Can information theory prove the existence of God?

I recently came across this website by Perry Marshall, which makes a really interesting proof of the existence of God.

The argument is basically that DNA constitutes information (a code), yet all information that we know of is the product of a mind. Randomness cannot create information. Therefore, God exists.

Lovely argument. Now let's pick some holes.

1) My first observation is that this argument is almost exactly the same as entropy. The argument is that DNA is a low entropy state. Yet randomness always increases entropy. Therefore DNA cannot be the product of random processes, therefore it must be the work of God (or Maxwell's Demon).

However this argument is invalid because localised decreases in entropy are perfectly possible, and expected, even though the entropy of the system as a whole increases.

Considering that the site claims to make use of information theory, it presumably is aware of information entropy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_entropy

It follows that DNA has a low information entropy, since the DNA sequence is not random. This is exactly the same as for physical entropy, so I think the low (information) entropy argument for God will fall for the same reasons. In fact, it has been proven that information is equivalent to thermodynamics, so the argument is essentially just thermodynamics, case closed. See also here.

2) The "information" in the whole system is ignored. You cannot look at isolated parts of the system and claim entropy reversal. You need to look at the (information) entropy of the entire system. Therefore you need to look at ALL of the random mutations, not just the successful ones. Whilst there may be lower (information) entropy in the successful DNA, there will be higher (information) entropy in the unsuccessful mutations. The overall positive (information) entropy (from useless information) outweighs the overall negative entropy from useful information.

This is entirely in keeping with the second law of thermodynamics.

3) Genetic algorithms "create information", yet they are not a "mind". Therefore it is untrue to state that information is always the product of the mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF011.html

Marshall is in denial that genetic algorithms actually work.

4) Infinite number sequences, such as the sequence of digits in the number pi, could be regarded as "truly random" sources. It is a fact that the digits of pi contain the complete works of Shakespeare (with probability=1). For a given sequence of N bits, you would expect to wait for approximately 2^N bits in the sequence to pass before you find it.

Therefore it is untrue that random sources cannot create information.

From a random source, if you wait a finite time, you will find the works of Shakespeare, your entire genome, and indeed the genomes of every organism on the planet, again with 100% probability. Of course, you would be waiting for a long, but finite, time.

The problem is that this time is much longer than the age of the universe. This is the equivalent of a cell popping out of mid-air, which is too unlikely to contemplate, even given the size and age of the universe. There is much more likely to be some kind of boot-strap process, whereby life started as very simple molecules, not complete cells.

The problem isn't creating the information, it is in deciding whether the information is any good. This is where natural selection comes in. The argument is then "only a mind can select good information". With natural selection, the point is that nature selects the best information. This is why I spell God n,a,t,u,r,e.

5) Computers regularly create information. For example they can calculate the numbers in a spreadsheet, forces in a bridge, digits of pi, weather forecasts etc. This information didn't come from a mind. There was no foreknowledge of the result of a calculation (otherwise, what would be the point in running the calculation?)

Therefore it is untrue that all useful information is the product of a mind.

(Note that even as the computer runs, the entropy of the system as a whole increases, even though there is a local decrease in information entropy produced by the computer).

6) Useful information isn't necessarily created or consumed by minds. The genetic information isn't consumed by the mind, it is read by messenger-RNA, and was working perfectly well before we observed it. Similarly computers also produce and consume vast quantities of useful information, the bulk of which is internal and isn't generated by, or seen by, human beings.

This again disproves the idea that only minds produce useful information.

7) There is an attempt to distinguish "codes" from "information." A code (by Marshall's definition) is created by an intelligence. This is an abuse of the word code. This is just a circular argument. If you define a code to be created by intelligence, then by tautology, intelligence creates codes. That proves nothing. Whether codes are traditionally man-made is irrelevant.

Maybe the definition of a code is "useful information", as opposed to "useless information". The problem is then "who distinguishes useful from useless information?" The question is incorrectly phrased: it should be "what distinguishes useful information from useless information". (Natural selection springs to mind).

Information is only useful if there is some means to decode it. In biology DNA is decoded by messenger RNA - it has nothing to do with the mind.

It is fully correct that the narrow definition of code (as the product of a mind) does not apply to DNA. It is only the broader definition (as useful information) which makes sense.

8) Evolution occurs in test tubes. We aren't talking about speciation here, we are talking about useful mutations creating stronger organisms. For example, you can make microbes more heat-resistant. According to Marshall, this would be impossible.

9) Why would God need a mind? I spell God "nature" and I also choose to not personify him (sorry, it). A brain is an evolved survival organ for an animal, what has that got to do with the creation of physics?

(Irrelevant, but half of this argument is about God after all.)

In fact, if we say "God created everything", then that works for your definition of God, and my definition of God. But this (like the definition of a code) is a tautology and doesn't gain us an iota of insight.

10) The brain is governed by physics. Some say it is governed entirely by physics (i.e. there is no soul playing puppet-master - in fact if there was then what would be the point of a brain?) Therefore physical processes are ultimately responsible for the output of our brains. Therefore physical processes create information.

11) This whole argument smells like "if it looks designed, then it is designed", or the "how else, but God" arguments. Information is being used as a synonym for design, not as a mathematical concept.

12) Remember, that intelligent design has never been observed - it is an unproven hypothesis. We ought to be able to catch it in a lab, and see entropy reversals before our eyes that are so unlikely that the more likely explanation is God. I really would be delighted if this was proven to be the case. It would be a valid experiment.

13) Marshall has a demo that mutation only destroys information. The flaw with this demonstration is that there is no natural selection. It isn't allowed to compete with the original mutation (or other mutations) to see which is better. That's like putting a frog in a blender. In nature, information is copied not destroyed, with a very low mutation rate.

If in nature, you never got any natural selection, then the progressive mutation of our genes would indeed destroy us. However natural selection is a negative entropy force which counteracts the positive entropy of random mutation.

If you increase the mutation rate or take away natural selection, then the power of mutation outweighs the power of natural selection, and the genome degrades. This is precisely what happens if you irradiate fruit flies.

14) I've put together my own demo that shows that useful information can be created using mutation. A tower of blocks is stacked, and the objective is to make the tower lean as far as possible without toppling the blocks.

In this demonstration, there are 10 "genes" which are 10 numbers representing the positions of each wooden block. The genes are mutated, resulting in some towers which lean further than others, and other towers falling over. The best tower is selected, and the process repeats.

How far out can the tower lean? Is it one block width? Two block-widths? 3/2 block widths? Infinite? What is the best design of the tower? I didn't know before the program was run, and the individual genes didn't know either. It was only by running the genetic algorithm that I was able to learn this, thereby gaining information.

So where did this information come from? It came from the fitness function, which supplies up to 1 bit of information to the genome per generation. In the demo, you can turn off the fitness function, and guess what, the information is lost due to mutation.

At the end of the simulation, the design is stable and the effects of mutation and natural selection are in balance.

15) Natural selection creates information. Mutation destroys information. The two effects are in equilibrium. If you only think about mutation, you are missing half of the argument.

For example, suppose animal A and animal B have a fight. Animal A has longer horns than animal B. Animal A kills animal B and impregnates the entire herd. We've just gained some information here: long horns are good. This information gets replicated throughout the herd.

The only reason animal A and B could fight in the first place is because they have energy in their metabolism, which, guess what, comes from the low entropy from sunlight. We see that low entropy from the sun is translated into low (information) entropy in the genome via natural selection.

So I think I've cracked it. The source of the information is natural selection, and not God after all.

Conclusion
The fundamental mistake that Marshall made was to ignore the information-creating properties of natural selection, which counteracts the information-destroying effects of mutation. In fact it took me a while to spot it.

I object to the claim that all useful information is the product of a mind. I think I have clearly demonstrated that information is created from loads of non-intelligent sources, such as random number sequences, genetic algorithms, and computer algorithms in general.

I also object to the claim that only a mind can select useful information. Again a perfectly good process, natural selection, explains this perfectly. Given a choice between a simple process (natural selection), and divine intervention, I favour the scientific explanation. But that's just me.

Thanks again Perry for a great idea, though I am still sceptical.

Pat Condell

I've recently discovered Pat Condell's fine video collection. This is everything an atheist would like to say, but is far too polite to. Not Pat Condell. Stinging, delicious, and leaves you feeling very naughty.

Simulation independence

I recently came across Nick Boström's article about the simulation argument, which goes that there is a non-zero chance that we are actually simulated individuals, and not actually made of carbon at all. It was spun out of The Matrix series of movies, though is a recurring theme right from Descartes and the Brain in a Vat.

Key to this idea is the argument of substrate independence, that is, carbon-based cells are not the only possible way of conjuring consciousness. Surely it isn't the carbon-based molecules per se that cause consciousness, but rather their configuration, and the kinds of computation (if that's the right word) being performed. Surely any "computer program" that reproduces the workings of the brain sufficiently well would suffice, since its operation and outputs would be essentially identical to the biological brain.

The simulation argument goes that we are not all that far from achieving that level of computation, so therefore there may well exist simulated minds in the near future. The problem is, how would you tell if you are real or not? The short answer is that you can't, as Descartes argued.

It occurs to me that there are two forms of simulation argument:

• One where your brain is simulated, for purposes unknown. I'll call the first one brain simulation.
  
• One where your entire universe is simulated (again for unknown purposes), and the cells in your brain are created within that simulation. Maybe this universe was allowed to evolve from a Big Bang. I'll call this one physics simulation.
  

Clearly it would take a whole load more computing horsepower to acheive the second, in fact, the second may only exist as a thought experiment, or in some higher-order universe where computations of our own universe would be much more straightforward. For example, we could simulate small "universes" in Conway's Game of Life, the principle is the same but the scale is different.

One of my pet theories is simulation independence, which I will explain.

1. A simulation is a model obeying mathematical rules.
2. The result of a simulation is a mathematical structure.
   
3. Mathematical structures exist independently of physical existence, or whether they are created or perceived by man. This is the Platonic world of ideals.
   
4. Therefore, simulations exist independently of observation, a phenomenon I call simulation independence.

This may seem like semantics, but I think it has some profound consequences:

• When people run a simulation, they are discovering something that's already there. They are observing something that has already happened, and would have happened irrespective of whether they had run the simulation.
• There is no theoretical limit to the size or complexity of simulations. Simulations exist in a Platonic world, that are bounded by the axioms of mathematics, not the physical limitations of computability in the universe you are in.
• When you switch off a simulation, the simulation (in the Platonic world) keeps on running.
  
• It makes no sense to ask whether you are part of a simulation, because the inhabitants of the simulation are in the Platonic world. You don't have to worry.
  
• Anything that can exist, does exist, provided it makes coherent sense from a mathematical model.
• There does not need to be a Modeller.
• Everything that will happen, in a sense has already happened in the Platonic world. Time is an illusion.
  
• Parallel universes exist (provided that they are mathematically valid).
  
• We are very likely living in a mathematical structure conjured by the Platonic world of ideals.
  

The question of whether the mathematical world exists independently of the physical world is fundamental, but I don't think it can be denied. Our current understanding of the universe is that it is governed by mathematical laws, and mathematics describes pretty much everything. Therefore, this mathematics must have been applicable in the early universe before humans or any kind of consciousness arose. We also notice the unnerving consistency of mathematics, where calculations are reproducible. This is spooky, and in my mind, proof of the independent status of mathematics.

Plato's world of ideals wasn't really talking about mathematics, but was talking about the higher level concepts such as horses. Nevertheless, the concept of existence beyond the human mind, and beyond the physical world, was introduced.

Although there is no Modeller, where does the Platonic world of mathematics come from?

I wrote a short story exploring the idea of simulation independence. Be warned: its quality is on a par with Nick Boströms poetry.

No more secrets

The UK government has recently introduced legislation that any citizen is required to provide decryption keys for any privately encrypted data, or face a 2 year jail term.

The excuse is that they need to "fight terrorism". This all sounds very Orwellian, where in George Orwell's book "1984", even a thought is a crime, and an invisible enemy is concocted in order to make the population more submissive. Sound familiar?

Encryption is a technology that is out of the bag. The authorities are technically powerless to break strong encryption schemes, although they do have some very large computers to try to crack encryption keys. The numbers are always on the side of the individual however - no matter how large a computer the police have, you can use a key that is too large for them.

The fundamental question is whether I should even be allowed to have secrets that aren't in my head? Is possession of information in itself a crime? Again, George Orwell's thoughtcrime. I personally think that all information should be free, though I can see the drawbacks of that. So what if someone has a deviant sexual fetish? - an image does no harm, and better to use images than to actually force yourself upon a child. As it happens, I would be quite interested in reading about cracking encryption schemes or bomb making - but purely out of intellectual curiosity! That should not be a crime. Expressing an "illegal opinion" (e.g. this religion is a load of nonsense, or yes, China really did invade Tibet) should never be a crime. There is a world of difference between learning, thinking and doing. Thought, and therefore information, should never be a crime.

Encryption is liberating, but unfortunately it is often used for shady purposes. There are many legitimate reasons for privacy, such as company secrets, medical, legal or financial information, data theft or identity theft, so the argument "you must have something to hide" doesn't hold water.

There are a number of other ways to get around this law. You could store your data off-shore, where the police have no powers over it. You could also plausibly claim that the data is "random bits", and the police couldn't prove it is data at all. You could claim to have forgotten your password (which in my case is quite likely.)

Ultimately this law is just an excuse to detain suspects without charge (any real charge, that is), whilst gathering evidence. The reason is because foreign terrorists are likely to flee the country.

I can see that fighting terrorism is important, but not at any cost. The problem is that I don't want to live in a police state where the police have excessive powers. Yes, you could invent lots of laws that would make the police's job a lot easier, including torture, detention without trial, drugging you, random strip searches, restrictions on movement etcetera.

I have nothing to hide, but I shouldn't need to prove that, and I have the right to remain silent. If I was required to hand over decryption keys for some data, I might seriously consider civil disobediance in order to highlight the flaw in this type of law. We are supposedly a free society, but that died a long time ago. Thanks Bush, thanks Blair.

The true origins of Christianity:

http://www.sprword.com/videos/zeitgeist.html

Big Brother racism?

There is a storm in a teacup about a contestant Jade Goody who made some remarks on the Big Brother TV series which could be construed as racist. I saw the program in question and she was certainly laying into Shilpa, and she certainly came across as a nasty bully.

Racism is such a sensitive issue, and I'm surprised that none of the other housemates had a word with Jade before ruining her reputation on national TV. However I am really concerned that there are taboo topics, and some things that you aren't allowed to say. Speech should be free. In spite of racism being a real problem, I actually think we should be confident enough to have racist banter, in the same way that we can have sexist banter. It's a shame that we are still too insecure, and too afraid of being labelled racist. We live in a politically correct society.

I have once or twice said things and immediately regretted them. For example I was once talking to a half-Indian whilst drunk, and he asked me what Birmingham was like. I said "I don't mean to sound racist, but there are a lot of asian communities". This was a really silly thing to say, even though this is actually one of the defining aspects of Birmingham. Anyhow the guy, who I was having a really interesting conversation with, walked away and didn't talk to me again.

Back to Jade: in spite of the fact that I don't really have anything in common with her, I think she's just the victim of political correctness gone mad. Of course she's not a racist.

"Prayer helped Defoe bounce back" from the BBC today.

An article about a guy who used prayer to cheer himself up after being dropped from the world cup squad. This article really annoys me. Didn't Defoe remember that when he prayed to be a part of the world cup in the first place, and how his prayer wasn't answered. Didn't he get a clue that talking to yourself doesn't actually influence anything? How can people be so simple? It almost dismays me as much as people who are "miraculously" spared from a natural disaster believe it is God's work that they are saved. So God willed everyone else to die?

In other news, I wonder why God would put all of those fossils into the ground in order to make scientists believe the earth is more than 10000 years old. So God is deliberately deceiving us? Why make out that he isn't there? He is deliberately deceiving us in order to test our faith? So a perfect God is deceitful??? Why make us defective and then punish us for being defective? It makes no sense whatsover.

Must go now, I need to go and lift this thick fog with a prayer. I'm sure God will answer my prayer in a couple of days. If not, I am sure he is just testing my faith, and it'll come good in the end. Rant over.