Re: Book-able view of ID as speculative science

On 25 Dec 2005 19:55:36 -0800, in talk.origins , "topmind"
<topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> in
<1135569336.368632.210970@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>Mark VandeWettering wrote:
>> On 2005-12-26, topmind <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > Deadrat wrote:
>> >> "topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> >> news:1135538438.703150.111390@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >> >
>> >> > josephus wrote:
>> >> > > topmind wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > Deadrat wrote:
[snip]

>> >> Here's another way to look at it. In information theory, the information
>> >> content of a message is the negative log of the probability of hearing the
>> >> message. As the probability of a message becomes more certain, i.e.,
>> >> its probability approaches 1, the log of the probability approaches zero,
>> >> and thus so too does the information conveyed.
>> >>
>> >> If they test the fire alarm every day at noon, how much information does
>> >> the noon-time alarm tell you about a fire?
>> >
>> > I don't follow this.
>>
>> I'm hardly surprised.
>
>Up yours! It is shitty writing. Don't be pining your trash on me.

No, actually, it is quite clear. Or, rather, it is clear if you have a
clue what "information" means in information theory.

>>
>> > Why would the nature or luck of the listener
>> > change the *content* of the message? Spooky action at a distance. That
>> > makes no sense (unless you are going quantum on me).
>>
>> Yep, you don't follow this. I'm not sure where you are extracting terms
>> like "nature" or "luck" or "action at distance" from any of this.
>
>Look at this slop:
>
>"In information theory, the information content of a message is the
>negative log of the probability of hearing the message."
>
>The "information content" *is* the "negative log"? This implies the
>content is a math equation. See?

Here is a clue, try to read the *whole* sentence. "In information
theory, the information content of a message is the negative log of
the probability of hearing the message." Did you notice that clause
about the probability?

>It is poorly written. Perhaps you
>meant the ratio of signal to noise or something, but it is just plain
>not clear there.

No, he meant the probability of the message. Two possible messages of
equal probability. The chances of getting a particular message is 50%.

[snip]

--
Matt Silberstein

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"

.

Loading