Re: CSI rebuttal?

In message <1140667320.628695.128210@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
"rev.goetz" <jimgoetz316@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Navillus wrote:

How is this *not* an example of incresed information? Don't just
say it hasn't been proven in a lab, that's a god of the gaps
tactic. Tell me why, in general information theory, this is not an
increase in information?

I do not follow information theory. But this would not be an increase
in information because the information of all potential DNA sequences
in all potential environments was built into the initial conditions
of the universe before the big bang.

So you are basically saying that at the instant of the big bang, the
universe contained an infinite amount of information? It's hard to
interpret this as anything else, as the set of all potential DNA
sequences is non-finite.

ObWhich: There is a conjecture that if you compute enough digits of pi,
you will be able to generate all possible sequences of digits of any
required length. If this conjecture is true, it means that if you are
one of those sad people who think that generating huge expansions of pi
is a useful use of CPU cycles, if you leave it running long enough you
will be able to generate the source code to a version of Windows XP
that is completely bug-free (of course, the tricky bit is to identify
the correct version from the versions that contain every possible
combinations of bugs, versions of Word that only work in Serbo-Croat,
etc, etc).

--
Nick Roberts tigger @ orpheusinternet.co.uk

Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which
can be adequately explained by stupidity.

.