In the Beginning Was Information (3 page)

Part B: The embryo at four weeks when it is 4.2 mm long.

Part C: The nervous system of a two-month-old embryo which is 17.7 mm long: 1 - Telencephalon (= the front part of the first brain bubble), 2 - optical nerve, 3 - Cerebellum, 4 - Medulla oblongata, 5 - Lobus olfactorius (sense of smell), 6 - Nervus ulnaris (elbow), 7 - Nervus obturatorius (hip region), 8 - Nervus plantaris lateralis (outer foot-sole) and Nervus suralis (calf).

Part D: Fetus of 75 mm, shown inside the uterus: 1 - Placenta, 2 - Myometrium (= muscular wall of the womb), 3 - amniotic membrane. The amniotic fluid has been removed.

Figure 4: Various developmental stages of a human embryo.

How is it possible that embryonic development does not entail a disorderly growth of cells, but is systematic and purposeful according to a set timetable? A precise plan, in which all stages are programmed in the finest detail, underlies all these processes. In this case also, information is the overall guiding factor.

5. The organ-playing robot:
Would it be possible for a robot to play an organ? In Figure 5, we see exactly this. This Japanese robot, called Vasubot, even enthralls music lovers. It has two hands and two feet which are able to manipulate the manuals and the pedals, and it reads sheet music by means of a video camera. The notes are then converted to the required hand and foot motions. This robot can read and play any piece of music immediately without first having to practice it. The reason for this ability is the information given in a program, together with all the required mechanisms. If the program is removed, the robot cannot do anything. Again, we observe that information is the essential ingredient.

Figure 5: This organ-playing robot was exhibited at EXPO ’85 in Japan. It was developed by Professor Ichiro Kato of Wasedo University, and was built by Sumitomo Electronic Industries. The robot is now on show in the official Japanese government building EXPO ’85 (tsukuba). This illustrates the capabilities of robot technology, but this system cannot do anything which has not been pre-programmed.

Consequences

After having considered a few very diverse systems, we may conclude that the built-in information is the common factor. None of these systems could operate if the stored information was deleted. For a better understanding of processes occurring in living as well as in inanimate systems, we have to study the concept of information in detail. A professor of informatics at Dortmund briefly formulated a basic theorem, with which we could agree:

"Anybody who can identify the source of information, has the key for understanding this world"
^[2]
(or: "He who can give an account of the origin of information holds in his hands the key to interpret this world").

The book
The Character of Physical Law
, by the American physicist Richard P. Feynman, may be regarded as a classic in the field of physics. The following is quoted from its preface [F1, p 172]: "The age in which we live is the age in which we are discovering the fundamental laws of nature, and that day will never come again." In the field of physics, most laws have probably been discovered and formulated since then. However, in regard to the fundamental quantity information, we are still squarely in the process of discovery. Based on previous work [G4, G5, G7, G8, G9, G17, G18] we will formulate in this book several theorems on information which are similar to laws of nature. For the purpose of appreciating the scope and meaning of the developed theorems, some fundamental properties of the natural laws are discussed in the next chapter.

Part 1

Laws of Nature

Chapter 2

Principles of Laws of Nature

2.1 The Terminology Used in the Natural Sciences

Through the natural sciences, the world around us is observed for the purpose of discovering the rules governing it. Experimentation and observation (e.g., measuring and weighing) are the basic "modus operandi." Hans Sachsse, who specialized in natural philosophy and chemistry, described (natural) science as "a census of observational relationships which cannot say anything about first causes or the reasons for things being as they are; it can only establish the regularity of the relationships." The observational material is organized systematically, and the principles derived from it are formulated in the most general terms possible (e.g., construction of machines). Questions about the origin of the world and of life, as well as ethical questions, fall outside the scope of science, and such questions cannot be answered scientifically. Conclusions about matters that do fall within the scope of (natural) science can be formulated with varying degrees of certainty. The certainty or uncertainty of the results can be expressed in various ways.

Law of Nature:
If the truth of a statement is verified repeatedly in a reproducible way so that it is regarded as generally valid, then we have a natural law. The structures and phenomena encountered in the real world can be described in terms of the laws of nature in the form of principles which are universally valid. This holds for both their chronological development and their internal structural relationships. The laws of nature describe those phenomena, events and results which occur in the interplay between matter and energy. For these reasons, psychological emotions like love, mourning, or joy, and philosophical questions, are excluded from the natural sciences. Statements about natural events can be classified according to the degree of certainty, namely: models, theories, hypotheses, paradigms, speculations, and fiction. These categories are now discussed.

Model:
Models are representations of reality. Only the most important properties are reflected, and minor or unrecognized aspects are not covered. Models are important because of their illustrativeness. A model is a deliberate but simplified representation of reality and it describes observed structures in a readily understandable way. It is possible to have more than one model for a given reality, and, because it is by nature provisional and simple, any model can always be improved upon.

Theory
(Greek
theoría
= view, consideration, investigation): Theories endeavor to explain facts in a unified representation of models and hypotheses. To put it briefly, a theory is a scientific statement based on empirical findings. Since empirical results are seldom final, theories are of a provisional nature, and the inherent hypothetical element inevitably causes uncertainty — in the best case, a statement can be made in terms of specific probabilities. Theories are therefore a means of tying observed facts together, and the best theories are those which attain this objective with the least number of inconsistencies.

Hypothesis
(Greek
hypóthesis
= assumption, conjecture, supposition): A hypothesis is an unverified scientific conjecture which contains speculations, and which amplifies an incomplete empirical result, or provisionally explains some fact. Any new hypothesis must be based on facts, and it may not contradict the known laws of nature. If a hypothesis serves as a methodological guide when a new research project is undertaken, it is known as a working hypothesis. When observational facts support a hypothesis, the probability of its being true is increased, but if ONE contradicting fact is uncovered, the hypothesis must be rejected (falsification). As early as the 17th century, Blaise Pascal (1623–1662) said that we could be certain that a hypothesis is false if ONE SINGLE derived relationship contradicts any observed phenomenon.

Paradigm
(Greek
parádeigma
= example, sample): When a certain theory (or a system of hypotheses, or a world view) pervades entire fields of research or an entire scientific era, it is known as a paradigm. Such a view then dictates the scope for specific researches and delineates the presuppositions used for explaining individual phenomena. If a system of hypotheses has been derived from presuppositions dictated by a world view, it usually cannot be reconciled with the available facts. Typical examples are geocentricity (refuted by Copernicus), and phlogiston chemistry (disproved by Lavoisier in 1774). It is hoped that this book will help to uproot the current evolutionary paradigm.

Speculation:
When a statement is based purely on discussion, fantasy, imagination, or contemplation, and does not correspond to reality, it is speculation, or merely an intellectual game. Because no actual experimentation is involved, it is easy to make undiscoverable mistakes. In thought experiments, difficulties can easily be evaded, undesirable aspects can be suppressed, and contradictions can be deftly concealed. Thought experiments can probably raise questions, but cannot answer any; only actual experimentation can provide answers. In this sense, the "hypercycle" proposed by Manfred Eigen is pure speculation [G10, p. 153–155]. Mere speculation without experimentation and observation is not science, neither is pure deduction from arbitrary presuppositions, nor is a biased selection of observations. Even the most abstract theory should not lose contact with reality and experimentation; it must be empirically verifiable.
^[3]
Thought experiments as well as deductions from philosophical postulates not based on observation are speculations.

Fiction
(Latin
fictio
= fabrication, story): A fiction is either a deliberate or an unintentional fantasy which is not based on reality. Sometimes a false assumption (fiction) can be introduced deliberately for the purpose of clarifying a scientific problem methodologically.

2.2 The Limits of Science and the Persistence of Paradigms

We have discussed different categories of laws of nature and can now realize that many statements are often formulated with far too much confidence and in terms which are far too absolute. Max Born (1882–1970), a Nobel laureate, clearly pointed this out with respect to the natural sciences [B4]:

Ideas like absolute correctness, absolute accuracy, final truth, etc. are illusions which have no place in any science. With one’s restricted knowledge of the present situation, one may express conjectures and expectations about the future in terms of probabilities. In terms of the underlying theory, any probabilistic statement is neither true nor false. This liberation of thought seems to me to be the greatest blessing accorded us by present-day science.

Another Nobel laureate, Max Planck (1858–1947), deplored the fact that theories which have long ago become unacceptable are doggedly adhered to in the sciences [P3, p 13]: