tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post6888334495890442387..comments2023-12-21T06:35:36.624-05:00Comments on Recursivity: Stephen Meyer's Bogus Information TheoryUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger144125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-84885474677182271422019-10-24T10:29:17.004-04:002019-10-24T10:29:17.004-04:00Hint: they didn't arise "from nothing&qu...Hint: they didn't arise "from nothing".Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-20115426764851797022019-10-23T17:25:43.315-04:002019-10-23T17:25:43.315-04:00a rose by any other name: I don't really care...a rose by any other name: I don't really care if you call it "information" or invent an entirely new term. In the end, there are very specific complex sequences of nucleotides that ultimately give rise to extraordinarily complex, sophisticated, and often elegant functions. There are many times more ways those same molecules could be arranged which would result in no function whatsoever. Some explanation is required for how those sequences arose (from nothing). Once all is "up and running" adaptation is not that impressive.A Name I Chosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02267096077563440769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-4556640650916012892016-07-27T06:00:47.352-04:002016-07-27T06:00:47.352-04:00"All one needs is Meyer's book. If in a c..."All one needs is Meyer's book. If in a contract we find defined terms, then we must interpret the contract based on those definitions. The same goes for Meyer's book. He has narrowed his definition of information to what he argues requires design. That's his privilege as the author."<br /><br />That would only be true if Meyer was careful to distinguish between Meyer-information and other senses of the word "information", and if he presented serious arguments to support the TWO claims (a) that organisms exhibit Meyer-information, and (b) that Meyer-information cannot arise by natural evolution.<br /><br />However, he does no such thing. Instead he relies on appeals to intuitions about "information" in colloquial senses of that word.Richard Weinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18095903892283146064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-50263361609523222252016-07-27T03:28:09.484-04:002016-07-27T03:28:09.484-04:00"All one needs is Meyer's book": wh..."All one needs is Meyer's book": why would you think that the definition imposed by Meyer, which has nothing in common with the definition used by all other scientists, and which has the problems I mentioned above, would be definitive?<br /><br />You didn't reply to either my example about weather prediction or about varves, both of which defeat Meyer's claims.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-27506965338796052522016-07-26T20:22:42.945-04:002016-07-26T20:22:42.945-04:00"perhaps you would benefit by reading some ba..."perhaps you would benefit by reading some basic textbooks about information theory":<br /><br />All one needs is Meyer's book. If in a contract we find defined terms, then we must interpret the contract based on those definitions. The same goes for Meyer's book. He has narrowed his definition of information to what he argues requires design. That's his privilege as the author. By referring to other definitions of information out there that exclude the need for design, you're attacking a strawman.<br /><br />I also think I could "Give an example of information with no physical basis": the written language. Objects shaped as letters only become an alphabet and a written language when a convention is established by an intelligent agent. That convention is not physical. Perhaps this applies to DNA as well. Is the convention that governs the DNA code physical and how dit it arise? <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16723249324026135826noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-90144537047000140052016-07-26T17:56:57.526-04:002016-07-26T17:56:57.526-04:00Mark: perhaps you would benefit by reading some b...Mark: perhaps you would benefit by reading some basic textbooks about information theory.<br /><br />As for "if a given medium contains information, then there must have been an informer", this is a non sequitur. Think about varves: they obviously contain information, but who is the informer?<br /><br />"The evolutionist must say that DNA *looks like* coded information, but isn't really information at all." No, scientists just think you don't understand the definition of information.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-87837341830057456632016-07-26T16:23:47.374-04:002016-07-26T16:23:47.374-04:00It seems to me that the mistake generally made is ...It seems to me that the mistake generally made is not distinguishing between information itself and the encoding of information. Information proper is a metaphysical concept. Information is *about* something. "What do you know about the new boss?". That's information. Information is not math. Information is an abstract concept, but information is coded so it can be stored or communicated. It is easily seen that information is not the coding by noting that information can frequently be coded by disparate means. I can talk about the new boss, or hand you a written article the contains the same info.<br /><br />So all the tech talk is about the coding of information, not information itself. And note that all of Shannon et al's work was with pre-coded information - namely voice. So his information theory is really about how to efficiently communicate codes, not information proper. <br /><br />So, returning from math to language, if a given medium contains information, then there must have been an informer. That's simply what information means. So if the DNA contains information, then there was a sentient creator. The evolutionist must say that DNA *looks like* coded information, but isn't really information at all. If the evolutionist grants that there is actually information coded into the cell, then he is granting a designer.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13281944473851013389noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-42532146151250331392016-05-11T18:15:13.518-04:002016-05-11T18:15:13.518-04:00I don't have time to write a computer simulati...<i>I don't have time to write a computer simulation and show the math.</i><br /><br />It seems nobody who practices the pseudoscience of intelligent design has the time, not just you. Evader.<br /><br /><i>the processes themselves cannot create CSI</i><br /><br />Sure they can. We gave an example in our paper.<br /><br /><i>You wrote a book critiquing intelligent design.</i><br /><br />What is the title of this nonexistent book I have written? I am genuinely curious, because I am unaware of it.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-38984232005830929992016-05-11T15:26:46.301-04:002016-05-11T15:26:46.301-04:00OK, show me how your measure distinguished between...<i> OK, show me how your measure distinguished between them. Do the math!</i><br /><br />I don't have time to write a computer simulation and show the math. However, it is obvious that I can drop a handful of sand and create a silhouette or basic face, whereas I could never do that with the Mount Rushmore faces.<br /><br />Consequently, chance easily explains the former but cannot explain the latter. However, the latter also has high specificity, since the number of configurations matching the description "meticulously designed face of president" is very small.<br /><br />But, once I have the time, it would be an interesting simulation to write.<br /><br /><i>If all natural processes are designed, then what the heck are you distinguishing in your designed versus non-designed dichotomy?</i><br /><br />Even if all natural processes are designed, the processes themselves cannot create CSI. So, if we could account for the CSI already latent in the process, we would see that all artifacts they create have 0 CSI once the latent CSI is removed.<br /><br /><i>I didn't write a book about intelligent design. Don't know what you're referring to. But please tell the truth! You don't find our reasoning compelling because you're a religious fundamentalist with an a priori commitment to deny evolution.</i><br /><br />You wrote a book critiquing intelligent design. It is full of the type of argumentation I find unconvincing. <br /><br />I did not find the book unconvincing because I have a prior commitment to deny evolution. I initially wanted to believe in evolution and be an atheist, but the lack of good arguments on their side was too overwhelming and I couldn't in good conscience do so.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14871265628418270341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-62584076138407711802016-05-03T12:00:44.649-04:002016-05-03T12:00:44.649-04:00You're equivocating between crags that look li...<i>You're equivocating between crags that look like face silhouettes and meticulously designed sculptures. </i><br /><br />OK, show me how your measure distinguished between them. Do the math!<br /><br /><i>You beg the question by assuming natural processes don't have a designer.</i><br /><br />If <i>all</i> natural processes are designed, then what the heck are you distinguishing in your designed versus non-designed dichotomy?<br /><br /><i>Such equivocation and fallacious reasoning is why I didn't find your book very compelling.</i><br /><br />I didn't write a book about intelligent design. Don't know what you're referring to. But please tell the truth! You don't find our reasoning compelling because you're a religious fundamentalist with an a priori commitment to deny evolution.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-46098636121508742922016-05-03T11:20:24.948-04:002016-05-03T11:20:24.948-04:00You're equivocating between crags that look li...You're equivocating between crags that look like face silhouettes and meticulously designed sculptures. <br /><br />You beg the question by assuming natural processes don't have a designer.<br /><br />Such equivocation and fallacious reasoning is why I didn't find your book very compelling.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14871265628418270341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-37060574726691025772016-05-02T14:33:20.549-04:002016-05-02T14:33:20.549-04:00You avoided the questions. No surprise. You can...You avoided the questions. No surprise. You can't do the calculations on which the bogus CSI measure is built!<br /><br />You need to talk to Robert Marks II, because he thinks Mt. Rushmore has a lot of specified complexity.<br /><br />Your claim about non-uniform distributions having CSI already invalidates your argument, since as Richard pointed out, many natural processes result in non-uniform distributions but don't have designers.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-60890741972641332742016-05-02T13:41:52.288-04:002016-05-02T13:41:52.288-04:00If the background process creates a highly non-uni...If the background process creates a highly non-uniform distribution, then it too has high CSI. The difficulty with measuring CSI is removing the background CSI.<br /><br />The faces example clearly has no CSI. With faces, many different processes can create faces. I could drop a handful of sand and accidentally create a face. However, only people can write. So only intelligent agency can create configurations with such high specificity.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14871265628418270341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-24209896343931763882016-05-02T08:40:01.349-04:002016-05-02T08:40:01.349-04:00(Sorry if this is a double post.)
Jeffrey: "...(Sorry if this is a double post.)<br /><br />Jeffrey: " It is only low if you compute it relative to a uniform distribution. But why is that the correct choice?"<br /><br />Eric: "Design is the only known alternative."<br /><br />Eric, do you know what "uniform [probability] distribution" means? It means that all possible outcomes are equally probable. But that makes your claim absurd. Naturally-occurring events are generally the result of complex processes, which render some outcomes more likely than others. The weather does not conform to a uniform distribution. Rain, sun and snow are not equally likely. (Of course the probability distribution also depends on what you choose to identify as different outcomes. Is heavy rain a different outcome from drizzle?)<br /><br />Evolution is another complex natural process, and it would be equally absurd to claim that all possible outcomes of evolution must be equally probable (but for design). Even Dembski doesn't make such an absurd claim. But he sometimes omits to take non-uniform probability distributions into account when he should, and puts too much emphasis on uniform ones.<br /><br />I suggest you refrain from concluding that the scientific community has made a trivial error and got evolutionary theory all wrong, at least until you've learnt the basics of the relevant subjects.Richard Weinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18095903892283146064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-73356741065916454572016-05-02T08:38:35.517-04:002016-05-02T08:38:35.517-04:00Jeffrey: " It is only low if you compute it r...Jeffrey: " It is only low if you compute it relative to a uniform distribution. But why is that the correct choice?"<br /><br />Eric: "Design is the only known alternative."<br /><br />Eric, do you know what "uniform [probability] distribution" means? It means that all possible outcomes are equally probable. But that makes your claim absurd. Naturally-occurring events are generally the result of complex processes, which render some outcomes more likely than others. The weather does not conform to a uniform distribution. Rain, sun and snow are not equally likely. (Of course the probability distribution also depends on what you choose to identify as different outcomes. Is heavy rain a different outcome from drizzle?)<br /><br />Evolution is another complex natural process, and it would be equally absurd to claim that all possible outcomes of evolution must be equally probable (but for design). Even Dembski doesn't make such an absurd claim. But he sometimes omits to take non-uniform probability distributions into account when he should, and puts too much emphasis on uniform ones.<br /><br />I suggest you refrain from concluding that the scientific community has made a trivial error and got evolutionary theory all wrong, at least until you've learnt the basics of the relevant subjects.Richard Weinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18095903892283146064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-87245290639472841772016-05-02T05:36:59.742-04:002016-05-02T05:36:59.742-04:00Again, you seem very confused.
Sometimes Dembski ...Again, you seem very confused.<br /><br />Sometimes Dembski computes the probability relative to the actual history of the object in question. Sometimes he computes it relative to a uniform distribution. He changes from one to the other as it suits him. <br /><br />Saying "The uniform distribution assumes maximum entropy" is not an answer. Why is this the correct one to use, especially if one knows the process being considered does not generate objects with a uniform distribution?<br /><br />"there are many things that look like faces, so that configuration is not highly improbable": not good enough. Do the calculation and tell us exactly how many bits of bogus "specified complexity" were in the Old Man of the Mountain. Now compare with how many bits are in Mt. Rushmore.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-70894749200021668442016-05-01T22:14:38.571-04:002016-05-01T22:14:38.571-04:00Design is the only known alternative. You claim n...Design is the only known alternative. You claim natural processes can create improbable configurations, such as an old man's face. However, there are many things that look like faces, so that configuration is not highly improbable.<br /><br />The uniform distribution assumes maximum entropy. This is Bernoulli's principle of insufficient reason.<br /><br />I read your long paper awhile ago, and it is one reason I became interested in Intelligent Design when I was on the fence. I did not see you addressing Dembski's points fairly.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14871265628418270341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-86357232861251751902016-05-01T19:30:57.127-04:002016-05-01T19:30:57.127-04:00You seem very confused, Eric. First, I was asking...You seem very confused, Eric. First, I was asking Jordan why the only alternative to pure randomness is design. Your answer didn't address this.<br /><br />Second, it is simply NOT true that " intelligence is the only cause we know of that creates these highly improbable configurations". Have you ever seen NH's "The Old Man of the Mountain". Surely a rock that looks just like an old man's face is improbable; yet there is no evidence it was created by intelligence.<br /><br />Your example of writing, a characteristic human activity, is laughable. Of course, humans write. But why do you say their writing is improbable? Sit Shakespeare down at a table, and I'd say it is extremely likely he would produce a sonnet. So the probability is high. It is only low if you compute it relative to a uniform distribution. But why is that the correct choice?<br /><br />I'm sorry you've been hoodwinked by Dembski and Meyer. To avoid being snookered in the future, read my long paper with Elsberry where we show exactly how they carry out their bait and switch.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-8620230053687378392016-05-01T16:01:53.796-04:002016-05-01T16:01:53.796-04:00Because intelligence is the only cause we know of ...Because intelligence is the only cause we know of that creates these highly improbable configurations. Writing is one good example. The probability of creating a short sentence with words in the dictionary, and with word lengths distributed accorded to normal usage, through chance are extremely small. Making the sentence grammatically correct and meaningful makes the probability even smaller. So, a single well formed sentence is too improbable to be created during the lifetime of the universe through chance. Yet humans regularly write such sentences. <br /><br />So, when we see such highly improbable configurations in biology the best explanation for their origin is intelligence. It can't be human intelligence. The best explanation is God's intelligent design.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14871265628418270341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-38867870634904400522016-05-01T06:34:32.335-04:002016-05-01T06:34:32.335-04:00Why is the opposite of "mutating into existen...Why is the opposite of "mutating into existence by chance" (a claim nobody makes, by the way) "design"? This shows you haven't thought very seriously about the issue.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-31182218649221288792016-04-30T21:36:54.665-04:002016-04-30T21:36:54.665-04:00Hello !
I am begining to have the impression that...Hello !<br /><br />I am begining to have the impression that "specified information" is not a quantity, but rather is a boolean classification. Colloquially, as it relates to biological "building blocks of life" ; "specified information" results when the probability of an event derieved from a mathematical set of outcomes whose elements are all deemed "functional" by contemporary biology, exceedes 1 in 10^150 then the event is dubbed "specified information".<br /><br />Also see "Dembski's Defition" of "complex specified information".<br />"complex specified information (CSI) as being present in a specified event whose probability did not exceed 1 in 10^150"<br /><br />In his book, Dr. Meyer calculates the number of possible interactions in the known universe to be roughly 1 in 10^140 = 1 in (10^80 Elemental Particles)*(10^43 Interactions Per Second)*(10^17 Seconds {Age of the Universe @~3Billion years old}). [Pg. 216-217]<br /><br />In his book, Dr. Meyer calculates the probability of a single, functional, medium sized protien (150 Amino-Acids) arising from "prebiotic soup" to be about 1 in 10^164 = (Pobability of incorperating peptide bonds)*(Probability of incorperating only left-handed amino acids)*(Probability of achieving correct amino-acid sequencing)= 1 in (10^43)*(10^45)*(10^74) [Pg. 212]<br /><br />In his book, Dr. Meyer calculates the probability of a single cell organism (250 Protien) arising from "prebiotic soup" to be about 1 in 10^41,000 = 1 in (10^164 events necessary to form 1 Protien ) ^ 250 Protiens [Pg. 213]<br /><br />Because the probabilities of a single, functional, medium sized protien and much less the probability of a single celled organisum mutating into existance by chance are orders of magnitude (14 and 40,861 orders respectively) less probable than 1 in 10^150 ; then the event that life does exist is evidence of "complex specified information." and furthermore indicates design.<br /><br />Thank you for asking hard questions !!! You guys are awesome !<br /><br />Have a fantastic day everyone !<br /><br />Sincerely,<br />--<br />Jordan D. UlmerJordan D. Ulmerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13991647227035864064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-59125844555632661742015-12-26T15:42:19.309-05:002015-12-26T15:42:19.309-05:00Re-quoting:
p. 291: "Either way, information ...Re-quoting:<br />p. 291: "Either way, information in a computational context does not magically arise without the assistance of the computer scientist."<br /><br />p. 341: "It follows that mind -- conscious, rational intelligent agency -- what philosophers call "agent causation," now stands as the only cause known to be capable of generating large amounts of specified information starting from a nonliving state."<br /><br />p. 343: "Experience shows that large amounts of specified complexity or information (especially codes and languages) invariably originate from an intelligent source -- from a mind or personal agent."<br /><br />p. 343: "...both common experience and experimental evidence affirms intelligent design as a necessary condition (and cause)<br />of information..."<br /><br />Every time I see such assertions I know that he people who make them have no idea of how either "design" or "intelligence" works. It is especially ironic to see the phrase "does not magically arise" used when they are basically claiming that humans use magic to think and design things.<br /><br />In fact what goes on in design (speaking as a turbine design engineer for many years) is ... evolution: trial and error; survival of the fittest in the marketplace; Edison's hundreds of experiments with materials for light-bulb filaments and battery components. We have all seen cars and phones and computers and many other things evolve in our lifetimes.<br /><br />Speaking of computer programming (as the first quote does), I wonder whether the author has ever heard of Gall's Law of System Design?<br /><br />"A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked. A complex system designed from scratch never works and cannot be patched up to make it work. You have to start over with a working simple system." – John Gall, Systemantics: How Systems Really Work and How They Fail (1975, p.71)<br /><br />I wonder if any of these "design theoreticians" has ever designed anything complex from scratch that worked on the first try? I doubt it extremely.<br /><br />Here is my counter-claim: human design work and human problem-solving in general is an evolutionary process. Nothing in the history of human technology has ever sprung into being in final and complete form without precursors and without trial-and-error. This in fact is the only way new information has ever been observed to be created. IDists have no example of the type of magical process which they claim is more likely to occur than evolution. The reason they don't know this is because they have never bothered to study design and intelligence and don't understand how they work.JimVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10198704789965278981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-2803923911285282432015-09-03T19:03:02.176-04:002015-09-03T19:03:02.176-04:00I am entirely ignorant in this area
Yes, I can te...<i>I am entirely ignorant in this area</i><br /><br />Yes, I can tell that. But it's easy to remedy your ignorance -- all you need to do is go to the library. Renyi's "A Diary on Information Theory" is a good start. Why aren't you reading it?<br /><br /><i>a code or language that can be understood, interpreted and acted upon with precision – like DNA – is something we would without hesitation attribute to an intelligent agent </i><br /><br />Why? <br /><br /><i>Your nit-picking with the definition of information</i><br /><br />I'm just using a standard definition of the term as understood by people who actually do information theory. (Hint: Meyer isn't one of them.)<br />Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-42740361622882010032015-09-03T16:20:18.979-04:002015-09-03T16:20:18.979-04:00I linked to this article from your comments on Mey...I linked to this article from your comments on Meyer’s debate with Atkins, in which you said Atkins should have used weather as an example of naturally originating information.<br /><br />Speaking as a mere layperson in Brazil, I found the comparison with the weather to be rather silly. Weather phenomena are one thing, and the systems created to describe them are another. The former are easily explained by natural laws, while the latter were necessarily created, and please don’t insult the bright scientists who developed them by saying they weren’t.<br /><br />It’s like saying the languages humans developed to describe the world around them are equivalent to the things they describe. No, sir – a rock is not the same as the word “rock”, and heat is not the same as “40° C”.<br /><br />Information theory be damned (I am entirely ignorant in this area), a code or language that can be understood, interpreted and acted upon with precision – like DNA – is something we would without hesitation attribute to an intelligent agent if we were not required to seek a natural cause, and that is Meyer’s point. <br /><br />Your nit-picking with the definition of information seems to be an attempt to broaden it so that it includes phenomena that can easily explained by natural causes, which Meyer is obviously not referring to.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16723249324026135826noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-8606360546224643652014-07-16T13:49:34.402-04:002014-07-16T13:49:34.402-04:00but not ultimate
What is your definition of "...<i>but not ultimate</i><br /><br />What is your definition of "ultimate"?<br /><br /><i>Please correct me with a quote and reference if I am misinterpreting Dembski.</i><br /><br />I can't, because I don't understand what you are saying.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.com