Did You Know You Can Use Shannon Information to Determine Randomness versus Design?

_{June 10, 2010

Intelligent Design}

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

I’m not going to write too much. Just read this article and thump your head. If this isn’t an all-out admission of the validity of Dembski’s approach, then what is? I wonder if the Royal Society knew these authors were creationists? The article itself is open. Here it is.

BTW, the authors determine the Pictet symbols to be a language. As to the title of this thread, I consider languages to be designed. If you have a differing opinion, I would love to hear what it is!

Comments

I know this is an overstatement: "They specifically stated that they had absolutely no idea what the intent of those patterns were." But it highlight what is expected of them.mullerpr_{June 11, 2010
June
06
Jun
11
11
2010
01:20 AM
1
01
20
AM
PDT}

This was my response:
Your argument is completely irrelevant to the objective of the researchers. They specifically stated that they had absolutely no idea what the intent of those patterns were. This is because of scientists that are reasonably neutral to their hypothesis... very scientific. "Knowing" human agency as a presupposition of this study is not a prerequisite in any logical sense. And epistemic support for this presupposition requires design detection in the first place. They used pattern analysis to conclude it best fit the known pattern of language as it is usually created in the minds that can be identified (modern humans). Scientific method always work from the known towards the unknown. You sound like a bigoted fool insisting that this approach should be restricted when we look at genetic code. You are also accusing the scientists doing this study that they were not neutral towards their hypothesis.
mullerpr_{June 10, 2010
June
06
Jun
10
10
2010
11:50 PM
11
11
50
PM
PDT}

PaulT: Here's my response: Random is random. If you read the paper--I've only glanced at it, but enough to see what they're doing--you'll see that they are using a technique that differentiates between random succession from ordered succession. Again, random is random. And, again, the tiring, nauseating bromides about "we know what humans can do", blah, blah, blah. Intellectual honesty will take you where you need to go. But, of course if you don't want to go there, then subterfuge will have to do. When I was growing up it was called "sticking your head in the sand like an ostrich."PaV_{June 10, 2010
June
06
Jun
10
10
2010
10:07 PM
10
10
07
PM
PDT}

Hi PaV - there is a critique of this post here.PaulT_{June 10, 2010
June
06
Jun
10
10
2010
09:50 PM
9
09
50
PM
PDT}

Mach Six:
Given that, I don’t see the analogy to “design detection” at all – unless you want to maintain that all “detection” is analogous to design detection.
camanintx:
I thought Dembski’s approach was to distinguish between design and physical mechanisms, not randomness.
The answers to both of these quibbles is this: Dembski uses a measure of information to distinguish designed patterns from randomly generated bit strings, as in, a string of what appears to be nothing more than random 1s and 0s is really the first 20 (or whatever it was) prime numbers written in ascii. BTW, Mach Six, if you don't "see" the analogy, is it possible that this is because you have your eyes closed? We do need to consider such possibilities. Mach Six:
Whichever proves to be the case, the human agents behind the artifacts are already well known.
This is a tired, old "Get Out of Jail" card that Darwinists use all the time. Tell me, when Craig Venter "designed" a new form of bacteria---it's been all over the news lately---he was a human agent purposely designing DNA. He was writing using DNA code. And, unless you look at purposely put in markers, you can't tell the difference between 'natural' bacteria and Venter's design. So, please, let's stop the nonsense about, "We know what humans do, but we don't know what a Designer can do." At a certain level, it's all the same. Design is desing. Language is language. Again, just open your eyes. You'll only be scared for a moment, I promise.PaV_{June 10, 2010
June
06
Jun
10
10
2010
09:43 PM
9
09
43
PM
PDT}

If this isn’t an all-out admission of the validity of Dembski’s approach, then what is?
I thought Dembski's approach was to distinguish between design and physical mechanisms, not randomness.camanintx_{June 10, 2010
June
06
Jun
10
10
2010
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT}

I just loaded this video. It is a snippet from a Andy McIntosh video: What is Information? http://www.metacafe.com/w/4734127 In it Prof. McIntosh stresses the transcendent quality of information. notes: Though there are many definitions for information, as to how different hierarchal patterns of information are encoded on to a material basis, many people fail to realize that information is in fact a "real" tangible entity which is now "scientifically" shown to be its own unique entity completely transcendent of matter and energy by quantum teleportation and entanglement experiments. This is now shown to be especially true now that the infamous "hidden variable" argument has been overturned. Moreover purely material processes, especially those observed in Darwinian processes have never been observed generating many forms of information that are commonly, and exclusively, seen coming from a "mind",, such information as mathematical logic, music, or encoded information of any sort such as the coded information we see in the DNA code. Basically quantum mechanics has shown that transcendent information exercises dominion of matter-energy at the most basic foundational level of reality, which is almost exactly the same type of fundamental dominion and control of matter-energy we observe in the information coded into DNA coding and computer coding, whereas material processes have never shown the ability to generate any "control" information whatsoever. “information is physical” Rolf Landauer The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity: David L. Abel - Null Hypothesis For Information Generation - 2009 To focus the scientific community’s attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous metaphysical imagination bordering on “wish-fulfillment,” we propose the following readily falsifiable null hypothesis, and invite rigorous experimental attempts to falsify it: "Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut: physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration." A single exception of non trivial, unaided spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly natural process would falsify this null hypothesis. http://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/pdf Can We Falsify Any Of The Following Null Hypothesis (For Information Generation) 1) Mathematical Logic 2) Algorithmic Optimization 3) Cybernetic Programming 4) Computational Halting 5) Integrated Circuits 6) Organization (e.g. homeostatic optimization far from equilibrium) 7) Material Symbol Systems (e.g. genetics) 8) Any Goal Oriented bona fide system 9) Language 10) Formal function of any kind 11) Utilitarian work http://mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/ag Here is a very good peer reviewed paper by Dr. McIntosh: Information and entropy – top-down or bottom-up development in living systems? A.C. McINTOSH Excerpt: It is proposed in conclusion that it is the non-material information (transcendent to the matter and energy) that is actually itself constraining the local thermodynamics to be in ordered disequilibrium and with specified raised free energy levels necessary for the molecular and cellular machinery to operate. http://journals.witpress.com/pages/papers.asp?iID=47&in=4&vn=4&jID=19 Information – What it is really? – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WytNkw1xOIc off topic music: You Are The Music In Me http://www.tangle.com/view_video?viewkey=70e8bdd99697a29718d8 Sarah McLachlan-Ordinary Miracle http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Urv7tyeJ7qEbornagain77_{June 10, 2010
June
06
Jun
10
10
2010
06:17 PM
6
06
17
PM
PDT}

These authors are distinguishing between one kind of human activity (creating pictures) from another (representing a language through pictures). Whichever proves to be the case, the human agents behind the artifacts are already well known. Further, any of these pictures, even were they found not to represent language use, would be more than serviceable as hypothetical grist for the "Stonehenge on Mars" mill. In that context you'd be insisting "agency" and hence "design," not "randomness." Given that, I don't see the analogy to "design detection" at all - unless you want to maintain that all "detection" is analogous to design detection.Mach Six_{June 10, 2010
June
06
Jun
10
10
2010
06:05 PM
6
06
05
PM
PDT}

I don't think that what these authors are writing about is anything new; in fact, they're simply using methods that Shannon himself developed. The importance, however, seems to me to be that this is in a "peer-reviewed" journal, and that as scientists the authors are distinguishing between random images and images that have an underlying linguistic structure. This seems to me to be what ID argues. Thusly, if what these authors have done is acceptable science, then, so too, is the ID project. Have the authors "proved" that these symbols are a language? No. Can ID "prove" that there is an Intelligent Agent responsible for life? No. But, in both cases, this is the best working hypothesis--or, in the language that Stephen Meyers uses, these hypotheses have the most "explanatory power".PaV_{June 10, 2010
June
06
Jun
10
10
2010
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PDT}

I really enjoyed Dr. Gitt's lecture on information. You may view the lecture here: In The Beginning Was Information - Werner Gitt - video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8854650626003871702bornagain77_{June 10, 2010
June
06
Jun
10
10
2010
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT}

Werner Gitt discusses the use and limitations of Shannon information in his book: In the Beginning was Information See Section 4.1 The Lowest Level of Information: Statistics p 54 4.2 The Second Level of Information: Syntax p 57 Appendix A1.2 Mathematical Description of Statistical Information, p 178 A1.3 Evaluation of Communications Systems, p 193 A1.4 Statistical Analysis of Language p 196 A1.5 Statistical Synthesis of Language p 201 The Pictish analysis appears to address Gitt's first and second levels out of five levels of information, Statistics & Syntax.DLH_{June 10, 2010
June
06
Jun
10
10
2010
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply