“Conservation of Information Made Simple” at ENV

_{William Dembski

August 28, 2012

Informatics, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Evolution News & Views just posted a long article I wrote on conservation of information.

EXCERPT: “In this article, I’m going to follow the example of these books, laying out as simply and clearly as I can what conservation of information is and why it poses a challenge to conventional evolutionary thinking. I’ll break this concept down so that it seems natural and straightforward. Right now, it’s too easy for critics of intelligent design to say, ‘Oh, that conservation of information stuff is just mumbo-jumbo. It’s part of the ID agenda to make a gullible public think there’s some science backing ID when it’s really all smoke and mirrors.’ Conservation of information is not a difficult concept and once it is understood, it becomes clear that evolutionary processes cannot create the information required to power biological evolution.” MORE

TEASER: The article quotes some interesting email correspondence that I had with Richard Dawkins and with Simon Conway Morris, now going back about a decade, but still highly relevant.

Comments

R0bb, The misunderstanding s are all yours. Unsearchable spaces are not included in Ω, period, end of story. That you refuse to grasp that simple fact tells me that you have other issues. As for the directions in the machine/ dice example- Dembsji says:
But then a troubling question crosses your mind: Where did this machine that raises your probability of success come from?
That means you need to find the machine/ machines, R0bb.Joe_{October 12, 2012
October
10
Oct
12
12
2012
04:15 AM
4
04
15
AM
PDT}

Joe:
So ?, in your example, would be whatever two spaces are amendable to be searched from where the start is- which is something you have never defined.
Like all search-for-a-search scenarios, the random walk example is a chain of two random variables. The state at time t is never defined because it's a random variable. You won't tell me whether you understand what the term random variable means, so I don't know if you understand what I just said. But I'm repeating what I said before, and your question indicates that you didn't understand it the first time, so I doubt that you understand it now.
We were NOT talking about that, were we? Talk about being dishonest, geez.
No, we were talking about a different example that, like the dice/machines example, doesn't involve "directions". Since you added these imaginary directions to the example in the S4S paper, I figured you would do the same for the dice/machines example. And you're nothing if not consistent:
But anyway the directions to ignore would be where to find the machines that are up to the task- I went over that already too.
Again, there are no such directions in that example. You made them up. I can guess at the source of your misunderstanding of Dembski's framework. I can't say for sure, since you won't answer my questions, but I'll share my guess with you when I get time to write another comment.R0bb_{October 11, 2012
October
10
Oct
11
11
2012
10:40 PM
10
10
40
PM
PDT}

Unsearchable spaces are not included in Ω, period, end of story. So Ω, in your example, would be whatever two spaces are amendable to be searched from where the start is- which is something you have never defined.
Also, I recommend that you read the article that the OP is about. And ask yourself how you reconcile the dice/machine example with your interpretation of “active information” as “directions” which the searcher is free to ignore.
We were NOT talking about that, were we? Talk about being dishonest, geez. But anyway the directions to ignore would be where to find the machines that are up to the task- I went over that already too.Joe_{October 11, 2012
October
10
Oct
11
11
2012
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT}

Joe, Okay, so you're back to your assertion that |Ω| = 2 instead of 5. Apparently the fact that the LCI holds if |Ω| = 2 is indicating to you that you're correct. Of course, the LCI also holds if |Ω| = .001, but that would be nonsense. I define Ω as {"n-2", "n-1", "n", "n+1", "n+2"}, using the labels from random walk model definition. What do you think Ω should be? That is, can you fill in the blanks: Ω = {___, ___} Remember that Ω is part of the model definition. It doesn't change according to which low-level search is realized in the high-level search. Also, I recommend that you read the article that the OP is about. And ask yourself how you reconcile the dice/machine example with your interpretation of "active information" as "directions" which the searcher is free to ignore.R0bb_{October 11, 2012
October
10
Oct
11
11
2012
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT}

R0bb, Any space that does not have the target has a zero probability outcome. The equations YOU used- Dembski and Marks' equations. Unsearchable spaces are not included in ?, period, end of story. Deal with that.Joe_{October 10, 2012
October
10
Oct
10
10
2012
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT}

R0bb:
Can zero-probability outcomes occur?
Joe:
Already answered that question, R0bb.
Sorry, I must have missed it. Which comment is your answer in?
Also the fact that when I plug in the values I say are correct, the equations actually work, tells me I am right.
Excellent! Let's see these equations.R0bb_{October 10, 2012
October
10
Oct
10
10
2012
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT}

Already answered that question, R0bb. Also the fact that when I plug in the values I say are correct, the equations actually work, tells me I am right. Unsearchable spaces are not included in Ω, period, end of story.Joe_{October 9, 2012
October
10
Oct
9
09
2012
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT}

Well then you don't understand a damn thing.
Then why is it that I'm I addressing with specificity each of the issues that you bring up, while you avoid almost all of my questions like they have cooties? It's astounding that you're unwilling to go out on a limb and answer as simple a question as "Can zero-probability outcomes occur?" It's not a trick question.R0bb_{October 9, 2012
October
10
Oct
9
09
2012
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT}

R0bb:
And yet I just pointed out specifically where they do.
Only in your mind. Umm the directions are the active information which tells you where NOT to look.
No.
Well then you don't understand a damn thing.Joe_{October 9, 2012
October
10
Oct
9
09
2012
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT}

Joe:
No, R0bb, Dembski and Marks do NOT do what you say.
And yet I just pointed out specifically where they do. And I showed that you do too. Are you going to address this, or simply keep repeating your claim?
Umm the directions are the active information which tells you where NOT to look.
No. There is no "you" doing the "searching" in that example. There is only "we" analyzing the math, but we're not doing the "searching". Read the example and you'll see that this is the case. Even though I've pointed it out repeatedly, you still haven't grokked the fact that in Dembski's framework, a "search" is a random variable. Active information is bias in this random variable. You're still acting as if Dembski is using the terms "search" and "information" in their conventional senses. Can zero-probability outcomes occur? That's a ridiculously simple yes/no question.R0bb_{October 9, 2012
October
10
Oct
9
09
2012
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT}

No, R0bb, Dembski and Marks do NOT do what you say. As I told you already, YES, that space is open to a search by an imbecile who cannot follow directions.
There are no directions in that example
Umm the directions are the active information which tells you where NOT to look. But anyway wallow in your strawman.Joe_{October 9, 2012
October
10
Oct
9
09
2012
04:54 AM
4
04
54
AM
PDT}

So you’re saying that Dembski and Marks are wrong when they define ? such that it includes outcomes that are inaccessible to the alternate search?
They do not do that.
Of course they do, in examples and in theorems. In each of their three CoI theorems, there are alternate searches for which all outcomes in Ω, except for one, have a probability of zero. They even have a name, "Brillouin active information", for the increase in performance resulting from a subset of Ω being inaccessible to the alternate search. And you do it too. In the random walk example, there are three alternate searches, and every outcome in Ω has a probability of zero in at least one of those alternate searches. So why do you say that |Ω| is 2, when your own claims dictate that it should be 0?
As I told you already, YES, that space is open to a search by an imbecile who cannot follow directions.
There are no directions in that example, nor is there a person who could do something imbecilic. There are only well-defined random variables. Θ_2 confers a probability of zero on square 1.1. Zero-probability outcomes cannot occur. Please, please, tell me that you understand this fact.R0bb_{October 8, 2012
October
10
Oct
8
08
2012
10:02 PM
10
10
02
PM
PDT}

So you’re saying that Dembski and Marks are wrong when they define ? such that it includes outcomes that are inaccessible to the alternate search?
They do not do that.
Is square 1.1 accessible to the alternate search in the S4S example that we discussed at length?
As I told you already, YES, that space is open to a search by an imbecile who cannot follow directions. And Robb, you don't have to tell me what you don't understand, it is obvious.Joe_{October 7, 2012
October
10
Oct
7
07
2012
05:06 PM
5
05
06
PM
PDT}

If it cannot be searched it is not included, period.
So you're saying that Dembski and Marks are wrong when they define Ω such that it includes outcomes that are inaccessible to the alternate search? Is square 1.1 accessible to the alternate search in the S4S example that we discussed at length? That's a yes/no question -- you can answer it in 2 or 3 keystrokes.
Every outcome is either part of the target or it isn’t.
Every outcome is searchable/ accessible at the same time or it is not part of ? and therefor not part of the equation.
What does that have to do with the probability of an outcome being part of the target? What equation are you talking about? Because you refuse to tell me what you've read and what you already understand (or don't understand), I have no way of knowing where to start when I talk to you. If you haven't read the article referenced in the OP or other Evo Info Lab papers, we have to start with the basic concepts. But if you've read them, then we have a foundation of shared terminology and concepts. It seems that we don't have that foundation, which is why I keep asking you what you've read and what you do or don't understand. Your refusal to answer dooms this conversation, which means that you've launched a series of criticisms, accusations, and insults at me and then made it impossible to discuss them. Why are you doing this?R0bb_{October 7, 2012
October
10
Oct
7
07
2012
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT}

R0bb:
You said that ? should be 2 instead of 5.
Ω is whatever is searchable for the target you are looking for.
2 is the number of states accessible to the alternate search.
Doesn't matter. If it cannot be searched it is not included, period. And that is why we do NOT include the numbers above 6 when considering the probabilities of a roll of a die Also as I have already told you in your example the target get be had in the fisrt search, and that is not so with Dembski and Marks examples. They are talking about one search that will make the second search easier.
Who said anything about the “probability of containing the target”?
I did.
Every outcome is either part of the target or it isn’t.
Every outcome is searchable/ accessible at the same time or it is not part of Ω and therefor not part of the equation.Joe_{October 7, 2012
October
10
Oct
7
07
2012
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT}

Joe:
? is the searchable space, meaning every position within ? can be searched.
You said that Ω should be 2 instead of 5. 2 is the number of states accessible to the alternate search. But Ω can contain outcomes that are inaccessible to the alternate search. I've pointed out several examples of this. We could go through them again if you'd like.
? does contain areas that have a zero probability of containing the target
Who said anything about the "probability of containing the target"? How does that even make sense? Every outcome is either part of the target or it isn't.R0bb_{October 7, 2012
October
10
Oct
7
07
2012
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT}

R0bb, Ω is the searchable space, meaning every position within Ω can be searched. The searchable area is Ω- and only the searchable area. If it ain't in the seachable area it is not in Ω. And if you cannot find a space that means it is not in the searchable area and is not included in Ω Ω does contain areas that have a zero probability of containing the target, yet still have some probability, ie NOT zero, of being searched. I told you that in the beginning and it still stands. IOW you don't have any challenge for me- well maybe the challenge is just reading your tripe. And your tripe is an insult to IDists, especially Dembski and Marks.Joe_{October 7, 2012
October
10
Oct
7
07
2012
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT}

Joe, it's you, not Dembski, that I'm challenging right now. You said I "smooched the pooch" for including inaccessible outcomes in Ω. Then you reversed your position, saying that Ω can contain inaccessible outcomes. Then you apparently reversed it back again, referring me back to comments 24-27. Throughout this, you never acknowledged changing your position, nor did you ever retract the "smooched the pooch" insult. You have called me a liar, told me that I seem to be good at humping strawmen, and favored me with a whole host of other insults and accusations. But when it comes to defending your criticisms, you avoid answering even the simplest of questions. Are you going to defend your criticisms, accusations, and insults, or not?R0bb_{October 7, 2012
October
10
Oct
7
07
2012
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT}

@JWTruthInLove, Any onlookers who think that don't know anything anyway. So why should I care about know-nothings? I told R0bb what was wrong with his examples and he can't take it. I am done- if Dembski wants to chime in to protect his work- if he thinks it is threatened- then let him do it. Why am I in charge of protecting Dembski?Joe_{October 7, 2012
October
10
Oct
7
07
2012
04:26 AM
4
04
26
AM
PDT}

@Joe: To onlookers it looks like you have some issues you have to resolve... Like developing the ability to answer questions.JWTruthInLove_{October 7, 2012
October
10
Oct
7
07
2012
03:45 AM
3
03
45
AM
PDT}

R0bb, Obvioulsy you have issues that you need to resolve. I will leave you to take care of that and will join Dembski in giving you the "response" you deserve.Joe_{October 7, 2012
October
10
Oct
7
07
2012
03:11 AM
3
03
11
AM
PDT}

Your random walk search in no way exemplifies anything Dembski and Marks were talking about.
Which of the following statements do you disagree with? 1) In Dembski and Marks' LCI framework, a "search" is nothing more than a random variable. 2) The LCI says that the active information of a lower-level search is never higher than the endogenous information of the higher-level search. 3) A chain of two searches is nothing more than a chain of two random variables. 4) So the LCI applies to chains of two random variables. 5) The random walk example is a chain of two random variables. 6) So the LCI applies to the random walk example.
Any space without the target = an impossible outcome, duh.
It looks like we need to step way back. Do you know what the probability theoretic term outcome means? Do you understand the concepts of a random variable and a sample space? And while we're at it, which of Marks and Dembski’s papers have you read? Did you read the article referenced in the OP? Why do you avoid most of my questions, even when they're yes/no? Do you not understand them, not know the answer, not like the answer, not want to take the time to type "yes" or "no", or is it some other reason?R0bb_{October 6, 2012
October
10
Oct
6
06
2012
10:17 PM
10
10
17
PM
PDT}

As for understanding, well it is clear that you do not understand what Dembski and marks wrote. And there is no way any thread can be productive with you and your strawman as the focal point. So I wiill leave you to wallow in your strawman.
I didn’t say anything about “spaces that do NOT contain the target.” I said “impossible outcomes”, meaning zero-probability outcomes, which has nothing to do with whether the target contains them or not.
Any space without the target = an impossible outcome, duh.Joe_{October 4, 2012
October
10
Oct
4
04
2012
04:28 AM
4
04
28
AM
PDT}

R0bb, Your random walk search in no way exemplifies anything Dembski and Marks were talking about. Yours is a strawman, period, end of story- and you deserve to be ignored.Joe_{October 4, 2012
October
10
Oct
4
04
2012
04:26 AM
4
04
26
AM
PDT}

Joe:
In Dembski’s omega EVERY space can be had with one move. Not so with yours.
By definition, every "space" in Ω "can be had with one move" in the baseline search. When you talk about more than one "move", you're thinking of the higher-level search followed by the alternate search. Neither of those is the baseline search. The baseline search is defined as a flat distribution over Ω. That's Dembski and Marks' definition, which I've been using consistently. I've never said or implied differently. You called me a liar over this issue in #170. Please show me that I'm lying when I say that every "space" in Ω "can be had with one move" in the baseline search. Where have I ever said any different? Quote me, please.

You later changed your position, saying that ? could contain impossible outcomes.
Yes omega contains spaces that do NOT contain the target.
I didn't say anything about "spaces that do NOT contain the target." I said "impossible outcomes", meaning zero-probability outcomes, which has nothing to do with whether the target contains them or not. I'll ask again: - Is there anything I’ve said in this discussion that you don’t understand? - Which of Marks and Dembski's papers have you read? Did you read the article referenced in the OP? These are a few of the literally dozens of questions that you have ignored, causing this discussion to go in circles. There's no way that this thread can be productive if you aren't willing to say what you do and do not understand.R0bb_{October 3, 2012
October
10
Oct
3
03
2012
10:55 PM
10
10
55
PM
PDT}

R0bb:
What exactly did they write that shows that my ? is wrong?
The same thing I have been telling you. Nothing has changed. In Dembski's omega EVERY space can be had with one move. Not so with yours.
You later changed your position, saying that ? could contain impossible outcomes.
Yes omega contains spaces that do NOT contain the target. However each and every space is available to be searched. Again, not so with your example. And no, Dembski won't chime in to correct your nonsense.Joe_{September 29, 2012
September
09
Sep
29
29
2012
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT}

Joe:
Your omega is wrong- that is according to what Dembski and marks wrote.
What exactly did they write that shows that my Ω is wrong? Can you please provide a quote? You started this conversation by disputing my definition of Ω, saying that it should be 2 instead of 5 since there are only 2 possibilities. You later changed your position, saying that Ω could contain impossible outcomes. This is after telling me that I "smooched the pooch" because I included impossible outcomes in Ω. At that point you said that Ω isn't even relevant. You even said, "That you keep going back to omega tells me you have deceptive intentions." So after disputing my definition of Ω, you criticized me for staying on the subject of the dispute that you brought up. Now you're disputing Ω again.
Do you call it a “search” when you roll a die a single time?
Only if it is part of a search. If I am just rolling a die then it isn’t a search.
This may explain why we can't agree. In Dembski's LCI model, a search is a random variable. That means that something as simple as a roll of a die is a search. Perhaps you haven't read Dembski's work (including the article that the OP is about), and you think that he uses the term search in its conventional sense. You have to actually read his papers to see what he means. So I'll ask you point blank: Which of his papers have you read? Did you read the article referenced in the OP? This argument is unnecessary in the sense that the point I made in the random walk example has already been acknowledged by a member of the Evo Info Lab, namely Atom. He sees the LCI as having a tacit condition, even though Dembski and Marks have never said so, and have consistently portrayed the LCI as a universal law. The only question is whether Dembski will acknowledge that the LCI doesn't always work. It's not a controversial issue -- it's a trivial, mathematical fact, as already acknowledged by Atom. So I appreciate you keeping this thread alive, on the very slim chance that Dembski or another member of the Evo Info Lab may see fit to chime in. We have to all get on the same page with regards to basic mathematical facts before we can talk about applying the LCI to ID.
Good luck with that- ya see there isn’t anything else to say about your examples until they appear in a peer-reviewed journal.
So you accept Dembski's LCI even though it's not peer-reviewed, but my counterexample to his LCI needs to be peer-reviewed?R0bb_{September 29, 2012
September
09
Sep
29
29
2012
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT}

BTW R0bb, I never assumed that you understood the topic as it has been clear to me that you do not. But again you can try to have your stuff published and prove me wrong.Joe_{September 23, 2012
September
09
Sep
23
23
2012
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT}

R0bb, Your omega is wrong- that is according to what Dembski and marks wrote. The target that is in omega can be had in ONE move. Not so with your example. As for a search for a search, again in your example we can find the target in the first move, meaning there isn't any search for a search. In DM's example they were searching for two different things. The first search was to help them in the second search. Not so with yours.
Do you call it a “search” when you roll a die a single time?
Only if it is part of a search. If I am just rolling a die then it isn't a search.
When you get a fortuitous roll in a board game, do you say, “Wow, that was a great search”?
No, I say "Yes!" But anyway I explained why your example is incorrect. However if you choose you can try to have it published. Good luck with that- ya see there isn't anything else to say about your examples until they appear in a peer-reviewed journal. But I doubt the ever will make it.Joe_{September 23, 2012
September
09
Sep
23
23
2012
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT}

Joe, with you citing comments 24-27, we've come full circle, and we've had little, if any, progress. It doesn't have to be this way. The LCI is a mathematical claim, and I'm making the mathematical counterclaim that the LCI doesn't always hold. Unlike some other issues in the ID debate, this one is straightforward and well-defined, and should not be controversial at all. We really can resolve our disagreements, but it will take some work, and will require more transparency in our communication. Specifically, I've assumed throughout that you have a good understanding of the topic we're discussing, and that if you don't understand something I say, you'll tell me. Have I assumed correctly? Is there anything I've said that you don't understand? I'll continue when you answer that question.R0bb_{September 17, 2012
September
09
Sep
17
17
2012
10:27 PM
10
10
27
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply