tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post5968921245578263481..comments2023-12-21T06:35:36.624-05:00Comments on Recursivity: They Offer Nothing But Lies, 6Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-19587914032960899512016-04-29T11:08:38.036-04:002016-04-29T11:08:38.036-04:00I subscribe to the DI's podcast ID The Future,...I subscribe to the DI's podcast <i>ID The Future</i>, and recently they've had a couple of episodes hosted by Robert Marks. I've always noted how the creationists equivocate with the word "information", where they try to redefine it to suit their purposes but then still want to use the structure of the mathematically consistent definition.<br /><br />However, in these recent podcasts, Marks says that creationist information is the difference between the Kolmogorov information and Shannon information of a data set. Something that has a lot of Kolmogorov information but not much Shannon (or is it the other way around?) would have a lot of CSI. IANAM, so I didn't really get the point they were trying to make with this. Something that's complex but not unlikely has information? Or the other way?<br /><br />Jeff, have you seen them doing this?Curt Cameronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08048312089881459521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-37756219739859546602016-04-12T19:43:46.810-04:002016-04-12T19:43:46.810-04:00At one point Dembski tried to abandon CSI but coul...At one point Dembski tried to abandon CSI but couldn't, I think because to his followers it was like abandoning the concept of the Trinity. Like the Trinity, CSI is theology which purports to make sense out of a senseless position and inspires warm feelings in those who would like to believe in something which doesn't make sense. Based on his actions - avoiding the Dover trial, and dropping out of ID involvement - I think Dembski knows CSI is bogus, but to the ID cult it is part of their revelatory scripture (and Dembski was its prophet).JimVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10198704789965278981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-18402509252259814272016-04-10T20:27:44.599-04:002016-04-10T20:27:44.599-04:00The thing is that specification is always relative...The thing is that specification is always relative to an agent's knowledge base, according to Dembski. So all I need to do is choose an encryption function f that is not in your knowledge base.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-50717334655680856092016-04-10T19:38:28.835-04:002016-04-10T19:38:28.835-04:00I think perhaps the creationist might say that U i...I think perhaps the creationist might say that U is specified:<br /><br />"It is an encryption of the specified text T."<br /><br />Of course, I've never really been able to grok what they mean by "specified." Sometimes it means "allowing a short description." Sometimes it means "prespecified." Perhaps my short description has to include the definition of f, in which case it's not so short.<br /><br />~~ PaulPaul C. Anagnostopouloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07146336984557843642noreply@blogger.com