On 20 Apr 2013, at 13:51, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Saturday, April 20, 2013 4:15:17 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 19 Apr 2013, at 19:52, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Friday, April 19, 2013 9:59:34 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 18 Apr 2013, at 22:05, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Thursday, April 18, 2013 1:29:29 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 4/18/2013 8:15 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013  meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:

> It's been proposed that the susceptibility to mutation is itself a characteristic subject to natural selection.

If a animal is undergoing stress (too hot, too cold, too thirsty, too hungry whatever) that means there is something about it that is not well adapted to its environment; I can imagine a gene that in times of stress would switch on and produce a chemical that increases the rate of random mutation in the genes of the offspring of that stressed animal. Most of the offspring would have mutated in the wrong direction and die but they would have probably died anyway because they would have been as poorly adapted as there parent was, but if the mutational effect was not too strong (even if it's in the right direction you can change things too far) it could increase the likelihood that at least one of its children would be better adapted than its parent. However I maintain that such a stress induced mutation producing gene has had no significant effect on the history of life, at least not in animals that reproduce sexually.

That's a kind of Lamarckian adjustment of mutability. What I was referring to is simple Darwinian adjustment of mutability. There are error correcting mechanisms for DNA reproduction. Suppose they worked perfectly: then there would never be any genetic variation and when the evironment changed the species would go extinct. But if they had a slight error rate then there would develop a range of genetic diversity that might, under environmental change, result in survivors or even new species. So on strictly Darwinian theory the DNA error correction may be selected to be less than perfect.

How does a deterministic universe invent something which is intentionally less than perfect? I'm not saying that it couldn't, or didn't, but why would there really even be any possibility of volatility built into physics in the first place? What, in a deterministic universe, constitutes an 'error'?


A deterministic reality might be unable to make an error at the "bottom level", but if it can emulate high level complex processes, like running some complex software, and such software can make an error with respect to the goal (like "survive"). Look at some youtube "crash investigation" showing why today some plane crash are due to computer errors. The error can have multiple origin, hardware or software. Likewise it is reasonable for a biologist to say that when a DNA polymerase introduces an unwanted supplementary nucleotide, it is making an error. In fact living cells contains a lot of error correction code to handle such cases, with 'error' taken in a sense similar to the one used in computer science. This illustrates that some errorless low-level can support higher level errors.

Bruno

It seems like you are bringing in empirical evidence of errors in the real world and using that to justify the expectation that at some point between low-level and high-level, this 'error' potential emerges as a condition of complexity.

OK.




What I am asking for though is precisely that this point be explained by theory. What is the theory of the emergence of the first error?

It is when god put the tree of knowledge in the garden :)

More seriously, it is when universal machine/number begins to refer and self-refer. That ability makes it possible to accelerate the computations relatively to each other, but entails the possiblity of error.

Why does it entail that possibility, i.e. how does 'error' become a possibility?

Not-provable False implies consistent (provable false). Second incompleteness theorem of Gödel. If a machine is consistent, then it is consistent for that machine that she is inconsistent.

Notably (but need to be handle with care).





The deep reason is already contained in Gödel's second incompleteness: if I am consistent then it is consistent that I am inconsistent (Dt -> ~BDt). Simple but rich correct theories can be come inconsistent, or consistent but unsound.

Not satisfying. A paradox does not automatically conjure a phenomena where determinism arbitrarily fails on a infrequent but quasi- inevitable basis.

It is not a paradox. It is a theorem of arithmetic.

Bruno




Craig


Bruno






Craig








Craig


Brent


Such a stress-mutation gene has never been found in a sexual animal and it's easy to see why. In sex all the genes are not inherited in one big package but are shuffled around with the genes of the other parent, so a animal that was lucky enough to inherit the good genes produced by the hypothetical stress- mutation gene but not the stress-mutation gene itself would do just as well or better than a animal that got both the good genes and the stress-mutation gene that is no longer active because the animal is no longer under stress. So even if such a stress- mutation gene did occur in one individual in a population it would vanish in just a few generations from the gene pool. Natural Selection doesn't figure "I better keep that stress- mutation gene because even though there is no stress now that could change and such a gene might come in handy in the future". Evolution has no foresight and can't think and all that matters to it is what's happening right here right now.

  John K Clark





--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en .
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.3272 / Virus Database: 3162/6252 - Release Date: 04/17/13



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en .
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en .
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en .
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to