Originally Posted By: Bill

You seem to be equating evolution with an increase in complexity. That is not necessarily so. Using your computer comparison there are still a lot of applications out there that use 4 bit computers. They are such things as microwaves, locks, etc. In fact I suspect that there are a lot more 4 bit processors in use than all the other formats combined. Their uses are evolving, but they aren't getting more complex.

And now you have done exactly what the question I asked you to look at answers ... they were looking at a warehouse full of boxes and trying to describe it in QM terms ... doesn't get much more classic than that.

Anyhow you have fallen into the same trap look carefully at what you have said above.

A more complex app running on the same processor does not make the microprocessor more complex, well at least to me, everything here is about what the observation point is.

Strictly to me I put the observer point on the microprocessor then what you have said above is false the app running on the microprocessor makes no difference to the micro itself it was designed with some theoretical maximum in mind you even benchtest them. From your observer point you have chosen anything short of the worst case scenario is just some inferrior app a valid but different observer point.

See the problem observer viewpoint matters.

QM is well aware of the problem and accounts for it .... classic physics not so much they assume an absolute frame smile

Originally Posted By: Bill

Bacteria are the same way. They are continually evolving, but they aren't getting more complex. Evolution is basically variation in response to changes in the environment. That doesn't necessarily imply a need to become more complex, just different.

And here again you are now putting the density matrix on a different criteria the organisms above are treading water and recycling under my density matrix and there is a test for that but they are no longer evolving under the definition of evolution that we set the density matrix up under.

This goes back to sort of the original argument that ImagingGeek had about the ferrari versus the model T.

Now go back and read the article that did the maths again as he showed with the triangle in the circle the choice of parameters is objective.

We chose to define evolution as the change in information as it goes thru time (that was system A) and against it we tested fitness survival (system B).

This is the same problem people have with relativity because its essentially the same problem because we are working with relative entropies that people may see the same event differently, none of them are wrong they are just different observers.

My system A is as close as I can get to the universe energy view point and I am looking at life against that view because that is how energetics of the universe works and I want to test life complies to the rules.

I can't choose any other arbritary view point because it is irrelevant to the question I seek and if you like your comment may indeed be equally valid because you are defining evolution and complexity from a different perspective.

Technically if I could put your choices into a QM format I could even construct a matrix that converts between your format and mine showing that our two answers are compatable just different observer point ... same thing you do in relativity with two observers.

So my answer to you is you may be correct from your point of view but it has nothing to do with my argument because I was after the change in genes thru time and your organism is no longer changing genes it is rehashing old sequences so it's not evolving to me the universe needs no change in energetics to accomodate it. To you it may be evolving and thats fine you just defined evolution different.

Now if you go and look at the physics question with the warehouse you may understand what lubos is saying to the student basically he needs to define more because there are objectivity viewpoint issues with the limited information he gave. Lubos in his convoluted way is asking for more information and he refers to Peter Shor who asked it in a much simpler more layman way smile

Essentially this is the same problem as relativity there is no such thing as a zero reference frame .... in QM there is no local reality .... it is the same problem of who is the observer.

My observer is defined and he is watching the change in energetics thru time of life, choose a different criteria get a different result nothing going wrong here.

Last edited by Orac; 03/13/13 12:47 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.