The Limits of Computing

Lecture 5 notes

I found the above notes on Information Theory as applied to the limits of computing in my never ending quixotic and pretentious quest to look for a possible physical law of natural selection.

They are from a series of lectures at the University of Florida by Michael Frank, and are of staggering clarity. Its worth reading the whole lot.

Amusingly, the most interesting lecture seems to have been the one that students were most reluctant to hear.

“When I handed out the student information sheets, I asked you all to point out the particular topics you were most and least interested in. I tallied these ratings, adding 1 for each “most” rating, and subtracting 1 for each “least” rating, with no change if the item was unrated.

All of the topics received positive scores, ranging from 5 (for physics-based theoretical models of computation) up to 26 (for quantum computing), except for one topic: Thermodynamic constraints on computing received a score of negative 11″

I give it a +10.

An excellent paper:

ev: Evolution of Biological Information

Why would I argue that this is a bad thing when 1. I think that children are better off if they are not fed ideology of any sort in schools and 2. I think that Intelligent Design is clearly religion and therefore ideology?

To begin with, we clearly haven’t heard the end of this. One of the main reasons that the US seems to be the only civilized country with a recent pandemic outbreak of religion is that the left DID go too far in making things like prayers in schools unconstitutional. This makes the constitution a reactionary secular ideological doctrine, similar in form but more diluted from Soviet anti-religious doctrine. What makes a constitutional democracy good is that it is not a doctrine but a process of reason.

If you believe in science, and therefore in reason, then you do not need to legislate from the bench, if you believe that laws are absolute then you have to. God is both judge and law maker, the ultimate legislator from the bench. People who believe in reason should not turn the constitution into ideology, they should defend the process of amendment as being ongoing rather than in order to correct mistakes.

The constitution will always be flawed and should not be worshipped, it is a reflection of current consensus, nothing more. If you believe in progress, then the consensus moves into a better place over time. For America as a whole current consensus is better than when the constitution was written, because the vast majority of people think slavery is wrong. The majority currently do not think that Darwin was right, but they will eventually, if progress in America continues. Without solid consensus the constitution is fragile at the edges and cannot continue to move forward.

Secondly - imagine a virus which spread more when attacked but which was badly built for a current environment, having not mutated much in a couple of thousand years.

If you legislate that someone cannot have their kids taught about the foundation of their entire way of life and moral framework, then that person will look really hard at what their kid is taught. Religion thrives off persecution, in churches around the world people worship in front of the biblical equivalent of an electric chair. If you attack religion it will get stronger.

On the other hand, religion is necessarily poorly adapted to the modern world. Because it is faith based rather than reason based, it doesn’t change much.

The morality of the bible is based in a more primitive era, when society groups were not large enough to learn to tolerate minorities like gay people or transport shellfish quickly enough that it didn’t go bad. If we leave religion alone and offer reasonable alternatives it will look increasingly absurd. Because religious texts are not amendable they will wane in relevance and therefore importance, naturally. As Dawkins points out, we are all atheists in the eyes of an ancient Roman.

I am linking to the very secular Christian Science Monitor coverage, for the irony value:

Banned in biology class: intelligent design | csmonitor.com

Dorothy: “Toto, I’ve a feeling we’re not in Kansas anymore.”

The Kansas state motto is ‘ad astra per aspera’ - to the stars through adversity.

Sometime Kansan, Charles Lindbergh, was the first person to fly Accross the Atlantic. A Kansan, Steve Hawley, was on board the first flight of the space shuttle, Discovery, and that same Kansan was in charge of deploying the Hubble Telescope.

Somewhere in a Kansas school is a litlle girl or boy who could have taken us further towards the stars if it hadn’t just been made deliberately more difficult.

And all because a few arrogant grown ups banged their heads and are off to see the Wizard.

I’d love to write a satire of the Kansas School Board based on the Wizard of Oz.

Ad Astra Per Veritas.

Pharyngula::Goodbye, Kansas

According to the principal of unintelligent design, the Kansas school board has technically opened the door to schools teaching satanism on a par with science.

CNN.com - Kansas school board redefines science - Nov 8, 2005

I normally agree with what Seth Godin has to say, but his rules of viral spread (which have spread virally, interestingly enough) seem provably wrong:

Seth says (and note that he does not say anything about virality in his set of criteria for message sending):

“No one ’sends’ an idea unless:”

“a. they understand it”
Not true. People send things when they think they understand it but don’t and when they don’t understand it but think they should. An example of the former is the Sokal Hoax. In fact the Nietzsche example given is perfect proof to the contrary - Nietzsche does propagate but without understanding.
This is important as it explains the mechanism of mutation of an idea into a better propagating one. If people had to understand an idea as the sender intended, the mechanisms of natural selection on ideas would be vastly different.

“b. they want it to spread”
Not true - People can actively spread an idea to solicit opposition to suppress it later - you could argue that anti-porn campaigners raise awareness of porn.
Consider Fred Durst forwarding a link to a web page showing him having sex and instructing his lawyer to sue the website to stop it spreading.

“c. they believe that spreading it will enhance their power (reputation, income, friendships) or their peace of mind.”
This can be rephrased as - nobody deliberately sends a message unless there is a reason - so what. However, importantly, people do send messages by accident - someone accidentally sending emails because their computer contains a virus does not meet any of the above criteria.

“d. the effort necessary to send the idea is less than the benefits.”
Not true - while it is true that people will make personal sacrifices to spread an idea e.g. martyrdom, it would be difficult to argue that all martyrdom like suicide bombing is ‘beneficial’. It is true that suicide bombing may be effective in spreading an idea, but there are also martyrs that fail to propagate ideas despite huge effort. In fact the only thing that is important is perceived benefit for the sender.

In short - the whole issue of viral spread of ideas needs to ignore rules of understanding, benefit or reason in the spread of ideas. Some points in the spread of ideas are merely transmitters and not decoders.

In other words, some actors are immune hosts for memetic spread, just like with real viruses, therefore negating all of Seth’s maxims.

Seth’s Blog: What makes an idea viral?

Dawkins and Coyne point out the serious side to silly creationism - that even as religion it is bogus, because it is immoral.

They say that the seemingly reasonable demand that both sides of an argument should be taught “would be the end of science education in America”

One side, Intelligent Design has no supporting evidence other than pointing to a few gaps in another theory, evolution, which has hundreds of thousands of mutually corroborating pieces of evidence.

The logic of allowing ID to be taught would justify the teaching of Holocaust denial for which there is no supporting evidence other than normal gaps in another version of events, which has hundreds of thousands of mutually corroborating pieces of evidence.

In 1996, Physics professor, Alan Sokal tried to see if “a leading journal of cultural studies would publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors’ ideological preconceptions?” It did.

Here is a challenge - I think it would be fairly easy for a life-science professor to write a deliberately nonsensical hoax article in defense of Intelligent Design and get it published in the Sunday Times (UK or US!) - then publish a dissection of it elsewhere, in the manner of Sokal.

Every time I come back to the UK and pick up the Sunday Times (UK) it gets worse but this week’s Bryan Appleyard piece was an absolute classic.

The setup is now common - place Intelligent Design as a balance to Darwinism and assume that by being somewhere in the middle you are being balanced and reasonable, then lecture about the subject using half understood metaphors and buzzwords.

This is what Appleyard has to say about evolution:

“The co-decipherer of DNA, Francis Crick, for example, once defined the

New Scientist Premium- Evolution: Blink and you’ll miss it - Features

“commercial fishermen use large-meshed nets to spare smaller fish… working on the principle that by reducing their haul this way, they can keep fish populations vigorous and healthy. But they could be making a terrible mistake. It is becoming increasingly clear that such well-meaning strategies may actually have the opposite effect to what the fishermen intend.”

‘Intelligent Design’ in the Schools (washingtonpost.com):

“Many school boards are arguing about whether to include “intelligent design” in their curriculums, The Post’s editorial said. If they are serious, the appropriate way is not to have scientists trying to discuss intelligent design in classes such as biology or physics…As the editorial said, such discussion is legitimate, however, in a history or philosophy class.”

Ford said - ‘history is bunk’. If you can relegate discussion of meaningless nonsense away from science to philosophy and history classes, then you prove him right.

(Oscar Wilde described fox hunting as the unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable. My dad always describes philosophy as the unintelligible in pursuit of the unanswerable.)