Re: Complex Specified Information - Pitman Formula

On Jul 25, 5:32 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

The reference sequences are determined, by you, ahead of time before
you go out to analyze any other sequences. The reference sequences
are based on non-random strings that are known to be produced by
simple algorithms - like pi or like 0101010 . . .

IOW, you would know it if the SETI signal were repeated digits of pi
in base 10, but would not be able to recognize pi in base 2 or the
other reference you give. Using *your* idea, you would declare any
other signal as "random" and unrelated to the 'reference'. Is *that*
what you claim that SETI is doing?

As I've pointed out many times now, a match to a reference string, by
itself, is not enough to detect ET. A maximum Pitman CSI number does
NOT equal ET or ID for that matter. What it does indicate is non-
random bias. Try to remember this point this time.

Now, is it possible for a set of reference strings to miss a non-
random sequence? Certainly! In fact, it is impossible to rule out
this possibility. No one can do it - not SETI scientists, not
anthropologists, biologist, chemists, physicists, or even IDists. No
one. It is impossible.

After you have your set of reference strings, you can compare incoming
sequences to your set of reference sequences to see if the incoming
sequences is likely to be non-random in origin.

Again, you would only be able to detect 'targets' that were near
enough to your *biased* selection of 'reference' sequences to register
as 'sufficiently close'.

That's right . . .

Also, the selection of the reference string must be done without any
knowledge ahead of time of the test string. The choice must be
completely independent.

IOW, the *reference* string must be a *randomly* chosen sequence out
of total sequence space.

No. The reference string must be chosen based on knowledge that it is
not random - i.e., the reproducible product of a simple algorithm.

Fractals are generated by simple algorithms. So, for that matter, is
a pathway in which you have occasional random mutation and fixation of
the result as a second rarer event. But those are not
*reproducible*. Does that mean you are *specifically* ruling out
evolutionary algorithms *arbitrarily* by requiring a determinative
result rather than a probabilistic one? What would be the 'reference'
sequence for proteins. since, because the same functional protein in
different organisms have different sequences and sometimes
dramatically different sequences, you cannot claim that any particular
available sequence is a reproducibly determined product of a simple
algorithm? If your CSI calculation is going to have meaning for
evolution, you do have to tell us *which* sequence for, say, beta
globin of hemoglobin is the "reproducible result of a simple
algorithm", don't you? Is it the human gamma-G? gamma-A? Embryonic?
Adult?

Functional systems are known to be non-random because of their
functional properties - properties that cannot be produced by just any
randomly produced sequence.

Beyond this, although a bit more complicated, a significant match for
a reference string that is "apparently random" does indicate non-
random production of one or the other or both the test string and the
reference string.

There is no "target". There are only test strings that you compare to
your reference strings. If the test strings match one of your
reference strings, to a high level of CSI, the hypothesis of non-
random origin is supported.

Then the result you get is entirely dependent on which sequences you
*arbitrarily* chose as your 'reference' strings. How can you be sure
that your choice of all the 'reference' strings you *arbitrarily*
chose to look at will catch the 'intelligently designed' sequence you
'test'.

First off, the CSI calculation isn't about detecting ET or ID. Let me
make that very clear once more. It is about detecting non-random
bias.

Beyond this, you can't be sure to catch all non-randomly produced
sequences. It is actually impossible to detect all such sequences as
noted above. That is the nature of science. Perfection cannot be
achieved. That is what makes science useful. If perfection could be
achieved, science would no longer be needed.

And how will you, if you are too broad in your *arbitrary*
choices, prevent false positives?

You can't prevent false positives with absolute perfection - only with
a high degree of predictive value.

And if you are too narrow in your
*arbitrary* choices of 'references'
aren't you going to ensure many
false negatives?

You can't insure against false negatives with perfection either.
Again, that's impossible in science.

How
would you choose the 'target' *after*
you have "independently chosen
the 'reference'?

You don't choose the test string. Any string could be tested by the
reference strings - any string at all.

You must *really* be brilliant if you can think of all the 'reference'
strings that not only a non-human ET might send as a signal, but also
all the protein 'reference' sequences that have *ever* existed.
Otherwise I cannot think of any way that your test would not wind up
being hit-or-miss and not much better than dumb luck.

Though not perfect, the hits are much better than dumb luck - and
that's the value of science. Science does not require perfection or
rule out the possibility of being wrong. As a "scientist" you should
know this already.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Complex Specified Information - Pitman Formula
    ... between the reference string and the test string. ... I *know* what sequences actually exist or possibly could ... There are only test strings that you compare to ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Complex Specified Information - Pitman Formula
    ... you go out to analyze any other sequences. ... other reference you give. ... is it possible for a set of reference strings to miss a non- ... sequences is likely to be non-random in origin. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Complex Specified Information - Pitman Formula
    ... between the reference string and the test string. ... I *know* what sequences actually exist or possibly could ... There are only test strings that you compare to ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Complex Specified Information - Pitman Formula
    ... you go out to analyze any other sequences. ... are based on non-random strings that are known to be produced by ... other reference you give. ... How many times do I have to tell you that there is no "target" string ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Complex Specified Information - Pitman Formula
    ... you go out to analyze any other sequences. ... are based on non-random strings that are known to be produced by ... other reference you give. ... How many times do I have to tell you that there is no "target" string ...
    (talk.origins)