Re: Chez Watt: Entropy in crystalization: up or down?

On Nov 3, 12:22 am, "R. Baldwin" <res0k...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"Seanpit" <seanpitnos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1194061112.348133.18780@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx





On Nov 1, 9:12 pm, "R. Baldwin" <res0k...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Bekenstein and Stephen Hawking "developed the theory of black hole
evaporation, that a black hole with a 1 centimeter diameter can store
1e66 bits of information on the event horizon, and that the number of
black holes within the observable universe is sufficient to store
1e100 bits."

http://www.astrophysicsspectator.com/commentary/commentary20040908.html

That is not relevant to what I said, is it? There is more to the Universe
than black holes,

If one can argue that black holes are finite with regard to
information, then what other phenomenon in the universe could one
possibly point to and say, "that's infinite"? Have any examples?

Yes. The probability amplitude values in a qubit.

Again, that is based only on mathematical theory, not on experimental
evidence beyond the "Platonic heaven". This concept is argued by a
number of scientists to be nothing more than an idealized
representation of the universe. You say that these scientists have no
evidence and that such notions have been given up, but that's simply
not true. Many scientists do in fact hold to the notion that the
universe is in fact finite.

< snip >

The basic point remains in any case. Any additional evidence you say
you would need to be able to predict subsequence digits of a growing
string could be represented by a longer portion of a finite string.
You really aren't asking for "outside" information than what can exist
on the string itself. All you are really asking for is for more
string.

Look, your "growing string" ideas are nonsense. You don't get the math. You
can't even express your ideas in a mathematically coherent way. I'm sorry,
but that is the truth. The fact that you couldn't grasp why Kolmogorov
Complexity cannot remain constant over your "growing string provides ample
evidence.

Take the first few dozen digits of pi. From the perspective of a UTM
with an algorithm for pi, the KC of this portion of string has less
than maximum KC. Right? Now, start adding the rest of the digits of
pi, one at a time. The same short algorithm is able to compress all
subsequent digits to the same degree. In other words, no matter how
many more digits of pi are added, the KC of the string does not
increase toward its maximum value. There is an upper bound on KC that
is not approached by adding predictable digits to a string.

I really don't see how you get around dismissing the relevance of this
concept? The math involved here really isn't the issue. It's the
basic concept that appears to be problematic for you.

As far as turning additional evidence into longer strings, again, you aren't
grasping the math. Start with your first string. Now consider another string
representing evidence. You have two strings, which could be concatenated AB
or BA. A set of strings, with cardinality 2, not one string. Add more
evidence, represented by more strings, and the cardinality increases. You
get a power set of strings, not a longer string.

Information is presented to you in a particular sequence - as in a
string of evidence. This string is analogous to a single string of
binary code entering your brain. There really is no such thing as
separate strings of evidence. There really is only one string that is
made up of longer or shorter parts. You simply think that what appear
to you to be different kinds of evidences are in fact different
strings. The problem here is that none of these outside evidences
really get you the 100% proof that you desire. Regardless of the
outside evidences you present to the contrary, the string in question
could still be the result of pure random production. All you are
doing is presenting more and more patterns of what you call separate
strings or lines of evidence till the weight of evidence reaches what
is for you a certain level of significance. This very same level
could be achieved by simply observing the particular string in
question over more tests of the algorithm.

< snip rest >

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Numbers of tiles in the Himly and Glover sets.
    ... The fact such word with its full meaning as a string of coins did not ... YOU also said "I have no evidence of its use." ... Have you attempted to research whether suo3 had any other meanings/ ...
    (rec.games.mahjong)
  • Re: Numbers of tiles in the Himly and Glover sets.
    ... The fact such word with its full meaning as a string of coins did not ... YOU also said “I have no evidence of its use.” ... Have you attempted to research whether suo3 had any other meanings/ ...
    (rec.games.mahjong)
  • Re: Numbers of tiles in the Himly and Glover sets.
    ... The fact such word with its full meaning as a string of coins did not ... YOU said you have no evidence of its use. ... If there were no mention of suo3 as a monetary term whatsoever, ...
    (rec.games.mahjong)
  • =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_Bamboo_=E7=AD=92_is_called_copper_coin=2E_Why=3F?=
    ... there is independant evidence for the term suo meaning ... a string as a monetary unit. ... I pointed out that there were other DECORATIONS on the cards besides ...
    (rec.games.mahjong)
  • Re: Evidences hash table holding memory?
    ... "lost" Evidence objects? ... >>> public static string TranslateXMLContent(string ... xslt.Load(myXsltReader, urlResolver, ... myStringWriter = new StringWriter ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.security)