Re: For Sean Pitman: Review of "Meaningful Information"
- From: "Seanpit" <seanpitnospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 11 Mar 2007 09:27:21 -0700
On Mar 10, 11:21 am, "Vend" <ven...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 10 Mar, 17:50, "Seanpit" <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.
0catch.com> wrote:
That's right! They are all looking for something that humans can do
and that other non-intelligent processes of nature cannot do.
They are just looking for something that humans have an higher
probability of having done than known and expected non-human process.
That's right . . .
For
example, humans can make an amorphous-looking rock, but so can non-
deliberate natural processes. Therefore, when an amorphous rock is
found, human-like design is not easily detectable. On the other hand,
humans can make a highly symmetrical polished granite cube with
identical geometric etching carved in opposing faces. This type of
granite cube would be very very difficult for any known non-deliberate
natural process to produce. Therefore, when such a cube is found,
human-like design is clearly evident.
Because humans make such things. You need knowledge of the designer in
order to detect design.
Humans also make amorphous-type rocks and other things that have the
appearance of being "naturally" formed. In order to detect human
design over the creation of some non-deliberate natural process you
need to know something about the likely limits of what non-deliberate
processes can produce with the material in question. You do not need
knowledge of the designer in particular in order to detect high-level
design. That is the basis for SETI. Scientists looking for signs of
extraterrestrial intelligence do not need to identify the actual
designer before they think they can identify signs of intelligent
design.
The same thing is true for SETI scientists looking for some "narrow-
band endless sinusoidal signal - a dead simple tone." Like the highly
symmetrical polished granite cube, it isn't very "complex" at all. It
is very simple and highly symmetrical. It is the near perfect
symmetry of the tone and of the granite cube as well as the narrowness
of the band that makes such a pattern so "unnatural" and therefore
such a tip-off of intelligent design.
SETI is looking for that because we use those kind of signals for
comunication and radar.
You are only half right. Human intelligence can indeed produce such
signals, but this knowledge is not enough to detect human-like
intelligence. One must also have some idea that non-deliberate
processes are very unlikely to produce such radio signals. This
second part is more important than the first part.
Again, the tip-off here is not
that all simple patterns are the result of intelligent design. That's
simply not true. However, such simple patterns found in certain
media, like radio signals or granite are indeed "artifactual" in
nature because non-deliberate processes don't even come close to
producing such symmetry in these particular materials.
There you have it. Prior experience and knowledge with the material
in question as it relates to non-deliberate natural processes is
needed before intelligent design of any kind (human or otherwise) can
be adequately proposed.
Prior knowledge of the designer is needed.
Not true. Again, SETI doesn't need prior knowledge of the specific
aliens in question.
Humans can produce a random-appearing sequence of letters just like
your "random source". The difference between the two sources is that
the random source cannot produce the informational complexity of a
Shakespearean play this side of a practical eternity of time.
What is 'informational complexity'?
The probability of producing a Shakespearean play is the same as any
other sequence of the same length.
There are certain categories of sequences or patterns. Some types of
patterns, like the ones SETI scientists are looking for, are very
simple (non-chaotic, low Chaitin complexity, highly ordered,
symmetrical). These types of patterns are very unlikely to be
produced by a random process when it comes to radio signals.
Likewise, a Shakespearean play demonstrates a type of pattern that is
very inconsistent with the hypothesis of that it was produced by a
random letter generator (i.e., the whole million monkeys typing on a
typewriter notion).
Again, this is the basis behind Kolmogorov or Chaitin complexity.
Informational complexity is a related by distinctly different concept
in that higher level information requires greater minimum sequence or
structural thresholds before a certain type of function can be
realized at all - even a little bit.
The
same thing is true of certain types of patterns, like a series of 1
million A's in a row (given equal possibilities of all 26 letters of
the alphabet) or of having all the red marbles on one side of the box
and all the otherwise identical blue marbles on the other (10,000
marbles total). Such patterns, though quite simple like the simple
radiosignal SETI scientists are trying to find, are quite artifactual
for these particular materials, and therefore indicate deliberate
design.
Actually, many regular patterns are observed in nature.
That's right - but it depends upon the material in question. Certain
materials do indeed produce a very ordered structure or pattern when
acted upon by random natural forces. Others, like granite rock or
radio signals, do not. So, one has to have some prior experience with
the material in question before intelligent design can be adequately
proposed as the origin of a given sequence or pattern produced with
the said material.
< snip >
How do you measure the complexity of a computer? Can you do it
independantely of another (or the same) reference computer?
Sure. What is the minimum number of bits needed to make the computer
"work" to decode the incoming signal and put out the "proper" output?
Please be more specific.
Oh come on now! What more do you need? The more bits you need to
make your computer work or produce a particular output given a
particular input, the more "complexity" is required. It's as simple
as that.
Does Chatin conclude that the second string has an higher algorithmic
complexity than the first?
Yes, he does.
Quote, please?
Read the passage where he discusses these two types of strings. One
he says is clearly ordered and highly compressible while the other is
not. By his own definition the compressible string has lower
algorithmic complexity.
< snip >
Las Vegas built on algorithmic complexity?
Yes, it is.
Do you have some reference?
Can Las Vegas detectives calculate the algoritmic complexity of the
sequence they observe? What reference computer do they use?
They can indeed detect the lack of algorithmic complexity in the
patterns they observe. That is how they detect deliberate cheating so
effectively.
Can you provide references of this or are you simply making things up?
It is the same thing SETI scientists are doing when they are searching
for a very simple radio signal that it inconsistent with a randomly
acting natural process. Las Vegas detectives are also looking for a
series or pattern that is inconsistent with random production.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: OT: Who's a Materialist?
- Next by Date: Re: On, My!
- Previous by thread: Re: For Sean Pitman: Review of "Meaningful Information"
- Next by thread: Re: For Sean Pitman: Review of "Meaningful Information"
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
