Nicker on 26/5/2009 at 17:28
Hello TTLG mathematics geniuses.
Having dispensed the requisite flattery, I wonder if you could assist me with some perspectives on algorithms. A buddy of mine has a certain fixed idea about how the world works [cough]creationist[/cough].
His latest talking point is that algorithms, expressed in DNA, are "empirical proof" of an external, pre-existing intelligence, which designed them. (And yes, I have done a fair bit of research on my own but at a certain point it just turns into Greek for me.)
Quote:
It is a fact that algorithms are products of intelligence. The only known examples of algorithms are those invented by man and that which is present in the information storage medium known as DNA.
He also supports his claim with the Webster's definition:
Quote:
Websters: "al·go·rithm : a procedure for solving a mathematical problem (as of finding the greatest common divisor) in a finite number of steps that frequently involves repetition of an operation ; broadly : a step-by-step procedure for solving a problem or accomplishing some end especially by a computer"
From my limited understanding of the subject I am pretty sure that his own understanding of how algorithms arise and function in nature is wrong, in that it is incomplete and selective.
While the Webster's definition is correct, it seems to imply a top down application of instructions from an abstract, external source. I understand that algorithms can also be generated and modified in natural systems, and that DNA is a record of billions of repeated operations filtered by the survival of the most successful and elimination of the least successful.
Now this appears to be a chicken and egg problem. Is DNA an external program imposed on organic life or is it the “record” left by the struggles of organic life? I favour the latter but lack the know how to demonstrate it.
Thanks for any help, mathematical, procedural, philosophical or scientific, you can offer in this regard.
ZylonBane on 26/5/2009 at 17:32
Quote:
It is a fact that algorithms are products of intelligence.
Simple, just ask him to cite this.
Vivian on 26/5/2009 at 17:52
Sounds like he's repackaging the watchmaker analogy - I don't understand the logic that holds up complexity as irrefutable proof of conscious design. You'd think these people have never seen a crystal before.
Anyways, DNA is both a result of and constraint on the evolution of organic life. If you want to know what the theories of how it all got started are, check out stuff like the (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis) RNA world hypothesis and other links on the page - wikipedia seems fairly accurate, but it would be worth looking in a textbook like futuyama's
Evolution just to make sure. Its been so long since I studied it I can remember fuck all of it.
By the way, the egg came first. And the egg was laid by something that was very closely related to a chicken but not quite a chicken yet.
BEAR on 26/5/2009 at 18:28
I'll give you an algorithm on how to deal with this.
Step 1: Stop trying to use rational arguments against creationism because it is by its nature an irrational concept, even if it is masked with reasons it can never be beaten because it doesn't rely on natural laws for its inherent existence.
Stop
Thief13x on 26/5/2009 at 18:54
Perhaps, assuming that the big bang theory and evolution, and creationism are mutually exclusive. I'm not into arguing this stuff, but I think it's important to recognize this perspective which seems to be becoming increasingly common in the religious community.
now Stop :ebil:
jay pettitt on 26/5/2009 at 19:05
Somebody is confusing consequence with cause. Patterns are a consequence of nature - that human intelligence is able to spot patterns doesn't mean that where patterns occur then a human like intelligence must have caused it. That's just really fucking dumb and illogical and gngngngg what the hell is wrong with nature just being WOW?!? and that finding out about it is a blast - why can't that be allowed :/. It's a desperately sad that people spread this shit.
Religious zealots seem to not get the notion of consequence quite a lot. Especially they seem not to get that evolution is a consequence of nature, not a law that drives nature forward and that must be adhered to. Once you get that evolution is a consequence stuff makes a hell of a lot more sense.
Quote:
Sounds like he's repackaging the watchmaker analogy - I don't understand the logic that holds up complexity as irrefutable proof of conscious design. You'd think these people have never seen a crystal before.
And it's not as though simplicity isn't a goal of intelligent design, why the hell would intelligence just want to make things increasingly complicated? The whole thing is just bonkers.
SubJeff on 26/5/2009 at 19:21
Quote:
that human intelligence is able to spot patterns doesn't mean that where patterns occur then a human like intelligence must have caused it
Word. Algorithms can be used to describe things but that doesn't mean they a.weren't there before and b.didn't happen via a process that doesn't involve algorithms e.g. some "designer".
You know what gets me about Christian creationists (cuz this would never happen with a Jewish creationist)? They think they can ascribe human-like features to God when the whole point is you can never understand the divine. Its blasphemy really.
Chade on 26/5/2009 at 21:22
Nicker, an algorithm is just a process. We just formalised it, is all.
Tell your friend to stop using word-play to make arguments about the fundamental forces of nature.
SubJeff on 27/5/2009 at 02:37
Faux-Fibonacci imposer plant :mad:
