Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

An attempt at computing dFSCI for English language

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In a recent post, I was challenged to offer examples of computation of dFSCI for a list of 4 objects for which I had inferred design.

One of the objects was a Shakespeare sonnet.

My answer was the following:

A Shakespeare sonnet. Alan’s comments about that are out of order. I don’t infer design because I know of Shakespeare, or because I am fascinated by the poetry (although I am). I infer design simply because this is a piece of language with perfect meaning in english (OK, ancient english).
Now, a Shakespeare sonnet is about 600 characters long. That corresponds to a search space of about 3000 bits. Now, I cannot really compute the target space for language, but I am assuming here that the number of 600 characters sequences which make good sense in english is lower than 2^2500, and therefore the functional complexity of a Shakespeare sonnet is higher than 500 bits, Dembski’s UPB. As I am aware of no simple algorithm which can generate english sonnets from single characters, I infer design. I am certain that this is not a false positive.

In the discussion, I admitted however that I had not really computed the target space in this case:

The only point is that I have not a simple way to measure the target space for English language, so I have taken a shortcut by choosing a long enough sequence, so that I am well sure that the target space /search space ratio is above 500 bits. As I have clearly explained in my post #400.
For proteins, I have methods to approximate a lower threshold for the target space. For language I have never tried, because it is not my field, but I am sure it can be done. We need a linguist (Piotr, where are you?).
That’s why I have chosen and over-generous length. Am I wrong? Well, just offer a false positive.
For language, it is easy to show that the functional complexity is bound to increase with the length of the sequence. That is IMO true also for proteins, but it is less intuitive.

That remains true. But I have reflected, and I thought that perhaps, even if I am not a linguist and not even a amthematician, I could try to define better quantitatively the target space in this case, or at least to find a reasonable higher threshold for it.

So, here is the result of my reasonings. Again, I am neither a linguist nor a mathematician, and I will happy to consider any comment, criticism or suggestion. If I have made errors in my computations, I am ready to apologize.

Let’s start from my functional definition: any text of 600 characters which has good meaning in English.

The search space for a random search where every character has the same probability, assuming an alphabet of 30 characters (letters, space, elementary punctuation) gives easily a search space of 30^600, that is 2^2944. IOWs 2944 bits.

OK.

Now, I make the following assumptions (more or less derived from a quick Internet search:

a) There are about 200,000 words in English

b) The average length of an English word is 5 characters.

I also make the easy assumption that a text which has good meaning in English is made of English words.

For a 600 character text, we can therefore assume an average number of words of 120 (600/5).

Now, we compute the possible combinations (with repetition) of 120 words from a pool of 200000. The result, if I am right, is: 2^1453. IOWs 1453 bits.

Now, obviously each of these combinations can have n! permutations, therefore each of them has 120! different permutation, that is 2^660. IOWs 660 bits.

So, multiplying the total number of word combinations with repetitions by the total number of permutations for each combination, we have:

2^1453 * 2^660 = 2^2113

IOWs, 2113 bits.

What is this number? It is the total number of sequences of 120 words that we can derive from a pool of 200000 English words. Or at least, a good approximation of that number.

It’s a big number.

Now, the important concept: in that number are certainly included all the sequences of 600 characters which have good meaning in English. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine sequences that have good meaning in English and are not made of correct English words.

And the important question: how many of those sequences have good meaning in English? I have no idea. But anyone will agree that it must be only a small subset.

So, I believe that we can say that 2^2113 is a higher threshold for out target space of sequences of 600 characters which have a good meaning in English. And, certainly, a very generous higher threshold.

Well, if we take that number as a measure of our target space, what is the functional information in a sequence of 600 characters which has good meaning in English?

It’s easy: the ratio between target space and search space:

2^2113 / 2^ 2944 = 2^-831. IOWs, taking -log2, 831 bits of functional information. (Thank you to drc466 for the kind correction here)

So, if we consider as a measure of our functional space a number which is certainly an extremely overestimated higher threshold for the real value, still our dFSI is over 800 bits.

Let’s go back to my initial statement:

Now, a Shakespeare sonnet is about 600 characters long. That corresponds to a search space of about 3000 bits. Now, I cannot really compute the target space for language, but I am assuming here that the number of 600 characters sequences which make good sense in english is lower than 2^2500, and therefore the functional complexity of a Shakespeare sonnet is higher than 500 bits, Dembski’s UPB. As I am aware of no simple algorithm which can generate english sonnets from single characters, I infer design. I am certain that this is not a false positive.

Was I wrong? You decide.

By the way, another important result is that if I make the same computation for a 300 character string, the dFSI value is 416 bits. That is a very clear demonstration that, in language, dFSI is bound to increase with the length of the string.

Comments
gpuccio, What do you think of this? I know you understand this much better than I do: https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/a-third-way-of-evolution/#comment-534047 Thank you.Dionisio
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT
ZAc said, Tests of Bell’s Inequality indicate there are no local hidden variables. I say, Bell's Inequality is definitely above my pay grade. All I can do is point out that I'm not talking about local hidden variables if I understand them correctly I'm talking about a variable that is instantaneous and universal in scope. I think that would flow necessarily if the entire universe is the computer. Oh well all of this is just an interesting rabbit trail. QM could be truly random or apparently random and it would not change much as far as science goes. IMHO peacefifthmonarchyman
November 30, 2014
November
11
Nov
30
30
2014
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PDT
Zachriel:
Me_Think: If you mean evolution of encephalization, say so. Not sure, but Gary S. Gaulin may be referring to intercellular communication networks.
I am referring to neural brain produced "intelligence" as operationally defined by the systematics of a computer model of intelligence, which is explained in its theory of operation, the accompanying Theory of Intelligent Design. Cellular communication networks are a product of cellular intelligence. Not all cellular communication networks are intelligent at the multicellular level. Prior to the very beginning of the "Cambrian Explosion" there would have been no multicellular intelligence, but cellular intelligence was already very well established by then.Gary S. Gaulin
November 30, 2014
November
11
Nov
30
30
2014
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT
fifthmonarchyman: the key word is appear. Tests of Bell's Inequality indicate there are no local hidden variables.Zachriel
November 30, 2014
November
11
Nov
30
30
2014
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT
Me_Think:
I have skimmed through his 51 pages........... There is nothing there about evolution of intelligence.
You're lost without your fuzzy crutch word (evolution)? Are you just another scientific disgrace trying as hard as you can to turn science into a scientifically lazy follow the crowd dictatorship where all is explained by using insulting generalizations that cannot even explain how intelligence or intelligent cause works?Gary S. Gaulin
November 30, 2014
November
11
Nov
30
30
2014
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT
zac says On the other hand, quantum effects do appear to be truly random. I say, the key word is appear. Any string with out discernible patterns will appear random until and unless you can specify an algorithm that will reproduce it. It's possible that when it comes to quantum effects the algorithm is run on the universe itself. If that is the case quantum effects will always appear random to an observer inside the universe/computer peacefifthmonarchyman
November 30, 2014
November
11
Nov
30
30
2014
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT
Zachriel @ 921 I have skimmed through his 51 pages disjointed Theory of Intelligent Design . He touches on Multicellular and Human Multicellular Intelligence briefly on page 33 and 34. There is nothing there about evolution of intelligence. I think he just wants to highlight his VB6 program about what he calls Intelligence Design Lab critter. Most pages are bizarre. Eg: He runs read write operation and graphs the memory usage, says that is foraging, and claims that somehow represents intelligence evolution through Cambrian explosion!!:
The familiar lines seen here are predicted to be representative of the development of multicellular intelligence just prior to and through the Cambrian Explosion.
Me_Think
November 30, 2014
November
11
Nov
30
30
2014
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT
Me_Think: If you mean evolution of encephalization, say so. Not sure, but Gary S. Gaulin may be referring to intercellular communication networks.Zachriel
November 30, 2014
November
11
Nov
30
30
2014
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PDT
fifthmonarchyman: 1) True randomness does not exist and apparent randomness is merely a statement about the ignorance of the observer Randomness entails a couple of different concepts. In science, it generally means variables are uncorrelated. So we might say mutation is random with respect to fitness. That doesn't suggest that mutation doesn't have a cause, just that you can't predict one from the other. Algorithms can't produced truly random numbers, and all algorithmic random number generators eventually repeat. This is fairly obvious when you realize that there are a finite number of states for a finite digital computer, so if it runs continuously, it eventually has to return to a previous state. On the other hand, quantum effects do appear to be truly random.Zachriel
November 30, 2014
November
11
Nov
30
30
2014
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT
Me_Think and gpuccio Hey Guys, quick recap Ive now intuited that "random" equals an undetermined irrational constant corresponding to the algorithm that can reproduce the string. I can now plug your strings into my game and I believe something amazing will happen. I haven't done this yet but my hypothesis is that with gpuccio's string I will be able to fool the observer for a very long time with any irrational constant that I choose. Only when the observer discovers precisely which irrational constant was used to produce the original string will he cease to be fooled I further hypothesize That an observer will be able to quickly pick out any of Me_Think's strings in which the characters are arranged "randomly". In this way my game can act as a "randomness" detector. I'm telling you this is cool stuff peacefifthmonarchyman
November 30, 2014
November
11
Nov
30
30
2014
05:11 AM
5
05
11
AM
PDT
Gary S. Gaulin @ 917,
... (click on my name for link) or go away.
You are a nobody . People don't have to spend time reading your theories to understand ID. If you have to say something about your theory which no body knows about, ask for an OP, write a book, write a paper and publish in ID journals.Me_Think
November 30, 2014
November
11
Nov
30
30
2014
04:53 AM
4
04
53
AM
PDT
If you expected someone to discuss your model of evolution of intelligence as you understand it based on your theory , I can’t help.
Then you just admitted that you do not belong in a forum for discussing ID theory or cognitive science. You should now do the honorable thing and either start studying what you missed (click on my name for link) or go away.Gary S. Gaulin
November 29, 2014
November
11
Nov
29
29
2014
11:11 PM
11
11
11
PM
PDT
Gary S. Gaulin @ 913
- I thought you are ancient in using kiddy drag and drop VB6 for your coding... -You sure like to pride yourself, for not even knowing what the kids are into these days.
You got me there !So I modify my comment thus: I thought you are ancient in using ancient drag and drop VB6 for your coding...Me_Think
November 29, 2014
November
11
Nov
29
29
2014
11:10 PM
11
11
10
PM
PDT
Gary S. Gaulin @ 914, If you expected someone to discuss your model of evolution of intelligence as you understand it based on your theory , I can't help.Me_Think
November 29, 2014
November
11
Nov
29
29
2014
10:55 PM
10
10
55
PM
PDT
Me_Think:
Read the damn NASA paper @ 910 if you want to know how encephalization is linked to evolution of intelligence.
And you sure are lost. But at this point it's best that I don't bother wasting more time on your excuses for not knowing what you're talking about (in regards to cognitive science). I had enough of your "evolution of intelligence" generalizations that cannot explain how either intelligence or intelligent cause works. Just more hand-waving with big-words to make you look-smart.Gary S. Gaulin
November 29, 2014
November
11
Nov
29
29
2014
10:42 PM
10
10
42
PM
PDT
I thought you are ancient in using kiddy drag and drop VB6 for your coding,
You sure like to pride yourself, for not even knowing what the kids are into these days.Gary S. Gaulin
November 29, 2014
November
11
Nov
29
29
2014
10:32 PM
10
10
32
PM
PDT
Gary S. Gaulin @ 911
How many times must I clearly say “multicellular intelligence” before you or anyone else defending Darwinian theory seriously addresses the origin of “multicellular intelligence”?
You think we are talking about Encephalization of single cellular organism ?- Is it even possible for a single cellular organism ? Are you that daft ? Read the damn NASA paper @ 910 if you want to know how encephalization is linked to evolution of intelligence.Me_Think
November 29, 2014
November
11
Nov
29
29
2014
10:19 PM
10
10
19
PM
PDT
Wow! For someone peddling his own theories, you are remarkably uninformed. Evolution of Encephalization is evolution of intelligence !! You think Brain’s function is purifying blood ? Here is a premier from NASA
How many times must I clearly say "multicellular intelligence" before you or anyone else defending Darwinian theory seriously addresses the origin of "multicellular intelligence"? Where is your model (I have one) to show what to look for in the fossil evidence?Gary S. Gaulin
November 29, 2014
November
11
Nov
29
29
2014
10:03 PM
10
10
03
PM
PDT
Gary S. Gaulin @ 909 Wow! For someone peddling his own theories, you are remarkably uninformed. Evolution of Encephalization is evolution of intelligence !! Here is a premier from NASA I thought you are ancient in using kiddy drag and drop VB6 for your coding, but find you are ancient in your thinking too.Me_Think
November 29, 2014
November
11
Nov
29
29
2014
09:47 PM
9
09
47
PM
PDT
And:
If you mean evolution of encephalization, say so.
Wow! You sure were desperate for a big-word, to make you look-smart.
Encephalization is defined as the amount of brain mass related to an animal's total body mass. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encephalization
LOL!!!Gary S. Gaulin
November 29, 2014
November
11
Nov
29
29
2014
09:37 PM
9
09
37
PM
PDT
Stop promoting your own concepts (your origin of intelligence blog is not standard scientific literature for us to study and understand).
I forgot that you need science magazines to keep you informed in what's going on in all of science, and to do all your thinking for you. You have to somehow keep the groupthink going, right? What better way than to dismiss what your magazines said they will not allow to be published anyway? A perfect plan to censor science!!!!!!Gary S. Gaulin
November 29, 2014
November
11
Nov
29
29
2014
09:22 PM
9
09
22
PM
PDT
Gary S. Gaulin @ 906 to zac
... proliferation of multicellular intelligence is one of the very.... Your attention to scientific detail is at least consistent with what is expected from a clueless political hack.
Stop promoting your own concepts (your origin of intelligence blog is not standard scientific literature for us to study and understand). If you mean evolution of encephalization, say so. You can't expect us to know your non-standard concepts.Me_Think
November 29, 2014
November
11
Nov
29
29
2014
09:07 PM
9
09
07
PM
PDT
And Zachriel, in regards to this brush-off:
You do realize there is ample evidence of life before the Cambrian Explosion, including multicellular life?
I stated quote:
Gary S. Gaulin: Not having beforehand predicted a sudden proliferation of multicellular intelligence is one of the very serious weaknesses of Darwinian theory.
Your attention to scientific detail is at least consistent with what is expected from a clueless political hack.Gary S. Gaulin
November 29, 2014
November
11
Nov
29
29
2014
08:55 PM
8
08
55
PM
PDT
Zachriel:
As for your link, the problem with pseudo-science is that, because it’s not constrained by observation, it fractures into as many pieces as there are advocates (adaptive radiation).
Or in other words Zachriel is another political hack who does not even bother to study what they claim to understand. But go ahead and look at all this "pseudo-science" everyone! http://www.planetsourcecode.com/vb/scripts/BrowseCategoryOrSearchResults.asp?txtCriteria=Gary+Gaulin&lngWId=1Gary S. Gaulin
November 29, 2014
November
11
Nov
29
29
2014
08:16 PM
8
08
16
PM
PDT
I think I need to modify my specification A undetermined Irrational constant corresponding to the algorithm that produced it. needs to be something like A undetermined Irrational constant corresponding to an algorithm that can reproduce it. Peacefifthmonarchyman
November 29, 2014
November
11
Nov
29
29
2014
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT
gpuccio, Well, I approached your challenge as if I was the observer playing my game. I asked myself what I can know about your string. First of all since it is finite I know there is an algorithm that corresponds to it. Next I intuit that the digits of the string don't repeat and the program doesn't halt (via Chaitin's constant). Thus I can say that the the output of the algorithm is an irrational constant. I want to say this is a tentative observation on my part I have a lot to learn about the halting problem I'm not even sure I can speak intelligently about it right now. A couple of implications that flow from this 1) True randomness does not exist and apparent randomness is merely a statement about the ignorance of the observer 2) Even the first rung on the Y-axes in not attainable by algorithmic means Does any of that make sense? Peacefifthmonarchyman
November 29, 2014
November
11
Nov
29
29
2014
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT
#900 fifthmonarchyman You have written the post # 900 in this thread!!! Will this thread reach the 1000 posts mark? This thread, which started with an insightful OP by gpuccio, has almost twice as many posted comments as the most popular OP thread in this site: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-world-famous-chemist-tells-the-truth-theres-no-scientist-alive-today-who-understands-macroevolution/ Ok, these stats are not that important at the end of the day, but it's kind of interesting to see how discussions can turn intensive and extensive. :)Dionisio
November 29, 2014
November
11
Nov
29
29
2014
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT
fifthmonarchyman: Yes, could you please elaborate? I am certainly interested, but I would like to understand well your point.gpuccio
November 29, 2014
November
11
Nov
29
29
2014
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT
gpuccio I hope you are still checking here from time to time I've been thinking hard about the mirror image relationship between your challenge and my "game" and I think I have a specification for your string A undetermined Irrational constant corresponding to the algorithm that produced it. I can elaborate if needed. This specification is the lowest level of the Y-axes! Besides uniting our two approaches it provides a way to define "random" that even rock ribbed Calvinists like me can get behind This has been one fun and productive vacation! peacefifthmonarchyman
November 29, 2014
November
11
Nov
29
29
2014
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT
fifthmonarchyman:
Do you believe that finite strings are computable even if their specification is unknown? If so we are at a metaphysical impasse.
Computability is not a metaphysical concept. It's a well-defined automata theoretic concept. A string is computable iff it can be produced by a Turing-equivalent system. Every finite string can be produced by a Turing-equivalent system, so every finite string is computable. This isn't a matter of opinion or metaphysics.R0bb
November 29, 2014
November
11
Nov
29
29
2014
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT
1 2 3 31

Leave a Reply