Dialog with Howard Pattee - Part 2 - Determinism vs Probability

Howard Pattee's 2008 paper "Physical and functional conditions for symbols, codes, and languages" is available for download here. I recently re-read it in detail and engaged in what was for me an interesting and rewarding email dialog with Howard.

This is the second in a planned multi-part posting that includes portions of our email dialog.

Click for Part 1 - His 2008 Paper

Click for Part 3 - QM and Chess Analogy

Click for Part 4 - Property Dualism

Click for Part 5 - Flatland and Higher Dimensions

INTRODUCTION

At the time I wrote my Oct 16th email (excerpted below), I had carefully re-read the first three sections of Howard's paper.

For Blog readers who have not yet read the original paper (and to remind those who have), and to provide context regarding our long-standing differences of opinion as to causality, determinism, and the arbitrariness of symbols, here are the titles and initial paragraphs of each of the first three sections of Howard's paper:

1. Epistemology and terminology are problems for biosemiotics

There are classical epistemic problems that have troubled the greatest minds for over 2000 years without reaching any consensus. This is the case for conceptual dualisms, like discrete and continuous, chance and determinism, form and function, and especially the mind-body problem that has persistently puzzled philosophers, and is still a central issue for philosophy, psychology, artificial life, artificial intelligence, and cognitive science. It is also closely related to fundamental issues in physics, the information-energy relation and what is known as the measurement problem. All of these problems are related to a category I have generalized as symbol-matter problem.

Biosemiotics, virtually by definition, cannot escape these problems. In my view, the central difficulty with the historical mind-body problem is that philosophy approached it from the wrong end of evolution. The many concepts and terminologies that have been invented to describe thought and language at the highest evolutionary levels of human cognition are not conceptually or empirically clear enough to adequately describe symbolic control at the cellular level where this duality first appears, and where it is simple enough to understand. Because my education began as a physics student, I learned that one must thoroughly understand very simple problems before one could even think clearly about more complex problems. …

2. The rules of symbols and the laws of matter have incompatible epistemic assumptions.

Let me begin with two epistemic assumptions that are a common source of misunderstanding. Models of symbol systems and material systems are based on incompatible epistemic assumptions. Physical laws ― the laws of matter and energy ― are based on the principle that any candidate for a law must give the same results for all conceivable observers and for arbitrary changes of reference frames. These conditions are called invariance and symmetry principles. Physical laws seek to describe those relations between events over which individual agents, whether single cells or humans, ideally have no control or freedom to make changes. Laws must appear universal and inexorable. By contrast, any candidate for a symbol system is based on the condition that all individual agents, from cells to humans, ideally have complete symbol-writing freedom within the syntactic constraints of the symbol system.

In other words, physical laws must give the impression that events do not have alternatives and could not be otherwise (Wigner, 1964), while informational symbolic structures must give the impression that they could be otherwise, and must have innumerable ways of actually being otherwise. Semiotic events are based on an endless choice of alternatives, not only in symbol sequences but also in codes that interpret the symbols. It is just those innumerable alternatives, selected by heritable propagation, that are the prerequisites for evolution as well as for creative thought. …

3. How can symbols and codes be free of physical laws?

This question is a second common source of misunderstanding about the symbol-matter problem. It is a belief among many scientists and philosophers that because physical laws are universal and inexorable there is in principle no room for alternative behaviors, in particular, the freedom of symbolic information, and ultimately free-will. This is a belief with a psychological basis that long predates the discovery of physical laws. It is rooted in the concept of causality ―the feeling that every event must have a cause. Aristotle and Lucretius could not accept indeterminism long before Laplace and Einstein. ...

The following excerpts are from an email from Ira Glickstein to Howard Pattee (Oct 16, 8:25 AM) and his reply (Oct 16, 12:51 PM)

[IRA GLICKSTEIN] Howard: thanks for uploading this paper. I am currently reading it in detail and am up to section 4. You make a very strong case for indeterminacy and arbitrariness of symbols. Of course, I accept that our human brains, even when assisted by highest technology sensors and computers cannot determine the future of evolution and natural (or even artificial) selection.

However, if (a BIG IF) time and space are finite and discrete (as, apparently are the quanta of matter) THEN (I would like to believe and therefore I do believe), at the Big Bang when a finite amount of matter/energy and space-time and the finite, Universal, and unchanging Laws of Nature originated, there were (and therefore still are) only a finite number of possible states of the Universe. 

[HOWARD PATTEE] The issue of determinism vs probability does not depend on discreteness. It depends on the nature of laws and what we call states of a system. There is no empirical evidence that the state of a system is exact. It is a probability distribution according to most interpretations of QM. Born even argues that classical models are probability distributions. …

The laws may be unchanging but still only probabilistic, as well as the states.

[IG] Thus, the sequence of formation of our Universe and ultimately of life and it's associated symbols, were (and are) fully determined.

I guess we are each too old to modify our basic beliefs.…

[HP] At least I can claim that all of the empirical evidence that I have acquired is consistent with a probabilistic universe. I have never come across any evidence of strict determinism. I have only experienced events with very good statistics.

I agree, however, that faith in determinism and God cannot be disproved by empirical evidence.

[IG] Meanwhile, THANKS again for being such an important part of my intellectual and personal life. …

[HP] Keep thinking. Howard

 

Ira Glickstein

A Practical View of Bayesian Inference

Bayes Theorem has practical applications. Use it to make real world decisions. [Updated 8 Sep 2013]

Bayes Theorem is not just an obscure artifact of the statistics of probability handed down to us from centuries ago. You can use it now to make decisions that will affect your financial well-being.

A relatively simple Excel-based tool helps you choose the right course of action in the face of uncertain probabilities and inexact test results. It is available for FREE.

[Presented to the Science-Technology Club, The Villages, FL, 9 September 2013. For a copy of my PowerPoint slide show, send an email to ira@techie.com.]

What can the Bayesian Inference Advisor Tool do for You?

I know you are probably not in the oil business (and neither am I), but the best way to understand an abstract concept is to go through a practical example. The example below has to do with oil exploration and drilling, but the Bayesian Inference Advisor can handle any problem where you know:

1) the probability of success if you take action without doing further testing,
2) the cost of further testing and the probability the test results will be reliable,
3) the cost of taking some action,
4) the financial benefit to you if the action is successful, and
5) the compensation you expect for taking the risk.

You can download the Bayesian Inference Advisor at:
https://sites.google.com/site/bigira/stuff-ira-knows/BayesianInferenceAdvisorV3.xls?attredirects=0&d=1

The Bayesian Inference Advisor will compute the most likely financial implications of your actions. What if you proceed without further testing? What if you get a positive test result and proceed? What if you get a negative test result and proceed? Several other examples in very different domains are included later in this posting, but for now, put on your hard hat and let us imagine we are in the oil business!

Bayesian AI Advisor - Drill Here? Drill Now?

Today, April 7, is the deathday of Rev. Thomas Bayes who was born c. 1702 and passed away April 7, 1761.

His great contribution to mathematics was Bayes Theorem, seen on the t-shirt to the left. Bayes came up with what is called inverse probability at at time when only forward probability was generally known.

In short, if you know the probability of some event B given some other event A, and if you also know the probabilities of A and B, you can figure out the inverse probability of A given B.

Many people think -incorrectly- that forward and inverse probabilities are the same. That is, if a given test detects, say, 99.9% of people who have used illegal drugs recently, they think anyone who fails that test is 99.9% certain to have used illegal drugs. NOT SO! In some cases, "false positives" can outnumber "true positives" by a factor of two or more.

Here is a great example of how much forward and inverse probabilities may differ. The probability a person is female given that they are pregnant is: P(F;P) = 100%. But probability a person in pregnant given that they are female is: P(P;F) ~ 3%

QUANTIFYING THE RISK OF OIL EXPLORATION

Bayesian probability means, using oil exploration as a practical example, you can figure out the probability you will strike commercially-viable oil if you drill a well at a particular location given that a seismic test was positive. With the value of petroleum going up and down so rapidly in the past few years, this illustrates the fine line between making a big profit and going broke in the oil patch.

MY BAYESIAN AI ADVISOR

Some years ago I created a Bayesian AI ("Artificial Intelligence") Advisor spreadsheet that runs on Excel. I've recently improved the Bayesian AI Advisor and today I published a new Google Knol that explains its use. You are invited to download the Bayesian AI Advisor to your PC.

Of course, Bayesian probability applies to many areas in addition to oil exploration. My Knol looks at targeted marketing (what is the chance a given person will buy my product given that he or she has bought some other product in the past?) and medical testing (what is the chance a person has a particular disease given that he or she tests positive?)

QUICK LOOK AT THE RESULTS FOR "DRILL HERE? DRILL NOW?"

The figure shows three cases for oil exploration with three different recomendations. I think this illustrates the risk of oil exploration and that it could be applied to the financial implications of investment in alternative forms of energy.

The user has to input the data in the clear cells, based on known probabilities and financial factors. The leftmost panel shows a case where the Bayesian AI Advisor recommends Test first, If Test is Positive, do the Procedure - in other words, do a seismic test and, if the results are positive, drill.

The middle panel shows the case where all factors are the same except the value of petroleum has gone down by 15% and now the recommendation is Hopeless venture. (Can you reduce expected ROI?) - in other words, do not waste money doing the seismic testing because, even if you get a positive result, it will not pay to do the drilling given the financial assumptions you have entered, unless you are willing to increase the risk to your investors by reducing the expected Return on Investment.

The rightmost panel shows the case where, in a different location in the oil patch, the probabilities of success are much better. Now the recommendation is No Need to Test. Go ahead with the Procedure. - in other words, this area is so good you don't have to waste money doing seismic testing, just go right ahead and drill and you are likely to strike commercially-viable oil and get rich.

Ira Glickstein