Die Affäre Max Planck - Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig

51
Second Law auf dem Instituts-Server http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/articles/article.html und
Appendix D: Can ANYTHING Happen in an Open System? seines Buchs The
Numerical Solution of Ordinaty and Partial Differential Equations, John Wiley &
Sons (http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/articles/appendixd.pdf). Aus seinem Beitrag "A Second
Look..." hier nur ein kurzer Auszug (er setzt sich auch in diesem Essay für den
intelligenten Ursprung des Universums und des Lebens ein):
"Science has been so successful in explaining natural phenomena that the modern scientist is convinced that it
can explain everything, and anything that doesn't fit into this model is simply ignored. It doesn't matter that there
were no natural causes before Nature came into existence, so he cannot hope to ever explain the sudden creation of
time, space, matter and energy and our universe in the Big Bang. It doesn't matter that quantum mechanics is based
on a "principle of indeterminacy", that tells us that every "natural" phenomenon has a component that is forever
beyond the ability of science to explain or predict, he still insists nothing is beyond the reach of his science. ...
[Nach Hinweis auf den 2. Hauptsatz der Thermodynamik zur Wahrscheinlichkeitsfrage] But one would think that
at least this would be considered an open question, and those who argue that it [the evolution of Life] really is
extremely improbable, and thus contrary to the basic principle underlying the second law, would be given a
measure of respect, and taken seriously by their colleagues, but we aren't.”
Was G. Sewell's Beiträge auf dem offiziellen Server seines Instituts und seiner
Universität anlangt, so liegen hier noch einige wichtige Sperrungsaufgaben für
Herrn Kutschera und Mitarbeiter bereit, ebenso im Falle von Michael J. Behe
(siehe unter http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/faculty/behe.html). Beim nächsten Autor, Robert J. Marks
II, haben das allerdings schon andere für sie besorgt.
Robert J. Marks II (Distinguished Professor of Electrical and Computer
Engineering, Baylor University) und William A. Dembski (Research Professor in
Philosophy, Southwestern Seminary) vom Evolutionary Informatics Lab
http://www.evoinfo.org/: Ankündigung 20 January 2009: Two forthcoming peer-reviewed
pro-ID articles in the math/eng literature:
William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II (2009): Conservation of
Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success (in press).
Abstract: Conservation of information theorems indicate that any search algorithm performs on average as well
as random search without replacement unless it takes advantage of problem-specific information about the search
target or the search-space structure. Combinatorics shows that even a moderately sized search requires problemspecific
information to be successful. Three measures to characterize the information required for successful search
are (1) endogenous information, which measures the difficulty of finding a target using random search; (2)
exogenous information, which measures the difficulty that remains in finding a target once a search takes
advantage of problem-specific information; and (3) active information, which, as the difference between
endogenous and exogenous information, measures the contribution of problem-specific information for
successfully finding a target. This paper develops a methodology based on these information measures to gauge the
effectiveness with which problem-specific information facilitates successful search. It then applies this
methodology to various search tools widely used in evolutionary search.
(P. 1 of pdf draft:) "Such [novel] information does not magically materialize but instead results from the action of
the programmer who prescribes how knowledge about the problem gets folded into the search algorithm.”
William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II (2009): The Search for a
Search: Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search (in press).
Abstract: Many searches are needle-in-the-haystack problems, looking for small targets in large spaces. In such
cases, blind search can stand no hope of success. Success, instead, requires an assisted search. But whence the
assistance required for a search to be successful? To pose the question this way suggests that successful searches
do not emerge spontaneously but need themselves to be discovered via a search. The question then naturally arises
whether such a higher-level "search for a search” is any easier than the original search. We prove two results: (1)
The Horizontal No Free Lunch Theorem, which shows that average relative performance of searches never exceeds