RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
franky172



Posts: 158
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2007,12:47   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 16 2007,12:20)
They're still banging on about "active information".

I would suggest that the "active information", ie the selection process resides in the environment itself and so poses no real problem for evolution.

I think you are correct - "active information" is supposed to tell us how much better any search does than a search over all possible fitness landscapes, which is equivalent to asking "how much worse does this search do over a pathologically difficult search space" (since almost all search spaces are pathologically difficult).   Of course no one cares how well searches do over all these insane spaces; we only care about how well searches do over physically realistic search spaces - i.e. spaces like our own where life is generally good.

As far as I can tell, Dembski's "active information" critique of genetic algorithms is the equivalent of complaining because RM+NS doesn't produce life in a vacuum.

  
  29999 replies since Jan. 16 2006,11:43 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (1000) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]