Re: Entropy in crystalization: up or down?
- From: Seanpit <seanpitnospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 23:36:25 -0700
On Nov 1, 8:37 pm, "R. Baldwin" <res0k...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
< snip >
"Perhaps the extraterrestrials will preface their message with a
string of prime numbers, or maybe the first fifty terms of the ever-
popular Fibonacci series. Well, there's no doubt that such tags would
convey intelligence."
- - Seth Shostak, How to Sort Signs of Artificial Life from the Real
Thing, SETI Thursday, Space.com, January 30, 2003
http://www.space.com/searchforlife/seti_shostak_artificial_030130.html
I've already given you the above reference to this statement of Seth
Shostak before. You have already rejected the fundamental premise
behind this statement. You don't seem to understand that detecting
such a pattern as "artifact" has exactly the same fundamental basis
for accepting a certain type of narrow band radiosignal as artifact.
The detection of artifact is based on the concept that nothing else
that is non-artifactual which has ever been investigated and studied
before, comes remotely close to producing the type of signal or
pattern in question.
No, the fundamental basis is not the same. There is a reference problem that
you are completely ignoring. It is context that helps us overcome the
reference problem. Strings of digits without context are without reference,
and *that* is the reason that induction on a data string alone is worthless.
Strings of digits that match a predetermined pattern - like the first
million digits of pi or the Fibonacci series, are not without
"reference" or "context". For example, if the a signal happened to
have short and long blips, as in a Morse Code-type pattern, and these
blips happened to match a binary expression of pi, the reference and
context would be obvious well before a few million correct matches.
Of course, you will no doubt argue that such a signal is essentially
impossible, even if it was artifactually produced. Why would any
aliens use the same method of dots and dashes that we use to represent
zeros and ones or any other of our human-type language/information
systems? While that point is well-taken, it is completely irrelevant
to the fact that such a signal would in fact be recognizable as
artifact if it were in fact detected in such a form in a radiosignal
coming from outer space.
Any detectable pattern that matches another pre-established pattern is
unlikely to be the result of random generation after a certain point
of match "significance". A specific radiosignal match to any pre-
established number pattern, especially one that matches some sort of
mathematical expression like pi, would be very good evidence of
deliberate artifact - because of the lack of any known natural process
capable of coming remotely close. The production of something like
"music" is not the same thing as the production of pi by a
radiosignal. Many natural processes are known to produce "musical"
effects. None are known to produce the first million digits of pi,
over and over again, in radiosignals.
That's Shostak's point; and it's a good one - - regardless of the fact
that you think he's way off base.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Entropy in crystalization: up or down?
- From: Rusty Sites
- Re: Entropy in crystalization: up or down?
- Prev by Date: Re: Nostradamus - USA prophecies
- Next by Date: Jonathan Falwell: Defending creationism without shame
- Previous by thread: Re: Entropy in crystalization: up or down?
- Next by thread: Re: Entropy in crystalization: up or down?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|