Leo is wrong about random mutation

[Yimpa]

4 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

There exists a $10 million dollar prize if you can demonstrate how noise can be used to generate new information.

They can keep their mountains of money… I ain’t selling my integrity to feed their delusions. 

[Leo Gura]

29 minutes ago, Yimpa said:

They can keep their mountains of money… I ain’t selling my integrity to feed their delusions. 

Wut? If you can generate a mathematical way to get novel information out of noise that would be like a Nobel prize level of scientific breakthrough.

The prize is there to show you how difficult it is. No such method has ever been demonstrated. Yet it is just assumed to exist by blind faith in DNA.

No one has ever shown that you can create meaningful DNA thru noise. If you can do it you will win $10M and advance mankind.

Edited October 4, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Yimpa]

@Leo Gura I’ve got bigger fish to fry!

But I’ll keep that under consideration in my back pocket.

[Girzo]

So, hows the concept holding that life started somewhere in the cosmos when all the materials and conditions in the universe were different, maybe more favorable to spontaneous apperence of life and then life came to Earth already made?

Does any serious/famous scientist consider it be a probable scenario?

[Princess Arabia]

2 hours ago, Yimpa said:

@Leo Gura I’ve got bigger fish to fry!

But I’ll keep that under consideration in my back pocket.

What bigger fish is there to fry other than helping to advance humanity. There's none IMO. We have to survive, yes, but it's still just out of necessity. 

 

 

 

[Scholar]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

1) I would deny that noise is actually random.

Then you deny Freedom.

 

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

2) Noise destroys information. So you got a serious problem explaining how noise creates new useful functions in DNA. There exists a $10 million dollar prize if you can demonstrate how noise can be used to generate new information. Noise has never been shown to generate new information, noise destroys information. This is standard information theory.

What noise, or freedom, actually destroys is bias.

Noise is simply degree of freedom. So, given an ultimate degree of freedom, of course any structure will dissipate. Now, if you look at reality, you will recognize that there is a constant force of entropy, a degree of freedom in all things. This is actually the only reason why life is so miracilous, precisely because of the entropy which should make it impossible. Given total Freedom, things will dissipate into Nothingness, into Infinity.

This is actually an important hint, and shows you how randomness is connected to Infinity. The fact that it does destroy bias, destroys "information", is the ultimate hint to what I am pointing at.

I actually did demonstrate to you how noise is a necessary component in the exploration of infinity complexity. It's not noise in and of itself that will generate new information, it is a component required to manifest infinite complexity. It is Free Will that will achieve this, not merely Freedom, nor pure Will. Although, Total Freedom necessarily contains all possible Will.

The more biased you are, the less creative potential you have. Without randomness, potential cannot exist. Say you have an atom. And now, this atom can move in any direction. You are saying this is an illusion. That the atom can actually simply go in one direction, and the direction it will go in, is the only possible direction it could have gone. Interestingly, you seem to fail to recognize how this is restricting Infinity. You are putting some nonsense boundary of Infinity, which everything nature tells you does not exist. Everything in nature is prove that this is not the case. Yet, you still deny it. You say it could only be one way, that all things are so biased, they cannot help but do only one particular thing. This means, reality is not infinite, instead of infinite potential, you only have one potential. How can you say this if you have experience Infinity.

 

 

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

3) Just because you add noise to a system to make it less rigid and less predictable does not mean that randomness is the mechanism that generates novelty.

In one way you are correct. A rigid system will not gain anything from in addition of noise. A neurological system which is intelligently designed, however, given noise and control for function, will generate impossible complexities.

There is no one mechanism that "generates" novelty, what a silly notion. You need both a degree of freedom and a function, this is what I have been describing, and what you can verify for yourself. I already showed you that you can generate all possible information given freedom and infinite time. You should immediately recognize that this is what Infinity is, because you know this. Infinity is timeless, that's how it contains all things, and therefore is no thing at all. The only means by which you could possibly explore infinity is Absolute Freedom, because you have to explore all pathways of the infinite, to actually manifest the infinite completely. And that's just another word for complete lack of bias, or randomness.

Lack of bias is the way by which existence is manifested, manifest infinity requires lack of bias to exist. If you were to say "No, the atom can only move in this way, it has no potential!", you would restrict your own creation, you would not love all the possible ways the atoms could have been, you only love on particular way! How petty can you be?

 

From the perspective of Infinity, there is no randomness, because there is no manifestation. Everything exists at once, which means nothing exists, from that perspective.

When you are in the perspective of manifestation, there needs to be choice, because you cannot have all of infinity at once. To see all of infinity, you must explore all the different positions that could be taken within the infinite. The true choices you make, as Divinity, cannot have bias. You have no preference, your love is ultimate. What this means is that Freedom is necessary for Love, really, it just is what Love looks like from a physical perspective. Boundless Freedom in a constraint of function.

Randomness is what unbound freedom looks like. An atom can move in all directions, but to manifest, to actually explore infinity, it must choose. It must decide, and take one pathway over all the infinite pathways it could take. It must take one step into the infinite. And the way it does this is through pure love, through lack of bias. This is what freedom is, and the universe was imbued with it. How can you deny this, it's so obvious!

God wants to know all of Infinity, and the only way to be able to do is via randomness, via freedom. Once there is an ounce of bias, it is no longer possible, unless the bias itself is part of the freedom, part of the chaos. You reject Randomness, you reject Infinity, you Reject love.

 

Given Total Freedom, all structures will exist. All possible biases, all possible forms of existences, all possible complexities, all possible restrictions, all possible laws of nature. All of infinity will exist given Total Ontological Freedom. This is the only way it could possibly exist.

Infinity, from the perspective of Leo, must be manifested through actual randomness. That's what Infinity looks like from your human perspective.

 

I mean, really, this is such a no brainer, only the rotten mind of a rationalist could fail to recognize this. Nature unfolds, before your eyes, in this precise way. Boundless Freedom. You have patterns, you have lack of patterns, it's all everywhere, by design. And yet, you still are blind to it!

Edited October 4, 2023 by Scholar

[Yimpa]

24 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

What bigger fish is there to fry other than helping to advance humanity. There's none IMO. We have to survive, yes, but it's still just out of necessity. 

I’m undergoing metamorphosis. It’s like I’m cooking myself!

[Princess Arabia]

3 minutes ago, Yimpa said:

I’m undergoing metamorphosis. It’s like I’m cooking myself!

Ok...take care of you❤️Whatever you're doing is working. 

[Yimpa]

 

Ok… back to criticizing Leo! 

[Scholar]

27 minutes ago, nuwu said:

1. Infinite Regress: Assuming randomness causes infinity, what causes randomness?

What i am describing is a relative perspective. Randomness doesn't really "cause" Infinity, rather, Randomness is what infinity looks like from the perspective of manifest existence.

Imagine infinity as a branching tree, an infinite branching tree, each branch being one possible way reality could be. Now, from the point of view of infinity, there is no time, no casuality, it all simply is, a singularity, and complete oneness.

However, to be truly infinite, each branch has to have it's own existence. It's not seperate from the Infinte, not really. However, from the perspective of any given branch, at each next point of potential, manifestation can only continue on one of the branches, or in other words, to be a branch means to be only that one branch. So, in physicalist terms, as the universe unfolds, from the manifest perspective of a singular universe, the potential at any given degree of freedom will manifest randomly. This is how the infinite is manifested, how potential is crystalized into particularity.

So, this question is misguided, it is using a linearlistic framework, but reality is not linearlistic. The bottom is always the Causeless Cause.

 

27 minutes ago, nuwu said:

2. Implicit Duality: If randomness is the source of chaos / potentials, and conscious selection the source of structure and intelligence, this implies ontological dichotomies within consciousness itself, incompatible with oneness. What is exactly defined by 'one' remains vague in the context of dream states, so it does not contradict it.

Conscious selection is not the source of structure and intelligence, it is what structure and intelligence is, and vice versa. You are applying a linearlistic framework to notions that go into the post-rational. This is why you are having problems understanding.

The incompatibility you speak of is illusiory, a result of logical rigidity. Reality is not bound by logical rigidities as your mind is.

 

27 minutes ago, nuwu said:

3. Surface / Essence: Completeness is not necessarily equivalent to randomness. The product of infinite creation is independent from its cause. The end result would be the same whether led by inexhaustible noise, or unconstrained conscious agents. If randomness 'is' infinity, the symbol does not have a strong reliable meaning.

See my answer for point 1. Randomness is what Completeness looks like from the perspective of the partial.

 

27 minutes ago, nuwu said:

4. Irreducibility: Assuming selection maps random states into information, what is the unit of randomness? The theory necessitates a fundamental particle element, presumably quantum, which harbor randomness. I am certainly repeating Leo, but if reality is an infinite hologram without beginning nor end, then it is incompatible with bi-directionally precise entanglements of information making duality possible.

There is no unit of randomness, randomness is what infinity looks like from the perspective of the manifest.

The infinite is the tree, the manifest the branches, and randomness is what it the junctions look like from the perspective of the branch. There is no "cause" to why a branch is one or the other branch. It is simply is Freedom. You cannot reduce it, and it certainly is not contained in the branch itself. It is deeper than that.

 

27 minutes ago, nuwu said:

5. Self-Defeating Loop: Creation is the mean to an end, the end is the mean to itself. If randomness is fundamental, it's unclear how selection may cause randomness, or how randomness may cause selection.

I don't know what you mean by "fundamental" here. You will not get an answer to how Freedom/Randomness works, that would defeat it's own nature. This is as absurd as asking what color the sound of a barking dog has.

 

27 minutes ago, nuwu said:

. Scale Independence: How does the notion of randomness change depending on the scale or context? How would material phenomena be associated with randomness? Physical size is a construct of the mind.

I don't see how these questions are even relevant. You can just look at and study nature and find out, because nature contains degrees of freedom.

 

27 minutes ago, nuwu said:

7. Observer Dilemma: Qualia is creation. If I choose not to observe a random state, would it still be random? If we consider degrees of entropy in which qualia may be considered more or less random, then the line between noise and information is blurry and undefined.

You are creating problems where no problems exist.

 

There is no such thing as a random state, that doesn't even make sense. Do you mean an unmanifested potential?

When a potential state is not yet collapsed, from the perspective of manifest existence, then all it means is that it did not yet reach the junction point where the degree of freedom is present. Once it reaches that point, it will simply collapse into one of the potentials, and this collapse will be Free. From the perspective of the Infinite, all the branches always simply exist, they are never collapsed, they just exist as the potentials, eternally.

Edited October 4, 2023 by Scholar

[Leo Gura]

God does not play dice.

Edited October 4, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Scholar]

8 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

God does not play dice.

Imagine playing a tabletop game without dice.

Without dice, reality would not look the way it currently does.

[Leo Gura]

@Scholar I will throw dice at your head. Maybe it will randomly make you smarter.

[Scholar]

14 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@Scholar I will throw dice at your head. Maybe it will randomly make you smarter.

If you do that long enough, it will happen.

[Leo Gura]

Serious mathematicians have crunched the numbers on randomness causing the origin of life. The odds are so low it would be like finding one specific particle out of all the particles in a million of our universes.

So good luck.

Edited October 4, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Scholar]

22 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Serious mathematicians have crunched the numbers on randomness causing the origin of life. The odds are so low it would be like finding one specific particle out of all the particles in a million of our universes.

So good luck.

Because mathematicians are not as intelligent as god. The genius of the universe is that it is constructed such that freedom and function can both prosper, and in fact, as I pointed out, this is the only way it could work.

So, the odds of it happening are actually 100%, that's how the universe is designed. The fact that mathematicians do not know this just shows how little they understand about reality.

 

A stupid person will think "Oh, no way randomness could allow for something like life to self-construct!", but that is because of a lack of imagination. They cannot fathom that the system is so sophisticated, that it is not just construct life despite randomness, but using randomness in it's favour to achieve completeness.

Edited October 5, 2023 by Scholar

[Leo Gura]

31 minutes ago, Scholar said:

So, the odds of it happening are actually 100%, that's how the universe is designed.

Calling that random is rather silly though. Which is my point.

[Scholar]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

Calling that random is rather silly though. Which is my point.

I never called the whole process random, I am saying randomness/freedom is a necessary component to the overall dynamic.

 

The nature of self-discovery is a maximization of variety, and this is only achieved through degrees of ontological freedom.

Edited October 5, 2023 by Scholar

[Leo Gura]

Where is the freedom if life is 100% baked into the lottery?

[Scholar]

14 minutes ago, nuwu said:

@Scholar I wasn’t suggesting the theory is wrong, nor excessively dependent on classical logic. Randomness as a theoretical abstraction over infinite potential yields plausible internal consistency, since there is no perceptible difference between noise and non-noise induced absolute infinity, but the symbolism is misleading. Nothing exists outside consciousness.

Consciousness is free to imagine itself confined, but it does not invalidate absolute freedom.

Well, of course, it's free to imagine itself confined.

I don't think the symbolism is misleading. Consciousness is another word for existence, and anything that exists constitutes existence.