Entropy in crystalization: up or down?
Bloopen...@juno.com
Frank Steiger writes:
"Failure to understand that in thermodynamics probabilities are not
fixed entities has led to a misinterpretation that is responsible for
the wide- spread and totally false belief that the second law of
thermodynamics does not permit order to spontaneously arise from
disorder. In fact, there are many examples in nature where order does
arise spontaneously from disorder: Snowflakes with their six-sided
crystalline symmetry are formed spontaneously from randomly moving
water vapor molecules. Salts with precise planes of crystalline
symmetry form spontaneously when water evaporates from a solution.
Seeds sprout into flowering plants and eggs develop into chicks."
In "Thermodynamics vs. Evolutionism," Timothy Wallace responds:
"The "order" found in a snowflake or a crystal has nothing to do with
increased information, organization or complexity, or available energy
(i.e., reduced entropy). The formation of molecules or atoms into
geometric patterns such as snowflakes or crystals reflects movement
towards equilibrium-a lower energy level, and a more stable
arrangement of the molecules or atoms into simple, uniform, repeating
structures with minimal complexity, and no function. These are not
examples of matter forming itself into more organized or more complex
structures or systems (as postulated in evolutionist theory), even
though they may certainly reflect "order" in the form of simple
patterns.
Steiger fails to recognize the profound difference between these
examples of low-energy molecular crystals and the high-energy growth
process of living organisms (seeds sprouting into flowering plants and
eggs developing into chicks). His equating these two very different
phenomena reveals a serious misunderstanding of thermodynamics (as
well as molecular biology) on his part, and he perpetuates this error
in the balance of both his essays, as we shall see.
[...]
Steiger's blurring of the distinction between these two phenomena can
logically be attributed only to either indefensible ignorance or a
willful misrepresentation of the facts."
I can't figure it out either way. The questions on my mind are: Does
crystallization represent a decrease in entropy or no? I think it does
and Wallace is incorrect, but not sure. Does it represent an increase
or decrease in *energy?* And does the 2nd law make any statement about
organization, complexity, organized complexity, etc? Thanks for any
help. Can someone recommend me a rescource on thermodynamics that
would give me the answer?
Inez
It seems to me that Mr. Wallace is missing Mr Steiger's point. Mr
Steiger seems to be saying that the second law of thermodynamics does
not mean that things cannot become spontaneously ordered, and that
entropy is something else than that. Mr. Wallace objects "But this
order isn't decreasing entropy!" which was Mr. Steiger's point.
As nearly as I can tell, they both are saying that entropy isn't
actually a measure of order in the way that lay people assume it to be.
Perplexed in Peoria
<Bloopen...@juno.com> wrote in message news:1192716757.5...@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
It depends on what system you are asking about the entropy and/or
entropy of. The process of spontaneous crystalization generates
heat. If the heat stays in the system (raising the temperature) then
the decreased entropy of the crystal arrangement (compared to solution)
is more than compensated by the increased entropy entailed by the
higher temperature. Energy, of course, remains constant.
But if the heat is allowed to flow away (into a heat bath that is not
considered part of the 'system', for example), then the entropy of
the (closed, but not isolated 'system) decreases and so does its
entropy.
> And does the 2nd law make any statement about
> organization, complexity, organized complexity, etc?
Not directly. But there may well be 'extensions' or 'generalizations'
of the 2nd law that do say something useful about those things.
Trouble is, no one (AFAIK) has yet provided the careful definitions
and distinctions that would make such a generalized 2LoT work.
> Thanks for any
> help. Can someone recommend me a rescource on thermodynamics that
> would give me the answer?
Sorry. I haven't yet seen a good web resource on thermodynamics.
You almost need a textbook. It is not a particularly simple subject
and there is so much confusion on the subject out there that any
simplified treatment is almost sure to just add to the confusion.
Mujin
news:1192716757.5...@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
The confusion comes from a failure by creationists to differentiate between
two definitions of the word "entropy"
In thermodynamics, entropy refers to the amount of energy in a system which
has become unavailable to do work. Basically, some energy is always lost
to such inefficiencies as heat and noise and if you want the system to
continue to be able to do the same amount of work, you have to keep putting
new energy in. In the absence of an energy source, entropy will either
stay the same or increase until all the energy in the system is unavailable
for work. This is the form of entropy the second law of thermodynamics
refers to. See here for an intro to the topic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy
In information theory, entropy refers to the degree to which a message has
deviated from the original after having been copied/transmitted. It is
commonly considered to be a measure of how much information a message has
lost, but "information" refers solely to the *intended* message. Depending
on what kind of change has occurred in the message, it may still contain
the same *amount* of information in the conventional sense, but still
deviate significantly from the intended message, thus having lost a lot of
information in the information theory sense. For example, "My favourite
insect is my pet red bug." -> "My favourite insect is my pet bed bug." A
single change in one letter changes the message fairly significantly, but
both sentences convey the same amount of information about me. According
to information theory, the second version has entropy since it has deviated
from the original message (and is wrong!) but it's still a valid sentence
of the same form and containing the same amount of information as before.
See here for an introduction:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_entropy
Garamond Lethe
are:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html
and
http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 07:12:37 -0700, Bloopenblopper wrote:
<snip>
> I can't figure it out either way. The questions on my mind are: Does
> crystallization represent a decrease in entropy or no? I think it does
> and Wallace is incorrect, but not sure. Does it represent an increase
> or decrease in *energy?* And does the 2nd law make any statement about
> organization, complexity, organized complexity, etc? Thanks for any
> help. Can someone recommend me a rescource on thermodynamics that
> would give me the answer?
Did you try googling?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_entropy
From another (very) recent thread:
<q>
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 10:55:49 -0400, TeaWrecks wrote:
>> [...]
> I've been followint this and I'm confused; I thought I understood the
> 2nd law, but apparently I do not. Can someone suggest a book (or
> website) that explains the 2nd Law in plain simpleton language for me?
P.W. Atkins, _The Second Law_. (New York: Scientific American Books,
1974). Written specifically for you in anticipation of your request.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
</q>
Paul Ciszek
In article <1192716757.5...@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
<Bloopen...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>I can't figure it out either way. The questions on my mind are: Does
>crystallization represent a decrease in entropy or no? I think it does
>and Wallace is incorrect, but not sure. Does it represent an increase
>or decrease in *energy?*
If it happens, it represents a net increase in the total entropy of
everything. No exceptions. That is the 2nd law in a nutshell.
When a bunch of free molecules (either liquid or gas) become arranged
in a crystaline solid, their energy almost always decreases (I can think
of no exceptions for a reversable crystalization process) because they
are more tightly bound in the solid. This means that when they crystalize,
heat is released, usually into the surrounding environment. In fact, in
most cases a substance will not crystalize unless it is able to shed
heat into into its surroundings, i.e., the surroundings are colder than
the freezing point of the substance.
As for your first question, the entropy of a bunch of molecules bound
in a crystal lattice is lower than the entropy those same molecules
would have bouncing around free as a liquid or gas. So crystalization
represents a *decrease* in entropy as far as the arrangement of those
molecules are concerned. This local decrease in entropy is only
possible because the heat released into the surroundings causes an
*increase* in the entropy of the surroundings. When you put a bucket
of water outside on a cold day, the entropy of the water decreases as
it freezes but the entropy of the surrounding air increases as the
water loses heat into the air.
>And does the 2nd law make any statement about
>organization, complexity, organized complexity, etc?
Not really. The second law simply says that the entropy of everything
increases; there is no process for which the total net change in entropy
of everything is negative.
Here is where "organization" comes into it: Consider a box with a dividing
line down the middle. To have one half of the box contain nitrogen
and the other half oxygen is highly unlikely. You could create this
situation briefly by inserting a divider, filling each half of the
box with a different gas, then removing the divider. Very soon,
though, the box will be filled with a uniform distribution of gas.
You will never see the reverse happen, a box filled with mixed gas
spontaneously separate into half oxygen and half nitrogen. One way
to think of it is this: Each molecule could be anywhere in the box.
It has a fifty percent chance of being in either half of the box.
This is true of *each* of the billions and billions of molecules
involved. So, consider all the possible arrangements of the entire
collection of molecules, at least as far as which half of the box
each molecule is in. The number of arrangements is huge--2^(billions
and billions)--and almost all of those arrangements look like a uniform
mixture of oxygen and nitrogen in both halves of the box. In fact,
only *two* of the 2^(billions and billions) of arrangements have all
of the nitrogen on one side and all of the oxygen on the other. It
makes sense that if the box starts in one of those two states, and the
molecules are allowed to move randomly, the box will soon look like
a uniform, random distribution because that is what most of the states
the box could be in look like. It turns out that entropy is closely
linked to the number of states that match a certain criteria; the
entropy of the uniformly mixed situation is higher than the entropy
of the half oxygen/half nitrogen situation because most of the possible
states are uniformly mixed. This can easily be described mathematically.
For simple systems like this, the unlikely arrangements can be though
of as "more ordered", and thus the whole idea of associating an increase
in entropy with a decrease in order.
Have I confused you completely?
When it comes to plants and eggs and chicks, it is much more difficult
to come up with a mathematical equation of number of states or entropy.
I think it would be safe to say that a flowering plant has lower entropy
than the air, water, and minerals that went into growing it. It is only
possible for the plant to grow if there is an outside source of energy--
the sun. The entropy of the sun is always increasing, more than making
up for any sunlight-driven decreases in entropy that might be happening
on Earth. Comparing chicks to chickens, on the other hand...I would say
that the entropy of a chick, a pile of feed, and an oxygen supply is
*lower* than the entropy of a grown chicken, a large quantity of scattered
chicken manure, and a bunch of CO2. The net result of the chicken
eating, growing, and shitting (all the while inhaling and exhaling) is
an increase in entropy, or a decrease in "organization", despite the
fact that the grown chicken has a higher market value.
--
Please reply to: | "One of the hardest parts of my job is to
pciszek at panix dot com | connect Iraq to the War on Terror."
Autoreply is disabled | -- G. W. Bush, 9/7/2006
Vend
<snip>
> "The "order" found in a snowflake or a crystal has nothing to do with
> increased information, organization or complexity,
All of which are ill-defined concepts.
> or available energy
> (i.e., reduced entropy).
This is false.
You have to provide energy to a crystal in order to melt it. It's
called latent heat of fusion.
Therefore a substance at its melting temperature has more thermal
energy in its liquid form than in its solid (crystalline) form.
> The formation of molecules or atoms into
> geometric patterns such as snowflakes or crystals reflects movement
> towards equilibrium-a lower energy level, and a more stable
> arrangement of the molecules or atoms into simple, uniform, repeating
> structures with minimal complexity
Isn't a snowflake more organized an complex than a bunch of water
molecules randomly wandering and bouncing in a pool?
This guy uses a strange definition of complexity and organization
(actually, he uses none, I think).
> , and no function.
It depends. If you need ice then ice has a function for you.
> These are not
> examples of matter forming itself into more organized or more complex
> structures or systems (as postulated in evolutionist theory),
False claim: the evolutionary theory doesn't claim that this is a
requirement.
> even
> though they may certainly reflect "order" in the form of simple
> patterns.
Which are what guys like Dembski claim to be the hallmarks of design.
> Steiger fails to recognize the profound difference between these
> examples of low-energy molecular crystals and the high-energy growth
> process of living organisms (seeds sprouting into flowering plants and
> eggs developing into chicks).
So growth defies thermodynamics? Wasn't vitalism dead?
> His equating these two very different
> phenomena reveals a serious misunderstanding of thermodynamics (as
> well as molecular biology) on his part, and he perpetuates this error
> in the balance of both his essays, as we shall see.
>
> [...]
>
> Steiger's blurring of the distinction between these two phenomena can
> logically be attributed only to either indefensible ignorance or a
> willful misrepresentation of the facts."
>
> I can't figure it out either way. The questions on my mind are: Does
> crystallization represent a decrease in entropy or no?
Yes, in the object that gets crystalized.
Your fridge decreases the entropy of what's inside it, but increases
the total entropy of the universe.
> I think it does
> and Wallace is incorrect, but not sure. Does it represent an increase
> or decrease in *energy?* And does the 2nd law make any statement about
> organization, complexity, organized complexity, etc?
Not really.
Bill Hudson
Steiger is correct, Wallace is barking up the wrong tree.
Steiger's point is that thermodynamic entropy is not a measure of
disorder. Wallace essentially concedes this point, but then goes on to
say that it doesn't matter because the formation snowflakes and salt
crystals are examples of 'low energy' while seeds sprouting and the
development of chicks are 'high energy', and that the crystals are
"simple, uniform, repeating structures with minimal complexity, and no
function", none of which has diddly-squat to do with thermodynamic
entropy.
Steiger is the mind behind the websites secondlaw.com and 2ndlaw.com,
both of which are good (albeit brief) summaries of thermodynamics and the
second law.
The points here are:
1) Thermodynamics deals with the 'tendency' of energy (in particular
heat) to spread out.
2) Thermodynamics has nothing to do with 'Order' as most people think of
it.
3) Thermodynamics has nothing to do with 'Information'. The unfortunate
common name 'entropy' used in both thermodynamics and Shannon's
information theory have nothing to do with each other.
4) Thermodynamics does nothing to prevent 'order arising from disorder'
especially at the macro level. There are innumerable examples of this
happening all the time.
5) Thermodynamics probably played an important role in abiogenesis, as
the formation of the longer, more 'complex' molecules is likely something
that happened spontaneously (in the thermodynamic sense), but it does not
play a large role in evolution.
6) Wallace is playing fast and loose with Steiger's quote. Steiger did
not 'equate' crystal formation with developmental biology or evolution,
he merely used them as examples to illustrate that 'order' can aries from
'disorder' despite the second law.
7) Probably the most important point: The second law does *not* prevent
'order from arising from disorder'. The second law does not state 'Order
cannot arise from disorder' or 'systems can only move from ordered states
to disordered states'. Those are common but incomplete interpretations
of the second law. Completely stated, the second law says: "In a closed
system, there is no spontaneous process by which heat (energy) can move
from a cold object into a hotter object." Note that this does *not* say
that the second law only applies to closed systems, but that it leaves
the possibility of open systems (or non-isolated systems, depending on
if you are talking to a chemist or a physicist) having processes by
which this can happen.
8) The earth is not a closed or isolated system. We receive large
amounts of energy from a nearby fusion furnace. That energy moves through
the thermodynamic system of the earth, and drives a host of chemical
reactions which form the basis of all life here, and which handily
overcomes any hinderance that the second law might place on those
reactions.
Paul Ciszek
In article <ff829...@news2.newsguy.com>,
Bill Hudson <oldgee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>7) Probably the most important point: The second law does *not* prevent
>'order from arising from disorder'. The second law does not state 'Order
>cannot arise from disorder' or 'systems can only move from ordered states
>to disordered states'. Those are common but incomplete interpretations
>of the second law. Completely stated, the second law says: "In a closed
>system, there is no spontaneous process by which heat (energy) can move
>from a cold object into a hotter object." Note that this does *not* say
Would the following be a valid re-statement of the second law?
"Heat cannot be made to flow from a colder object to a hotter object
without an outside source of work."
>that the second law only applies to closed systems, but that it leaves
>the possibility of open systems (or non-isolated systems, depending on
>if you are talking to a chemist or a physicist) having processes by
>which this can happen.
What is the difference between a "closed" system and an "isolated"
system? I always heard "closed" system.
--
Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice."
Autoreply is disabled |
Paul Ciszek
>'order from arising from disorder'. The second law does not state 'Order
>cannot arise from disorder' or 'systems can only move from ordered states
>to disordered states'. Those are common but incomplete interpretations
>of the second law. Completely stated, the second law says: "In a closed
>system, there is no spontaneous process by which heat (energy) can move
>from a cold object into a hotter object."
Isn't this more a *consequence* of the second law than a statement of
it? i.e., it does nothing to explain why a two containers of different
gasses at the same temperature and pressure, when connected, will become
mixed, but mixed gasses will not spontaneously separate. It seems to me
that "Delta S-sub-universe >= 0" *is* the second law, and that stuff
about "Heat won't flow from the colder to the hotter" is just one
manifestation of that fact.
Seanpit
> I can't figure it out either way. The questions on my mind are: Does
> crystallization represent a decrease in entropy or no? I think it does
> and Wallace is incorrect, but not sure. Does it represent an increase
> or decrease in *energy?* And does the 2nd law make any statement about
> organization, complexity, organized complexity, etc? Thanks for any
> help. Can someone recommend me a rescource on thermodynamics that
> would give me the answer?
The key to this problem, which most people do not understand, is that
there is a fundamental difference between thermodynamic entropy and
informational entropy. They aren't the same thing. The problem for the
ToE is not found in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, but in the problem
of producing additional meaningful or useful genetic information.
A crystal, like a snowflake, doesn't require more information than
what is contained in each individual part as it interacts with a
particular type of environment (i.e., cold weather in this case).
This is not true of biosystems which are far more informationally
complex than the sum of their parts. The order of parts is vitally
important in biosystems in order for them to form and work properly -
not so for snowflakes.
Further discussion at:
http://www.detectingdesign.com/meaningfulinformation.html
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
Exactly . . .
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Puppet_Sock
[snip]
> I can't figure it out either way. The questions on my mind are: Does
> crystallization represent a decrease in entropy or no? I think it does
> and Wallace is incorrect, but not sure. Does it represent an increase
> or decrease in *energy?* And does the 2nd law make any statement about
> organization, complexity, organized complexity, etc?
First, as somebody down-thread has already said: If it happens,
it represents a non-decrease in the total entropy of the universe.
So, when a crystal forms it does not decrease total entropy.
It *might* be a decrease in entropy of the material that gets
formed into the crystal. Maybe. But a crystal forms out of
some set of molecules that are not a crystal. For example,
out of a solution of the material of the crystal (salt in water
as an example). Or out of a molten substance that is cooling
(iron crystals forming in cooling molten iron for example).
The total system is going to be increasing total entropy.
If it were not, the process would not happen.
Entropy is not identical to disorder. Entropy can be related to
information, though it's a buttload of work to do it. It's yet
another buttload of work to make it understandable in
anything other than as abstract differential equations.
But the point for evolution is this: The 2nd law does not
give us anything particularly useful. The 2nd law says
that a bunch of stuff has to be true under certain
conditions. No place in there does it say that a
living thing, or an intelligent thing, can disobey such.
Any thing that is regularly observed to occur cannot
be violating a law of physics.
So, any process that happens obeys the 2nd law.
Being alive is not a loophole. So when those who
deny evolution hold up the 2nd law, they are wrong.
Cows can turn completely dead stuff (the grass they
eat gets completely digested and broken down into
sugars and amino acids before it is absorbed) into
new baby calves. They make brand new DNA of a
type that has never existed before, every single time
they have a calf. (At least through the ordinary methods
of sex and so on. If it's a clone the DNA is a copy.)
If turning grass into a cow were a violation of the
2nd law, then it would be a violation for a cow to
do it every bit as much as for evolution to do it.
Since cows (and people, and lots of other living
things) do such a thing on a regular frequent basis,
doing such clearly does not violate the 2nd law.
Socks
Bill Hudson
> In article <ff829...@news2.newsguy.com>, Bill Hudson
> <oldgee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>7) Probably the most important point: The second law does *not* prevent
>>'order from arising from disorder'. The second law does not state
>>'Order cannot arise from disorder' or 'systems can only move from
>>ordered states to disordered states'. Those are common but incomplete
>>interpretations of the second law. Completely stated, the second law
>>says: "In a closed system, there is no spontaneous process by which heat
>>(energy) can move from a cold object into a hotter object." Note that
>>this does *not* say
>
> Would the following be a valid re-statement of the second law?
>
> "Heat cannot be made to flow from a colder object to a hotter object
> without an outside source of work."
I guess there's always quibble room in thermodynamics. I would say that
the above is correct for a system where "outside" is defined as external
to the system, i.e., in the surroundings of the system. In other words,
you are describing an open system. I am not a chemist or a physicist, so
take whatever I say with a large dose of NaCl.
>
>>that the second law only applies to closed systems, but that it leaves
>>the possibility of open systems (or non-isolated systems, depending on
>>if you are talking to a chemist or a physicist) having processes by
>>which this can happen.
>
> What is the difference between a "closed" system and an "isolated"
> system? I always heard "closed" system.
[Warning: Sweeping generalizations ahead]
Physicists tend to view the systems in terms of energy. Open = can
exchange energy with the surroundings, Closed = cannot exchange energy
with the surroundings.
Chemists tend to make a further distinction. A closed system is a system
that can exchange heat (or other energy) with the surroundings but is
otherwise separated (i.e., cannot exchange the chemical contents with the
surroundings) whereas an "isolated" system cannot exchange heat energy or
the contents with the surroundings.
see http://staff.um.edu.mt/jgri1/teaching/che2372/notes/01/01_index.html
In other words, to a chemist a "closed" system is what a physicist would
call an "open" system, and an "isolated" system is what a physicist would
call "closed".
Bill Hudson
> In article <ff829...@news2.newsguy.com>, Bill Hudson
> <oldgee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>7) Probably the most important point: The second law does *not* prevent
>>'order from arising from disorder'. The second law does not state
>>'Order cannot arise from disorder' or 'systems can only move from
>>ordered states to disordered states'. Those are common but incomplete
>>interpretations of the second law. Completely stated, the second law
>>says: "In a closed system, there is no spontaneous process by which heat
>>(energy) can move from a cold object into a hotter object."
>
> Isn't this more a *consequence* of the second law than a statement of
> it? i.e., it does nothing to explain why a two containers of different
> gasses at the same temperature and pressure, when connected, will become
> mixed, but mixed gasses will not spontaneously separate. It seems to me
> that "Delta S-sub-universe >= 0" *is* the second law, and that stuff
> about "Heat won't flow from the colder to the hotter" is just one
> manifestation of that fact.
True enough.
See also: http://staff.um.edu.mt/jgri1/teaching/che2372/notes/03/entropy/
entropy.html
J. J. Lodder
There is no need to break your head about probabilities.
(and their incorrect interpretation)
Plain thermodynamics will do.
dS = dQ/T
Since heat is given off in crystalization
the entropy of an ice crystal is lower
than that of the same amount of water
at the same temperature.
Hence crystalization lowers the entropy spontanously,
provided you can let the heat given off
go somewhere else.
(with an equal or greater entropy increase elsewhere,
of course)
The ice crystal -is- more ordered (in the sense of lower entropy)
than liquid water, and that order does arise spontanously.
(when you allow for a greater or at best equal
entropy increase elsewhere)
Water will not crystalize spontaneously without heat removal,
Jan
Mujin
news:1192730666....@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
Though I fear we disagree on the significance of this...
Rodjk #613
You know, every time I read one of your post I think to myself:
"That guy is full of shit."
Rodjk #613
Al
>
> There is no need to break your head about probabilities.
> (and their incorrect interpretation)
> Plain thermodynamics will do.
>
> dS = dQ/T
>
> than liquid water, and that order does arise spontanously.
> (when you allow for a greater or at best equal
> entropy increase elsewhere)
>
> Water will not crystalize spontaneously without heat removal,
>
> Jan
True enough. However, this doesn't address crystallization of ions
from supersaturated solutions. In that case the crystals still lower
their entropy, but at the expense of the entropy of the complete
solution.
And to reiterate what's been said before in this thread, entropy is
not equivalent to complexity. Complexity is not under the constraint
of any thermodynamics. And the 2nd law of thermo is actually a
statistical "rule of thumb" anyway, that holds true simply because the
number of molecules involved is huge.
Vend
> In article <ff829d01...@news2.newsguy.com>,
> Bill Hudson <oldgeek61-...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >7) Probably the most important point: The second law does *not* prevent
> >'order from arising from disorder'. The second law does not state 'Order
> >cannot arise from disorder' or 'systems can only move from ordered states
> >to disordered states'. Those are common but incomplete interpretations
> >of the second law. Completely stated, the second law says: "In a closed
> >system, there is no spontaneous process by which heat (energy) can move
> >from a cold object into a hotter object."
>
> Isn't this more a *consequence* of the second law than a statement of
> it? i.e., it does nothing to explain why a two containers of different
> gasses at the same temperature and pressure, when connected, will become
> mixed, but mixed gasses will not spontaneously separate. It seems to me
> that "Delta S-sub-universe >= 0" *is* the second law, and that stuff
> about "Heat won't flow from the colder to the hotter" is just one
> manifestation of that fact.
I'm not an expert, but I heard that there are at least three
equivalent formulations of the second law.
Vend
C'mon, he and Zoe the best creationist we see here on t.o.
Or do you prefer McCoy, Pagano, Martinez, Bimms and Nando?
> Rodjk #613
Vend
wrote:
> On Oct 18, 7:12 am, Bloopenblop...@juno.com wrote:
>
> > I can't figure it out either way. The questions on my mind are: Does
> > crystallization represent a decrease in entropy or no? I think it does
> > and Wallace is incorrect, but not sure. Does it represent an increase
> > or decrease in *energy?* And does the 2nd law make any statement about
> > organization, complexity, organized complexity, etc? Thanks for any
> > help. Can someone recommend me a rescource on thermodynamics that
> > would give me the answer?
>
> The key to this problem, which most people do not understand, is that
> there is a fundamental difference between thermodynamic entropy and
> informational entropy. They aren't the same thing.
Agreed.
> The problem for the
> ToE is not found in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, but in the problem
> of producing additional meaningful or useful genetic information.
Disagreed.
> A crystal, like a snowflake, doesn't require more information than
> what is contained in each individual part as it interacts with a
> particular type of environment (i.e., cold weather in this case).
I know I'm going to regret this, but can I ask you how do you measure
the amount of information contained in a crystal?
Paul Ciszek
In article <1192752036.6...@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:
>
>I know I'm going to regret this, but can I ask you how do you measure
>the amount of information contained in a crystal?
You pop the crystal in the reader, close the annoying pop-up window
that always opens, and look for the crystal drive in the explorer.
Right click on it, select "Properties", and you should get a stupid
little pie chart that shows used space and free space.
Mujin
news:ff8v6b$alt$1...@reader1.panix.com:
>
> In article <1192752036.6...@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
> Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:
>>
>>I know I'm going to regret this, but can I ask you how do you measure
>>the amount of information contained in a crystal?
>
> You pop the crystal in the reader, close the annoying pop-up window
> that always opens, and look for the crystal drive in the explorer.
> Right click on it, select "Properties", and you should get a stupid
> little pie chart that shows used space and free space.
I always have problems with this method. The plug and play feature of my
machine doesn't seem to be working, and I always have to activate the
crystal in the device manager. Supposedly all you have to do is right
click on the snow-flake icon in device manager, select "disable", wait for
the OS to process the request and then tell the DM to search for new
hardware, by which time the damn crystal has melted and the whole thing
shorts out.
Paul Ciszek
In article <1192732229.0...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Puppet_Sock <puppe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Oct 18, 10:12 am, Bloopenblop...@juno.com wrote:
>[snip]
>> I can't figure it out either way. The questions on my mind are: Does
>> crystallization represent a decrease in entropy or no? I think it does
>> and Wallace is incorrect, but not sure. Does it represent an increase
>> or decrease in *energy?* And does the 2nd law make any statement about
>> organization, complexity, organized complexity, etc?
>
>First, as somebody down-thread has already said: If it happens,
>it represents a non-decrease in the total entropy of the universe.
>So, when a crystal forms it does not decrease total entropy.
>
>It *might* be a decrease in entropy of the material that gets
>formed into the crystal. Maybe. But a crystal forms out of
I would say almost always. The only possible exception that I could
think of is something that underwent an irreversible chemical change
as it solidified; i.e., a substance that could not be simply re-melted.
There just aren't as many ways to arrange molecules in a crystal as
there are in a liquid or gas.
Pata...@gmail.com
> On 18 Ott, 20:01, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.0catch.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 18, 7:12 am, Bloopenblop...@juno.com wrote:
>
> > > I can't figure it out either way. The questions on my mind are: Does
> > > crystallization represent a decrease in entropy or no? I think it does
> > > and Wallace is incorrect, but not sure. Does it represent an increase
> > > or decrease in *energy?* And does the 2nd law make any statement about
> > > organization, complexity, organized complexity, etc? Thanks for any
> > > help. Can someone recommend me a rescource on thermodynamics that
> > > would give me the answer?
>
> > The key to this problem, which most people do not understand, is that
> > there is a fundamental difference between thermodynamic entropy and
> > informational entropy. They aren't the same thing.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > The problem for the
> > ToE is not found in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, but in the problem
> > of producing additional meaningful or useful genetic information.
>
> Disagreed.
>
> > A crystal, like a snowflake, doesn't require more information than
> > what is contained in each individual part as it interacts with a
> > particular type of environment (i.e., cold weather in this case).
>
> I know I'm going to regret this, but can I ask you how do you measure
> the amount of information contained in a crystal?
>
Information content is defined as the shortest possible description of
the string/object/entity/whatever, right?
Crystals use the same basic structure over and over, so a lot of
information can be saved compared to random arrangement by describing
the structure of a unit cell of the crystal then repeating that over
and over.
>
>
> > This is not true of biosystems which are far more informationally
> > complex than the sum of their parts. The order of parts is vitally
> > important in biosystems in order for them to form and work properly -
> > not so for snowflakes.
>
> > Further discussion at:
>
> >http://www.detectingdesign.com/meaningfulinformation.html
>
> > Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
wf3h
> In "The Second Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution, and Probability,"
>
>
>
> "The "order" found in a snowflake or a crystal has nothing to do with
> increased information, organization or complexity, or available energy
> (i.e., reduced entropy). The formation of molecules or atoms into
> geometric patterns such as snowflakes or crystals reflects movement
> towards equilibrium-a lower energy level, and a more stable
> arrangement of the molecules or atoms into simple, uniform, repeating
> structures with minimal complexity, and no function. These are not
> examples of matter forming itself into more organized or more complex
> structures or systems (as postulated in evolutionist theory), even
> though they may certainly reflect "order" in the form of simple
> patterns.
what nonsense. idiocy...
thermodynamics deals with the transfer of energy. heat is a form of
energy
to create a crystal you have to COOL the material so the
intermolecular or atomic forces can dominate the thermal ones. this
allows the molecules to attract each other.
the COOLING can be analyzed by thermodynamics. so, YES, this is
thermodynamics at work. a LOCAL decrease in entropy can occur even
though the TOTAL entropy increases..
wf3h
> there is a fundamental difference between thermodynamic entropy and
> informational entropy. They aren't the same thing. The problem for the
> ToE is not found in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, but in the problem
> of producing additional meaningful or useful genetic information.
>
> A crystal, like a snowflake, doesn't require more information than
> what is contained in each individual part as it interacts with a
> particular type of environment (i.e., cold weather in this case).
> This is not true of biosystems which are far more informationally
> complex than the sum of their parts. The order of parts is vitally
> important in biosystems in order for them to form and work properly -
> not so for snowflakes.
is there more programming info in a bio system than the genetics and
epigenetics of the system code for?
really?
prove it.
if 'god did it' all you need to do is tell us how. you guys have been
saying 'god did it' for a thousand years.
didnt work then. doesn't work now.
Vend
That's the idea of Algorithmic Information, but there are a lot of
mathematical complications.
> Crystals use the same basic structure over and over, so a lot of
> information can be saved compared to random arrangement by describing
> the structure of a unit cell of the crystal then repeating that over
> and over.
Thus hot air trapped in a baloon has lots of information, since there
is no short description of its configuration?
> > > This is not true of biosystems which are far more informationally
> > > complex than the sum of their parts. The order of parts is vitally
> > > important in biosystems in order for them to form and work properly -
> > > not so for snowflakes.
>
> > > Further discussion at:
>
> > >http://www.detectingdesign.com/meaningfulinformation.html
>
> > > Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com-Hide quoted text -
Seanpit
> On 18 Ott, 20:01, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.0catch.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 18, 7:12 am, Bloopenblop...@juno.com wrote:
>
> > > I can't figure it out either way. The questions on my mind are: Does
> > > crystallization represent a decrease in entropy or no? I think it does
> > > and Wallace is incorrect, but not sure. Does it represent an increase
> > > or decrease in *energy?* And does the 2nd law make any statement about
> > > organization, complexity, organized complexity, etc? Thanks for any
> > > help. Can someone recommend me a rescource on thermodynamics that
> > > would give me the answer?
>
> > The key to this problem, which most people do not understand, is that
> > there is a fundamental difference between thermodynamic entropy and
> > informational entropy. They aren't the same thing.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > The problem for the
> > ToE is not found in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, but in the problem
> > of producing additional meaningful or useful genetic information.
>
> Disagreed.
What do you think "natural selection" selects if not improved function
with regard to reproductive fitness or advantage? And, how do you
think this advantage is gained via random mutations? If the mutations
do not produce some sort of detectable change in *function* (i.e., if
the changes are neutral with respect to function), they will not be
detectable by the guiding force of natural selection. In short,
neutral changes are not "meaningful" to nature. Nature is therefore
"blind" to such changes and cannot guide them in a positive manner
toward improved reproductive fitness. All that is left at this point
is purely blind random walk and/or selection.
That produces at least a potential problem for the ToE since evolution
is not supposed to be a random process. Without the guiding light of
natural selection in play, evolutionary processes are at a significant
disadvantage. Basically then, for the ToE to remain viable, one must
be able to show that these neutral/non-beneficial gaps are not
significant - which is more and more difficult to do at higher and
higher levels of minimum sequence and/or structural requirements for
beneficial biosystems.
> > A crystal, like a snowflake, doesn't require more information than
> > what is contained in each individual part as it interacts with a
> > particular type of environment (i.e., cold weather in this case).
>
> I know I'm going to regret this, but can I ask you how do you measure
> the amount of information contained in a crystal?
Consider a few of the following thoughts from Michel Baranger, a
physicist from Cambridge University, which may help to clarify this
concept:
"The constituents of a complex system are interdependent. . .
Consider first a non-complex system with many constituents - say a gas
in a container. Take away 10% of its constituents, which are its
molecules. What happens? Nothing very dramatic! The pressure changes a
little, or the volume, or the temperature; or all of them. But on the
whole, the final gas looks and behaves much like the original gas. Now
do the same experiment with a complex system. Take a human body and
take away 10%: let's just cut off a leg! The result will be rather
more spectacular than for the gas. I leave the scenario up to you. And
yet, it's not even the head that I proposed to cut off. . .
When you look at an elementary mathematical fractal, it may
seem to you very 'complex', but this is not the same meaning of
complex as when saying 'complex systems'. The simple fractal is
chaotic, it is not complex. Another example would be the simple gas
mentioned earlier: it is highly chaotic, but it is not complex in the
present sense."
http://www.detectingdesign.com/PDF%20Files/Entropy,%20Chaos,%20and%20Complexity.pdf
A snowflake is a fractal structure. It is not very informationally
"complex". It is informationally simple in that it requires very low
specificity of part arrangement to achieve its fractal-type shape/
structure. This is not true for biosystems. Even a simple single-
protein enzyme, like lactase, is much more informationally complex
than a snowflake of the same size in that its particular function
requires a much more specific arrangement of the molecular building
blocks in its structure relative to each other. A snowflake's
molecules can be interchanged randomly without any change in the
ability of the molecules to self-assemble essentially the same
structure in the same environment; yet with a very different
arrangement of the individual molecular parts in the overall
structure.
This is why a protein-based system cannot self-assemble itself. It
has to be built based upon pre-existing coded information stored in
the form of specifically sequenced DNA. This pre-existing information
must be decoded and used to build to specific sequence required by the
protein-based system in order for it to be able to work at all to
perform its specific task (like the lactase function).
The degree of constraint that a functional protein-based system can
tolerate, with regard to minimum size and sequence specificity
requirements before it completely looses a particular function, is the
measure of its "informational complexity".
Again, further discussion of this very fundamental concept is at:
http://www.detectingdesign.com/meaningfulinformation.html
A different but related concept of Complex Specified Information (CSI)
is discussed at:
http://www.detectingdesign.com/meaningfulinformation.html#CSI
http://www.detectingdesign.com/PDF%20Files/Complex%20Specified%20Information%202.doc
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 18, 7:12 am, Bloopenblop...@juno.com wrote:
>
> > > I can't figure it out either way. The questions on my mind are: Does
> > > crystallization represent a decrease in entropy or no? I think it does
> > > and Wallace is incorrect, but not sure. Does it represent an increase
> > > or decrease in *energy?* And does the 2nd law make any statement about
> > > organization, complexity, organized complexity, etc? Thanks for any
> > > help. Can someone recommend me a rescource on thermodynamics that
> > > would give me the answer?
>
> > The key to this problem, which most people do not understand, is that
> > there is a fundamental difference between thermodynamic entropy and
> > informational entropy. They aren't the same thing.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > The problem for the
> > ToE is not found in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, but in the problem
> > of producing additional meaningful or useful genetic information.
>
> Disagreed.
What do you think "natural selection" selects if not improved function
with regard to reproductive fitness or advantage? And, how do you
think this advantage is gained via random mutations? If the mutations
do not produce some sort of detectable change in *function* (i.e., if
the changes are neutral with respect to function), they will not be
detectable by the guiding force of natural selection. In short,
neutral changes are not "meaningful" to nature. Nature is therefore
"blind" to such changes and cannot guide them in a positive manner
toward improved reproductive fitness. All that is left at this point
is purely blind random walk and/or selection.
That produces at least a potential problem for the ToE since evolution
is not supposed to be a random process. Without the guiding light of
natural selection in play, evolutionary processes are at a significant
disadvantage. Basically then, for the ToE to remain viable, one must
be able to show that these neutral/non-beneficial gaps are not
significant - which is more and more difficult to do at higher and
higher levels of minimum sequence and/or structural requirements for
beneficial biosystems.
> > A crystal, like a snowflake, doesn't require more information than
> > what is contained in each individual part as it interacts with a
> > particular type of environment (i.e., cold weather in this case).
>
> I know I'm going to regret this, but can I ask you how do you measure
> the amount of information contained in a crystal?
Consider a few of the following thoughts from Michel Baranger, a
Puppet_Sock
[snip]
> There is no need to break your head about probabilities.
> (and their incorrect interpretation)
> Plain thermodynamics will do.
>
> dS = dQ/T
This formula does *not* apply across a change of state.
And crystal formation is usually that.
Socks
Seanpit
> > A crystal, like a snowflake, doesn't require more information than
> > what is contained in each individual part as it interacts with a
> > particular type of environment (i.e., cold weather in this case).
> > This is not true of biosystems which are far more informationally
> > complex than the sum of their parts. The order of parts is vitally
> > important in biosystems in order for them to form and work properly -
> > not so for snowflakes.
>
> is there more programming info in a bio system than the genetics and
> epigenetics of the system code for?
Nope - - It is just that a biosystem requires more pre-existing coded
information to form than does a snowflake. The molecules simply
cannot arrange themselves into their functional structures without
this pre-coded information. They must be arranged by pre-existing
machines that force them with very directed energy into their proper
locations.
Production of a snowflake, on the other hand, requires no more pre-
formed information or pre-existing structures than that already
contained by the individual molecules themselves as they interact with
a low degree of *random* energy.
> really?
>
> prove it.
You simply don't grasp the elementary concept that the information
needed to build a snowflake isn't remotely the same as that needed to
build even a simple useful biomolecule.
> if 'god did it' all you need to do is tell us how. you guys have been
> saying 'god did it' for a thousand years.
And you say that "Nature did it." - - but how?
One doesn't need to know the mechanism or motives of a designer before
one can detect deliberate artifact to a reasonable degree of
confidence. Again, SETI scientists do not propose any identity,
specific motive, or mechanism for radiosignal production in their
proposed hypotheses for detecting deliberate artifact. Beyond this,
you have been saying that "Nature did it" for a good while now. Yet,
you do not have an adequate mechanism for how Nature did what you say
She did.
http://www.detectingdesign.com/meaningfulinformation.html#SETI
> didnt work then. doesn't work now.
What doesn't work now is your proposed mechanism for the ToE. It just
doesn't work beyond very low levels of minimum structural biosystem
threshold requirements for beneficial biosystems. This lack of
adequate "natural" mechanism is the basis for the detection of
artifact by various forms of science, to include forensic science,
anthropology, and SETI.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
R. Baldwin
"Mujin" <umwi...@seesee.umanitoba.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns99CD6213B...@130.179.16.24...
> Bloopen...@juno.com wrote in
> news:1192716757.5...@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>
>> In "The Second Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution, and Probability,"
>>
>> "Failure to understand that in thermodynamics probabilities are not
>> fixed entities has led to a misinterpretation that is responsible for
>> the wide- spread and totally false belief that the second law of
>> thermodynamics does not permit order to spontaneously arise from
>> disorder. In fact, there are many examples in nature where order does
>> arise spontaneously from disorder: Snowflakes with their six-sided
>> crystalline symmetry are formed spontaneously from randomly moving
>> water vapor molecules. Salts with precise planes of crystalline
>> symmetry form spontaneously when water evaporates from a solution.
>> Seeds sprout into flowering plants and eggs develop into chicks."
>>
>>
>> "The "order" found in a snowflake or a crystal has nothing to do with
>> increased information, organization or complexity, or available energy
>> (i.e., reduced entropy). The formation of molecules or atoms into
>> geometric patterns such as snowflakes or crystals reflects movement
>> towards equilibrium-a lower energy level, and a more stable
>> arrangement of the molecules or atoms into simple, uniform, repeating
>> structures with minimal complexity, and no function. These are not
>> examples of matter forming itself into more organized or more complex
>> structures or systems (as postulated in evolutionist theory), even
>> though they may certainly reflect "order" in the form of simple
>> patterns.
>>
>> examples of low-energy molecular crystals and the high-energy growth
>> process of living organisms (seeds sprouting into flowering plants and
>> eggs developing into chicks). His equating these two very different
>> phenomena reveals a serious misunderstanding of thermodynamics (as
>> well as molecular biology) on his part, and he perpetuates this error
>> in the balance of both his essays, as we shall see.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Steiger's blurring of the distinction between these two phenomena can
>> logically be attributed only to either indefensible ignorance or a
>> willful misrepresentation of the facts."
>>
>> crystallization represent a decrease in entropy or no? I think it does
>> and Wallace is incorrect, but not sure. Does it represent an increase
>> or decrease in *energy?* And does the 2nd law make any statement about
>> organization, complexity, organized complexity, etc? Thanks for any
>> help. Can someone recommend me a rescource on thermodynamics that
>> would give me the answer?
>
No, that is not the meaning of entropy in Information Theory. Entropy (sensu
Shannon) is a measure of the ensemble of messages that might be sent, not a
measure of the message that is actually sent, no matter how much it deviated
from the original. It describes how much uncertainty a receiver has about an
information source.
R. Baldwin
news:1192730515....@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
For a critique of Sean's article, to which Sean never responded, see
news:FJ2Eh.273$aO6.29@trndny06. I haven't checked whether he has correced
any of the errors.
Stuart
> > crystallization represent a decrease in entropy or no? I think it does
> > and Wallace is incorrect, but not sure. Does it represent an increase
> > or decrease in *energy?* And does the 2nd law make any statement about
> > organization, complexity, organized complexity, etc? Thanks for any
> > help. Can someone recommend me a rescource on thermodynamics that
> > would give me the answer?
>
> two definitions of the word "entropy"
>
> In thermodynamics, entropy refers to the amount of energy in a system which
> has become unavailable to do work. Basically, some energy is always lost
> to such inefficiencies as heat and noise
The second law goes much deeper that that. Unless you are dealing with
a frictionless
engine operating with surroundings at absolute zero, there will always
be some energy
unavailable for work.
Friction and other forms of dissipation further reduce the fficiency
of said enegine.
However, the SLOT tells us that even in the absence of dissipation you
cannot get
100% efficiency.
Hence, not only there is no free lunch (first law), you can't get it
wholesale (2nd law)
and worse, you must pay tax (3rd law).
<snip>
Stuart
Mujin
news:13hij0j...@news.supernews.com:
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_entropy
>>
>
> No, that is not the meaning of entropy in Information Theory. Entropy
> (sensu Shannon) is a measure of the ensemble of messages that might be
> sent, not a measure of the message that is actually sent, no matter
> how much it deviated from the original. It describes how much
> uncertainty a receiver has about an information source.
Thanks for the correction. Clearly I need to review this subject.
wf3h
0catch.com> wrote:
> On Oct 18, 5:00 pm, Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:
>
> > What do you think "natural selection" selects if not improved function
> with regard to reproductive fitness or advantage? And, how do you
> think this advantage is gained via random mutations?
uh...natural selection? ever hear of a guy called 'charles darwin'?
>
> That produces at least a potential problem for the ToE since evolution
> is not supposed to be a random process.
no one knows what this means. mutations are random. differential
reproduction is an environmental factor
sean seems to be going for the tabloid version of evolution.....
Without the guiding light of
> natural selection in play, evolutionary processes are at a significant
> disadvantage.
'other than that, mrs. lincoln, how did you like the play'?
uh....the 'guiding light' of NS is kinda essential to evolution
Basically then, for the ToE to remain viable, one must
> be able to show that these neutral/non-beneficial gaps are not
> significant - which is more and more difficult to do at higher and
> higher levels of minimum sequence and/or structural requirements for
> beneficial biosystems.
nature's already got it figured out, sean....
and 'god did it' never answered anything. it is a failure. god is a
failure. the bible is a failure.
> >
> A snowflake is a fractal structure. It is not very informationally
> "complex". It is informationally simple in that it requires very low
> specificity of part arrangement to achieve its fractal-type shape/
> structure. This is not true for biosystems. Even a simple single-
> protein enzyme, like lactase
is subject to the laws of thermodynamics. seanpit may dance like a
drunken one legged sailor but he can't escape the laws of science.
>
> This is why a protein-based system cannot self-assemble itself. It
> has to be built based upon pre-existing coded information stored in
> the form of specifically sequenced DNA. This pre-existing information
> must be decoded and used to build to specific sequence required by the
> protein-based system in order for it to be able to work at all to
> perform its specific task (like the lactase function).
>
and where is god in this whole system? conspicuous by his absence, it
seems.
wf3h
0catch.com> wrote:
> > is there more programming info in a bio system than the genetics and
> > epigenetics of the system code for?
>
> Nope - - It is just that a biosystem requires more pre-existing coded
> information to form than does a snowflake. The molecules simply
> cannot arrange themselves into their functional structures without
> this pre-coded information. They must be arranged by pre-existing
> machines that force them with very directed energy into their proper
> locations.
and this violates thermo how?
oh...it doesnt..
DAMMIT!! god's purpose foiled again by maxwell's demon!
> > > really?
>
> > prove it.
>
> You simply don't grasp the elementary concept that the information
> needed to build a snowflake isn't remotely the same as that needed to
> build even a simple useful biomolecule.
sigh...the fundies failed for thousands of years to tell us anything
about nature. seanpits taliban-like christianity proves why
OK seanpit...tell me why this violates the laws of thermo.
go ahead. we'll wait.
>
> > if 'god did it' all you need to do is tell us how. you guys have been
> > saying 'god did it' for a thousand years.
>
> And you say that "Nature did it." - - but how?
one of 2 answers:
we know how it got done and god's not involved
we DONT know and god is irrelevant
because YOU have NEVER proven god is needed for ANY natural event in
nature. GOD is a failure, seanpit. sorry.
>
> One doesn't need to know the mechanism or motives of a designer before
> one can detect deliberate artifact to a reasonable degree of
> confidence. Again, SETI scientists do not propose any identity,
OK let's try seanpit's method
SETI uses radio telescopes
seanpit's method uses psychics and mediums....
which is more scientific?
seanpit would answer the 2nd....
> specific motive, or mechanism for radiosignal production in their
> proposed hypotheses for detecting deliberate artifact. Beyond this,
> you have been saying that "Nature did it" for a good while now. Yet,
> you do not have an adequate mechanism for how Nature did what you say
> She did.
and you and your taliban friends have, for THOUSANDS of years said god
did it
but you're a failure. you ALWAYS have been. always...without
exception.
>
> http://www.detectingdesign.com/meaningfulinformation.html#SETI
>
> > didnt work then. doesn't work now.
>
> What doesn't work now is your proposed mechanism for the ToE.
well let's look at fundie religion vs science, shall we?
in 300 years science got us to the moon and tripled life expectancy
'god did it'...??? for 2000 years it got us precisely nowhere. zip.
nada.
It just
> doesn't work beyond very low levels of minimum structural biosystem
> threshold requirements for beneficial biosystems. This lack of
> adequate "natural" mechanism is the basis for the detection of
> artifact by various forms of science, to include forensic science,
> anthropology, and SETI.
hey sean...if science has produced a SINGLE success that's more than
god ever did.
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
Rodjk #613
Oh sure, he is preferable to Pagano and the others.
That does not mean he is not full of sh*t though...
Rodjk #613
Paul Ciszek
In article <1192807756....@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
If the "S" refers to the entropy of the *surroundings*, though, you
can determine how much the entropy of the surroundings change as the
water freezes.
Seanpit
> On Oct 19, 10:35 am, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.
>
> 0catch.com> wrote:
> > > is there more programming info in a bio system than the genetics and
> > > epigenetics of the system code for?
>
> > Nope - - It is just that a biosystem requires more pre-existing coded
> > information to form than does a snowflake. The molecules simply
> > cannot arrange themselves into their functional structures without
> > this pre-coded information. They must be arranged by pre-existing
> > machines that force them with very directed energy into their proper
> > locations.
>
> and this violates thermo how?
As I mentioned in my first post to this thread, the 2nd Law of
Thermodynamics is NOT violated and can never be violated. The problem
with the ToE is that the proposed mechism violates the concept of
*informational* entropy. Again, informational entropy is not the same
thing as thermodynamic entropy. They are somewhat related but
distinctly different concepts.
In short, you can't put significantly more information into a system
than is already there. In fact, the information that is already there
tends to get corrupted and lost over time (hence the term
informational "entropy"). The only way to add information to a system
is from an outside source of greater information.
At this point, some might posit Nature as an outside source of higher
information. The problem with this notion is that the forces
generally proposed as beign used by nature are mindless, non-
deliberate, and have no goal. Such forces do not bring the quality of
higher-level information to the table that is needed to improve the
information content of a system - to include all mechanical systems be
they made of biological or non-biological building blocks (computers
or amoebas). It makes no differnece.
< snip rest >
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
< snip >
> > This is why a protein-based system cannot self-assemble itself. It
> > has to be built based upon pre-existing coded information stored in
> > the form of specifically sequenced DNA. This pre-existing information
> > must be decoded and used to build to specific sequence required by the
> > protein-based system in order for it to be able to work at all to
> > perform its specific task (like the lactase function).
>
> and where is god in this whole system? conspicuous by his absence, it
> seems.
Where would the little green men be in the radiosignals SETI
scientists would present as evidence of deliberate artifact if such
signals were ever discovered coming from outer space?
You see, the evidence of deliberate artifact is in the phenomenon
itself. One does not need to see the designer in action, know his/her/
its identity or motive, or identify the actual method used before one
can adequately detect deliberate design/artifact.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
> > > > A crystal, like a snowflake, doesn't require more information than
> > > > what is contained in each individual part as it interacts with a
> > > > particular type of environment (i.e., cold weather in this case).
>
> > > I know I'm going to regret this, but can I ask you how do you measure
> > > the amount of information contained in a crystal?
>
> > Information content is defined as the shortest possible description of
> > the string/object/entity/whatever, right?
>
> That's the idea of Algorithmic Information, but there are a lot of
> mathematical complications.
>
> > Crystals use the same basic structure over and over, so a lot of
> > information can be saved compared to random arrangement by describing
> > the structure of a unit cell of the crystal then repeating that over
> > and over.
>
> Thus hot air trapped in a balloon has lots of information, since there
> is no short description of its configuration?
You are confusing concepts of algorithmic information and meaningful
information. They aren't the same thing.
For example, a random series of letters, the size of a Shakespearean
play, has the maximum amount of algorithmic information (from the
perspective of a given UTM) - much more than Shakespeare's play. Yet,
Shakespeare's play has much more "meaning" or "function" than does the
random sequence of letters of the same size.
In short, algorithmic information is a measure of randomness or
chaos. This isn't the same thing as measuring degrees of function or
meaning. Obviously, maximum randomness or chaos is not equivalent to
maximum function/meaning.
All is not lost though. The concepts of algorithmic information/
entropy can be used to identify deliberate artifact for many types of
physical phenomena. But, one must have some previous experience/
knowledge with the material in question as it interacts with a variety
of natural forces before one can adequately detect or propose the
workings of deliberate artifact acting with the material in question
(i.e., water in the case of snowflakes). After some investigation,
the very low degree of algorithmic entropy exhibited by a single
snowflake (i.e., very high symmetry of opposing irregularities) can be
explained by purely natural non-deliberate non-artifactual
processes. Yet, the same could not be said if the same shape/
structure were produced in a different material, like granite. The
very same structure produced in the material of granite would be very
clear evidence of artifact - i.e., deliberate design. Why? Because a
little history or knowledge about granite allows one to know that
granite does not interact with any non-deliberate force of nature in
such a way that would produce anything close to the level of symmetry
(with regard to surface irregularities) expressed by a snowflake. In
other words, non-deliberate forces of nature tend very strongly to
produce features on granite that have much high higher degrees of
algorithmic entropy as compared with the features of a snowflake.
Further discussion at:
http://www.detectingdesign.com/PDF%20Files/Complex%20Specified%20Information%202.doc
wf3h
0catch.com> wrote:
> On Oct 19, 6:58 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > and this violates thermo how?
>
> As I mentioned in my first post to this thread, the 2nd Law of
> Thermodynamics is NOT violated and can never be violated. The problem
> with the ToE is that the proposed mechism violates the concept of
> *informational* entropy. Again, informational entropy is not the same
> thing as thermodynamic entropy. They are somewhat related but
> distinctly different concepts.
>
> In short, you can't put significantly more information into a system
> than is already there.
and evolution does this how?
creationism solves this problem how? how does 'god did it' solve this
problem?
betcha you wont tackle THAT little problem.
>
> At this point, some might posit Nature as an outside source of higher
> information. The problem with this notion is that the forces
> generally proposed as beign used by nature are mindless, non-
> deliberate, and have no goal.
uh, so? prove that such 'forces' can not add information, or select
among possibilities.
the INFORMATION is generated by mutations
the SELECTION is made by nature
GOD can not, and DOES not solve this 'problem' by some magical
suspension of natural law...a fact seanpit REFUSES to even discuss let
alone detail
Such forces do not bring the quality of
> higher-level information to the table that is needed to improve the
> information content of a system
hmmm...so you say. i say that you owe me a million dollars.
i'll concede your point if you concede mine.
what meaningless nonsense.
wf3h
0catch.com> wrote:
> On Oct 19, 6:50 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> < snip >
>
> > > This is why a protein-based system cannot self-assemble itself. It
> > > has to be built based upon pre-existing coded information stored in
> > > the form of specifically sequenced DNA. This pre-existing information
> > > must be decoded and used to build to specific sequence required by the
> > > protein-based system in order for it to be able to work at all to
> > > perform its specific task (like the lactase function).
>
> > and where is god in this whole system? conspicuous by his absence, it
> > seems.
>
> Where would the little green men be in the radiosignals SETI
> scientists would present as evidence of deliberate artifact if such
> signals were ever discovered coming from outer space?
and how does SETI search for LGM's?
by the use of radio telescopes. by applying the laws of
nature...physics...to the search
YOUR argument denies the very existence of natural laws. YOUR argument
would render a search not only impossible but meaningless since you
can't even define HOW your mechanism works.
>
> You see, the evidence of deliberate artifact is in the phenomenon
> itself. One does not need to see the designer in action, know his/her/
> its identity or motive, or identify the actual method used before one
> can adequately detect deliberate design/artifact.
>
ah, yes...it's the same argument: 'god did it'...that failed for
thousands of years and led nowhere in science.
creationists, it seems, merely have to wave god's magic wand and that
excuses them not only from having to EXPLAIN anything, but also from
having to even CONSIDER an explanation. they don't have to tell us
anything at all.
OK my solution is this:
an unknown natural cause did what you said evolution can't.
distinguish between THAT and your god!
Seanpit
wrote:
> For a critique of Sean's article, to which Sean never responded,
> seenews:FJ2Eh.273$aO6.29@trndny06.
> I haven't checked whether he has correced
> any of the errors.
Like your erroneous notion that the past history of a string cannot be
used to predict the future of the string to any useful degree? Or,
your related notion that because all patterns could be the result of
random production, that no particular pattern of a string can be used
with any degree of confidence to say anything about its likely random
or non-random origin?
You need to work on your concept of what it means to accept or reject
a null hypothesis without ever being able to know with 100% certainty
if you are actually correct. You need to identify a P-value or point
at which you would reject the random hypothesis as being most likely
false, based on the past history of the pattern itself without any
additional information. That's your biggest problem as I see it. You
seem to have difficulty with the very foundation of science itself -
i.e., the use of inductive reasoning.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
> "R. Baldwin" <res0k...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote innews:13hij0j...@news.supernews.com:
Shannon entropy doesn't have quite the same definition as algorithmic
entropy or Kolmogorov complexity (KC). While Shannon entropy is
indeed a description of the source or the messages that might be sent,
KC is concerned with the message itself.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
> On Oct 20, 3:32 pm, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.
> > > > This is why a protein-based system cannot self-assemble itself. It
> > > > has to be built based upon pre-existing coded information stored in
> > > > the form of specifically sequenced DNA. This pre-existing information
> > > > must be decoded and used to build to specific sequence required by the
> > > > protein-based system in order for it to be able to work at all to
> > > > perform its specific task (like the lactase function).
>
> > > and where is god in this whole system? conspicuous by his absence, it
> > > seems.
>
> > Where would the little green men be in the radiosignals SETI
> > scientists would present as evidence of deliberate artifact if such
> > signals were ever discovered coming from outer space?
>
> and how does SETI search for LGM's?
>
> by the use of radio telescopes. by applying the laws of
> nature...physics...to the search
Yep - - exactly what I'm proposing. There is no fundamental
difference.
> YOUR argument denies the very existence of natural laws. YOUR argument
> would render a search not only impossible but meaningless since you
> can't even define HOW your mechanism works.
SETI scientists do not know HOW aliens would create the patterns in
radiosignals they are looking for. Again, the "how" question does NOT
need to be answered before one can detect deliberate artifact.
Beyond this, where did you get this notion that I deny the existence
of natural laws? Thats just not true. Natural laws are what I'm
proposing be used to detect deliberate artifact - exactly the same way
that SETI scientists propose using natural laws to detect artifact.
There is no fundamental differene whatsoever . . .
> > You see, the evidence of deliberate artifact is in the phenomenon
> > itself. One does not need to see the designer in action, know his/her/
> > its identity or motive, or identify the actual method used before one
> > can adequately detect deliberate design/artifact.
>
> ah, yes...it's the same argument: 'god did it'...that failed for
> thousands of years and led nowhere in science.
>
> creationists, it seems, merely have to wave god's magic wand and that
> excuses them not only from having to EXPLAIN anything, but also from
> having to even CONSIDER an explanation. they don't have to tell us
> anything at all.
>
> OK my solution is this:
>
> an unknown natural cause did what you said evolution can't.
LOL - You could make this very same argument to explain away what SETI
scientists would call evidence of deliberate artifact. They show you
the evidence and you say, "It could have been produced by an unknown
natural cause". That argument could explain anything. It removes the
ability to detect artifacts of any kind - to include human artifacts
that anthropologists discover.
Come on now. You can do better than that. Just try and think for a
minute or two about how science really works.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
> On Oct 20, 3:26 pm, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.
>
> 0catch.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 19, 6:58 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > > and this violates thermo how?
>
> > As I mentioned in my first post to this thread, the 2nd Law of
> > Thermodynamics is NOT violated and can never be violated. The problem
> > with the ToE is that the proposed mechism violates the concept of
> > *informational* entropy. Again, informational entropy is not the same
> > thing as thermodynamic entropy. They are somewhat related but
> > distinctly different concepts.
>
> > In short, you can't put significantly more information into a system
> > than is already there.
>
> and evolution does this how?
>
> creationism solves this problem how? how does 'god did it' solve this
> problem?
>
> betcha you wont tackle THAT little problem.
>
>
>
> > At this point, some might posit Nature as an outside source of higher
> > information. The problem with this notion is that the forces
> > generally proposed as beign used by nature are mindless, non-
> > deliberate, and have no goal.
>
> uh, so? prove that such 'forces' can not add information, or select
> among possibilities.
>
> the INFORMATION is generated by mutations
Random changes are generated by mutations. Whether or not these
random changes produce anything beneficial is a function of the
minimum structural requirements of a novel beneficial system. The
greater this minimum threshold, the exponentially less the odds that
any random change or series of random changes will hit upon such a
beneficial system. Therein lies the non-beneficial gap problem for the
ToE.
> the SELECTION is made by nature
Nature cannot select until a novel beneficial system is actually found
by random chance alone. Until this happens, Natural Selection is
blind and helpless.
> GOD can not, and DOES not solve this 'problem' by some magical
> suspension of natural law...a fact seanpit REFUSES to even discuss let
> alone detail
Intelligent design does not require any suspension of natural law. If
it did, you wouldn't be able to create anything yourself.
< snip >
> what meaningless nonsense.
Ditto . . .
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
J. J. Lodder
> On Oct 19, 5:44 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> >
> > There is no need to break your head about probabilities.
> > (and their incorrect interpretation)
> > Plain thermodynamics will do.
> >
> > dS = dQ/T
> >
> > The ice crystal -is- more ordered (in the sense of lower entropy)
> > than liquid water, and that order does arise spontanously.
> > (when you allow for a greater or at best equal
> > entropy increase elsewhere)
> >
> > Water will not crystalize spontaneously without heat removal,
> >
> > Jan
>
> True enough. However, this doesn't address crystallization of ions
> from supersaturated solutions. In that case the crystals still lower
> their entropy, but at the expense of the entropy of the complete
> solution.
In that case also the heat of crystallization
is taken up by the solution,
raising it's temperature to the equilibrium temperature.
It is a standard laboratory trick to find that temperature accurately.
> And to reiterate what's been said before in this thread, entropy is
> not equivalent to complexity.
Indeed, only by definition,
if you insist on defining 'complexity' that way.
> Complexity is not under the constraint
> of any thermodynamics.
'Complexity' needs to be defined
before it can be more that an empty word.
> And the 2nd law of thermo is actually a
> statistical "rule of thumb" anyway, that holds true simply because the
> number of molecules involved is huge.
Certainly not.
The second law in it's general form
holds indepently of fluctuations, for exploiting fluctuations
for the construction of a perpetuum mobile of the second kind
is not possible.
The 'thermodynamic limit' ( N -> \infty)
is just a mathematical convenience for easily deriving
macroscopic physics from microscopic principles.
Best,
Jan
wf3h
0catch.com> wrote:
> On Oct 20, 9:05 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > and how does SETI search for LGM's?
>
> > by the use of radio telescopes. by applying the laws of
> > nature...physics...to the search
>
> Yep - - exactly what I'm proposing. There is no fundamental
> difference.
sure there is. SETI searches for beings that were formed in the
context of natural laws.
you deny the existence of natural laws, and thus the methodology of
the search. THEN you say it can be used to search for something that
defies natural law.
a contradiction.
>
> > YOUR argument denies the very existence of natural laws. YOUR argument
> > would render a search not only impossible but meaningless since you
> > can't even define HOW your mechanism works.
>
> SETI scientists do not know HOW aliens would create the patterns in
> radiosignals they are looking for. Again, the "how" question does NOT
> need to be answered before one can detect deliberate artifact.
and why don't SETI scientists use mediums and psychics? why do they
use RADIO?
you keep avoiding the issue of the existence of natural laws.
>
> Beyond this, where did you get this notion that I deny the existence
> of natural laws? Thats just not true.
ever hear of 'evolution'? it gets discussed on this forum from time to
time. you seem to think that supernaturalism is THE method that 'god'
used to 'create' humans.
that's a denial of natural law.
Natural laws are what I'm
> proposing be used to detect deliberate artifact - exactly the same way
> that SETI scientists propose using natural laws to detect artifact.
> There is no fundamental differene whatsoever . . .
then tell us what NATURAL process the creator used to create us. you
propose, a priori, that such a method does not exist AND that it is
not necessary even to explore the question...'god did it' sufficing, i
suppose.
so how does one use natural methods to search for something that
defies natural laws?
you never say. you never resolve the contradiction.
>
>
>
> >
> > creationists, it seems, merely have to wave god's magic wand and that
> > excuses them not only from having to EXPLAIN anything, but also from
> > having to even CONSIDER an explanation. they don't have to tell us
> > anything at all.
>
> > OK my solution is this:
>
> > an unknown natural cause did what you said evolution can't.
>
> LOL - You could make this very same argument to explain away what SETI
> scientists would call evidence of deliberate artifact. They show you
> the evidence and you say, "It could have been produced by an unknown
> natural cause". That argument could explain anything. It removes the
> ability to detect artifacts of any kind - to include human artifacts
> that anthropologists discover.
ROFLMAO!! went right over your head, didn't it? the 'unknown cause'
can do EXACTLY what you say god did. YOU don't have to say anything
about your god? i don't have to say anything about my unknown cause
for EXACTLY the same reason. we KNOW unknown causes can do things,
don't we?
>
> Come on now. You can do better than that. Just try and think for a
> minute or two about how science really works.
ahem...you're the medievalist. YOU'RE the one proposing that psychics
are scientific. and you're telling ME to think about science??
wf3h
0catch.com> wrote:
> On Oct 20, 9:01 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > uh, so? prove that such 'forces' can not add information, or select
> > among possibilities.
>
> > the INFORMATION is generated by mutations
>
> Random changes are generated by mutations. Whether or not these
> random changes produce anything beneficial is a function of the
> minimum structural requirements of a novel beneficial system. The
> greater this minimum threshold, the exponentially less the odds that
> any random change or series of random changes will hit upon such a
> beneficial system. Therein lies the non-beneficial gap problem for the
> ToE.
nature decides the 'minimum threshold'. there is no 'exponential'
requirement at all. in addition, a TREMENDOUS number of organisms die
before reproducing. some don't. seems nature knows what it wants,
doesn't it?
>
> > the SELECTION is made by nature
>
> Nature cannot select until a novel beneficial system is actually found
> by random chance alone. Until this happens, Natural Selection is
> blind and helpless.
and it continues to be blind and helpless even when it DOES find a
beneficial mutation. nature is neutral.
>
> > GOD can not, and DOES not solve this 'problem' by some magical
> > suspension of natural law...a fact seanpit REFUSES to even discuss let
> > alone detail
>
> Intelligent design does not require any suspension of natural law. If
> it did, you wouldn't be able to create anything yourself.
but YOU say it does. YOU say evolution is wrong. YOU seem to have
forgotten your own argument...
intelligence is a product of natural law. we can not violate the laws
of nature merely because we are intelligent.
are you saying your god is subject to the laws of physics?
>
Stuart
0catch.com> wrote:
> On Oct 19, 6:58 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 19, 10:35 am, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.
>
> > 0catch.com> wrote:
> > > > is there more programming info in a bio system than the genetics and
> > > > epigenetics of the system code for?
>
> > > Nope - - It is just that a biosystem requires more pre-existing coded
> > > information to form than does a snowflake. The molecules simply
> > > cannot arrange themselves into their functional structures without
> > > this pre-coded information. They must be arranged by pre-existing
> > > machines that force them with very directed energy into their proper
> > > locations.
>
> > and this violates thermo how?
>
> As I mentioned in my first post to this thread, the 2nd Law of
> Thermodynamics is NOT violated and can never be violated.
And the usual corallaries resuldtin from SLOT are not valid in
all circumstances. In which cases, SLOT is not an issue.
The problem
> with the ToE is that the proposed mechism violates the concept of
> *informational* entropy.
Laughable. Oh and please give a definition of *informational* entropy.
I know what "information entropy* is.
Again, informational entropy is not the same
> thing as thermodynamic entropy. They are somewhat related but
> distinctly different concepts.
>
> In short, you can't put significantly more information into a system
> than is already there.
A statement so vapid, it defies description.
If I have a disk drive constantly being fed information and I double
its size,
certainly it is capable of holding more information.
Consider genomes. They increase in size through gene duplications,
chromosome duplications,
hell even the duplication/fusion of entire genomes themselves.
All the while natural selction is adjusting genetic arrangement of
genes.
ISTM, that if the size of the genome can increase, and selection still
takes place, I don't see how you propose that there is some hard upper
bound
to the amount of information.
In fact, the information that is already there
> tends to get corrupted and lost over time (hence the term
> informational "entropy"). The only way to add information to a system
> is from an outside source of greater information.
Ah, well there you go.
>
> At this point, some might posit Nature as an outside source of higher
> information. The problem with this notion is that the forces
> generally proposed as beign used by nature are mindless, non-
> deliberate, and have no goal.
Yup, the forces that are responsible for mutation have no goal. A
cosmic ray
impacting on a nucleotide bond definitely has no goal.
Such forces do not bring the quality of
> higher-level information to the table that is needed to improve the
> information content of a system - to include all mechanical systems be
> they made of biological or non-biological building blocks (computers
> or amoebas). It makes no differnece.
However, one *force* does. Its called natural selection. Natural
selection takes a sea
of random changes and selects (hence the term "selection") from that
random sea of changes,
changes that increase reproductive propensity.
Stuart
R. Baldwin
Kolmogorov Complexity (a.k.a. entropy in Algorithmic Information Theory) is
not concerned with messages at all. It is the length of shortest program on
a given universal computer that can represent a given string of digits.
Whether the string of digits is a message is irrelavent.
R. Baldwin
> On Oct 19, 5:36 pm, "R. Baldwin" <res0k...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net>
> wrote:
>
>> For a critique of Sean's article, to which Sean never responded,
>> seenews:FJ2Eh.273$aO6.29@trndny06.
>> I haven't checked whether he has correced
>> any of the errors.
>
> Like your erroneous notion that the past history of a string cannot be
> used to predict the future of the string to any useful degree?
That is not my notion. My notion is that the fact of a single string itself
is not sufficient, one must have at least some additional statistical data,
because there are categories of data on which no prediction scheme will
succeed. Background data tells you whether you are likely to be in or out of
such a category. And this notion is not erroneous.
> Or,
> your related notion that because all patterns could be the result of
> random production, that no particular pattern of a string can be used
> with any degree of confidence to say anything about its likely random
> or non-random origin?
Again, that is not my notion. You are misrepresenting what I've said, or
never understood it.
>
> You need to work on your concept of what it means to accept or reject
> a null hypothesis without ever being able to know with 100% certainty
> if you are actually correct. You need to identify a P-value or point
> at which you would reject the random hypothesis as being most likely
> false, based on the past history of the pattern itself without any
> additional information. That's your biggest problem as I see it. You
> seem to have difficulty with the very foundation of science itself -
> i.e., the use of inductive reasoning.
Not at all. The issue has to do with having properly formulated hypotheses
to begin with. What, specifically, is "the random hypothesis" in meaningful
mathematical terms? We've never had this from you. Simply saying "the random
hypothesis" is mathematically meaningless. I've presented several arguments
to you, based on what it appears to mean, but the meaning seems to keep
changing as objections are presented to you.
>
> Sean Pitman
> www.DetectingDesign.com
>
I take it, you either don't understand the criticism of your article, or are
not prepared to accept the possiblity you might have erred?
R. Baldwin
> On Oct 19, 6:58 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>> On Oct 19, 10:35 am, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.
>>
>> 0catch.com> wrote:
>> > > is there more programming info in a bio system than the genetics and
>> > > epigenetics of the system code for?
>>
>> > Nope - - It is just that a biosystem requires more pre-existing coded
>> > information to form than does a snowflake. The molecules simply
>> > cannot arrange themselves into their functional structures without
>> > this pre-coded information. They must be arranged by pre-existing
>> > machines that force them with very directed energy into their proper
>> > locations.
>>
>> and this violates thermo how?
>
> As I mentioned in my first post to this thread, the 2nd Law of
> Thermodynamics is NOT violated and can never be violated. The problem
> with the ToE is that the proposed mechism violates the concept of
> *informational* entropy. Again, informational entropy is not the same
> thing as thermodynamic entropy. They are somewhat related but
> distinctly different concepts.
Nonsense. There is no way to describe anything as violating the concept of
informational entropy. Informational entropy is simply a measure. It isn't a
concept to be violated. The only restriction of Shannon's theory has to do
with channel capacity.
>
> In short, you can't put significantly more information into a system
> than is already there. In fact, the information that is already there
> tends to get corrupted and lost over time (hence the term
> informational "entropy"). The only way to add information to a system
> is from an outside source of greater information.
That is not what informational entropy means, and it is perfectly possible
to add information to a system. Noise adds information to a system, as long
as a receiver pays attention to the noise. Inputs add information to a
system. All real-world information systems are affected by external
influences.
Biosystems obtain information from their environment.
>
> At this point, some might posit Nature as an outside source of higher
> information. The problem with this notion is that the forces
> generally proposed as beign used by nature are mindless, non-
> deliberate, and have no goal. Such forces do not bring the quality of
> higher-level information to the table that is needed to improve the
> information content of a system - to include all mechanical systems be
> they made of biological or non-biological building blocks (computers
> or amoebas). It makes no differnece.
Information, as defined in information theory, is neither qualitative nor
goal-oriented. There is no "higher level" in information theory. You are
introducing your own personal nonsense to a field that was developed without
any relationship to biology and stands on its own independent of biology.
There is no reason for anyone to accept these unsupported assertions you
keep making.
R. Baldwin
Yes, they do know how aliens would create the patterns in radiosignals they
are looking for. The patterns they are looking for are generated by the use
of narrow-band oscillators operating at frequencies with favorable
characteristics, amplifiers, and antennae, with alterations caused by
orbital mechanics and interstellar transmission. That is why they are
looking for evidence of Gaussians and triplets at a particular hydrogen
band.
They are not looking for modulated data within the transmission. Evidence of
a transmission is available whether or not it is modulated.
[snip rest]
R. Baldwin
> On Oct 19, 7:47 am, Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:
>
>> > > > A crystal, like a snowflake, doesn't require more information than
>> > > > what is contained in each individual part as it interacts with a
>> > > > particular type of environment (i.e., cold weather in this case).
>>
>> > > I know I'm going to regret this, but can I ask you how do you measure
>> > > the amount of information contained in a crystal?
>>
>> > Information content is defined as the shortest possible description of
>> > the string/object/entity/whatever, right?
>>
>> That's the idea of Algorithmic Information, but there are a lot of
>> mathematical complications.
>>
>> > Crystals use the same basic structure over and over, so a lot of
>> > information can be saved compared to random arrangement by describing
>> > the structure of a unit cell of the crystal then repeating that over
>> > and over.
>>
>> Thus hot air trapped in a balloon has lots of information, since there
>> is no short description of its configuration?
>
> You are confusing concepts of algorithmic information and meaningful
> information. They aren't the same thing.
No satisfactory mathematical definition for "meaningful information" exists.
>
> For example, a random series of letters, the size of a Shakespearean
> play, has the maximum amount of algorithmic information (from the
> perspective of a given UTM) - much more than Shakespeare's play. Yet,
> Shakespeare's play has much more "meaning" or "function" than does the
> random sequence of letters of the same size.
>
> In short, algorithmic information is a measure of randomness or
> chaos. This isn't the same thing as measuring degrees of function or
> meaning. Obviously, maximum randomness or chaos is not equivalent to
> maximum function/meaning.
There is no mathematical measurement for "degrees of function or meaning."
>
> All is not lost though. The concepts of algorithmic information/
> entropy can be used to identify deliberate artifact for many types of
> physical phenomena.
No, it can't. Algorithmic information entropy is uncomputable. .
> But, one must have some previous experience/
> knowledge with the material in question as it interacts with a variety
> of natural forces before one can adequately detect or propose the
> workings of deliberate artifact acting with the material in question
> (i.e., water in the case of snowflakes).
Isn't that the notion of mine you keep telling me is erroneous?
Seanpit
wrote:
> >> > No, that is not the meaning of entropy in Information Theory. Entropy
> >> > (sensu Shannon) is a measure of the ensemble of messages that might be
> >> > sent, not a measure of the message that is actually sent, no matter
> >> > how much it deviated from the original. It describes how much
> >> > uncertainty a receiver has about an information source.
>
> >> Thanks for the correction. Clearly I need to review this subject.
>
> > Shannon entropy doesn't have quite the same definition as algorithmic
> > entropy or Kolmogorov complexity (KC). While Shannon entropy is
> > indeed a description of the source or the messages that might be sent,
> > KC is concerned with the message itself.
>
> Kolmogorov Complexity (a.k.a. entropy in Algorithmic Information Theory) is
> not concerned with messages at all. It is the length of shortest program on
> a given universal computer that can represent a given string of digits.
> Whether the string of digits is a message is irrelavent
It doesn't matter what you call the string of digits, "message" or
otherwise, the fact remains that KC is concerned with the string
itself as it relates to a particular reference, like a particular UTM.
KC is not concerned with the source of the string as is Shannon
Entropy.
Of course, these two concepts are somewhat related. As it turns out,
Shannon Entropy equals or is at least close to the expected Kolmogorov
Complexity, plus a constant."
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
wrote:
> "Seanpit" <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1192896442.1...@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Oct 19, 5:36 pm, "R. Baldwin" <res0k...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net>
> > wrote:
>
> >> For a critique of Sean's article, to which Sean never responded,
> >> seenews:FJ2Eh.273$aO6.29@trndny06.
> >> I haven't checked whether he has correced
> >> any of the errors.
>
> > Like your erroneous notion that the past history of a string cannot be
> > used to predict the future of the string to any useful degree?
>
> That is not my notion. My notion is that the fact of a single string itself
> is not sufficient, one must have at least some additional statistical data,
> because there are categories of data on which no prediction scheme will
> succeed. Background data tells you whether you are likely to be in or out of
> such a category. And this notion is not erroneous.
The string itself provides statistical data. Additional data is
equivalent to making the string longer since all additional data could
be represented by a longer length of string. Although the predictions
based on the string's history can never reach perfection, they can be
reasonably proposed a supported to a useful degree of predictive
power. The hypothesis that the string is in fact the result of a
biased and therefore predictable source can be reasonably accepted and
the null hypothesis of a random origin can be reasonably rejected
based only on prior history with the string itself - upon a prior
history of successful predictions of a chosen martingale or
algorithm.
Somehow you manage to argue that because no algorithm or martingale
can reach statistical perfection that all such propositions are
worthless in call cases regardless of the degree of past success over
time. That notion of yours is simply ludicrous. It goes against the
basis of science itself - of inductive reasoning.
The question is, at what point do can one reasonably reject the null
hypothesis? What P-value is "significant" for you? You seem to
reject the whole concept of a p-value and therefore of a host of
scientific experiments that form the basis of scientific disciplines
like medical science for instance.
> > Or,
> > your related notion that because all patterns could be the result of
> > random production, that no particular pattern of a string can be used
> > with any degree of confidence to say anything about its likely random
> > or non-random origin?
>
> Again, that is not my notion. You are misrepresenting what I've said, or
> never understood it.
I doubt it. You've specifically said that you would not bet on any
sequence or martingale regardless of how many times it had worked
successfully in the past to predict the next digit in a string or
sequence. I've given you several scenarios, all of which you've
rejected arguing that the sequence could still be the result of random
generation and the algorithm could still be wrong.
> > You need to work on your concept of what it means to accept or reject
> > a null hypothesis without ever being able to know with 100% certainty
> > if you are actually correct. You need to identify a P-value or point
> > at which you would reject the random hypothesis as being most likely
> > false, based on the past history of the pattern itself without any
> > additional information. That's your biggest problem as I see it. You
> > seem to have difficulty with the very foundation of science itself -
> > i.e., the use of inductive reasoning.
>
> Not at all. The issue has to do with having properly formulated hypotheses
> to begin with. What, specifically, is "the random hypothesis" in meaningful
> mathematical terms? We've never had this from you. Simply saying "the random
> hypothesis" is mathematically meaningless. I've presented several arguments
> to you, based on what it appears to mean, but the meaning seems to keep
> changing as objections are presented to you.
Obviously, the "random hypothesis" is the hypothesis that a growing
sequence is the result of a truly random source vs. a predictable
biased source. Which hypothesis is most likely true? Can one tell
with a reasonable degree of usefulness based only on past experience
and the success of a predictive algorithm over the course of time? I
say yes while you say no.
The mathematical "examples" or arguments you've listed off previously
have been confused in that they haven't grasped the concept of
statistical significance, of accepting or rejecting opposing
hypotheses and at what point one can reasonably accept one hypothesis
and reject the opposing null hypothesis (i.e., what p-value is
"significant").
> I take it, you either don't understand the criticism of your article, or are
> not prepared to accept the possibility you might have erred?
I've gone over and over your "criticisms" with you in dozens of posts
now. How you can say that I've not done this is beyond me. Sure,
you've pointed out a few minor errors or ways to improve clarity, but
overall your main arguments have been completely off base as far as I
can tell. Ultimately, your arguments undermine the very basis of
scientific reasoning itself.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
wrote:
> > SETI scientists do not know HOW aliens would create the patterns in
> > radiosignals they are looking for. Again, the "how" question does NOT
> > need to be answered before one can detect deliberate artifact.
>
> Yes, they do know how aliens would create the patterns in radiosignals they
> are looking for. The patterns they are looking for are generated by the use
> of narrow-band oscillators operating at frequencies with favorable
> characteristics, amplifiers, and antennae, with alterations caused by
> orbital mechanics and interstellar transmission. That is why they are
> looking for evidence of Gaussians and triplets at a particular hydrogen
> band.
>
> They are not looking for modulated data within the transmission. Evidence of
> a transmission is available whether or not it is modulated.
I've already quoted for you top SETI scientists who do in fact say
that certain kinds of modulated data within a radiotransmission would
indeed constitute very good evidence of deliberate artifact.
Beyond this, there is no way you or anyone else can know exactly how a
narrow band signal was generated. You might hypothesize this or that
possible method, but there is no way you can know the actual method
used for sure. The fact is that this sort of knowledge is simply not
needed before the hypothesis of deliberate artifact can be reasonably
proposed for this type of radiosignal. The reason is simple. This
type of radiosignal is not produced by any known non-deliberate
natural cause - not even close. If such a natural cause where ever
found, this type of signal would no longer be clear evidence of
artifact. Its as simple as that.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
wrote:
> "Seanpit" <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1192896442.1...@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
On Oct 20, 5:52 pm, "R. Baldwin" <res0k...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net>
wrote:
> "Seanpit" <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1192893985.6...@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 19, 6:58 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> >> On Oct 19, 10:35 am, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.
>
> > As I mentioned in my first post to this thread, the 2nd Law of
> > Thermodynamics is NOT violated and can never be violated. The problem
> > with the ToE is that the proposed mechism violates the concept of
> > *informational* entropy. Again, informational entropy is not the same
> > thing as thermodynamic entropy. They are somewhat related but
> > distinctly different concepts.
>
> Nonsense. There is no way to describe anything as violating the concept of
> informational entropy. Informational entropy is simply a measure. It isn't a
> concept to be violated. The only restriction of Shannon's theory has to do
> with channel capacity.
I'm talking about a different concept of "information" here. I'm not
talking about Shannon's definition of information. I'm talking about
meaningful or useful information. The concept of "entropy" does
indeed relate to the concept of meaningful information.
I've also proposed a measure for useful information when it comes to
biosystems. All biosystems are not created equal. Different types of
systems have different minimum structural threshold requirements. If
these minimum size and specificity requirements are not met, the
system will not work at all to produce a particular type of function -
like flagellar motility or lactase activity etc.
> > In short, you can't put significantly more information into a system
> > than is already there. In fact, the information that is already there
> > tends to get corrupted and lost over time (hence the term
> > informational "entropy"). The only way to add information to a system
> > is from an outside source of greater information.
>
> That is not what informational entropy means, and it is perfectly possible
> to add information to a system. Noise adds information to a system, as long
> as a receiver pays attention to the noise. Inputs add information to a
> system. All real-world information systems are affected by external
> influences.
>
> Biosystems obtain information from their environment.
The environment or "Nature" does have information, but it cannot
transmit information to a biosystem in any sort of deliberate or
guided or goal-directed way. It cannot directly tell the biosystem
how to survive better or how to be more reproductively advantageous.
The only thing Nature can do, as a mindless entity, is select
biosystems that happen randomly upon an improved change. Until purely
random changes happen to hit upon something that is functionally
*more* reproductively beneficial than what came before, Nature is
powerless as a guiding light.
The problem with this limited ability of Nature to only see functional
changes and only select those functional changes that produce some
reproductive advantage is that higher level systems are more widely
separated in sequence/structure space than are lower level systems.
Each increase in the minimum structural threshold requirement for a
system to work translates into a linear increase in its average
distance to the next closest potentially beneficial system in sequence/
structure space. This linear increase in the non-beneficial gap
distance translates into an exponential increase in the average random
search time needed for the same size population to achieve success
when it comes to evolving or discovering a higher-level beneficial
system.
> > At this point, some might posit Nature as an outside source of higher
> > information. The problem with this notion is that the forces
> > generally proposed as being used by nature are mindless, non-
> > deliberate, and have no goal. Such forces do not bring the quality of
> > higher-level information to the table that is needed to improve the
> > information content of a system - to include all mechanical systems be
> > they made of biological or non-biological building blocks (computers
> > or amoebas). It makes no difference.
>
> Information, as defined in information theory, is neither qualitative nor
> goal-oriented. There is no "higher level" in information theory. You are
> introducing your own personal nonsense to a field that was developed without
> any relationship to biology and stands on its own independent of biology.
> There is no reason for anyone to accept these unsupported assertions you
> keep making.
There is plenty of reason to recognize the obvious concept that there
are different levels of meaningful/useful information just as there
are different levels of Shannon information or Kolmogorov/Chaitin
complexity or algorithmic entropy etc. It is overwhelmingly clear
that different biosystems have different minimum structural threshold
requirements. That's a fact. It is undeniably true for anyone who
considers the evidence with a candid mind.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
> > Random changes are generated by mutations. Whether or not these
> > random changes produce anything beneficial is a function of the
> > minimum structural requirements of a novel beneficial system. The
> > greater this minimum threshold, the exponentially less the odds that
> > any random change or series of random changes will hit upon such a
> > beneficial system. Therein lies the non-beneficial gap problem for the
> > ToE.
>
> nature decides the 'minimum threshold'. there is no 'exponential'
> requirement at all. in addition, a TREMENDOUS number of organisms die
> before reproducing. some don't. seems nature knows what it wants,
> doesn't it?
Not when it comes to making novel biosystem functions that require a
minimum structural threshold of more than a few hundred residues with
a fair degree of sequence specificity. For instance, there are a lot
of examples of the evolutionary mechanism producing systems that
require no more than a few hundred fairly specified residues, such as
single protein enzymes. However, there is not a single example in all
of literature of the evolutionary mechanism producing any novel
biosystem function that requires a minimum structural threshold of
over just 1,000 fairly specified amino acid residues - not one
example, period.
> > > the SELECTION is made by nature
>
> > Nature cannot select until a novel beneficial system is actually found
> > by random chance alone. Until this happens, Natural Selection is
> > blind and helpless.
>
> and it continues to be blind and helpless even when it DOES find a
> beneficial mutation. nature is neutral.
Nature is not neutral when it comes to selecting beneficial systems.
It is quite able to select a beneficial system in a very positive non-
neutral manner. In the same way nature is quite able to select, in a
very non-neutral manner, against non-beneficial biosystem changes.
> > > GOD can not, and DOES not solve this 'problem' by some magical
> > > suspension of natural law...a fact seanpit REFUSES to even discuss let
> > > alone detail
>
> > Intelligent design does not require any suspension of natural law. If
> > it did, you wouldn't be able to create anything yourself.
>
> but YOU say it does. YOU say evolution is wrong. YOU seem to have
> forgotten your own argument...
Just because the ToE is wrong does not mean that natural law has been
or needs to be suspended. Intelligent design is quite "natural". It
happens naturally all the time.
> intelligence is a product of natural law. we can not violate the laws
> of nature merely because we are intelligent.
I never said otherwise. I'm just saying that certain features of
living things require intelligent input. The ToE attempts to explain
these features with a mechanism that is completely devoid of
deliberate intelligent capability - natural or otherwise. It just
doesn't work. Intelligent input, natural as it may be, is indeed
required to explain many of the features of living things.
> are you saying your god is subject to the laws of physics?
I say that whoever or whatever is "creative" above the abilities of
non-intelligent Nature, is a "God" of whatever he/she/it creates. You
are a "god" of your own creations in that they are indebted to you for
their existence.
People get all hung up on the term "God". If you would rather think
of some highly intelligent alien as the creator of life instead, and
call this intelligence by some other name, like Zorg perhaps, be my
guest. It really doesn't matter at this point.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
R. Baldwin
Glad you've accepted the correction. New quibble: "like a particular UTM"
should be "a particular UTM."
>
> Of course, these two concepts are somewhat related. As it turns out,
> Shannon Entropy equals or is at least close to the expected Kolmogorov
> Complexity, plus a constant."
>
Yes, I've told you this before. It has to do with the nature of prefix codes
and with the Noiseless Coding Theorem. Before you get too excited about it,
you might want to read this Vitanyi article which explains the constraints
on the relationship.
http://homepages.cwi.nl/~paulv/papers/info.pdf
Seanpit
wrote:
> >> Thus hot air trapped in a balloon has lots of information, since there
> >> is no short description of its configuration?
>
> > You are confusing concepts of algorithmic information and meaningful
> > information. They aren't the same thing.
>
> No satisfactory mathematical definition for "meaningful information" exists.
That doesn't mean it isn't a valid or useful concept. Beyond this,
there are ways to measure different degrees of meaningful/useful
information. This can be done, to at least a rough degree of
usefulness, by measuring the minimum sequence/structural threshold
requirements needed to produce the particular type of function/meaning
of a given system. Different types of "useful" or "meaningful"
information are not created equal and do in fact have different
minimum requirements before they can work.
> > All is not lost though. The concepts of algorithmic information/
> > entropy can be used to identify deliberate artifact for many types of
> > physical phenomena.
>
> No, it can't. Algorithmic information entropy is uncomputable.
We've already gone over this several times. Algorithmic information
and similar concepts can indeed be used as the basis for predicting
the future, to a useful degree, of a growing string. I know you
disagree with this, but you're wrong.
> > But, one must have some previous experience/
> > knowledge with the material in question as it interacts with a variety
> > of natural forces before one can adequately detect or propose the
> > workings of deliberate artifact acting with the material in question
> > (i.e., water in the case of snowflakes).
>
> Isn't that the notion of mine you keep telling me is erroneous?
Not at all. You say that you can't detect bias to a useful degree
based only on the past history of the string and how it interacts with
a particular algorithm. I say that bias can be reliably detected
based just on the string itself without any additional information.
Now, the detection of bias is not the same thing as the detection of
artifact. While the detection of artifact does require the ability to
detect bias first, the detection of bias alone is not enough to
support the hypothesis of artifact. Why? Because non-artifactual
natural process can also produce very biased patterns. So, the
detection of artifact requires some prior knowledge as to the limits
of the types of biases that can be expected to be produced by non-
artifactual natural processes - when it comes to the material in
question (i.e., water molecules in the case of snowflakes).
You see the difference?
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
R. Baldwin
> On Oct 20, 5:58 pm, "R. Baldwin" <res0k...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net>
> wrote:
>
>> > SETI scientists do not know HOW aliens would create the patterns in
>> > radiosignals they are looking for. Again, the "how" question does NOT
>> > need to be answered before one can detect deliberate artifact.
>>
>> Yes, they do know how aliens would create the patterns in radiosignals
>> they
>> are looking for. The patterns they are looking for are generated by the
>> use
>> of narrow-band oscillators operating at frequencies with favorable
>> characteristics, amplifiers, and antennae, with alterations caused by
>> orbital mechanics and interstellar transmission. That is why they are
>> looking for evidence of Gaussians and triplets at a particular hydrogen
>> band.
>>
>> They are not looking for modulated data within the transmission. Evidence
>> of
>> a transmission is available whether or not it is modulated.
>
> I've already quoted for you top SETI scientists who do in fact say
> that certain kinds of modulated data within a radiotransmission would
> indeed constitute very good evidence of deliberate artifact.
They would already HAVE good evidence of artifact from the nature of the
transmission, with or without modulation. Modulation, regardless of the
encoded data, would make it even more probable.
>
> Beyond this, there is no way you or anyone else can know exactly how a
> narrow band signal was generated. You might hypothesize this or that
> possible method, but there is no way you can know the actual method
> used for sure.
Nothing is ever known for sure, but a significant signal amplitude with
triplets at the right frequency would be pretty darned indicative of
intelligent origin.
> The fact is that this sort of knowledge is simply not
> needed before the hypothesis of deliberate artifact can be reasonably
> proposed for this type of radiosignal. The reason is simple. This
> type of radiosignal is not produced by any known non-deliberate
> natural cause - not even close. If such a natural cause where ever
> found, this type of signal would no longer be clear evidence of
> artifact. Its as simple as that.
What type of signal? Are you referring to the modulated data? If so, what
about the data tells you it is artifact?
Seanpit
< snip >
> > higher-level information to the table that is needed to improve the
> > information content of a system - to include all mechanical systems be
> > they made of biological or non-biological building blocks (computers
> > or amoebas). It makes no differnece.
>
> However, one *force* does. Its called natural selection. Natural
> selection takes a sea
> of random changes and selects (hence the term "selection") from that
> random sea of changes,
> changes that increase reproductive propensity.
Yes, Natural Selection to the rescue! The only problem here is that
Nature can only select, in a positive manner, those sequences or
structures that are functional reproductively advantageous.
This function-based limitation to NS is a problem. How so? Because,
NS cannot actually see or direct what is going on genotypically. It
can only see phenotypic changes. What happens is that there are
genotypic non-beneficial changes that exist between potentially
beneficial phenotypic changes. The wider these gaps, the longer it
takes purely random changes to cross these gaps in order for NS to
come back into the ball game. As it turns out, those system that have
a greater minimum structural threshold requirement (i.e., size and/or
sequence specificity) are farther appart in sequenc/structure space as
compared to systems with lower minimum threshold requirements. This
relationship is a linear relationship. Each increase in the minimum
threshold translates into a linear increase in the distance between
potentially beneficial sequences/structures. And, each linear
increase in distance translates into an exponential increase in the
number of random steps that must be taken to find a higher-level
beneficial system.
And that, in a nutshell, is the real problem for the ToE.
> Stuart
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Stuart
0catch.com> wrote:
> On Oct 20, 2:08 pm, Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
> < snip >
>
> > > higher-level information to the table that is needed to improve the
> > > information content of a system - to include all mechanical systems be
> > > they made of biological or non-biological building blocks (computers
> > > or amoebas). It makes no differnece.
>
> > However, one *force* does. Its called natural selection. Natural
> > selection takes a sea
> > of random changes and selects (hence the term "selection") from that
> > random sea of changes,
> > changes that increase reproductive propensity.
>
> Yes, Natural Selection to the rescue! The only problem here is that
> Nature can only select, in a positive manner, those sequences or
> structures that are functional reproductively advantageous.
>
> This function-based limitation to NS is a problem. How so? Because,
> NS cannot actually see or direct what is going on genotypically. It
> can only see phenotypic changes. What happens is that there are
> genotypic non-beneficial changes that exist between potentially
> beneficial phenotypic changes. The wider these gaps, the longer it
> takes purely random changes to cross these gaps in order for NS to
> come back into the ball game.
Good. Now prove any of these gaps actuallyexist.
Show all maths.
<snip>
Stuart
R. Baldwin
"A random origin" is not a well-formulated hypothesis. "Biased" is not
synonymous with "non-random" unless a restrictive use of the word "random"
is explicitly used. You must be more specific for the hypothesis to be
meaningful.
Regarding martingales, what I tried to get through your thick head was the
*kind* of situation in which no martingale can make successful predictions,
one of which is prediction of digits in a normal number.
>
> Somehow you manage to argue that because no algorithm or martingale
> can reach statistical perfection that all such propositions are
> worthless in call cases regardless of the degree of past success over
> time. That notion of yours is simply ludicrous. It goes against the
> basis of science itself - of inductive reasoning.
No, I made no argument about statistical perfection at all. That was your
mischaracterization.
>
> The question is, at what point do can one reasonably reject the null
> hypothesis? What P-value is "significant" for you? You seem to
> reject the whole concept of a p-value and therefore of a host of
> scientific experiments that form the basis of scientific disciplines
> like medical science for instance.
Before I bother with a p-value, I would want to know that I am working on a
problem to which a statistical significance test has value at all. For that
reason, I would not apply it to a single string of digits having unknown
origin.
>
>> > Or,
>> > your related notion that because all patterns could be the result of
>> > random production, that no particular pattern of a string can be used
>> > with any degree of confidence to say anything about its likely random
>> > or non-random origin?
>>
>> Again, that is not my notion. You are misrepresenting what I've said, or
>> never understood it.
>
> I doubt it. You've specifically said that you would not bet on any
> sequence or martingale regardless of how many times it had worked
> successfully in the past to predict the next digit in a string or
> sequence. I've given you several scenarios, all of which you've
> rejected arguing that the sequence could still be the result of random
> generation and the algorithm could still be wrong.
You've given me scenarios in which only an idiot would place a bet, such as
watching marbles drop out of a wall where I might be observed and the run
changed based on my betting behavior.
>
>> > You need to work on your concept of what it means to accept or reject
>> > a null hypothesis without ever being able to know with 100% certainty
>> > if you are actually correct. You need to identify a P-value or point
>> > at which you would reject the random hypothesis as being most likely
>> > false, based on the past history of the pattern itself without any
>> > additional information. That's your biggest problem as I see it. You
>> > seem to have difficulty with the very foundation of science itself -
>> > i.e., the use of inductive reasoning.
>>
>> Not at all. The issue has to do with having properly formulated
>> hypotheses
>> to begin with. What, specifically, is "the random hypothesis" in
>> meaningful
>> mathematical terms? We've never had this from you. Simply saying "the
>> random
>> hypothesis" is mathematically meaningless. I've presented several
>> arguments
>> to you, based on what it appears to mean, but the meaning seems to keep
>> changing as objections are presented to you.
>
> Obviously, the "random hypothesis" is the hypothesis that a growing
> sequence is the result of a truly random source vs. a predictable
> biased source. Which hypothesis is most likely true? Can one tell
> with a reasonable degree of usefulness based only on past experience
> and the success of a predictive algorithm over the course of time? I
> say yes while you say no.
That is neither obvious nor clearly stated. Since random sources can be
predictable and biased, you have not framed a proper hypothesis. Did you
mean "produced by a discrete random process having a stationary Uniform
distribution"? Because random can mean many other things besides that.
You can test whether a string is consistent with a stationary Uniform
distribution. If a string is consistent with such a distribution, you cannot
know that it resulted from a stochastically random process. The digits of
any normal number will also be consistent with a stationary Uniform
distribution.
If a string is not consistent with a stationary Uniform distribution, you
cannot know that it resulted from a deterministic process. Many
non-deterministic processes exhibit bias. Chattering relays are one example.
Testing for stationary Uniform distribution is not the same thing as testing
for a "truly random source".
>
> The mathematical "examples" or arguments you've listed off previously
> have been confused in that they haven't grasped the concept of
> statistical significance, of accepting or rejecting opposing
> hypotheses and at what point one can reasonably accept one hypothesis
> and reject the opposing null hypothesis (i.e., what p-value is
> "significant").
Since I wasn't discussing statistical significance in any of those
arguments, that is entirely beside the point. We had, for example, a long
argument about whether prediction of digits in a normal number were possible
if you didn't know the starting point. I proved conclusively that it was
not, but you kept arguing against it without understanding the proof.
>
>> I take it, you either don't understand the criticism of your article, or
>> are
>> not prepared to accept the possibility you might have erred?
>
> I've gone over and over your "criticisms" with you in dozens of posts
> now. How you can say that I've not done this is beyond me. Sure,
> you've pointed out a few minor errors or ways to improve clarity, but
> overall your main arguments have been completely off base as far as I
> can tell. Ultimately, your arguments undermine the very basis of
> scientific reasoning itself.
I think you are too cowardly to read the criticism, and unable to understand
the explanations I've given you.
R. Baldwin
> On Oct 20, 6:23 pm, "R. Baldwin" <res0k...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net>
> wrote:
>
>> >> Thus hot air trapped in a balloon has lots of information, since there
>> >> is no short description of its configuration?
>>
>> > You are confusing concepts of algorithmic information and meaningful
>> > information. They aren't the same thing.
>>
>> No satisfactory mathematical definition for "meaningful information"
>> exists.
>
> That doesn't mean it isn't a valid or useful concept. Beyond this,
> there are ways to measure different degrees of meaningful/useful
> information. This can be done, to at least a rough degree of
> usefulness, by measuring the minimum sequence/structural threshold
> requirements needed to produce the particular type of function/meaning
> of a given system. Different types of "useful" or "meaningful"
> information are not created equal and do in fact have different
> minimum requirements before they can work.
Bull.
>
>> > All is not lost though. The concepts of algorithmic information/
>> > entropy can be used to identify deliberate artifact for many types of
>> > physical phenomena.
>>
>> No, it can't. Algorithmic information entropy is uncomputable.
>
> We've already gone over this several times. Algorithmic information
> and similar concepts can indeed be used as the basis for predicting
> the future, to a useful degree, of a growing string. I know you
> disagree with this, but you're wrong.
Bull. You've quoted articles without understanding them, and you've never
produced an example of an actual prediction algorithm that is actually based
on Kolmogorov Complexity, because you can't. Such prediction algorithms are
theoretical. They cannot be computed.
>
>> > But, one must have some previous experience/
>> > knowledge with the material in question as it interacts with a variety
>> > of natural forces before one can adequately detect or propose the
>> > workings of deliberate artifact acting with the material in question
>> > (i.e., water in the case of snowflakes).
>>
>> Isn't that the notion of mine you keep telling me is erroneous?
>
> Not at all. You say that you can't detect bias to a useful degree
> based only on the past history of the string and how it interacts with
> a particular algorithm.
No, that is not what I said. That is your mischaracterization. I said I want
to have sufficient background knowledge to know that I am applying tests
that have value. P-tests (of which you are so fond) do not have universal
application.
> I say that bias can be reliably detected
> based just on the string itself without any additional information.
An apparent bias can be tested for. That doesn't mean the test is reliable.
> Now, the detection of bias is not the same thing as the detection of
> artifact.
Now that, I would agree with.
> While the detection of artifact does require the ability to
> detect bias first, the detection of bias alone is not enough to
> support the hypothesis of artifact. Why? Because non-artifactual
> natural process can also produce very biased patterns. So, the
> detection of artifact requires some prior knowledge as to the limits
> of the types of biases that can be expected to be produced by non-
> artifactual natural processes - when it comes to the material in
> question (i.e., water molecules in the case of snowflakes).
>
> You see the difference?
>
At least I understand what you are claiming here. I still think your
arguments are non-sensical.
R. Baldwin
> On Oct 20, 5:39 pm, "R. Baldwin" <res0k...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net>
> wrote:
Goody for you. Why don't you send it in to the ACM or the IEEE Information
Theory Society and see if they will publish it? I'm guessing not, because it
is pseudo-mathematical babble having no value.
This is meaningless arm-waving, and the errors have been explained to you
many times by several posters here.
>
>> > At this point, some might posit Nature as an outside source of higher
>> > information. The problem with this notion is that the forces
>> > generally proposed as being used by nature are mindless, non-
>> > deliberate, and have no goal. Such forces do not bring the quality of
>> > higher-level information to the table that is needed to improve the
>> > information content of a system - to include all mechanical systems be
>> > they made of biological or non-biological building blocks (computers
>> > or amoebas). It makes no difference.
>>
>> Information, as defined in information theory, is neither qualitative nor
>> goal-oriented. There is no "higher level" in information theory. You are
>> introducing your own personal nonsense to a field that was developed
>> without
>> any relationship to biology and stands on its own independent of biology.
>> There is no reason for anyone to accept these unsupported assertions you
>> keep making.
>
> There is plenty of reason to recognize the obvious concept that there
> are different levels of meaningful/useful information just as there
> are different levels of Shannon information or Kolmogorov/Chaitin
> complexity or algorithmic entropy etc. It is overwhelmingly clear
> that different biosystems have different minimum structural threshold
> requirements. That's a fact. It is undeniably true for anyone who
> considers the evidence with a candid mind.
When have you considered anything with a candid mind?
wf3h
seanpit blathers on and on without resolving a fatal contradiction
within creationism.
he says no natural processes were involved in the creation of human
beings. he says 'god did it' is how we got here. THEN he says we can
observe this as fact because complex processes are produced ONLY by
intelligence.
but the problem is, he's thrown the baby out with the bath water.
if he disallows natural processes as a causative agent, then he MUST
disallow the use of comparing SUPERNATURAL processes to NATURAL
processes as a method to say supernatural processes have occurred.
the reason is that we have NEVER seen a supernatural process at work
and have NO idea how they DO work, if at all. the string of logic is
broken. there's no reason to suspect that supernatural processes
function AT ALL like natural processes, and thus we can't compare the
2.
if sean disagrees, let him tell us where in natural we CAN see magic
and demons and psychics at work and tell us how to observe them so we
have confidence in their creation abilities.
otherwise he's just handwaving.
Mike L
0catch.com> wrote:
[...]
> I say that whoever or whatever is "creative" above the abilities of
> non-intelligent Nature, is a "God" of whatever he/she/it creates. You
> are a "god" of your own creations in that they are indebted to you for
> their existence.
No need for quotation marks: a creator beyond the abilities of nature
is what God is, by definition.
>
> People get all hung up on the term "God". If you would rather think
> of some highly intelligent alien as the creator of life instead, and
> call this intelligence by some other name, like Zorg perhaps, be my
> guest. It really doesn't matter at this point.
Which is where the discussion degenerates into something like
surrealism. In what way does /this/ point differ from the point at
which it /does/ matter?
--
Mike.
Seanpit
wrote:
> "Seanpit" <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote in message
You're too much. You're "quibbles" are meaningless. There was nothing
wrong with the statements as they were originally. They word "like"
is the same as saying "as in" or "by the way".
> > Of course, these two concepts are somewhat related. As it turns out,
> > Shannon Entropy equals or is at least close to the expected Kolmogorov
> > Complexity, plus a constant."
>
> Yes, I've told you this before. It has to do with the nature of prefix codes
> and with the Noiseless Coding Theorem. Before you get too excited about it,
> you might want to read this Vitanyi article which explains the constraints
> on the relationship.http://homepages.cwi.nl/~paulv/papers/info.pdf
There's nothing to get too excited about here. The concepts are
clearly different while being somewhat related at the same time - -
that's all.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Paul J Gans
R. Baldwin <res0...@nozirevbackwards.net> wrote:
>"Seanpit" <seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote in message
>news:1192730515....@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>> On Oct 18, 7:12 am, Bloopenblop...@juno.com wrote:
>>
>>> I can't figure it out either way. The questions on my mind are: Does
>>> crystallization represent a decrease in entropy or no? I think it does
>>> and Wallace is incorrect, but not sure. Does it represent an increase
>>> or decrease in *energy?* And does the 2nd law make any statement about
>>> organization, complexity, organized complexity, etc? Thanks for any
>>> help. Can someone recommend me a rescource on thermodynamics that
>>> would give me the answer?
Spontaneous crystallization from a liquid or gaseous state
involves a *decrease* in the entropy of the material that
is crystallizing. The overall entropy of the entire system
(and surroundings, if any) however, will *increase*.
Classical thermodynamics all by itself knows nothing about
atoms, molecules, structure, complexity, etc.
All that comes from a different, but related field called
*statistical thermodynamics* which relates microscopic
information of the sort produced by quantum mechanics to
the macroscopic information of classical thermodynamics.
Having said that, most of the plain language statements
about complexity, organization, etc., come from an interpretation
of systems that are *completely* isolated from the external
world. In such systems a reduction of the number of quantum
states available to the system corresponds to a decrease in
entropy.
If one decides to interpret a reduction in the number of
quantum states are more "ordered", then one can say that
increasing the order in a system reduces the entropy of
that system.
However, one should take note that the word "order" is an
English language term that has various and somewhat
contradictory meanings.
None of this has much at all to do with information theory
in any direct sense.
>>
>> The key to this problem, which most people do not understand, is that
>> there is a fundamental difference between thermodynamic entropy and
>> informational entropy. They aren't the same thing. The problem for the
>> ToE is not found in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, but in the problem
>> of producing additional meaningful or useful genetic information.
While I'm here I can't help but noticing that the second law
of thermodynamics is obeyed by all systems, including living
ones. I'll also note that the phrase "meaningful or useful
genetic information" is again an English language phrase
that can mean many different things to different people.
Like the Second Law (which has one) that phrase needs a
mathematical formulation to make it actually mean something
unambiguous.
>> A crystal, like a snowflake, doesn't require more information than
>> what is contained in each individual part as it interacts with a
>> particular type of environment (i.e., cold weather in this case).
>> This is not true of biosystems which are far more informationally
>> complex than the sum of their parts.
This last is, of course, an assertion. People are free to make
all the assertions they want. However, to have them accepted
by others, proof is needed.
>> The order of parts is vitally
>> important in biosystems in order for them to form and work properly -
>> not so for snowflakes.
>>
>> Further discussion at:
>>
>> http://www.detectingdesign.com/meaningfulinformation.html
>>
>> Sean Pitman
>> www.DetectingDesign.com
>>
>For a critique of Sean's article, to which Sean never responded, see
>news:FJ2Eh.273$aO6.29@trndny06. I haven't checked whether he has correced
>any of the errors.
Errors? His statement above is almost devoid of meaningful
content.
Of course, the phase "meaningful content" is also up for human
interpretation... ;-)
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>In article <1192807756....@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
>Puppet_Sock <puppe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Oct 18, 3:44 pm, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
>>[snip]
>>> There is no need to break your head about probabilities.
>>> (and their incorrect interpretation)
>>> Plain thermodynamics will do.
>>>
>>> dS = dQ/T
>>[snip]
>>
>>This formula does *not* apply across a change of state.
>>And crystal formation is usually that.
>If the "S" refers to the entropy of the *surroundings*, though, you
>can determine how much the entropy of the surroundings change as the
>water freezes.
The equation dS = dQ/T, is the *definition* of entropy
change in a system undergoing what is called a "reversible
process".
If anybody wants to link entropy change to real-life words
such as order or complexity, one will have to break one's
head over probabilities.
Paul J Gans
>On Oct 19, 6:58 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>> On Oct 19, 10:35 am, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.
>>
>> > > is there more programming info in a bio system than the genetics and
>> > > epigenetics of the system code for?
>>
>> > Nope - - It is just that a biosystem requires more pre-existing coded
>> > information to form than does a snowflake. The molecules simply
>> > cannot arrange themselves into their functional structures without
>> > this pre-coded information. They must be arranged by pre-existing
>> > machines that force them with very directed energy into their proper
>> > locations.
>>
>> and this violates thermo how?
>As I mentioned in my first post to this thread, the 2nd Law of
>Thermodynamics is NOT violated and can never be violated. The problem
>with the ToE is that the proposed mechism violates the concept of
>*informational* entropy. Again, informational entropy is not the same
>thing as thermodynamic entropy. They are somewhat related but
>distinctly different concepts.
>In short, you can't put significantly more information into a system
>than is already there.
How do you know this? And how do you know that the information
isn't already there? Why do you think that informational
concepts are even applicable here? I expect no actual answers
to these questions, but I'm bored at the moment.
I do, however think, that Sean has made a serious
contribution to creationism, or whatever he calls his
view of biology. Having recognized that the Second Law
is here to stay and in fact can't be violated, he has
created his own law, the law of "informational entropy"
which he says must increase as a biological entity
increases in complexity.
I think that's wonderful and shows an active mind at
work. Sadly, his ideas are incomplete. To complete
them he needs to define "informational entropy" mathematically
so that we can compute it for any biological entity.
And he also needs to define "complexity" mathematically
so that we can compute that for any entity as well.
I enthusiastically look forward to seeing those
mathematical definitions. But I am not holding my
breath.
J. J. Lodder
> On Oct 18, 3:44 pm, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> [snip]
> > There is no need to break your head about probabilities.
> > (and their incorrect interpretation)
> > Plain thermodynamics will do.
> >
> > dS = dQ/T
> [snip]
>
> This formula does *not* apply across a change of state.
> And crystal formation is usually that.
Where did you pick up that piece of desinformation?
Jan
the heekster
<seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote:
<snip>
>Additional data is
>equivalent to making the string longer since all additional data could
>be represented by a longer length of string.
How do you say it here?
Chez Watt?
Free Lunch
the heekster <heek...@iwxt.net> wrote in
<ismnh358nljebo7ol...@4ax.com>:
It is generally best put into the subject line.
Bloopen...@juno.com
don't have the time and energy. But I do wish to give my most sincere
thanks to everyone who responded (including Dr. Sean Pitman--it is
always neccessary to hear both sides of issue). I am sorry that I did
not include links to the quoted text--I simply forgot--and I am sorry
that it took so long for me to reply. So this is my general "thank
you" note to everyone who has written back here.
I may also post individual replies as I study the two articles and
this thread in detail. There is, however, at least one more question I
would like to ask right now. In "Attributing False Attributes to
Thermodynamics," Frank Steiger writes that
"The degree of thermodynamic disorder is measured by an entity called
"entropy." There is a mathematical correlation between entropy
increase and an increase in disorder. The overall entropy of an
isolated system can never decrease. However, the entropy of some parts
of the system can spontaneously decrease at the expense of an even
greater increase of other parts of the system. When heat flows
spontaneously from a hot part of a system to a colder part of the
system, the entropy of the hot area spontaneously decreases! The ICR
chapter states flatly that entropy can never decrease; this is in
direct conflict with the most fundamental law of thermodynamics that
entropy equals heat flow divided by absolute temperature."[1]
I have Scientific Creationism, 2d Ed, 1985, from the library, and can
find no statement from Henry Morris to the effect that that entropy
can never decrease. To the contrary, Morris specifically claims that
"there do exist a few types of systems in the world where one sees an
apparent increase in order, superficially offsetting the decay
tendency specified by the Second Law."[2] So did Mr. Steiger mean to
write that "The ICR chapter states flatly that entropy can never
*spontaneously* decrease?" Morris does quote Isaac Asimov saying that
"In any physical change that takes place by itself the entropy always
increases."[3] I think there may be confusion over just what
"spontaneous" means in this context. Tim Wallace seems to think that
thermodynamics forbids a spontaneous decrease in entropy[4]. I did not
see a bald statement to that effect in Morris' book either, though.
There may be some confusion over just what "spontaneous" means.[5]
There seems to be a widespread straw-man of the creationist argument,
in which the creationists are said to argue that since thermodynamics
says that everything is always breaking down over time, evolution has
it that everything is being built up with time. Of course this would
be easily refuted by pointing out that the biosphere isn't a closed
system. I have not located a creationist source that makes this
argument, however. Near as I can tell with my inadequate understanding
of thermodynamics, the YEC's argument seems to be that statistical
thermodynamics tells us that high levels of order and/or organized
complexity are improbable arrangements of matter. Therefore it is
highly improbable that matter will ever arrange itself into life.
Therefore, evolution must be considered highly implausible at the
outset, given a very low background probability. Therefore, the burden
of proof is on the evolutionists to describe, in detail, the energy
conversion and storage mechanisms used by evolution. Until then
evolution may be considered highly improbable, perhaps impossible. (To
Dr. Pitman: Is this paraphrase accurate, or at least in the right
direction?)
[1] Steiger, 1997, "Attributing False Attributes to Thermodynamics,"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/creationism.html
[2] Morris, 1985, "Scientific Creationism," p.43
[3] ibid, p.38-39, quoting Asimov, 1970 "In the Game of
Thermodynamics, You Can't Break Even," Journal of the Smithsonian
Institute
[4] Wallace, 2005-07, "Thermodynamics vs. Evolutionism,"
http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp . See esp. under "Steiger's
Brand of Thermodynamics."
[5] E.g. ibid, lower third of same section
Bill Hudson
[snip]
> There seems to be a widespread straw-man of the creationist argument,
> in which the creationists are said to argue that since thermodynamics
> says that everything is always breaking down over time, evolution has
> it that everything is being built up with time. Of course this would
> be easily refuted by pointing out that the biosphere isn't a closed
> system. I have not located a creationist source that makes this
> argument, however.
I'm not going to address Steiger's characterization of Morris'
arguments, since I don't have either resource in front of me. However,
I will make two points:
1) It is not a 'straw man', because many creationists make the claim
that 'everything is always breaking down over time' therefore
evolution is impossible. See http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-thermodynamics.html
for an example of this argument. Google for 'thermodynamics evolution
violation'
2) There are a large number of creationists who do not make this
argument. There is quite a bit of diversity among creationists and
their arguments against evolution. There are also creationists who
correctly point out that this argument is in error. See
http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/writings/thermo.html
It may be fruitful to ask Steiger about this discrepancy between what
he says about Morris and what Morris' book says.
Paul Ciszek
In article <ffg8he$33a$2...@reader1.panix.com>,
Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>The equation dS = dQ/T, is the *definition* of entropy
>change in a system undergoing what is called a "reversible
>process".
I thought the *definition* of entropy was:
S = k*ln(Omega)
where Omega is the number of possible states that match the temperature,
state, pressure, etc. of the system.
--
Please reply to: | "One of the hardest parts of my job is to
pciszek at panix dot com | connect Iraq to the War on Terror."
Autoreply is disabled | -- G. W. Bush, 9/7/2006
Bill Hudson
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 07:12:37 -0700, Bloopenblopper wrote:
[snip]
> Steiger is the mind behind the websites secondlaw.com and 2ndlaw.com,
> both of which are good (albeit brief) summaries of thermodynamics and the
> second law.
[snip]
I'd like to make a correction here... the person behind the sites
above is Frank Lambert, not Steiger.
Seanpit
wrote:
> "Seanpit" <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1192936849....@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 20, 6:23 pm, "R. Baldwin" <res0k...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net>
> > wrote:
>
> >> >> Thus hot air trapped in a balloon has lots of information, since there
> >> >> is no short description of its configuration?
>
> >> > You are confusing concepts of algorithmic information and meaningful
> >> > information. They aren't the same thing.
>
> >> No satisfactory mathematical definition for "meaningful information"
> >> exists.
>
> > That doesn't mean it isn't a valid or useful concept. Beyond this,
> > there are ways to measure different degrees of meaningful/useful
> > information. This can be done, to at least a rough degree of
> > usefulness, by measuring the minimum sequence/structural threshold
> > requirements needed to produce the particular type of function/meaning
> > of a given system. Different types of "useful" or "meaningful"
> > information are not created equal and do in fact have different
> > minimum requirements before they can work.
>
> Bull.
So, you think all biosystems have the same minimum structural
threshold requirements? Do you honestly think a flagellar motility
system can be built with the same amount of genetic real estate as a
single protein enzyme - like lactase? I'd love to see you try to
present an argument to support this wild notion.
> >> > All is not lost though. The concepts of algorithmic information/
> >> > entropy can be used to identify deliberate artifact for many types of
> >> > physical phenomena.
>
> >> No, it can't. Algorithmic information entropy is uncomputable.
>
> > We've already gone over this several times. Algorithmic information
> > and similar concepts can indeed be used as the basis for predicting
> > the future, to a useful degree, of a growing string. I know you
> > disagree with this, but you're wrong.
>
> Bull. You've quoted articles without understanding them, and you've never
> produced an example of an actual prediction algorithm that is actually based
> on Kolmogorov Complexity, because you can't. Such prediction algorithms are
> theoretical. They cannot be computed.
Again, showing that a prediction algorithm has been very successful in
the past is equivalent to supporting the hypothesis of low KC for a
string. While KC is not computable, what can be known is that a
portion of a string is at less than its maximum KC. Because of this,
the hypothesis of non-random origin gains predictive value with each
successful prediction of the algorithm. No additional information is
needed beyond the string's history to be able to do this. Beyond a
certain p-value that is "significant" to you, the hypothesis that the
algorithm will continue to be successful gains "significant"
predictive power.
This is basic inductive reasoning. It is also the basis of science
itself.
> >> > But, one must have some previous experience/
> >> > knowledge with the material in question as it interacts with a variety
> >> > of natural forces before one can adequately detect or propose the
> >> > workings of deliberate artifact acting with the material in question
> >> > (i.e., water in the case of snowflakes).
>
> >> Isn't that the notion of mine you keep telling me is erroneous?
>
> > Not at all. You say that you can't detect bias to a useful degree
> > based only on the past history of the string and how it interacts with
> > a particular algorithm.
>
> No, that is not what I said. That is your mischaracterization. I said I want
> to have sufficient background knowledge to know that I am applying tests
> that have value.
So, are you now saying that you can get enough information from the
past history of the string itself, without any other outside
information, to be able to reasonably propose a biased origin for the
string? If so, this sure does sound to me like a significant change
from what you were claiming originally (i.e., that additional
information beyond the string itself is required).
> P-tests (of which you are so fond) do not have universal
> application.
It does in the case of growing strings . . . and in the application
of science in general.
> > I say that bias can be reliably detected
> > based just on the string itself without any additional information.
>
> An apparent bias can be tested for. That doesn't mean the test is reliable.
Nothing in science is 100% reliable. Ultimately, you have to take
leaps of faith in science and propose hypotheses and theories which
cannot be known for certain. At what p-value are you willing to take
that leap? At what point do you think the weight or pattern of
evidence is "significant". Sure, that point is rather subjective, but
that's the nature of science.
> > Now, the detection of bias is not the same thing as the detection of
> > artifact.
>
> Now that, I would agree with.
Why did you ask the question then? You seem to have been arguing that
bias itself cannot be detected, reliably, based only on past history
with the string itself. Beyond my position that this simply isn't
true, it has nothing to do with the fact that the detection of
artifactual bias does indeed require more information beyond the
string itself.
> > While the detection of artifact does require the ability to
> > detect bias first, the detection of bias alone is not enough to
> > support the hypothesis of artifact. Why? Because non-artifactual
> > natural process can also produce very biased patterns. So, the
> > detection of artifact requires some prior knowledge as to the limits
> > of the types of biases that can be expected to be produced by non-
> > artifactual natural processes - when it comes to the material in
> > question (i.e., water molecules in the case of snowflakes).
>
> > You see the difference?
>
> At least I understand what you are claiming here. I still think your
> arguments are non-sensical.
Based on what? If you can detect bias, how do you determine if that
bias is likely artifactual or not? So far, your arguments have put
you not only contrary to my position, but to the position of some top
SETI scientists as well.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
> > Yes, Natural Selection to the rescue! The only problem here is that
> > Nature can only select, in a positive manner, those sequences or
> > structures that are functional reproductively advantageous.
>
> > This function-based limitation to NS is a problem. How so? Because,
> > NS cannot actually see or direct what is going on genotypically. It
> > can only see phenotypic changes. What happens is that there are
> > genotypic non-beneficial changes that exist between potentially
> > beneficial phenotypic changes. The wider these gaps, the longer it
> > takes purely random changes to cross these gaps in order for NS to
> > come back into the ball game.
>
> Good. Now prove any of these gaps actuallyexist.
> Show all maths.
The fact that no novel beneficial biosystem has ever been observed to
evolve where the system requires a minimum of over 1000 specifically
arranged residues. This is interesting because systems with fewer
minimum structural threshold requirements, like two or three hundred,
evolve all the time - and rapidly. What is the explanation for this
observation?
For a visual illustration of the expanding gaps between higher level
systems see:
http://www.detectingdesign.com/images/Steppingstones/Choi%20and%20Kim%20structure%20space.jpg
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
wrote:
> > I've already quoted for you top SETI scientists who do in fact say
> > that certain kinds of modulated data within a radiotransmission would
> > indeed constitute very good evidence of deliberate artifact.
>
> They would already HAVE good evidence of artifact from the nature of the
> transmission, with or without modulation. Modulation, regardless of the
> encoded data, would make it even more probable.
That's irrelevant to Shostak's point. The fact that the modulation
itself may give clear evidence of non-natural artifactual origin does
not remove the point that the encoded data can also give clear
evidence of artifact as well. I know you disagree with the
feasibility, but Shostak's point is still quite valid:
"Perhaps the extraterrestrials will preface their message with a
string of prime numbers, or maybe the first fifty terms of the ever-
popular Fibonacci series. Well, there's no doubt that such tags would
convey intelligence." - Seth Shostak (senior astronomer at the SETI
institute).
> > Beyond this, there is no way you or anyone else can know exactly how a
> > narrow band signal was generated. You might hypothesize this or that
> > possible method, but there is no way you can know the actual method
> > used for sure.
>
> Nothing is ever known for sure, but a significant signal amplitude with
> triplets at the right frequency would be pretty darned indicative of
> intelligent origin.
Now why is that? The reason is because no know non-artifactual
natural process can produce such a signal. That's why. If some
natural process were ever found, this type of signal would no longer
be so clearly artifactual any more. That's science. Nothing is
100%.
> > The fact is that this sort of knowledge is simply not
> > needed before the hypothesis of deliberate artifact can be reasonably
> > proposed for this type of radiosignal. The reason is simple. This
> > type of radiosignal is not produced by any known non-deliberate
> > natural cause - not even close. If such a natural cause where ever
> > found, this type of signal would no longer be clear evidence of
> > artifact. Its as simple as that.
>
> What type of signal? Are you referring to the modulated data? If so, what
> about the data tells you it is artifact?
The fact that no known non-artifactual natural processes even comes
close to producing certain types of data . . .
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
> On Oct 21, 4:09?am, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > I say that whoever or whatever is "creative" above the abilities of
> > non-intelligent Nature, is a "God" of whatever he/she/it creates. You
> > are a "god" of your own creations in that they are indebted to you for
> > their existence.
>
> No need for quotation marks: a creator beyond the abilities of nature
> is what God is, by definition.
There are lots of definitions for God. Not all of them require
supernatural powers. For example, Jesus himself used the title of
'god' to describe humans . . . and quoted Jewish law in doing so (John
10:34).
> > People get all hung up on the term "God". If you would rather think
> > of some highly intelligent alien as the creator of life instead, and
> > call this intelligence by some other name, like Zorg perhaps, be my
> > guest. It really doesn't matter at this point.
>
> Which is where the discussion degenerates into something like
> surrealism. In what way does /this/ point differ from the point at
> which it /does/ matter?
At the point you move from identifying the quality of intelligent
activity to the actual identity of the designer. If all you are doing
is looking for evidence of artifact vs. non-artifact, knowledge of the
actual identity, motives, or methods of the potential designer is not
needed.
> Mike.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
> don't have the time and energy. But I do wish to give my most sincere
> thanks to everyone who responded (including Dr. Sean Pitman--it is
> always neccessary to hear both sides of issue). I am sorry that I did
> not include links to the quoted text--I simply forgot--and I am sorry
> that it took so long for me to reply. So this is my general "thank
> you" note to everyone who has written back here.
>
> I may also post individual replies as I study the two articles and
> this thread in detail. There is, however, at least one more question I
> would like to ask right now. In "Attributing False Attributes to
> Thermodynamics," Frank Steiger writes that
>
> "The degree of thermodynamic disorder is measured by an entity called
> "entropy." There is a mathematical correlation between entropy
> increase and an increase in disorder. The overall entropy of an
> isolated system can never decrease. However, the entropy of some parts
> of the system can spontaneously decrease at the expense of an even
> greater increase of other parts of the system. When heat flows
> spontaneously from a hot part of a system to a colder part of the
> system, the entropy of the hot area spontaneously decreases! The ICR
> chapter states flatly that entropy can never decrease; this is in
> direct conflict with the most fundamental law of thermodynamics that
> entropy equals heat flow divided by absolute temperature."[1]
< snip >
Like most evolutionists, most creationists don't understand the now
thermodynamic entropy relates to notions of order, disorder,
randomness, chaos, function or meaning. There are relationships here,
but there are also distinctly different meanings to terms like "order"
and "entropy" and "information" and others, depending on context. You
can't simply take the thoughts of a few creationists or IDists as
being representative of all.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Paul J Gans
>For example, a random series of letters, the size of a Shakespearean
>play, has the maximum amount of algorithmic information (from the
>perspective of a given UTM) - much more than Shakespeare's play. Yet,
>Shakespeare's play has much more "meaning" or "function" than does the
>random sequence of letters of the same size.
Oh my. You *do* know, don't you, that the information
content of a message depends on both the sender and
receiver? The "message" itself contains no information
on its own.
This is well-known to those in the field of information
theory. A corollry is that information does not exist
outside of context. And hence neither does informational
entropy.
Thus it is not possible to simply look at an entity and
determine how much information it contains. You might
have one notion, a gorilla another, and a Xordaxian yet
another.
Or, less precisely, one man's content is another man's
random noise.
Paul J Gans
>On Oct 19, 5:45 pm, Mujin <umwin...@seesee.umanitoba.ca> wrote:
>> "R. Baldwin" <res0k...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote innews:13hij0j...@news.supernews.com:
>>
>>
>>
>> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_entropy
>>
>> > No, that is not the meaning of entropy in Information Theory. Entropy
>> > (sensu Shannon) is a measure of the ensemble of messages that might be
>> > sent, not a measure of the message that is actually sent, no matter
>> > how much it deviated from the original. It describes how much
>> > uncertainty a receiver has about an information source.
>>
>> Thanks for the correction. Clearly I need to review this subject.
>Shannon entropy doesn't have quite the same definition as algorithmic
>entropy or Kolmogorov complexity (KC). While Shannon entropy is
>indeed a description of the source or the messages that might be sent,
>KC is concerned with the message itself.
I'm afraid that you will have to show how Kolmogorov complexity
applies to a gorilla.
Paul J Gans
>On Oct 20, 2:08 pm, Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
>< snip >
>> > higher-level information to the table that is needed to improve the
>> > information content of a system - to include all mechanical systems be
>> > they made of biological or non-biological building blocks (computers
>> > or amoebas). It makes no differnece.
>>
>> However, one *force* does. Its called natural selection. Natural
>> selection takes a sea
>> of random changes and selects (hence the term "selection") from that
>> random sea of changes,
>> changes that increase reproductive propensity.
>Yes, Natural Selection to the rescue! The only problem here is that
>Nature can only select, in a positive manner, those sequences or
>structures that are functional reproductively advantageous.
Why do you say this?
Seanpit
wrote:
>
> > The string itself provides statistical data. Additional data is
> > equivalent to making the string longer since all additional data could
> > be represented by a longer length of string. Although the predictions
> > based on the string's history can never reach perfection, they can be
> > reasonably proposed a supported to a useful degree of predictive
> > power. The hypothesis that the string is in fact the result of a
> > biased and therefore predictable source can be reasonably accepted and
> > the null hypothesis of a random origin can be reasonably rejected
> > based only on prior history with the string itself - upon a prior
> > history of successful predictions of a chosen martingale or
> > algorithm.
>
> "A random origin" is not a well-formulated hypothesis. "Biased" is not
> synonymous with "non-random" unless a restrictive use of the word "random"
> is explicitly used. You must be more specific for the hypothesis to be
> meaningful.
A random origin or source is not predictable and produces a string
with maximum KC relative to a UTM over infinite time/string size.
That's the random hypothesis.
It is my position that this hypothesis of random origin can be
reasonably rejected well shy of infinity. Of course, one could always
be wrong as an observed section of a truly random string may have the
appearance of non-random generation. However, hypothesis that this is
in fact the case can be reasonably rejected once a point of
statistical significance is reached (i.e., a "significant" p-value is
established).
Again, that's the basis of science. We aren't looking for 100%
perfection here, just a basis for picking a hypothesis of random vs.
the null of non-random origin to a useful degree of confidence.
> Regarding martingales, what I tried to get through your thick head was the
> *kind* of situation in which no martingale can make successful predictions,
> one of which is prediction of digits in a normal number.
I understand normal numbers just fine, as well as the fact that no
martingale can make predictions with better than even odds of success
given a source that is producing a truly normal number. That's not
the question here. The question is one of hypothesizing if the string
was truly the result of a normal number generator or not? That's the
question. While a perfect answer to this question cannot be achieved,
a useful answer can be reasonably supported.
> > Somehow you manage to argue that because no algorithm or martingale
> > can reach statistical perfection that all such propositions are
> > worthless in call cases regardless of the degree of past success over
> > time. That notion of yours is simply ludicrous. It goes against the
> > basis of science itself - of inductive reasoning.
>
> No, I made no argument about statistical perfection at all. That was your
> mischaracterization.
It is the only conclusion I can reach given your arguments so far.
> > The question is, at what point do can one reasonably reject the null
> > hypothesis? What P-value is "significant" for you? You seem to
> > reject the whole concept of a p-value and therefore of a host of
> > scientific experiments that form the basis of scientific disciplines
> > like medical science for instance.
>
> Before I bother with a p-value, I would want to know that I am working on a
> problem to which a statistical significance test has value at all. For that
> reason, I would not apply it to a single string of digits having unknown
> origin.
That's where you are mistaken. All data can be represented by a
single string of digits. Ultimately then, you can never fully know
the actual origin of any string for sure. You are left with making a
non-perfect prediction as to its most likely origin. Again, you are
forced into making approximations which can never be known for sure
because you have less-than-perfect knowledge or an incomplete data
set. All that is left then is inductive reasoning from what limited
information you do have to make non-perfect, but useful, conclusions
or predictions about what you do not have.
> >> > Or,
> >> > your related notion that because all patterns could be the result of
> >> > random production, that no particular pattern of a string can be used
> >> > with any degree of confidence to say anything about its likely random
> >> > or non-random origin?
>
> >> Again, that is not my notion. You are misrepresenting what I've said, or
> >> never understood it.
>
> > I doubt it. You've specifically said that you would not bet on any
> > sequence or martingale regardless of how many times it had worked
> > successfully in the past to predict the next digit in a string or
> > sequence. I've given you several scenarios, all of which you've
> > rejected arguing that the sequence could still be the result of random
> > generation and the algorithm could still be wrong.
>
> You've given me scenarios in which only an idiot would place a bet, such as
> watching marbles drop out of a wall where I might be observed and the run
> changed based on my betting behavior.
You'd be an idiot if you didn't bet at least a small fraction of your
available funds on the next marble given a perfect history of
alternating black and white marbles x a few million. Could you be
wrong? Sure, you could always be wrong. That's the nature of
science. However, the hypothesis of what will likely come next has a
very good basis (i.e., p-value) given what has already come and an
algorithm that has worked perfectly millions of times in the past
without fail.
> > Obviously, the "random hypothesis" is the hypothesis that a growing
> > sequence is the result of a truly random source vs. a predictable
> > biased source. Which hypothesis is most likely true? Can one tell
> > with a reasonable degree of usefulness based only on past experience
> > and the success of a predictive algorithm over the course of time? I
> > say yes while you say no.
>
> That is neither obvious nor clearly stated. Since random sources can be
> predictable and biased, you have not framed a proper hypothesis. Did you
> mean "produced by a discrete random process having a stationary Uniform
> distribution"? Because random can mean many other things besides that.
Obviously, random, in this context, means "not predictable with better
than even odds of success" - - given whatever the odds maker is
willing to give you for a successful bet. For example, if the past
history of black and white marbles coming out of the wall was 1
million alternates of black and white in a row and the last marble was
black, you wouldn't bet any fraction of your money that the next
marble, double your money, would be white - - while I would.
> You can test whether a string is consistent with a stationary Uniform
> distribution. If a string is consistent with such a distribution, you cannot
> know that it resulted from a stochastically random process. The digits of
> any normal number will also be consistent with a stationary Uniform
> distribution.
>
> If a string is not consistent with a stationary Uniform distribution, you
> cannot know that it resulted from a deterministic process. Many
> non-deterministic processes exhibit bias. Chattering relays are one example.
>
> Testing for stationary Uniform distribution is not the same thing as testing
> for a "truly random source".
The "randomness" concept deals with that aspect of a distribution that
is not predictable with better than even odds. That's what I'm
talking about - predictability.
> > The mathematical "examples" or arguments you've listed off previously
> > have been confused in that they haven't grasped the concept of
> > statistical significance, of accepting or rejecting opposing
> > hypotheses and at what point one can reasonably accept one hypothesis
> > and reject the opposing null hypothesis (i.e., what p-value is
> > "significant").
>
> Since I wasn't discussing statistical significance in any of those
> arguments, that is entirely beside the point. We had, for example, a long
> argument about whether prediction of digits in a normal number were possible
> if you didn't know the starting point. I proved conclusively that it was
> not, but you kept arguing against it without understanding the proof.
Prediction isn't based on perfection. One could always be wrong this
side of perfect knowledge of the actual source. Since our discussions
have never assumed perfect knowledge of the source, the discussion has
always been over the concept of prediction with access to limited data/
information - i.e., knowledge limited to a finite product of the
source. Given this limited knowledge, is it possible to make any sort
of useful, though not perfect, hypothesis concerning the true nature
of the source?
I say yes, while you say no. That's our fundamental disagreement
here.
> >> I take it, you either don't understand the criticism of your article, or
> >> are
> >> not prepared to accept the possibility you might have erred?
>
> > I've gone over and over your "criticisms" with you in dozens of posts
> > now. How you can say that I've not done this is beyond me. Sure,
> > you've pointed out a few minor errors or ways to improve clarity, but
> > overall your main arguments have been completely off base as far as I
> > can tell. Ultimately, your arguments undermine the very basis of
> > scientific reasoning itself.
>
> I think you are too cowardly to read the criticism, and unable to understand
> the explanations I've given you.
I've read many dozens of your "criticisms" and have debated you
endlessly on this issue. I have no idea where you get off saying that
I've not responded to your arguments? I have done so - in great
detail in many posts over a long period of time. You know this, so
why act like you don't?
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
> On Oct 20, 9:35 pm, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.
>
> 0catch.com> wrote:
> > The string itself provides statistical data.
>
> seanpit blathers on and on without resolving a fatal contradiction
> within creationism.
>
> he says no natural processes were involved in the creation of human
> beings.
I've never said this. Please do provide any reference to the
contrary.
> he says 'god did it' is how we got here.
I say that a highly intelligent creator did quite a bit of it
"naturally" via deliberate, intelligent, design. Again, one doesn't
need to know the actual identity, motives, or process that was used
before one can detect the fact that deliberate creativity/artifact,
was required.
> THEN he says we can
> observe this as fact because complex
> processes are produced ONLY by
> intelligence.
When it comes to informationally complex processes, beyond 1000
specified residues, that's true.
> but the problem is, he's thrown the baby out with the bath water.
>
> if he disallows natural processes as a causative agent, then he MUST
> disallow the use of comparing SUPERNATURAL processes to NATURAL
> processes as a method to say supernatural processes have occurred.
I don't disallow the use of natural processes at all. All I'm saying
is that the natural processes had to have been highly intelligent.
> the reason is that we have NEVER seen a supernatural process at work
> and have NO idea how they DO work, if at all. the string of logic is
> broken. there's no reason to suspect that supernatural processes
> function AT ALL like natural processes, and thus we can't compare the
> 2.
>
> if sean disagrees, let him tell us where in natural we CAN see magic
> and demons and psychics at work and tell us how to observe them so we
> have confidence in their creation abilities.
>
> otherwise he's just handwaving.
You don't seem to grasp the concept that natural elements and
processes can be used by any intelligent agent to produce artifacts
that are clearly recognizable as artifacts. For example, lets say
that I produce a machine that makes radiosignals that clearly have
artifactual characteristics - recognizable as "artifact" by SETI
scientists. Do they need to know my identity before they can tell
that my radiosignal is most likely artifactual in origin? Of course
not. Now, lets say that some alien from Zorg produces exactly the
same type of signal. Would the fact that some alien produced the
signal change the fact that it is still recognizable as being
artifactual? Of course not. Now, lets say that God produces the same
type of signal. Would the fact that "God" produced such a signal
change the fact that it would still be recognizable as "artifact"?
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Paul J Gans
>In article <ffg8he$33a$2...@reader1.panix.com>,
>Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>The equation dS = dQ/T, is the *definition* of entropy
>>change in a system undergoing what is called a "reversible
>>process".
>I thought the *definition* of entropy was:
>S = k*ln(Omega)
>where Omega is the number of possible states that match the temperature,
>state, pressure, etc. of the system.
The equation S = k \ln \Omega is a *statistical mechanical*
definition of entropy. \Omega is the number of quantum states
available to the system. Good old classical thermodynamics
doesn't know about atoms, molecules, or quantum states.
That said, there are several definitions of entropy in classical
thermodynamics, all mathematically equivalent. Similarly there
are several definitions of entropy in statistical mechanics,
all mathematically equivalent.
Glenn
> Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote:
> >For example, a random series of letters, the size of a Shakespearean
> >play, has the maximum amount of algorithmic information (from the
> >perspective of a given UTM) - much more than Shakespeare's play. Yet,
> >Shakespeare's play has much more "meaning" or "function" than does the
> >random sequence of letters of the same size.
>
> Oh my. You *do* know, don't you, that the information
> content of a message depends on both the sender and
> receiver? The "message" itself contains no information
> on its own.
What you replied to is quite correct. Look up algorithmic information,
instead of playing definition games with "information".
>
> This is well-known to those in the field of information
> theory. A corollry is that information does not exist
> outside of context. And hence neither does informational
> entropy.
An objective observer should wonder about your logic and be very
skeptical.
>
> Thus it is not possible to simply look at an entity and
> determine how much information it contains. You might
> have one notion, a gorilla another, and a Xordaxian yet
> another.
>
http://www.seti.org/news/voices/doyle-060804.php
"What if we get an extraterrestrial signal that's not 9th order but
20th order in complexity," theorizes Doyle. "Right away, we know their
communication ability exceeds ours by about as much as ours exceeds
ground squirrels. In other words, we're going to know where we stand
right away. Even an extraterrestrial transmission would have to obey
the rules of information theory."
>
> Or, less precisely, one man's content is another man's
> random noise.
>
Whether the receiver understands the content or not, it still exists.
Your argument reduces to a tree not making a sound in the forest when
it falls when there is no one there to hear it.
Seanpit
< snip >
> Or, less precisely, one man's content is another man's
> random noise.
The context that provides beneficial meaning/function, in the context
of this discussion, is a given. I used an illustration from human
language where the context is already in place. The same thing is
true for a biosystem. The context of the organism and its environment
in which the newly evolved subsystem potentially has "beneficial
function/meaning" is also already in place as a given.
> --- Paul J. Gans
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Mike L
0catch.com> wrote:
> On Oct 21, 7:25 am, Mike L <mike_lyle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 21, 4:09?am, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>>> I say that whoever or whatever is "creative" above the abilities of
>>> non-intelligent Nature, is a "God" of whatever he/she/it creates.
>>> You are a "god" of your own creations in that they are indebted to
>>> you for their existence.
>>
>> No need for quotation marks: a creator beyond the abilities of nature
>> is what God is, by definition.
>
> There are lots of definitions for God. Not all of them require
> supernatural powers. For example, Jesus himself used the title of
> 'god' to describe humans . . . and quoted Jewish law in doing so (John
> 10:34).
Quoting the Psalm, though he does say "law", yes. But no useful
definition of the word in English for this kind of context allows it
to refer to non-supernatural beings. And it is English we are using,
and neither of us is Jesus. I don't consider the usage meaningful
here.
>
>>> People get all hung up on the term "God". If you would rather think
>>> of some highly intelligent alien as the creator of life instead, and
>>> call this intelligence by some other name, like Zorg perhaps, be my
>>> guest. It really doesn't matter at this point.
>>
>> Which is where the discussion degenerates into something like
>> surrealism. In what way does /this/ point differ from the point at
>> which it /does/ matter?
>
> At the point you move from identifying the quality of intelligent
> activity to the actual identity of the designer. If all you are doing
> is looking for evidence of artifact vs. non-artifact, knowledge of the
> actual identity, motives, or methods of the potential designer is not
> needed.
No, this is isn't the case. Looking for evidence of artifact is merely
postponing the question. Once you accept that a universe could be made
by a conscious designer, you have accepted that /anything/ could be so
made; nothing could therefore be identified as either undesigned or
designed. This means that the only way to prove design is to prove the
designer.
--
Mike.
Paul J Gans
>On Oct 22, 10:53 am, Paul J Gans <g...@panix.com> wrote:
>> Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote:
>> >For example, a random series of letters, the size of a Shakespearean
>> >play, has the maximum amount of algorithmic information (from the
>> >perspective of a given UTM) - much more than Shakespeare's play. Yet,
>> >Shakespeare's play has much more "meaning" or "function" than does the
>> >random sequence of letters of the same size.
>>
>> Oh my. You *do* know, don't you, that the information
>> content of a message depends on both the sender and
>> receiver? The "message" itself contains no information
>> on its own.
>What you replied to is quite correct. Look up algorithmic information,
>instead of playing definition games with "information".
I know what "algorithmic information" is. I don't think that
you quite understand the situation.
A standard example is the Mandelbrot fractal. A gif image of
it inside a suitable area contains a large number of bits. But
there exists an algorithm that allows the computation of the
entire set from a much smaller number of bits.
That indicates a low level of algorithmic information and I
think that we can both agree on that.
However, if I give you an image which does not have an obvious
algorithmic source, what can you say about it? You might
conclude that it has a high algorithmic complexity up to the
moment when I show you the algorithm. Thus my act of showing
you the algorithm lowers the algorithmic complexity of the
image greatly.
Conclusion of this thought experiment: the algorithmic
complexity depends upon more than simple examination of the
"message".
The formalities of the theory show this. All sorts of things
need to be properly defined (and exist) in order to properly
compute complexity.
Pitman does none of these things. In biology we are not
dealing with a string of bits, though it is true that we
can use one or another scheme to encode a biological
entity into a string of bits. It remains to be shown
however if this can be done *completely*.
Put another way, in a naive sense a biological entity is
defined by its genes. However that really isn't true as
both environment and experience modify that entity. (As
an example consider how prevailing winds modify the position
of branches on a tree.)
Thus, for Pitman's scheme to work he has to do what I suggested:
define the "message" in a way that we can all agree upon.
>>
>> This is well-known to those in the field of information
>> theory. A corollry is that information does not exist
>> outside of context. And hence neither does informational
>> entropy.
>An objective observer should wonder about your logic and be very
>skeptical.
Don't be. It is quite correct for information theory.
>> Thus it is not possible to simply look at an entity and
>> determine how much information it contains. You might
>> have one notion, a gorilla another, and a Xordaxian yet
>> another.
>>
>http://www.seti.org/news/voices/doyle-060804.php
>"What if we get an extraterrestrial signal that's not 9th order but
>20th order in complexity," theorizes Doyle. "Right away, we know their
>communication ability exceeds ours by about as much as ours exceeds
>ground squirrels. In other words, we're going to know where we stand
>right away. Even an extraterrestrial transmission would have to obey
>the rules of information theory."
Nope. The Xordaxians have been sending us tachyon messages for
years. We don't even know the message exists. On the other
hand the Groborians left us a clear unambiguous message the
position of stars visible to the unaided human eye. We don't
know that message exists either.
Put another way, information theory assumes that a communication
channel exists.
>>
>> Or, less precisely, one man's content is another man's
>> random noise.
>>
>Whether the receiver understands the content or not, it still exists.
>Your argument reduces to a tree not making a sound in the forest when
>it falls when there is no one there to hear it.
Nope. The term "sound" is what is important here. Give me a
definition of sound and I'll tell you if a tree falling in the
forest makes one.
And that's exactly what Pitman does not do. No definitions.
No meaning.