Re: Snowflakes with High CSI

On Jul 13, 4:43 pm, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.
0catch.com> wrote:
On Jul 13, 12:57 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 09:47:07 -0700, Seanpit wrote:

CSI can be measured.

Prove it. Measure the CSI of the following:

11121123344432992877777777551111121

Show your work.

Failure to produce a measurement of CSI to at least three significant
figures will be construed as proof that you cannot measure CSI.

You have the same problem as snex. You assume the ability to detect
or not detect a bias in a pattern is the same thing IDists claim to be
using to be able or not able to detect deliberate design. That's not
true. One may be able to detect a highly predictable bias in a
pattern and yet be unable to detect deliberate artifact in that
pattern.

For example, a single snowflake may have very high CSI when one
compares one half of the snowflake to the other half - according to
the current use of the terms "complexity" and "specificity". But,
very high CSI, given the medium of water in a cold environment, is not
evidence of ID.

That's right! CSI, by itself, is *not* adequate evidence of
deliberate artifact. Prior knowledge gained via experience with the
material in question as it relates to various non-deliberate forces of
nature is required. In order to be able to detect artifact, one has to
know a bit more - such as the kind of material or medium that contains
the pattern and if this medium is likely to produce such a pattern
when exposed to various kinds of non-deliberate forces of nature.

Now, if your "pattern" represents a radiosignal as the medium (or a
granite rock), it is at least theoretically possible to start
supporting the ID hypothesis as to its origin. Given that it
represents a radiosignal this pattern of yours has a clear degree of
"complexity", as far as marked changes in number and degree of
variability, but the specificity is not so clear - at least not to
me. In order to determine specificity, there has to be an obvious
match to another pattern that is known to be outside the likely realm
of non-deliberate production for radiosignals - like the first 50
digits of pi or prime numbers or the Fibonacci series repeated over
and over again, or a high degree of reflective or other forms of
symmetry (as previously noted).

IOW, the sequence not only has to have a specific sequence, but that
sequence has to have utility or meaning to the observer in order to
have "fairly high CSI". Is that right? A number that is a repeat of
my zip code +4 would, of course, have meaning for *me*, but might not
have meaning for *you*. Presumably, then, that number sequence would
have a lower CSI than a number sequence that has meaning for a larger
audience. Am I right so far?

Then how come your 'formula' (such as it is, and there is, shall we
say, some argument that it is a GIGO formulation) for CSI:
[CSI = X^n - (X^hd) ]
has no variable that reflects the size of the audience for which that
sequence has meaning?

Here are a few examples with fairly high CSI, given the medium of a
radiosignal, that is obvious to anyone with a mathematical background:

314159265358979314159265358979 . . .

00077779999922999997777000 . . .

12357911131719231235791113171923 . . .

01123581321345589144233377610987 . . .

There's no doubt that such tags would convey intelligence if any
extraterrestrial used such signals in their messages (i.e., a string
of prime numbers, or maybe the first fifty terms of the ever-popular
Fibonacci series). Why? Because such signals clearly carry with them
both a high degree of "complexity" with regard to sequence
irregularities as well as very clear very precise specificity to other
signals with independent existence.

You must have meant that the sequence has *meaning* to the observer
rather than that it has "very precise specificity to other signals
with independent existence", right? Although, given your formula for
CSI, perhaps you did mean exactly what you said.

One other note: The fact that one may not necessarily be able to
identify a pattern in a complex sequence that actually does contain
such a pattern does not mean that CSI isn't useful. It is impossible
to detect all potential patterns that may in fact contain CSI,
deliberately or non-deliberately produced. SETI scientists can't do
it and neither can IDists. However, when the pattern is obviously a
very clear match to what is known to be a truly independent

IOW, if the *observer* detects a pattern that has meaning to him or
her, that makes it a "specified" pattern?

Mark Isaak

Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Snowflakes with High CSI
    ... the pattern and if this medium is likely to produce such a pattern ... IOW, the sequence not only has to have a specific sequence, but that ... have "fairly high CSI". ... Because such signals clearly carry with them ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Snowflakes with High CSI
    ... figures will be construed as proof that you cannot measure CSI. ... or not detect a bias in a pattern is the same thing IDists claim to be ... confidence value in a design inference via specified complexity. ... Because such signals clearly carry with them ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: CSI, by itself, does not = ID
    ... figures will be construed as proof that you cannot measure CSI. ... or not detect a bias in a pattern of numbers is the same thing IDists ... when exposed to various kinds of non-deliberate forces of nature. ... But wasn't ID supposed to be a method that was able to detect "design" ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Measuring CSI
    ... CSI can be measured. ... irregular and "unpredictable" or apparently chaotic the better. ... The second term "specified" means that the pattern in question must ... features or patterns with high fidelity are intelligent forces. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Complex Specified Information - Pitman Formula
    ... CSI is a meaningless term. ... numbers and the right pattern can be called CSI? ... greater-than expected HD match to a reference sequence. ... For binary strings that formula is: ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading