Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

How is Bill Dembski’s Being as Communion doing?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Currently (9:00 am EST) in the top 100 in the Kindle store, despite the sweetheart deals offered this summer, for buying the book.

For a thing to be real, it must be able to communicate with other things. If this is so, then the problem of being receives a straightforward resolution: to be is to be in communion. So the fundamental science, indeed the science that needs to underwrite all other sciences, is a theory of communication. Within such a theory of communication the proper object of study becomes not isolated particles but the information that passes between entities. In Being as Communion philosopher and mathematician William Dembski provides a non-technical overview of his work on information. Dembski attempts to make good on the promise of John Wheeler, Paul Davies, and others that information is poised to replace matter as the primary stuff of reality. With profound implications for theology and metaphysics, Being as Communion develops a relational ontology that is at once congenial to science and open to teleology in nature. All those interested in the intersections of theology, philosophy and science should read this book.

Here’s part of a review a reader sent:

Dembski leaves nothing to chance, not even chance itself. He is also a mathematician, so he looks at chance from the perspective of probability theory. He sees chance events through the law of large numbers and probability distribution. When looking at any event, we may prematurely assume—taken in isolation—that the event is (strictly speaking) random; however, in looking at all events aggregately, the probability distribution of those events will begin to show a pattern. He writes:

“For instance, as a coin is tossed repeatedly, the proportion of heads will tend to ½. This stable pattern to coin tossing is justified both theoretically (various probabilistic laws of “large numbers” confirm it) and practically (when people flip coins a large number of times, they tend to see roughly the same proportion of heads and tails).”

Information, Dembski writes, “is produced when certain possibilities are realized to the exclusion of others within a matrix of possibility…. It follows that information can be measured.”

See also: Brief excerpt from Being as Communion

Also How is Steve Meyer’s Darwin’s Doubt doing? (Continues to lead, and Christians defending Darwin continue to detract.)

Thought: Will Christians defending Darwin actually read Being as Communion first? Detract later?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
And yet there it is. see for yourself
Mung, stop digging. If anybody follows that link it will take them to the top of your post, not where you use the full quote. You have to have yout little "joke" first.
Mung: Because you asked about measuring information. Tamara: No, I asked about measuring information… Mung:No? You asked about measuring information but you did not ask about measuring information? How does that work?
.
Sorry but I searched in vain in Dembski’s new book for “Dembski information.” It appears to be something you just made up.
Well done. What a hero, you must be a very fast reader. But where did I claim otherwise? I made it up as part of a proposed way to ensure there was no ambiguity as to whether we were discussing information "in the Dembski sense" or "in the Shannon sense". If you prefer, I'm happy to use the term "information" to mean information in its broadest everyday sense, and "Shannon information" only when making an appeal to the properties of Shannon information.Tamara Knight
November 14, 2014
November
11
Nov
14
14
2014
03:29 AM
3
03
29
AM
PDT
Mung, Thank you, belatedly, for alerting Barry to the timeline mix-up wrt my banning. :cool:Joe
November 13, 2014
November
11
Nov
13
13
2014
07:28 PM
7
07
28
PM
PDT
Tamara: So let’s agree to use the terms “Demski information” and “Shannon information” to avoid confusion. Sorry but I searched in vain in Dembski's new book for "Dembski information." It appears to be something you just made up. How is that supposed to avoid confusion?Mung
November 13, 2014
November
11
Nov
13
13
2014
06:49 PM
6
06
49
PM
PDT
keiths can't read, and neither can Tamara. I was accused of leaving this bit in bold out:
Tamara: I asked about measuring information in the Dembski sense. … I was asking for clarification in the Dembski sense.
And yet there it is. see for yourselfMung
November 13, 2014
November
11
Nov
13
13
2014
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT
Adapa:
It certainly increases the Shannon information which you told us was how Dembski measures information.
It doesn't increase the CSI, which is what we are discussing.
Which string has more information? “I saw a can” or “I saw a cancan.”
There is different information there. However neither exhibits CSI.Joe
November 13, 2014
November
11
Nov
13
13
2014
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT
Tamara:
Is that the closest you ever get to conceding an error, or do you simply not realise there are only four possible base pairs too.
What error?
But I do wonder though how you might react to a question that blows one of your cherished ideas out of the water if you were interested.
If I ever encounter one I will let you know.Joe
November 13, 2014
November
11
Nov
13
13
2014
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT
Joe And no having two copies of the same thing doesn’t increase the information. It certainly increases the Shannon information which you told us was how Dembski measures information. Which string has more information? "I saw a can" or "I saw a cancan." According to Joe they both have the same. That's what happens when you make up this crap as you go.Adapa
November 13, 2014
November
11
Nov
13
13
2014
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT
As for 2 bits per nucleotide, well that is the math. There are 4 possible nucleotides. 4 = 2^2 = 2 bits per nucleotide. And no having two copies of the same thing doesn’t increase the information.
Is that the closest you ever get to conceding an error, or do you simply not realise there are only four possible base pairs too.
No one cares about your questions.
Well not here apparently. You just leave the difficult stuff to real scientists I suppose. But I do wonder though how you might react to a question that blows one of your cherished ideas out of the water if you were interested.Tamara Knight
November 13, 2014
November
11
Nov
13
13
2014
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT
Tamara:
And if that metric could be applied to Dembski information, you would have no problem coming up with a numerical answer to the questions I posed Mung @post 33.
No one cares about your questions. As for 2 bits per nucleotide, well that is the math. There are 4 possible nucleotides. 4 = 2^2 = 2 bits per nucleotide. And no having two copies of the same thing doesn't increase the information.Joe
November 13, 2014
November
11
Nov
13
13
2014
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT
Because it is relevant and Shannon provided a metric pertaining to measuring information.
He did indeed, and such measurements give a numerical answer. And if that metric could be applied to Dembski information, you would have no problem coming up with a numerical answer to the questions I posed Mung @post 33
Two bits per base pair for 3 billion base pairs is 750Mbytes of raw information,
Wrong- 2 bits per nucleotide.
Really. So what are you going to claim next, that cell division doubles the amount of "information"? Because the all the Shannon information is present in each strand of DNATamara Knight
November 13, 2014
November
11
Nov
13
13
2014
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT
Mung @ 53
Can you explain how the entropy of the source depends on the length of the message? Can you explain how the average information per symbol depends on the length of the message?
I can answer though I have no idea why you need it: Entropy of "Can you explain how": 3/19 Log[19/3]+6/19 Log[19/2]+(10 Log[19])/19 = 2.55209 Entropy of "Can you explain how the entropy of the source depends on the length of the message" 15/82 Log[82/15]+6/41 Log[41/6]+7/82 Log[82/7]+9/41 Log[41/3]+2/41 Log[41/2]+3/41 Log[82/3]+(7 Log[41])/41+(3 Log[82])/41 = 2.72192 Me_Think
November 13, 2014
November
11
Nov
13
13
2014
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT
Keith S at #50
It would be the ethical thing to do.
It's very disappointing isn't it? It does not appear normal and accepted journalistic standards are in use here. A little humility to admit what was probably an honest mistake would have gone a long way. For this reason I'm not sure I want to bother reading UD anymore until there is some change in the editorial staff. Better things to do with my time.roding
November 13, 2014
November
11
Nov
13
13
2014
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT
keith s:
I’ve read most of Dembski’s previous work, and it hasn’t been very well argued.
That's an opinion from someone who doesn't know how to argue.Joe
November 13, 2014
November
11
Nov
13
13
2014
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT
Tamara Knight:
But only in response to my request for instructions about how to measure it in the Dembski sense. Why bring up Shannon at all?
Because it is relevant and Shannon provided a metric pertaining to measuring information.
Two bits per base pair for 3 billion base pairs is 750Mbytes of raw information,
Wrong- 2 bits per nucleotide.Joe
November 13, 2014
November
11
Nov
13
13
2014
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT
Mung, as keith s pointed out you have provided us with a text book example of something called "quote mining", a new name to me for a familiar concept. On another thread this was posted
Silver Asiatic With a few very minor exceptions, the effects of natural selection are not estimated or predicted. It can’t even be predicted which mutations confer an adaptive advantage because so much depends on environmental factors, resources, competitive pressures and even the effect of other mutations in the same organism.
I think i will quote that in future elsewhere, but it doesn't need any "mining". In context, it was meant as a dismissal of evolution, but as a stand alone statement I think it is a concise and even elegant summary of what Evolution is. Would the practicing evolutionary biologists here agree?
How is “the Dembski sense” different?
That is what I was asking you. Give me any string of information and I can tell you the Shannon length. Are you now claiming the Dembski length would be the same. Because the Shannon information in a random string of base pairs will never less than that in a designed string. When I give you some simple examples to illustrate the problem with your position, you ignore them and instead throw up a smoke screen.
Can you explain how the entropy of the source depends on the length of the message?
Who has told you it does? It has nothing to do with Shannon, but if you illustrate by example what precisely you would like me to explain, I'll try.
Can you explain how the average information per symbol depends on the length of the message?
Not without clarification about what you mean by "symbol". Shannon sets a minimum length of a message to send a particular set of data. If you chose to send genome data using symbols A,C,G,T, then you will send two bits per symbol. Apart from a small overhead to control begin and end, this applies regardless of the length of the message.
“the Shannon metric … considers message length only” You agree with that. After all your years in information theory. Why?
Well apart from the fact that that is how Shannon defined it I see no reason at all.Tamara Knight
November 13, 2014
November
11
Nov
13
13
2014
04:27 AM
4
04
27
AM
PDT
Thank you for the link, Sparc. But that ranking is for the $100 hardcover only. Nobody is going to buy that except Dembski's mom. I preordered and already received/read the paperback. Good stuff.ppolish
November 12, 2014
November
11
Nov
12
12
2014
10:12 PM
10
10
12
PM
PDT
ppolish:
Sparc, do you have a link to that ranking? I want to watch it rise towards top half million:)
Just look under "Product Details" on the book's Barnes & Noble page. PLease be patient: It still ranks at 942,042. It would be interesting though, how much a single deal would change this number.sparc
November 12, 2014
November
11
Nov
12
12
2014
08:29 PM
8
08
29
PM
PDT
Mung quote mines Tamara Knight:
Mung: Because you asked about measuring information. Tamara: No, I asked about measuring information… No? You asked about measuring information but you did not ask about measuring information? How does that work?
Here's what Tamara actually wrote:
No, I asked about measuring information in the Dembski sense.
You're a real asset to the ID movement, Mung. Glad you're not on my side.keith s
November 12, 2014
November
11
Nov
12
12
2014
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PDT
Just so it's perfectly clear, yet again, the sort of people we are dealing with: Tamara: Why bring up Shannon at all? Mung: Because you asked about measuring information. Tamara: No, I asked about measuring information... No? You asked about measuring information but you did not ask about measuring information? How does that work? Tamara: I asked about measuring information in the Dembski sense. ... I was asking for clarification in the Dembski sense. How is "the Dembski sense" different? Tamara: So let’s agree to use the terms “Demski information” and “Shannon information” to avoid confusion. Let's not. Unless and until you can establish that there is a meaningful difference. Adapa: Interesting. You contend Dembski defines “information” by the Shannon metric which considers message length only and specifically excludes any meaning the message may carry. Mung: That is incorrect. Try again. Tamara: Which bit are you contesting Mung? The (correct) definition of the Shannon metric, or your view on Dembski’s opinion? Can you explain how the entropy of the source depends on the length of the message? Can you explain how the average information per symbol depends on the length of the message? "the Shannon metric ... considers message length only" You agree with that. After all your years in information theory. Why?Mung
November 12, 2014
November
11
Nov
12
12
2014
05:19 PM
5
05
19
PM
PDT
ppolish,
But sticking with Dembski, how would a Material Naturalist evaluate the information sent and received in that message.
Why should it be a problem for a materialist? The transfer of information doesn't require any non-materialist assumptions.
And the requirement for apology?
Not an apology -- an admission of error and a correction. It's required by Denyse's own journalistic ethics -- assuming she subscribes to the same ethical system as her fellow journalists. And if not, she should make that very clear.
Dembski argues a Material Naturalist could not answer those question definitively.
I've read most of Dembski's previous work, and it hasn't been very well argued. We'll see if he does any better this time.keith s
November 12, 2014
November
11
Nov
12
12
2014
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT
Keith, you and I both bought the book pre-release. I read it once and will read it again after I finish Arrival of the Fittest. I'm really enjoying that book too - a 5000 dimension Universal Library? Irreducible Complexity from Inconceivable Complexity. I like it:) But Dr Dembski focuses on information. Like the message sent in the OP: "Currently (9:00 am EST) in the top 100 in the Kindle store, despite the sweetheart deals offered this summer, for buying the book." But sticking with Dembski, how would a Material Naturalist evaluate the information sent and received in that message. And the requirement for apology? Dembski argues a Material Naturalist could not answer those question definitively.ppolish
November 12, 2014
November
11
Nov
12
12
2014
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT
ppolish, Denyse said it was in the top 100. It's not even in the top 100,000:
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,325 Paid in Kindle Store
I'd say she owes us a correction, wouldn't you? It would be the ethical thing to do.keith s
November 12, 2014
November
11
Nov
12
12
2014
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT
Moved up from #26 to #25 for Kindle "Logic & Language" category in last hour. I have to get back to my Bicycle Shop duties now but I'll check again later:)ppolish
November 12, 2014
November
11
Nov
12
12
2014
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT
Sparc, do you have a link to that ranking? I want to watch it rise towards top half million:)ppolish
November 12, 2014
November
11
Nov
12
12
2014
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT
ppolish, Denyse made this claim:
Currently (9:00 am EST) in the top 100 in the Kindle store, despite the sweetheart deals offered this summer, for buying the book.
Here are the top 100. Being as Communion is not among them, of course. Denyse screwed up, but she is refusing to do the ethical thing by admitting and correcting her mistake.keith s
November 12, 2014
November
11
Nov
12
12
2014
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT
Barnes & Noble sales rank: 942,042sparc
November 12, 2014
November
11
Nov
12
12
2014
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT
Keith, Being as Communion WAS Top 100 as stated in OP. Heck, it was #77. Now it is #26. http://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Kindle-Store-Logic-Language-Philosophy/zgbs/digital-text/157445011/ref=zg_bs_nav_kstore_5_157430011#2ppolish
November 12, 2014
November
11
Nov
12
12
2014
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT
Barnes & Noble has the $110 hardcover edition for sale. Although back order only. But Nook Book available now; http://m.barnesandnoble.com/w/being-as-communion-william-a-dembski/1119617748?ean=9780754638575 Some people don't like to shop Amazon.ppolish
November 12, 2014
November
11
Nov
12
12
2014
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT
Denyse, You claim to be a journalist. Ethical journalists correct their errors. From the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics:
BE ACCOUNTABLE Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other. Journalists should... - Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.
You have been shown, and reminded several times, that a crucial claim in your OP is false. The ethical things to do is to admit your error and correct it. Why haven't you done that?keith s
November 12, 2014
November
11
Nov
12
12
2014
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT
Novelrank is clearly bogus Centrestream. Amazon knows their data. Data Gathering Pros. Audited & Accurate.ppolish
November 12, 2014
November
11
Nov
12
12
2014
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply