Logical Proofon the Origins of Functional InformationWhat is the correct explanation for the existence of functional information? To answer this question, it is obvious that one should know what information is. Information in its intangible form is knowledge communicated or obtained through investigation, study, instruction, etc. In its more tangible form, we see it in living organisms as the “genetic code.” If there is an intrinsic characteristic conveyed to produce specific effects of the creation, development, and/or maintenance of organized complexity, then there is information. This is where tangible information fits in. The inherent characteristic could be said to contain “knowledge” to direct and maintain organized complexity. Described more completely, information (both tangible and intangible) is “knowledge” that is communicated by sequences and/or arrangements of units (or in some cases only a single unit) with each individual unit consisting of two or more varieties. The most obvious example that fits this description is reading this article, since each and every word contains one or more letters. This concept of information would also apply to the binary code of computer systems, which transmits data in the form of ones and zeros. Genes, the fundamental units of heredity, always have two or more varied forms (which are called alleles). Thus, the genetic code and computer programming language also qualify as examples of information. So what is meant by the term “functional information”? Functional information is simply active and useful information. Information being functional is also said to be “meaningful.” This is because “meaning” is the resulting effect of information becoming functional. It is also worth mentioning one important word whose definition conflicts with the description of information. That term is “random.” Anything random is “meaningless” (thus implying a lack of functional information), unplanned and undirected. One of the most important aspects of randomness is that it completely lacks information.
In recognizing the existence of information, one important question arises: can functional information arise from random sources? Are random phenomena capable of forming the genetic code? Or must the existence of information have a non-random explanation? The best way to explain the answer (I believe) is through a step-by-step process along with one or more examples.
Conclusion: functional information cannot come about randomly, because it can neither be effectively constructed nor effectively transmitted without the direct or indirect involvement of pre-existing functional information. The second and third statements on the list are perhaps the most arguable and the most difficult to understand, since they seemingly cannot be acquired by mere logic to some people. However, both items on the list can be easily better understood with the use of examples. For instance, random typing on a typewriter could produce a sequence of letters like “daisy,” but the word would be inane without an intelligent observer to apply meaning to that sequence of letters. In this example, the non-random agent is the intelligent observer (adducing statement 2 on the list), and functional information is obviously required to have a definition of a word (adducing statement 3). Also, it is important to keep in mind that the typewriter, the ink, and the paper in this example were never involved in the actual formation of information, but only its transmission. Yet, why exactly must a non-random agent be necessary, and the non-randomness needed be functional information for such processes to be “meaningful”? The answer mainly lies in the definition of information, and the inherent consequences of that definition. By definition, an important aspect of information is some sort of transmission. There must be a “sender” and a “receiver.” When input is received, “meaning” must be applied to the input given in order for the information to be functional. There must be some sort of receiver to apply such “meaning.” This is illustrated by the reading of text, since there must be reader. If such a receiver did not exist, then the information would be useless. Hence, a non-random agent is necessary. As might be expected, a consequence of “meaning” to exist in the first place requires the initial non-randomness of functional information (whether the involvement is direct or indirect). Having a definition of the word “daisy” demonstrates this. If that definition did not exist, no knowledge would have been communicated in the example. As a result of all this, logic stipulates that a non-random agent is necessary, and also that the non-randomness needed is functional information for such processes to be “meaningful.” A further consequence comes to the “chicken-and-the-egg” type problem. One must have some sort of initial functional information to successfully produce and transmit functional information. Thus, a totally random cause for the effect of functional information is nonexistent. It seems patently clear at this point that functional information, and least in the intangible sense of the term, requires pre-existing functional information for both successful production and transmission. Although the logical precept of functional information may seem abstract, it can be applied to corporeal circumstances. That is, it can apply to more tangible forms of functional information. There is considerable evidence for this. Computer systems are one example, since they use the binary code and store their data in ones and zeros. The binary code would be useless, however, without something to apply meaning to it. Computers require additional information to translate the binary code into meaningful output. This is an important reason why not all computer systems are compatible with each other. Computers do not have the information necessary to translate the incompatible programs. Even the biological world seems to conform to the logical principle. It has already been shown that the functional code of life fits the definition of information, since it directs the development and maintenance of organized complexity in all known life forms. Picture a strand of DNA. Without anything to apply “meaning” to the genetic material, the information it contains does not become functional. The DNA strand will just sit there. Or worse yet, it might actually lose the information it contains through decay and decomposition. Although the exact processes in deciphering the genetic code are very complex and take a great deal of time to explain precisely, there is one interesting fact relevant to the logical principle of information. DNA can only be produced and “translated” with the help of certain enzymes (adducing the second item). These same enzymes in turn can only be produced at the direction of DNA (adducing the third item) so far as is known. This is because both of the processes require going against the normal currents of nature as they are currently understood. As a result, there is the chicken-and-the-egg type problem, which in this case has some interesting consequences for biology. Corporeality is evidently no exception for this logical precept.
What is one to make out of all this when applied to the origins of functional information? First, we must be careful what the question assumes. If one were to ask, “How did functional information come about?” that person would automatically assume that there was an origin for the existence of information. As shown in this article, there is a logical precept that says functional information requires pre-existing functional information for successful construction and transmission. Realizing this, the most rational conclusion on the ultimate origin of functional information is that there was no such origin, which then raises an important question of how particular forms of functional information, such as the functional code of life, came about (if it is known that such informational systems do indeed have an origin). One theory consistent with the logical precept is that the genetic code was artificially contrived. The “intelligent design theory” does seem to apply to other forms of information, such as computer programming. Of course, other factors need to be considered before deciding rationally on such subjects (such as empirical data), but one should still keep in mind a relevant and important logical precept: functional information can neither be effectively constructed nor effectively transmitted without the direct or indirect involvement of pre-existing functional information.
|
