Snowflakes with High CSI
Seanpit
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 09:47:07 -0700, Seanpit wrote:
> >
> > CSI can be measured.
>
> Prove it. Measure the CSI of the following:
>
> 11121123344432992877777777551111121
>
> Show your work.
>
> Failure to produce a measurement of CSI to at least three significant
> figures will be construed as proof that you cannot measure CSI.
You have the same problem as snex. You assume the ability to detect
or not detect a bias in a pattern is the same thing IDists claim to be
using to be able or not able to detect deliberate design. That's not
true. One may be able to detect a highly predictable bias in a
pattern and yet be unable to detect deliberate artifact in that
pattern.
For example, a single snowflake may have very high CSI when one
compares one half of the snowflake to the other half - according to
the current use of the terms "complexity" and "specificity". But,
very high CSI, given the medium of water in a cold environment, is not
evidence of ID.
That's right! CSI, by itself, is *not* adequate evidence of
deliberate artifact. Prior knowledge gained via experience with the
material in question as it relates to various non-deliberate forces of
nature is required. In order to be able to detect artifact, one has to
know a bit more - such as the kind of material or medium that contains
the pattern and if this medium is likely to produce such a pattern
when exposed to various kinds of non-deliberate forces of nature.
Now, if your "pattern" represents a radiosignal as the medium (or a
granite rock), it is at least theoretically possible to start
supporting the ID hypothesis as to its origin. Given that it
represents a radiosignal this pattern of yours has a clear degree of
"complexity", as far as marked changes in number and degree of
variability, but the specificity is not so clear - at least not to
me. In order to determine specificity, there has to be an obvious
match to another pattern that is known to be outside the likely realm
of non-deliberate production for radiosignals - like the first 50
digits of pi or prime numbers or the Fibonacci series repeated over
and over again, or a high degree of reflective or other forms of
symmetry (as previously noted).
Here are a few examples with fairly high CSI, given the medium of a
radiosignal, that is obvious to anyone with a mathematical background:
314159265358979314159265358979 . . .
00077779999922999997777000 . . .
12357911131719231235791113171923 . . .
01123581321345589144233377610987 . . .
There's no doubt that such tags would convey intelligence if any
extraterrestrial used such signals in their messages (i.e., a string
of prime numbers, or maybe the first fifty terms of the ever-popular
Fibonacci series). Why? Because such signals clearly carry with them
both a high degree of "complexity" with regard to sequence
irregularities as well as very clear very precise specificity to other
signals with independent existence.
One other note: The fact that one may not necessarily be able to
identify a pattern in a complex sequence that actually does contain
such a pattern does not mean that CSI isn't useful. It is impossible
to detect all potential patterns that may in fact contain CSI,
deliberately or non-deliberately produced. SETI scientists can't do
it and neither can IDists. However, when the pattern is obviously a
very clear match to what is known to be a truly independent
> Mark Isaak
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Inez
0catch.com> wrote:
> On Jul 13, 12:57 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 09:47:07 -0700, Seanpit wrote:
>
> > > CSI can be measured.
>
> > Prove it. Measure the CSI of the following:
>
> > 11121123344432992877777777551111121
>
> > Show your work.
>
> > Failure to produce a measurement of CSI to at least three significant
> > figures will be construed as proof that you cannot measure CSI.
>
> You have the same problem as snex. You assume the ability to detect
> or not detect a bias in a pattern is the same thing IDists claim to be
> using to be able or not able to detect deliberate design. That's not
> true. One may be able to detect a highly predictable bias in a
> pattern and yet be unable to detect deliberate artifact in that
> pattern.
>
> For example, a single snowflake may have very high CSI when one
> compares one half of the snowflake to the other half - according to
> the current use of the terms "complexity" and "specificity". But,
> very high CSI, given the medium of water in a cold environment, is not
> evidence of ID.
Can you describe or link to a definition of "complexity" and
"specificity" as ID theorists use it? Is there really general
consensus about these definitions?
Vend
> Can you describe or link to a definition of "complexity" and
> "specificity" as ID theorists use it? Is there really general
> consensus about these definitions?
Probably there is no consensus.
Behe uses Irreducible Complexity, which is fairly easy to understand,
in my opinion.
Dembski uses Complex Specified Information which no-one, including
himself, seem to understand
(he wrote lengthy tracts about it without ever defining it).
Sean seems to be using (or trying to use) symmetricity.
Vend
0catch.com> wrote:
> On Jul 13, 12:57 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 09:47:07 -0700, Seanpit wrote:
>
> > > CSI can be measured.
>
> > Prove it. Measure the CSI of the following:
>
> > 11121123344432992877777777551111121
>
> > Show your work.
>
> > Failure to produce a measurement of CSI to at least three significant
> > figures will be construed as proof that you cannot measure CSI.
>
> You have the same problem as snex. You assume the ability to detect
> or not detect a bias in a pattern is the same thing IDists claim to be
> using to be able or not able to detect deliberate design. That's not
> true. One may be able to detect a highly predictable bias in a
> pattern and yet be unable to detect deliberate artifact in that
> pattern.
>
> For example, a single snowflake may have very high CSI when one
> compares one half of the snowflake to the other half - according to
> the current use of the terms "complexity" and "specificity". But,
> very high CSI, given the medium of water in a cold environment, is not
> evidence of ID.
>
> That's right! CSI, by itself, is *not* adequate evidence of
> deliberate artifact.
AFAIK, Dembski claims that high CSI is alone evidence of design.
Perhaps you are using the term CSI with a meaning different that
Dembski's, who actually never provided an adequate definition of it.
Could you care to define CSI?
> Prior knowledge gained via experience with the
> material in question as it relates to various non-deliberate forces of
> nature is required. In order to be able to detect artifact, one has to
> know a bit more - such as the kind of material or medium that contains
> the pattern and if this medium is likely to produce such a pattern
> when exposed to various kinds of non-deliberate forces of nature.
This makes the effort pointless.
You are claiming that to detect design we need to compare with a
corresponding type of certainly undesigned objects. What the control
objects would be when it comes to living organisms?
> Now, if your "pattern" represents a radiosignal as the medium (or a
> granite rock), it is at least theoretically possible to start
> supporting the ID hypothesis as to its origin. Given that it
> represents a radiosignal this pattern of yours has a clear degree of
> "complexity", as far as marked changes in number and degree of
> variability, but the specificity is not so clear - at least not to
> me. In order to determine specificity, there has to be an obvious
> match to another pattern that is known to be outside the likely realm
> of non-deliberate production for radiosignals - like the first 50
> digits of pi or prime numbers or the Fibonacci series repeated over
> and over again, or a high degree of reflective or other forms of
> symmetry (as previously noted).
>
> Here are a few examples with fairly high CSI, given the medium of a
> radiosignal, that is obvious to anyone with a mathematical background:
>
> 314159265358979314159265358979 . . .
>
> 00077779999922999997777000 . . .
>
> 12357911131719231235791113171923 . . .
>
> 01123581321345589144233377610987 . . .
You claim that those signals have high CSI. Please show how you
calculate that.
> There's no doubt that such tags would convey intelligence if any
> extraterrestrial used such signals in their messages (i.e., a string
> of prime numbers, or maybe the first fifty terms of the ever-popular
> Fibonacci series).
The Fibonacci sequence (actually, the Fibonacci spiral) is found in
various plants and shells of animals. Are them intelligent?
> Why? Because such signals clearly carry with them
> both a high degree of "complexity" with regard to sequence
> irregularities as well as very clear very precise specificity to other
> signals with independent existence.
I don't understand the above sentence. Please elaborate.
> One other note: The fact that one may not necessarily be able to
> identify a pattern in a complex sequence that actually does contain
> such a pattern does not mean that CSI isn't useful. It is impossible
> to detect all potential patterns that may in fact contain CSI,
> deliberately or non-deliberately produced.
I understand this sentence as an admission that CSI is not measurable.
> SETI scientists can't do
> it and neither can IDists. However, when the pattern is obviously a
> very clear match to what is known to be a truly independent
SETI is not considered very scientific.
Inez
I would even be interested in Sean's personal definitions, especially
if he can give them in a tight enough way that I can then look at the
same object as him and derive the same data.
If I have to pick just one of them to have defined, it would be
"specified" which always has me buffaloed whenever I see an IDer use
it. Sean appears to be using the word "specific" rather than
"specified" so my hopes aren't high that his answer will match that of
other IDers, but I'd still like to know.
TomS
<1184419956.9...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Inez stated..."
[...snip...]
>If I have to pick just one of them to have defined, it would be
>"specified" which always has me buffaloed whenever I see an IDer use
>it. Sean appears to be using the word "specific" rather than
>"specified" so my hopes aren't high that his answer will match that of
>other IDers, but I'd still like to know.
>
ISTM that the introduction of "specified" is merely a place-holder
for "whatever will get me out of the Texas Marksman problem."
The Texas Marksman being a person who claims, after the fact,
to be aiming for what he happened to hit - he draws the bullseyes
around the holes, after making the holes.
In a way, isn't this "solution" a kind of Texas Marksman on the
meta-level?
--
---Tom S.
"There was a lot more to magic, as Harry quickly found out, than waving your
wand and saying a few funny words."
JK Rowling, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, Chapter VIII, page 133
shani
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hello how are you
Bobby Bryant
Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> writes:
> AFAIK, Dembski claims that high CSI is alone evidence of design.
> Perhaps you are using the term CSI with a meaning different that
> Dembski's, who actually never provided an adequate definition of it.
> Could you care to define CSI?
It's "I know it when I see it", with some made-up numbers thrown in
as a post hoc rationalization.
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
Bobby Bryant
Seanpit <seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> writes:
> One other note: The fact that one may not necessarily be able to
> identify a pattern in a complex sequence that actually does contain
> such a pattern does not mean that CSI isn't useful. It is
> impossible to detect all potential patterns that may in fact contain
> CSI, deliberately or non-deliberately produced. SETI scientists
> can't do it and neither can IDists.
Maybe that's why SETI doesn't rely on ID-style snake oil.
peter
>
> > On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 09:47:07 -0700, Seanpit wrote:
>
> > > CSI can be measured.
>
> > Prove it. Measure the CSI of the following:
>
> > 11121123344432992877777777551111121
>
> > Show your work.
>
> > Failure to produce a measurement of CSI to at least three significant
> > figures will be construed as proof that you cannot measure CSI.
>
> You have the same problem as snex. You assume the ability to detect
> or not detect a bias in a pattern is the same thing IDists claim to be
> using to be able or not able to detect deliberate design. That's not
> true. One may be able to detect a highly predictable bias in a
> pattern and yet be unable to detect deliberate artifact in that
> pattern.
>
> For example, a single snowflake may have very high CSI when one
> compares one half of the snowflake to the other half - according to
> the current use of the terms "complexity" and "specificity". But,
> very high CSI, given the medium of water in a cold environment, is not
> evidence of ID.
OK, if snowflakes have a high CSI, there's presumably some way to
measure their CSI, determine which flakes are particularly high, and
compare their CSIs to those of other objects.
Here's a micrograph of a single snowflake:
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/book/snowflake1.jpg
What is its CSI?
How did you calculate it?
How does it compare to the CSI of this other snowflake:
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/book/book4.jpg ?
Mark Isaak
For now, forget snex signals, forget Issaks series....
OK Sean you wrote:
>Here are a few examples with fairly high CSI, given the medium of a
>radiosignal, that is obvious to anyone with a mathematical background:
>
>314159265358979314159265358979 . . .
>
>00077779999922999997777000 . . .
>
>12357911131719231235791113171923 . . .
>
>01123581321345589144233377610987 . . .
So these examples have a "fairly high CSI, given the medium of a
radiosignal". That means (among other things):
a) CSI is in fact a metric (how could something be "fairly high"
if it is not measurable)
b) Each of these has a CSI that can be calculated by Sean (as Sean
informs us that they are examples of fairly high CSI, I mean if I had no
clue as to how to do multiplication I would be blowing smoke if I said
50 * 100 is relatively high compared to 5*1)
So Sean is the CSI of 314159.... > CSI of 0007777... ?
Show me how to find out so that I can independently determine if the CSI
of 12357....> the CSI 0112358...
Don't tell me the answer to the last part, only the first part, I want
to calculate the second one for myself. I am so excited, this is really
cool. Who has dibs on determining which of the four has the highest CSI?,
The median CSI for the group? SD, variance, the possibilities are
limitless.
The "CSI calculation line" forms behind me, no pushing or shoving,
plenty to go 'round with Seans help.
BTW, I am not at all interested in whether or not these radiosignals are
deliberate artifact, as you said high CSI does NOT equal design.
"CSI, by itself, is *not* adequate evidence of deliberate artifact."
And to illustrate this point you refer to the high CSI of a snowflake,
but temperate the deliberate conclusion with knowledge of the capabilities
of the non-deliberate medium. Fine and Dandy.
I am only interested in CSI "by itself."
Mike
hersheyhv
IOW, the sequence not only has to have a specific sequence, but that
sequence has to have utility or meaning to the observer in order to
have "fairly high CSI". Is that right? A number that is a repeat of
my zip code +4 would, of course, have meaning for *me*, but might not
have meaning for *you*. Presumably, then, that number sequence would
have a lower CSI than a number sequence that has meaning for a larger
audience. Am I right so far?
Then how come your 'formula' (such as it is, and there is, shall we
say, some argument that it is a GIGO formulation) for CSI:
[CSI = X^n - (X^hd) ]
has no variable that reflects the size of the audience for which that
sequence has meaning?
> Here are a few examples with fairly high CSI, given the medium of a
> radiosignal, that is obvious to anyone with a mathematical background:
>
> 314159265358979314159265358979 . . .
>
> 00077779999922999997777000 . . .
>
> 12357911131719231235791113171923 . . .
>
> 01123581321345589144233377610987 . . .
>
> There's no doubt that such tags would convey intelligence if any
> extraterrestrial used such signals in their messages (i.e., a string
> of prime numbers, or maybe the first fifty terms of the ever-popular
> Fibonacci series). Why? Because such signals clearly carry with them
> both a high degree of "complexity" with regard to sequence
> irregularities as well as very clear very precise specificity to other
> signals with independent existence.
You must have meant that the sequence has *meaning* to the observer
rather than that it has "very precise specificity to other signals
with independent existence", right? Although, given your formula for
CSI, perhaps you did mean exactly what you said.
> One other note: The fact that one may not necessarily be able to
> identify a pattern in a complex sequence that actually does contain
> such a pattern does not mean that CSI isn't useful. It is impossible
> to detect all potential patterns that may in fact contain CSI,
> deliberately or non-deliberately produced. SETI scientists can't do
> it and neither can IDists. However, when the pattern is obviously a
> very clear match to what is known to be a truly independent
IOW, if the *observer* detects a pattern that has meaning to him or
her, that makes it a "specified" pattern?
>
> > Mark Isaak
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
>
> >> Units or no, you yourself have implicitly but repeatedly said CSI cannot
> >> be measured.
>
> >> If it can be measured, then measure it:
>
> >> 11121123344432992877777777551111121
>
> > You haven't provided enough information to calculate CSI. You've only
> > given the size and specific characters per position. You haven't given
> > any other "target" or reference string for comparison. The
> > calculation of CSI, like symmetry, requires a comparison to be made
> > between strings Q and Z.
>
> > CSI = X^n - (X^hd)
>
> > X = the number of possible characters per position
> > n = the size of the sequence
> > hd = the Hamming Distance between strings Q and Z
>
> Thank you.
>
> I notice that CSI is maximized when one sequence is a copy of another.
Yep . . .
> And biology is really, really, really, REALLY good at making copies.
Not independent of the original sequence. You see, a radiosignal that
matches the sequence of pi is unrelated to how pi is calculated.
These sequences have an independent origin.
> CSI, therefore, is not a measure of design, except perhaps incidentally.
> Mostly, it is a measure of biological processes. If an object exhibits
> CSI, that is a good indication that it evolved.
Not unless you have an adequate mechanism to explain the CSI. And,
that depends upon prior experience and knowledge concerning the
material in question as it relates to both deliberate and non-
deliberate processes of nature.
> Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
> "Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
> the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
> being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
> exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
> OK, if snowflakes have a highCSI, there's presumably some way to
> measure theirCSI, determine which flakes are particularly high, and
> compare their CSIs to those of other objects.
> Here's a micrograph of a singlesnowflake:http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/book/snowflake1.jpg
> What is itsCSI?
> How did you calculate it?
> How does it compare to theCSIof this othersnowflake:http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/book/book4.jpg?
The CSI of a snowflake is based on its point/reflective/rotational
symmetry. Each point on one half of the snowflake matches the
opposing point to a pretty high degree. The high degree of matching
of one side compared to the other side produces the high degree of CSI
in both snowflakes.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
> OK, if snowflakes have a highCSI, there's presumably some way to
> measure theirCSI, determine which flakes are particularly high, and
> compare their CSIs to those of other objects.
> Here's a micrograph of a singlesnowflake:http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/book/snowflake1.jpg
> What is itsCSI?
> How did you calculate it?
Seanpit
Seanpit
In a way this is true. Depending on the chosen frame of reference
different sequences would have differing degrees of CSI. However,
regardless of the frame of reference, the same basic ability to detect
a biased pattern with a very high degree of positive predictive value
would still be achievable.
For example, let's say you rattled off a series of numbers (from 0 to
9) of a million characters in size. If a separately produced
sequences from an unknown source just happened to match this sequence
of yours, perfectly, the hypothesis that the separate sequence was in
fact randomly produced would not carry with in very good predictive
value vs. the hypothesis of some sort of non-random bias.
If a radio signal from outer space started listed off US zip codes in
order from one side of the country to the other, how long would this
have to continue before you'd suspect a non-random origin to such a
signal? - even though such a signal would probably have no "meaning"
to any other intelligent life form that may exist on any other planet
besides Earth?
> Then how come your 'formula' (such as it is, and there is, shall we
> say, some argument that it is a GIGO formulation) for CSI:
> [CSI = X^n - (X^hd) ]
> has no variable that reflects the size of the audience for which that
> sequence has meaning?
The size of the audience doesn't matter very much. Even if you were
the only one on the planet for which the signal had some sort of
recognition, you, all by yourself, could reasonably hypothesize a non-
random origin for a particular signal that matched some pre-determined
sequence of your own creation. The greater the CSI of the match, the
greater confidence you could have in your own hypothesis of a non-
random origin for the signal.
Now, you will no doubt argue that lottery winners could therefore
hypothesize that the match between their number and the number drawn
indicates a non-random match. And, you'd be right. The fact is that
the hypothesis of non-randomness is always open to potential
falsification. The actual match could have been the result of some
random processes. That possibility is always there and can never be
ruled out with 100% certainty. However, the odds that this
possibility is in fact true drop dramatically with each additional
match - i.e., with increasing CSI.
> > Here are a few examples with fairly high CSI, given the medium of a
> > radiosignal, that is obvious to anyone with a mathematical background:
>
> > 314159265358979314159265358979 . . .
>
> > 00077779999922999997777000 . . .
>
> > 12357911131719231235791113171923 . . .
>
> > 01123581321345589144233377610987 . . .
>
> > There's no doubt that such tags would convey intelligence if any
> > extraterrestrial used such signals in their messages (i.e., a string
> > of prime numbers, or maybe the first fifty terms of the ever-popular
> > Fibonacci series). Why? Because such signals clearly carry with them
> > both a high degree of "complexity" with regard to sequence
> > irregularities as well as very clear very precise specificity to other
> > signals with independent existence.
>
> You must have meant that the sequence has *meaning* to the observer
> rather than that it has "very precise specificity to other signals
> with independent existence", right? Although, given your formula for
> CSI, perhaps you did mean exactly what you said.
That's right. I suppose if the intelligent agents didn't have a
background in math that some of the above sequences wouldn't be
recognizable as actually coming from a biased source - no matter how
large the CSI for something like a billion digits of pi. That's one
of the main points. Even though most possible sequences are known to
be random, no particular sequence can ever be proven to be random. It
is always possible that some as yet unknown bias is in fact
responsible for producing the sequence in question.
> > One other note: The fact that one may not necessarily be able to
> > identify a pattern in a complex sequence that actually does contain
> > such a pattern does not mean that CSI isn't useful. It is impossible
> > to detect all potential patterns that may in fact contain CSI,
> > deliberately or non-deliberately produced. SETI scientists can't do
> > it and neither can IDists. However, when the pattern is obviously a
> > very clear match to what is known to be a truly independent
>
> IOW, if the *observer* detects a pattern that has meaning to him or
> her, that makes it a "specified" pattern?
Yep . . . with the significance depending upon the degree of
specificity and the size of the sequence/pattern space.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
shel...@msn.com
have a good understanding of the causes of symmetry and snowflakes.
What I don't understand is why that would still produce a high
confidence value in a design inference via specified complexity.
Snowflakes aren't unlikely, despite each one being structurally
unique. That is expected, and the causes for this is not, due to
chance or natural process, unlikely. Our knowledge of the causes force
us to actually expect each snowflake to be different, and the causes
are not independent of the creation of a snowflake itself. You are
aware of the importance of context, emply that understanding to
snowflakes as you do to SETI. A signal is unlikely (complex) because
it is not known to be produced by natural processES. The processes to
create the signal they seek is complex in the ordinary sense; the
method of generation is unlikely, origin on a rocky planet is
unlikely, periodocity of signal and other similar factors is unlikely,
information content is unlikely. All these variables or factors
increase the complexity of what we recognize as a pattern.
> Now, if your "pattern" represents a radiosignal as the medium (or a
> granite rock), it is at least theoretically possible to start
> supporting the ID hypothesis as to its origin. Given that it
> represents a radiosignal this pattern of yours has a clear degree of
> "complexity", as far as marked changes in number and degree of
> variability, but the specificity is not so clear - at least not to
> me. In order to determine specificity, there has to be an obvious
> match to another pattern that is known to be outside the likely realm
> of non-deliberate production for radiosignals - like the first 50
> digits of pi or prime numbers or the Fibonacci series repeated over
> and over again, or a high degree of reflective or other forms of
> symmetry (as previously noted).
Sean, you picked an easy subject, granite. There is no known natural
law or process that creates anything approaching symmetry in granite.
Independent processes such as weathering create structures, but none
have been observed to produce anything that could be described as even
semi rigorously symmetrical. And no one has produced a picture or even
an imagined scenario that chance could create a granite cube. It's
analogous to SETI's narrowband signal; it just doesn't seem to be
natures thing. And again you show an awareness of context; if a
granite cube with sharp edges and equal sides were found in a river,
the chances of independent natural processes producing such a shape
decrease, just as the chances of independent processes producing a
narrowband signal decrease with associated information content - even
if SETI were unable to translate that content, at least according to
Doyle's claim of the rules of information theory (Shannon).
Vend
0catch.com> wrote:
> On Jul 15, 2:24 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > >> Units or no, you yourself have implicitly but repeatedly said CSI cannot
> > >> be measured.
>
> > >> If it can be measured, then measure it:
>
> > >> 11121123344432992877777777551111121
>
> > > You haven't provided enough information to calculate CSI. You've only
> > > given the size and specific characters per position. You haven't given
> > > any other "target" or reference string for comparison. The
> > > calculation of CSI, like symmetry, requires a comparison to be made
> > > between strings Q and Z.
>
> > > CSI = X^n - (X^hd)
>
> > > Where:
> > > X = the number of possible characters per position
> > > n = the size of the sequence
> > > hd = the Hamming Distance between strings Q and Z
Say I have this sequence: 11121123344432992877777777551111121 and I
want to know whether it's designed. How should I choose the reference
string? How should I interpet the resulting CSI value?
By the way I think that your formula does funny things:
A: 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 (first 16 binary digits of pi)
B: 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 (not A)
CSI(A, B) = 0
C: 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 (A right-rotated by one)
CSI(A, C) = 65472
Two unrelated strings of n randomly generated bits (independent with
uniform probability) have an average hamming distance of n/2.
Therefore their average CSI is:
2^n - 2^(n/2) = 2^n - 2^(n - n/2) = 2^n * (1 - 2^(-n/2)) = 2^n * (1 -
sqrt(1 / 2^n))
The limit as n approaches infinity is infinity.
Moreover the CSI of a sequence with itself is 2^n.
The difference with the previously calculated formula is: sqrt(2^n)
The relative difference is: sqrt(2^n) / 2^n = 1 / sqrt(2^n)
Whose limit as n approeaches infinity is zero.
If I did my calculations well, this means that with your definition of
CSI as the length increases it becomes more and more difficult to
distinguish two completely unrelated random sequences from two
completely correlated (one the copy of the other) ones.
This makes me wonder what your CSI is good for.
Inez
> 0catch.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 15, 2:24 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > >> Units or no, you yourself have implicitly but repeatedly said CSI cannot
> > > >> be measured.
>
> > > >> If it can be measured, then measure it:
>
> > > >> 11121123344432992877777777551111121
>
> > > > You haven't provided enough information to calculate CSI. You've only
> > > > given the size and specific characters per position. You haven't given
> > > > any other "target" or reference string for comparison. The
> > > > calculation of CSI, like symmetry, requires a comparison to be made
> > > > between strings Q and Z.
>
> > > > CSI = X^n - (X^hd)
>
> > > > Where:
> > > > X = the number of possible characters per position
> > > > n = the size of the sequence
> > > > hd = the Hamming Distance between strings Q and Z
>
> Say I have this sequence: 11121123344432992877777777551111121 and I
> want to know whether it's designed. How should I choose the reference
> string?
You use the EMMMM algorithm. The "E" stands for Eenie.
Vend
If it works with nucular reactors, why not?
Bobby Bryant
Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> writes:
> By the way I think that your formula does funny things:
Sean has a long history of offering a formula that gives the result
he wants for the exact example he has in mind, without pausing to
apply it to other examples or otherwise consider its implications.
> This makes me wonder what your CSI is good for.
The same as any other definition of CSI is good for: convincing the
gullible that science supports creationism.
Inez
said CSI. But I'd enjoy reading your definition of "Compex" and
"Specified" as you use it in CSI.
Vend
Seanpit
> > > > You haven't provided enough information to calculate CSI. You've only
> > > > given the size and specific characters per position. You haven't given
> > > > any other "target" or reference string for comparison. The
> > > > calculation of CSI, like symmetry, requires a comparison to be made
> > > > between strings Q and Z.
>
> > > > CSI = X^n - (X^hd)
>
> > > > Where:
> > > > X = the number of possible characters per position
> > > > n = the size of the sequence
> > > > hd = the Hamming Distance between strings Q and Z
>
> Say I have this sequence: 11121123344432992877777777551111121 and I
> want to know whether it's designed. How should I choose the reference
> string? How should I interpet the resulting CSI value?
As I said before, CSI, by itself, does not tell you if the string's
pattern was or was not designed. CSI only tells you if a pattern was
the likely result of some sort of bias. Once the bias is detected, one
can then try to hypothesize about the origin of the bias. However,
this type of hypothesis requires additional information about the
material which carries the pattern as well as some history with the
material in question as it relates to various forces of nature -
intelligent and non-intelligent.
> By the way I think that your formula does funny things:
>
> A: 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 (first 16 binary digits of pi)
> B: 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 (not A)
> CSI(A, B) = 0
>
> C: 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 (A right-rotated by one)
> CSI(A, C) = 65472
>
> Two unrelated strings of n randomly generated bits (independent with
> uniform probability) have an average hamming distance of n/2.
> Therefore their average CSI is:
> 2^n - 2^(n/2) = 2^n - 2^(n - n/2) = 2^n * (1 - 2^(-n/2)) = 2^n * (1 -
> sqrt(1 / 2^n))
> The limit as n approaches infinity is infinity.
>
> Moreover the CSI of a sequence with itself is 2^n.
> The difference with the previously calculated formula is: sqrt(2^n)
> The relative difference is: sqrt(2^n) / 2^n = 1 / sqrt(2^n)
> Whose limit as n approeaches infinity is zero.
>
> If I did my calculations well, this means that with your definition of
> CSI as the length increases it becomes more and more difficult to
> distinguish two completely unrelated random sequences from two
> completely correlated (one the copy of the other) ones.
> This makes me wonder what your CSI is good for.
As the length of a sequence increases, the CSI for two independently
produced random strings will approach: (1/X) (X^n - X^hd). Compare
this to the CSI for two completely correlated sequences which equals
X^n.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Vend
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/449c734cb1febe2c
Inez
recall seeing him mention anything about reflective symetry at all.
Vend
Because he actually didn't mention anything at all, AFAIK.
peter
None of which tells me how you would actually go about determining the
measured, i.e. numerical, CSI for either of the two example
snowflakes. Multiple people given the above description may well reach
different conclusions about which flake has a higher CSI depending on
the chosen type of symmetry, axis of symmetry, choice of corresponding
points, etc. And no guidance at all is given as to obtaining a
numerical result that could be compared to the CSIs of other objects.
Nor is at all clear what utility there is in your concept of CSI,
which seems to differ from either Dembski's or Pagano's versions (not
that those have any demonstrated utility either). So far you've
discussed the CSI of snowflakes, granite cubes, and number sequences
and in no case does the concept of CSI seem to offer any advantage
over just looking at the object and deciding a) whether it looks like
it has a recognizable design, and b) if so, deciding whether the
design is likely to be naturally formed. Seems much like Justice
Stewart's view on pornography - he couldn't define it but he knew it
when he saw it.
Bobby Bryant
Apparently "complex" means inverse probability of forming without any
mechanism (or whatever probability nonsense you care to make up), and
"specified" means it conforms to "an independently given pattern".
I think there's some debate as to whether CSI is supposed to be a yes/no
question or a matter of degree.
In practice his application is even sloppier than his logic. In _No
Free Lunch_ he goes through the motions of analyzing the CSI of a
bacterial flagellum. For the complexity (=1/probability) he
calculates the probability of a flagellum spontaneously forming in a
bucket of amino acids, by all the right ones fortuitously coming
together at the same place and time; for specification he merely
claims that the flagellum is like a motorboat motor.
Someone obviously pointed out to him before publication that his
complexity analysis, modulo all the other problems, looks at how an
individual flagellum forms rather than how the system evolved, so he
takes pains to deny it. The denial doesn't fly: he very obviously
calculates the "probability" of an individual flagellum forming, and
completely ignores the biological systems that actually produce them.
So if you were to take his claims and 'analysis' seriously, you would
conclude that a designer is involved every time a new bacterial
flagellum is put together. (I guess it keeps God from getting bored.)
For some reason he concludes instead that flagella can't be the result
of evolution or any other natural process, and thus must be the
product of intelligent design (intelligence being tacitly
supernatural, AFAICT).
At some point he gave a formalism for what "specified" is supposed
to mean, but AFAIK he has never actually applied it to anything.
Also notice that his method of calculating "complexity" requires you
to assume a priori that there's no mechanism involved. An odd way
to start a proof that something isn't the product of evolution, eh?
But the flaws don't matter; creationist propagandists gobble it up
anyway. Look at Pagano's fanboy acceptance of any nonsense Dembski
comes up with.
Bobby Bryant
peter <prat...@comcast.net> writes:
> Nor is at all clear what utility there is in your concept of CSI,
> which seems to differ from either Dembski's or Pagano's versions
> (not that those have any demonstrated utility either). So far you've
> discussed the CSI of snowflakes, granite cubes, and number sequences
> and in no case does the concept of CSI seem to offer any advantage
> over just looking at the object and deciding a) whether it looks
> like it has a recognizable design, and b) if so, deciding whether
> the design is likely to be naturally formed. Seems much like
> Justice Stewart's view on pornography - he couldn't define it but he
> knew it when he saw it.
That's exactly what ID is. CSI and all other design inference methods
are just post hoc rationalizations for the IKIWISI[*] conclusion.
Look how Sean's formulation of a design inference on the basis of
entropy oops I mean complexity oops I mean symmetry oops I mean CSI
keeps mutating as his vague ideas get pinned down enough for people to
produce counterexamples. Yet he maintains the same conclusion all
along, however much the claim that supposedly led to the conclusion
keeps mutating.
[*] Nice acronym, despite the idea's lack of merit.
Seanpit
I told you how to measure the CSI of a snowflake. You just don't seem
to grasp the concept. Short of actually doing the measurements, which
could be done, I'd hazard a guess that both of the snowflakes you
provide would carry very similar high degrees of CSI - corresponding
to the degree of symmetry each expresses (which appears quite high in
both cases).
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Bobby Bryant
Seanpit <sea...@gmail.com> writes:
> I told you how to measure the CSI of a snowflake. You just don't
> seem to grasp the concept. Short of actually doing the
> measurements, which could be done, I'd hazard a guess that both of
> the snowflakes you provide would carry very similar high degrees of
> CSI - corresponding to the degree of symmetry each expresses (which
> appears quite high in both cases).
So... someone designs snowflakes?
That news is really going to rock the scientific establishment.
Shane
> In article <1184642502....@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> Seanpit <sea...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> I told you how to measure the CSI of a snowflake. You just don't
>> seem to grasp the concept. Short of actually doing the
>> measurements, which could be done, I'd hazard a guess that both of
>> the snowflakes you provide would carry very similar high degrees of
>> CSI - corresponding to the degree of symmetry each expresses (which
>> appears quite high in both cases).
>
> So... someone designs snowflakes?
>
> That news is really going to rock the scientific establishment.
Perhaps that is why so few prayers are answered, he's flat out
designing snowflakes, (just think of the checking that needs to be
done to ensure no repeats).
Bobby Bryant
I wonder whether more prayers are answered during the summer, and at
lower latitudes and altitudes.
Mark Isaak
> On Jul 15, 2:24 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> Units or no, you yourself have implicitly but repeatedly said CSI cannot
>> >> be measured.
>>
>> >> If it can be measured, then measure it:
>>
>> >> 11121123344432992877777777551111121
>>
>> > You haven't provided enough information to calculate CSI. You've only
>> > given the size and specific characters per position. You haven't given
>> > any other "target" or reference string for comparison. The
>> > calculation of CSI, like symmetry, requires a comparison to be made
>> > between strings Q and Z.
>>
>> > CSI = X^n - (X^hd)
>>
>> > Where:
>> > X = the number of possible characters per position
>> > n = the size of the sequence
>> > hd = the Hamming Distance between strings Q and Z
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> I notice that CSI is maximized when one sequence is a copy of another.
>
> Yep . . .
[snip]
I have noticed several of your posts which are exact copies of earlier
posts. I know such copying commonly occurs when someone accidentally
hits the send button repeatedly, or resends when they get a false
indication that the post did not go thru the first time, but your copied
posts are coming two days after the original. What's going on?
(As an ironic aside, notice that duplication of posts is usually an
indication that they are *not* the result of deliberate design, despite
their having very high CSI.)
--
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
Mark: Google Groups/ TalkOrigins has been down for two days, or
severely flawed with a handful of posts posting during said interval.
Ray
Vend
Blame Google :D
> (As an ironic aside, notice that duplication of posts is usually an
> indication that they are *not* the result of deliberate design, despite
> their having very high CSI.)
Maybe Google Groups is an intelligent actor who deliberately
duplicates some of Sean's posts. (I know that is mostly coded in
Python. Maybe it has something to do with the Biblical trickster
snake). :D
secondclass
the string's
pattern was or was not designed."
William Dembski: "CSI demands an intelligent cause. Natural causes
will not do."