Since I don't actually agree with that, I asked Professor Marks for some justification. He did not reply.
Now, three months later, I'm sending him another reminder.
Who thinks that he will ever send me a calculation justifying his claim?
Tuesday, December 09, 2014
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I think he won't reply to you for obvious reasons: the answer is in the bible. I daresay you haven't read your bible carefully.
Just make it a yearly commemoration-- Robert J. Marks II Day-- for an annual remembrance of his great expertise in information theory. It can go along with Kitzmas, Paul Nelson Day, and Jason Lisle Day in the evolutionary calendar.
I've been fascinated, like watching a train wreck in slow motion, by this argument "we all agree."
It's a typical creationist ploy to appeal to our good old friend Common Sense. Of course, it fails miserably in the light of science.
Why doesn't Marks II observe that information has been removed from Mt. Rushmore? After all, there's a huge pile of rubble at the bottom and I don't mean Barney. And, if Marks 2 would claim that rubble adds information then I would assume that Mt. Fuji has a large rubble pile.
If only we had an insightful engineer to enlighten us...
The the prolific publication record Robert J. Marks has, I would take his word over Shallit's any day.
Yes, its an argument from authority; one that Shallit understands well.
At least we know humans put information on the mountain that is now known as mount rushmore.
As for Mount Fuji, we have yet to detect any information there.
So yeah, I would say its pretty F#$%g obvious that sane folks would agree there is information on mount rushmore and none (so far) on Mount Fuji.
21st century mathematicians no doubt will discover how to map this information.
Shallit will most likely end up as some researcher's footnote detailing his vehement opposition to any such mapping.
Mark(s) my words!! :)
"As for Mount Fuji, we have yet to detect any information there."
Thanks for confirming that you don't have any understanding of the word "information" as it is use by physicists, mathematicians, and computer scientists.
You're welcome to attend my winter term course where we discuss and prove theorems about information, but I'm reasonably certain that you have no interest in learning.
Neither Steve nor the illustrious Robert J. Marks II has provided a calculation backing up the claim.
Post a Comment