theory is only really
good for evaluating the WHOLE system, not comparing pieces of it for sure...
Consider two organisms in a tight symbiosis- is it fair to compare their
complexities, or should we combine them?  A spectacular technological
achievement represents billions of ideas that were necessary for its
construction- an alien artifact of apparent "simplicity" might actually
reflect a huge culture.


>Does your theory cope with Dawkins' ascertion (1988, The Blink Watchmaker)
>that a mouse is more complex than Mont Blanc?

Very interesting, I am not sure I can respond adequately.
My first response would be that the mountain does indeed contain a lot
of information, probably more than the mouse.  However, its information is
"powerless", it will not propagate forwards at all, except in its static
structure, and will not permit future creative growth as the mouse will.
In fact, the information of the mountain will pretty much amount to zero,
for it will erode away and there will be nothing left of it.  However,
if you consider its "stored information" it may be quite a bit, very useless
to anyone, except that ant on the surface.

>Information content appears to be a moving target.

Yes, it is not easy.  I am not entirely satisfied with my theory in a few
ways, however there does not appear to be much competition at this point.
Hopefully, some lively argument will arise over it in the long run and
perhaps the truth can finally be found.

>Or is this perceived information content?
>How is it related to actual information content?

I am not sure, I was thinking about this in the car.  A detective at a scene
finds lots of information that was sitting there but unseen by everyone
else.  A memory of the past may suddenly become important.  A person 
percieving information in the universal context is merely copying information
that is "out there".  Therefore, they are not increasing information, unless
they use it creatively.  However, if the "out there" source is destroyed,
they become the sole bearers of that information.

>My sandwich has a spec of sand on it... I don't notice, and eat the whole
>sandwich as if it were 100% food.  A fly, though, would steer away from
>attempting to eat the sand grain, and would concentrate on the bread.
>The positional information of the sand causes more of an event for the
>fly than for me.

Yes this is true- the exact configuration of molecules in your bread
may be important to bacteria thinking about consuming it.  However, the
future of most of this information is bleak- it will be lost.  Once the
bread hits your stomach, the location of that grain of sand will be gone,
as well as the relationship between most of those molecules.  The only
bit left will be some energy that goes into ATP, which then gets
dissipated out into outer space.  It pretty much all gets sucked away for
you to maintain your own informational structures.  It is a war of 
information- all of it "wants" to propagate forwards and only a very 
little bit does.