Algorithmic Evolution

A book review in eSkeptic newsletter triggered a thought process that had begun several months before, but lapsed because I was in way over my head at the time (and still am). The basic question is whether evolution is 100% deterministic, or if the possibility (probability) of ongoing creativity is inherent in the evolutionary process.

Norman Levitt, a hard-core Atheist, was reviewing a surprisingly positive critique of Intelligent Design by a left-wing, academic postmodernist. The author seemed to be convinced by William Dembski that evolution is not a completely random process, hence there is reason to believe that an "intelligent agent" stacked the deck, so to speak, in order to achieve a desired outcome (e.g. life, consciousness and intelligence).

That proposition is in general agreement with my philosophical hypothesis of Intelligent Evolution. But in order to call it a scientific hypothesis, the proposition should be stated in mathematical terms. So I have begun a Quixotic quest to do just that. However, due to my lack of formal training in higher mathematics, I am susceptible to egregious errors of naiveté. If there are any math pros in the audience, I will appreciate some guidance.

The reviewer castigates the author for accepting the notion that computer simulations of evolution are not as random as the researchers like to think. He says, "Fuller swallows whole the idea that computer simulation of "lifelike" complexity requires that the 'design' of that phenomenon must already be embedded in the 'intelligent design' of the hardware and software involved." Levitt goes on to assert that such models "emulate the action of a simple selective process on randomly-generated variation." He summarizes the argument with the statement that "in nature what we think of as organic complexity arises from an algorithmic mechanism . . . . iterated time and again as it acts upon random variation."

My question on that point is this, how could a "selective process" of evolution arise from 'random" processes? I have some ideas, which I'll elaborate on in another post when time permits. Here's the link if you are interested in the book review.

The Painful Elaboration of the Fatuous
Norman Levitt Deconstructs Steve Fuller’s Postmodernist Critique of Evolution
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-12-19.html

Here's an excerpt from an email on an early attempt to formulate the concept that evolution is driven, not by mechanical determinism, or by mercurial randomness, but by intentional selection:


The point I was trying to make with Jules is that randomness is not the key to evolution as depicted by Neo-Darwinists. Of course Blind Chance is necessary to shuffle the cards from time to time, but the part of evolution we are really interested in is the non-random stuff: life and love and levity. The fact that “some things are more likely to happen than others” tells me that evolution is directed toward some end. But since we can’t predict where it will end up, the process seems pointless from a subjective point-of-view. For the parent a long, familiar, rambling drive to Grandma’s house makes perfect sense. But to a child in the back seat, it only seems random and endless. Are we there yet? G*D only knows where “there” is.

A “random walk” in mathematics is unbiased by definition: Wikipedia ---“The direction from one point in the path to the next is chosen at random, and no direction is more probable than another”***. It’s the improbable “tendency” to go in the direction of organization and complexity that can’t be explained by a wandering, stochastic process alone. In my IE hypothesis, randomness is required to shake things up (novelty), but “information” is necessary to put them back together again, even better than before (creativity). In other words, entropy breaks things; information makes things. Information is the key to positive evolution. The random walk of evolution has taken a crooked path to higher and higher organization within a system dominated by Entropy. What are the chances?

Evolutionists such as Dawkins (“blind watchmaker”) and S.J. Gould (“rewind the tape”) have put the emphasis on randomness because that makes it seem un-directed, hence godless. But modern Systems and Information theories are shedding some light from another angle on the subject. Information guides evolution from within---no miracles required. But information is just the opposite of randomness. So how did that ordering principle get into the Laws of Nature: by accident or by intention? I don’t know the answer to that question, but I’m guessing that some kind of Prime Mover put the “bias” in there with a goal in mind.

I could never make it all the way through the six extinctions by Leakey, but the six great extinctions are something that is quite fascinating.

But some of them were quite extensive, so much so that I'm a little uncomfortable with your premise of any kind of guiding hand.

Were those extinctions like the flood in the bible in which nearly everything was extinct.

Did God just tire of the fauna and decide to start the game nearly all over again.

Those great extinctions can hardly be likened to mere opportunties for chance to play its part.

But you know I suppose it all boils down to the level you think God is able to exert influence.

Traditional deist folks like me think that probably God does have a hand in all this, but for some reason only at the almost-conceptual level, i.e. that the universe was able to produce life, which was able to produce sentience. But then he doesn't intervene.

So it sounds like you may just be trying to add God one more layer down, according to my clumsy anology.

Sounds like an interesting and fascinating task. But at this moment there are probably entire galaxies in the process of annhialation and worlds being destroyed, let alone civilizations and fauna being destroyed on ours.

With my conception of God he has no blood on his hands because for some reason we live in a dangerous physical world and because of free will. Those are immutable.
But once God starts to have a hand in the universe. Then he's got some explaining to do about the blood on his hands, whether it be from most of the fauna on earth dying through an extinction episode, whether it be galaxies colliding, whether it be super novae taking out a populated planet, whether it be a civilization wiped out, wether it be a defenceless minor killed by a madman.

I think that evolution is probably driven by a combination of randomness and "intelligent" selection. "Intelligence" is an informative aspect that's embedded in most everyday processes including what we normally think of as "cognitive intelligence".

I see this cosmic intelligence as something that's co-arising with the cosmos itself. The whole process is grounded in pure potential which I call god in unmanifest form.

Helium wrote:

But some of them were quite extensive, so much so that I'm a little uncomfortable with your premise of any kind of guiding hand.
.

My Intelligent Evolution thesis does not involve any direct intervention by the Creator. Instead the Designer of the evolutionary program included both deterministic and heuristic algorithms, which interact to produce both the regularities (laws) that Science depends on, and the accidents (randomness) that produce unpredictable results such as extinctions of dominant species. The only "guiding hand" is a statistical effect similar to Adam Smith's "invisible hand" guiding the economy from within.

Here are some definitions I'm working on to illustrate that cosmic evolution is not just one damn deterministic thing after another, but instead it's an occasional surprise after a series of random events. By that I mean evolution works more like S.J.Gould's "punctuated equilibrium" than like Richard Dawkins' "gradual incrementalism".


Determinism: a theory of an utterly rational universe wherein each event is an inevitable consequence of all antecedent causes.

Randomness: the indeterminate quality of a process whereby each new event is caused by the previous event only in a statistical sense.

Randomized Determinism: a chain of mechanical causes and effects interrupted by statistical "novelty" at each transition. Novelty = creativity.

Algorithmic Process: a deterministic calculation method with a finite number of steps.

Probabilistic Algorithms: a process incorporating randomness; hence not necessarily deterministic, or inevitable in outcome, and indefinite in steps.

Heuristic Process: a probabilistic algorithm which seeks, not an absolute, deterministic solution, but an approximate, sufficient outcome. Heuristic = cybernetic search patterns.

Intelligent Evolution: a heuristic process involving randomness, feedback loops, and selective "laws. The laws of evolution are, in effect, the fixed elements assigned by the creator of the original algorithm. Random variations provide the variables to make each iteration different. The algorithmic calculations reach intermediate solutions, which are then fed back into the next calculation. But each stage in the calculation involves a randomizing sub-process (entropy), which essentially shuffles the deck from the previous stage to remove any accidental order that arose. Order emerges from this pointless process, only because of the inherent selection rules. And complexity arises only as a result of the compounding effect of feedback loops. The intelligence referred-to does not involve interference from above, but rather Information from within.


Note: Most humans (including myself) have poor intuition for statistical probabilities, because they often defy common sense. Critiques of the statistical, algorithmic reasoning and terminology will be appreciated.

Interesting. Again at first gloss the only problem I have is how the big extinctions work into this. And not just on a planetary level, but presumably on an interstellar level.

If the universe is teeming with life; then somewhere in the universe tonight an entire world is probably being wiped out with all traces of life that it ever produced never to be heard from nor seen from again, unless there's a God and an afterlife.

Helium wrote:

Interesting. Again at first gloss the only problem I have is how the big extinctions work into this. And not just on a planetary level, but presumably on an interstellar level.

If the universe is teeming with life; then somewhere in the universe tonight an entire world is probably being wiped out with all traces of life that it ever produced never to be heard from nor seen from again, unless there's a God and an afterlife.

Like the grim reality of most other traditional worldviews, the world of Deism is not fair. By that complaint, we usually mean it's not biased in our favor. Fickle fate may be one of the primary motives for imagining "a God and an afterlife"---to balance the obvious injustices of this current life.

However, the designing deity of my thesis is scrupulously fair. By that I mean, S/he created an evolutionary process that is based on random chance rather than divine intervention. Hence, entire species---such as the dominant dinosaurs---can go extinct in an evolutionary heartbeat. They weren't being punished for anything; they were just in the wrong place, at the wrong time, with the wrong adaptations. Fair---but selective.

Fortunately for us, the system does have a bit of bias---a stacked deck, if you will. It's very slight, except when viewed on a cosmic scale, but evolution seems to have an almost imperceptible tendency toward order, complexity, and yes, consciousness. The Cosmos seems to be finely-tuned to select beings very much like us from among the accidental offerings of evolution. So perhaps there is reason for hope after all.

Does that glimmer of optimism mean that homo sapiens is the chosen people, with the promise of an eternal afterlife in heavenly perfection? I don't know, but I wouldn't bet on it***. Even a random series can have an extended run of good or bad luck. I suspect that even the prime programmer doesn't know exactly what ultimate answer will pop out of the cosmic computer. 42 perhaps?


***Don't count your 70 virgins until you hatch in heaven.

Quote :

So it sounds like you may just be trying to add God one more layer down, according to my clumsy anology.

No, actually my thesis limits the Creator to conceptual design. Everything after the initial bang is merely the execution of an evolutionary algorithm. The analogy I use is that of a guided missile. Once you pull the trigger, the missile guides itself to the target. But here's the key: it's a moving target. So you don't know in advance when and where the end will come.

Interesting!

Aaron wrote:

I think that evolution is probably driven by a combination of randomness and "intelligent" selection. "Intelligence" is an informative aspect that's embedded in most everyday processes including what we normally think of as "cognitive intelligence".

I see this cosmic intelligence as something that's co-arising with the cosmos itself. The whole process is grounded in pure potential which I call god in unmanifest form.

Your idea of a self-creating "cosmic intelligence" reminded me of a book I read a few months ago. Here's an excerpt from an email which mentions that book and the process of "eternal inflation" which is grounded in "infinite potential":

<< Coincidentally, the cosmology book* I am currently reading puts forth a hypothesis for what came before the Big Bang**. He finds some ancient creation myths to be surprisingly accurate in metaphoric outline, if not technical details. In fact, he says that “mythic language is not an option---it’s a necessity". The author calls his mythical god-substitute “Eternal Inflation”, which is “nothing but creativity, infinite potential”. His thesis is related to the various M-theories and Brane theories. But he goes on to say that, “Creativity was wildly experimenting with every possibility that quantum uncertainty permits.” This Creator concept is compatible with Intelligent Evolution, except for one thing. He says, “there are . . . no minds with intentions”. Apparently, his gambling creativity was just blindly rolling the dice of chance for eternity, and just happened to hit the jackpot with our own universe. The point he misses is that Chance is accidental, while Creation is intentional. He uses the term “creation” metaphorically, while I use it literally. Which is right, which is wrong? Are we both right, in different senses?


*The View From the Center of the Universe, by Joel Primack, a professor of Physics and Cosmology.

**Quote: “In modern cosmology, there is similarly a mysterious eternal something that may have been everywhere before the Big Bang and may surround our universe forever: it is the state of being called eternal Inflation”. >>

That "mysterious eternal something" is what I call G*D; or to use a technical term: Eternal Information.

Gnomon wrote:

No, actually my thesis limits the Creator to conceptual design. Everything after the initial bang is merely the execution of an evolutionary algorithm. The analogy I use is that of a guided missile. Once you pull the trigger, the missile guides itself to the target. But here's the key: it's a moving target. So you don't know in advance when and where the end will come.

The purpose of a guided missile is to hit a moving target. The purpose of a teleological universe is to go straight to the Creator's goal, period. The purpose of an intelligent, evolving universe is to get to the Creator's long-range goal, by hook or by crook, and along the way to reach some short range goals of the intelligent creatures inhabiting the universe. By combining algorithmic determinism with heuristic randomness, the Creator will inevitably reach He/r specified end (whatever that may be), while at the same time allowing the evolutionary process to produce creatures with FreeWill. That way G*D can have He/r cake, and let us eat it too.

If you ask me, it's a pretty good trick to combine divine determinism with human freewill: purposeful paradox. Here's some more thoughts along those lines.

<< In the Intelligent Evolution theory this universe is a purpose-driven vehicle, even though human passengers are not aware of the ultimate goal. We set and pursue our own little purposes, even as destiny carries all of us to a universal destination.

~The physical universe of modern Science is Mechanical, in the sense of Reductionism : all phenomena can be explained by the random collisions of zillions of inert particles driven by blind forces. But the metaphysical universe is Teleological (end seeking) in the sense of Holism : The behavior of higher-level entities or phenomena can ultimately be explained as the goal-oriented movements of zillions of complex organisms guided by “perceptions” (feedback loops) to maintain a steady internal state despite the random jostlings of the environment. Each organism responds to perturbations “as-if” it desired to reach a certain pre-set destination. (a will-free thermostat seems to "want" to maintain the temperature established by its god-like Setter)

~Because of its built-in feedback loops a non-sentient organism, like a guided-missile, can appear to be motivated by the desire for a particular end-state. In that same sense, the Universe itself is a very high-level organism pursuing a dream that only exists in a hypothetical future. To the universe as a whole, we willful humans serve the function of the inert particles and blind forces of physics. >>

I believe the universe has to be going through some kind of intelligent evolution. I highly doubt that God just made a big explosion just to see what will happen. Whenever anybody does something they do it with purpose and have an end result in mind. The whole process of going from the chaotic big bang to the orderly universe we have today looks more intentional than an accident. I don't think it is done evolving yet. Some day billions of years from now I believe the universe will be teaming with life, that life will be as complex as possible, and the universe itself will look more orderly than it does today. It will be so complex that to those in the future the present will look as chaotic as the big bang does to us. The world didn't fall from grace and leave The Garden of Eden but instead left Hell and is walking up the golden steps to Heaven.

There seems to be a little too much optimism expressed in this thread so far, so I'll play Devil's advocate.

The ancient Mayans didn't have the scientific expertise we have today, but they were very good at their own version of science. They tracked the movement of celestial bodies so accurately that they were able to predict solar and lunar eclipses hundreds of years in advance! They created a calendar of these events that has proven to be accurate right up to present day.

According to their calendar, the movements of the planets in the universe (actually our solar system, since that's all they were aware of) follow a cyclical pattern. All of the celestial bodies have different orbits, but every so often (I think it was every 23 thousand years, but I'm not sure) all the planets align with the sun - and with the black hole in the center of the Milky Way. Thus ends a cycle, and begins a new one. Their prediction is that the Earth's orientation will change at that time, such that the North and South poles will lay on what we now call the Equator.

If that happened slowly, we would experience severe climate change, but if it happened suddenly the change would be catastrophic! It is likely that all life would become extinct, as has happened before.

Their calendar indicates the date for this celestial upheaval is December 21, 2012.

We'd better wrap up this discussion quickly!

I've heard of that before. E.L.Es have happened before and if they didn't we wouldn't be here. So, mass extinction can help drive evolution. If it happens then I'm still optimistic because it could cause a better species than us to evolve. I'm completely comfortable with our extinction if it will cause an upgrade.

Paul Anthony wrote:

Their calendar indicates the date for this celestial upheaval is December 21, 2012.

If Mayan science was as good as our modern weather forecasting, the end/beginning prediction might be plus-or-minus a few years. Just to be safe, I'm heading for the basement right now.