Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Does São Paulo Cathedral Have More Beaut-Ls than a Dilapidated Shack?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

One of our Darwinist friends’ favorite tactics is to insist that if something cannot be precisely quantified in mathematical terms then there is no warrant for believing it exists at all.  For example, ID proponents might point out that Mount Rushmore exhibits complex specified information (“CSI”).  “How much CSI does Mount Rushmore exhibit?” a Darwinist might ask.  “Oh, you can’t give me a figure?  Then CSI obviously does not exist.”

MathGrrl, one of my favorite materialists, put it this way:  “My conclusion is that, without a rigorous mathematical definition and examples of how to calculate [CSI], the metric is literally meaningless.  Without such a definition and examples, it isn’t possible even in principle to associate the term with a real world referent.”

Let us set aside for the moment that CSI is often subject to rigorous mathematical definition and calculation (as Kairosfocus has demonstrated several times).  Let us assume for the sake of argument that sometimes it might be exceedingly difficult or even impossible to quantify a particular example of CSI (like that exhibited in Mount Rushmore).  Does it follow that MathGrrl is right, that the concept of CSI is therefore meaningless?  No it does not for the simple reason that not every phenomenon is precisely quantifiable.

Consider for example the concept of “utility” in economics.  Utility is a representation of preferences.  For example, say I have ten franks and you have ten buns.  If I want to make hotdogs for dinner I might trade you five of my franks for five of your buns.  This means that to me the utility of franks 6 through 10 is less than the utility of buns 1 through 5 and therefore I am willing to give those franks up to get those buns, so we make a trade.

Closely related is the concept of declining marginal utility.  If I am hungry I might place a high level of utility on a frank (extremely high if I am starving).  I might even enjoy a second or third frank.  But surely by the time I have eaten, say, ten franks, the 11th frank is not going to be very appealing to me.  The more franks I eat the less value each successive frank has to me.  So we see that the “marginal utility” (i.e., the utility of the next unit) declines after a certain point.

“Utility” defies precise quantification even though economists sometimes treat it as if it were quantifiable.  There is even a unit of measure for utility called the “util,” and an economist might speak of a certain consumption set (e.g., three apples) as having a utility of say 75 utils.  Clearly, however, the concept of “utils” has meaning only in the context of ranking the consumption set with other consumption sets.  It has no meaning in itself.  Thus, economists say that the number of utils has only “ordinal” and not “cardinal” significance.

Does the fact that utility is not subject to precise quantification mean that it is a meaningless concept?  Obviously not.  Can there be any doubt that people make exchanges because they believe the goods they currently possess have less utility to them than the goods they could acquire by trading them?  Such trades happen billions of times each day.  Similarly, can there be any doubt that I will prefer the first frank that I eat much more than the 30th?   Thus we conclude that “utility” is a real and useful concept even though the exact utility a good has with respect to a particular consumer might defy quantification.

The photographs at the top of this post lead us to another concept that is real but unquantifiable.  Does anyone reading this post doubt that São Paulo Cathedral is more beautiful than the dilapidated shack?  Of course not.

Let me now coin a new term – the “beaut-L.”  Like the economists’ util, a beaut-L is a unit of beauty.

Now that we have a unit by which we may quantify beauty, can anyone tell me precisely how much more beautiful the São Paulo Cathedral is than the dilapidated shack?  Does the cathedral have 500 beaut-Ls while the shack has only 20 (or negative 20) beaut-Ls?

The answer, of course, is that the question is meaningless.  Any attempt to assign precise mathematical quantities to beauty is facile.  Nevertheless, beauty exists and some objects are more beautiful than other objects.

We can conclude from these examples that our Darwinist friends are wrong when they insist that a concept must always be precisely mathematically quantifiable in order for it to be meaningful.  And I further conclude that my inability to assign a quantity of CSI* to Mount Rushmore does not mean that the sculpture does not nevertheless exhibit CSI.

 

*I hereby coin another term — ceezi (pronounced “seez eye”) for a unit of CSI.  No?  OK.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments
David:
One of the tests for childhood creativity is to ask the children how many different things they can think of to do with a brick.
When children are scientists that example will have some merit. Until then it is nothing but a strawman.
A Martian following “Joe’s rule of inference” would be sincerely misdirected.
What Martian? Is it as stupid as you or as ignorant as a child?Joe
August 18, 2012
August
08
Aug
18
18
2012
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PDT
David- YOUR position is the subjective "it looks evolved to me" or "it looks like a transitional to me" or "it looks like common ancestry to me". CSI is quantified at 500 bits off specified information. And guess what? Your position can't even account for 100 bits of SI.Joe
August 18, 2012
August
08
Aug
18
18
2012
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT
That’s funny because evolutionism cannot be quantified, not precisely in mathematical terms. And not in any way I am familiar with. So according to evolutionists their “theory” is junk…
If a theory were required to be a metric, then no theory would qualify and all would be junk. But CSI was designed for the express and stated purpose of BEING a metric. The whole point of creating the concept of CSI was to get around the "looks designed to me" subjective assessment.David W. Gibson
August 17, 2012
August
08
Aug
17
17
2012
09:25 PM
9
09
25
PM
PDT
Nope, we can observe an object doing smething, some function, and infer that is the specification, ie the thing the object is supposed to be doing.
One of the tests for childhood creativity is to ask the children how many different things they can think of to do with a brick. Some children think up quite a long list of uses. Let's say we find bricks put to a dozen uses. Which of these is the specification? Just from where I'm sitting, I can see a shoe being used as a doorstop, a chair being used as a guitar stand, stereo speakers being used as bookeneds, a sculpture being used as a paperweight. A Martian following "Joe's rule of inference" would be sincerely misdirected.David W. Gibson
August 17, 2012
August
08
Aug
17
17
2012
09:20 PM
9
09
20
PM
PDT
One of our Darwinist friends’ favorite tactics is to insist that if something cannot be precisely quantified in mathematical terms then there is no warrant for believing it exists at all.
That's funny because evolutionism cannot be quantified, not precisely in mathematical terms. And not in any way I am familiar with. So according to evolutionists their "theory" is junk...Joe
August 17, 2012
August
08
Aug
17
17
2012
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT
Can you give an example of such an attempt and what that specification would look like?
Any time something new was being investigated- you know the stuff science is all about. OK Stonehenge, we are still trying to figure out what it was for, what it's specifications were and the mechanisms used to get it into place.Joe
August 16, 2012
August
08
Aug
16
16
2012
05:22 PM
5
05
22
PM
PDT
Joe,
However, even if it didn’t correspond to known cause and effect relationships, in our attempt to figure out how it came to be we should also be able to discern some specification.
Can you give an example of such an attempt and what that specification would look like?mphillips
August 16, 2012
August
08
Aug
16
16
2012
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT
If you are unwilling to provide backup or citations for your claims they remain just that, empty claims.
Allow me to repeat myself again: "Allow me to repeat myself: “(Or that’s my understanding of Dembski on the matter.)” You can check Wiki for it if you like." First, it was stated as a personal understanding and nothing more. If you know a way, with a scalpel and Miner's Lamp, to peer inside my skull and see my thoughts? Then I'm going to need a citation for that. And, of course, I mentioned Wiki. A source you have used and are obviously familiar with. I should hardly think that you are so sheltered and incapable at life that you cannot sort out how to use a site address that you have already used.
No, it’s you that is saying that they can. So prove it!
This is descending into farce. There are exactly two options here. (1) You are requiring proof of completely obvious definitional things such as 'apples' and 'tapeworms' or (2) you are making a claim that Evolution has no testable model of its central claims. In the first case you would be a Sophist spokeshole or mental deficient of such strength that you would likely spend your time arguing the finer points about the timing of eschaton with road signs. And I do not accept that you are such an animal. If you are, I'll need your claim that your are first. But if that's not the case the your are, by your query, asserting your disbelief that the discipline of Evolution, as practiced for over 150 years, has absolutely to testable or descriptive formality of its -- functionally -- sole and central claim. That it is pure religious bunkum. That would be an extraordinary claim and contrary to the knowledge received by every small child while attending school. So this one is your onus: [Citation needed] Or, to crib Sagan: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof"
On what basis do you say that can be done?
On the basis that Evolution is an actual scientific discipline. We need only know the mathematical descriptions and ensure they are properly applied. Basic stuff. But as you seem to hold that Evolution is some sort of anti-science nonsense then I could see why you might not understand my perspective. As I said though, if you hold that this is the case then we're all going to need some proof that Evolution is cultist nonsense in a lab coat. And if it is not then the idea that you should bristle at asking the experts for their own equations is a little bit stupid.Maus
August 16, 2012
August
08
Aug
16
16
2012
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT
Yes, if all bacterial flagella did nothing I don't know if we would care if they were designed or not. It is usually because something happened or is happening, that we investigate. We observe bacterial flagella functioning and we want to know why and how. Perhaps if all flagella were non-functioning we would also want to know why and how. However I understand your point and yes, we use our knowledge of cause and effect relationships to form any given design inference, which means it corresponds to something we already possess in our minds as a pattern, whether static (as in a face) or dynamic (as in a process). However, even if it didn't correspond to known cause and effect relationships, in our attempt to figure out how it came to be we should also be able to discern some specification.Joe
August 16, 2012
August
08
Aug
16
16
2012
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT
Joe: With that in mind it is easy to see that the purpose of a bacterial flagellum is for motility,
I agree. However, this plays into my assertion that "CSI is a meaningless metric unless the “S” corresponds to something we already possess in our minds as a pattern, whether static (as in a face) or dynamic (as in a process.)" We, as humans, already have the notion that "motility can provide a beneficial function" and we discern this when we look at flagella. Without that discernible function, the CSI that the flagella possesses would be a meaningless metric.CentralScrutinizer
August 16, 2012
August
08
Aug
16
16
2012
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT
Biological specification always refers to function. An organism is a functional system comprising many functional subsystems. In virtue of their function, these systems embody patterns that are objectively given and can be identified independently of the systems that embody them. Hence these systems are specified in the same sense required by the complexity-specification criterion (see sections 1.3 and 2.5). The specification of organisms can be crashed out in any number of ways. Arno Wouters cashes it out globally in terms of the viability of whole organisms. Michael Behe cashes it out in terms of minimal function of biochemical systems.- Wm. Dembski page 148 of No Free Luch
In the preceding and proceeding paragraphs William Dembski makes it clear that biological specification is CSI- complex specified information. In the paper “The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories”, Stephen C. Meyer wrote:
Dembski (2002) has used the term “complex specified information” (CSI) as a synonym for “specified complexity” to help distinguish functional biological information from mere Shannon information–that is, specified complexity from mere complexity. This review will use this term as well.
In order to be a candidate for natural selection a system must have minimal function: the ability to accomplish a task in physically realistic circumstances.- M. Behe page 45 of “Darwin’s Black Box”
With that in mind it is easy to see that the purpose of a bacterial flagellum is for motility, and it could also be for latching on (wrapping around something). So we would test these ideas to see which is the better fit. And the specification would be a subsystem that performs job X (eg motility/ wrapping) utilizing nanaoscale rotary technology, etc.Joe
August 16, 2012
August
08
Aug
16
16
2012
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT
Joe #56, Nope, we can observe an object doing smething, some function, and infer that is the specification, ie the thing the object is supposed to be doing.
Please cite an example of what you have in mind.CentralScrutinizer
August 16, 2012
August
08
Aug
16
16
2012
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT
Specification of something humans already know. The specification has to be in our heads first before the complexity has any meaning.
Nope, we can observe an object doing smething, some function, and infer that is the specification, ie the thing the object is supposed to be doing.Joe
August 16, 2012
August
08
Aug
16
16
2012
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT
Well, ID’s position is that NS does not and cannot produce anything other then minor variations (or wobbling stability).
Nope, that is what ALL observations say- natural selection doesn't do anything. Sure, it exists, but existing doesn't mean it actually does something. You need evidence and you don't have any.
And ID has a 2000+ year history and we’re still here asking how to calculate CSI.
And you have been told how- so there must be other issues, personal issues, that keep you from understanding the how.Joe
August 16, 2012
August
08
Aug
16
16
2012
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT
KF,
CS: Pardon, it is not just bits, it is bits that do a specific job [which is true of engineering designs in general], i.e a reasonably representative portrait of four specific historical figures of note in the US. It is not just complexity but specification AT THE SAME TIME.
Specification of something humans already know. The specification has to be in our heads first before the complexity has any meaning. For example, the alleged "face on Mars." There are plenty of formations on Mars that have the same amount of complexity, but it's the particular shape of this object that corresponds with patterns that humans already have in their noggins, which leads to an intuitive inference. (Turns out, when we obtained higher resolution, the specificity did not match our notion of what a face is, and the intuitive inference was lost.) Point is, CSI is a meaningless metric unless the "S" corresponds to something we already possess in our minds as a pattern, whether static (as in a face) or dynamic (as in a process.)CentralScrutinizer
August 16, 2012
August
08
Aug
16
16
2012
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT
What I’m asking is if you don’t have the knowledge that the bits do a specific job then that changes the value of CSI, right?
Totally clueless- science operates via observations. So we would be observing the specific job and then we would be trying to figure out how that came to be. And if our investigation shows that CSI is present then we know it came to be by design. Ya see we observe that living organisms are full job specific functional systems. And via our knowledge of cause and effect relationships we infer they were designed. And via Newton's 4 rules of scientific reasoning your position can come along and demonstrate necessity and chance candoit and wipe out our design inference. However you can't so all you do is attack ID and science.
In what way does the “information” stay with you?
You don't understand how eating works?Joe
August 16, 2012
August
08
Aug
16
16
2012
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT
Perhaps the CSI of a cathedral (or even a shack) is too much as a starting point. I wonder then if perhaps the Platonic solids would be a better starting point? If the digitised charts that specify the cathedral or the shack could in principle be used to quantify the CSI involved, then I'm certain the Platonic solids would be amenable to that in practice. Would you oblige Kariosfocus? Of course, I'd be interested in anybody's answer.mphillips
August 16, 2012
August
08
Aug
16
16
2012
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT
Maus,
But there’s no need to await a formal notion of CSI from the ID crowd.
FYI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specified_complexity#Dembski.27s_definition It's been around a while now, but given that kariosfocus claims it can be applied to building schematics "in principle" I'm going to take him up on that and attempt to do it in practice. Awaiting pseudocode.mphillips
August 16, 2012
August
08
Aug
16
16
2012
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PDT
Maus
Allow me to repeat myself: “(Or that’s my understanding of Dembski on the matter.)” You can check Wiki for it if you like.
please do repeat yourself as much as you like. If you are unwilling to provide backup or citations for your claims they remain just that, empty claims.
Dunno, ask an ID guy or gal.
Whatever.
Wait, are you saying that they cannot?
No, it's you that is saying that they can. So prove it!
All we need is to quantify the Natural Selection in an object. And for this we only need ask a biologist as to how to recognize and quantify it. Nothing could be simpler. After all, Evolution is a real science with a 150 year track record of adults getting work done.
Yes, I'll get right on that and ask a biologist to calculate the amount of evolution in non-biological objects. On what basis do you say that can be done? I'm not making that claim but the claim that CSI can be calculating for buildings has been made. If I were you I'd worry about that first rather then saying "I know what I am, but what are you".
Well, of course not. If you read your source you’d see that it is only for measuring given traits from multiple samples over time. This is why I said you need to ask a biologist for how to calculate these sorts of things.
If you say that it can be calculated then why don't you just explain how to do it then? If you don't know that it can be then why are you asking me to ask a biologist if it can be? Perhaps you can give an example of how to calculate the amount of evolution in a building?mphillips
August 16, 2012
August
08
Aug
16
16
2012
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT
Can you provide a citation?
Allow me to repeat myself: "(Or that’s my understanding of Dembski on the matter.)" You can check Wiki for it if you like.
I don’t know tbh, do you?
Dunno, ask an ID guy or gal.
Are biologists making the claim that the “amount of natural selection” in “an object” can be determined then?
Wait, are you saying that they cannot? [Citation needed]
So plug your numbers in for the building and you’ll get, well, nothing useful.
Well, of course not. If you read your source you'd see that it is only for measuring given traits from multiple samples over time. This is why I said you need to ask a biologist for how to calculate these sorts of things.Maus
August 16, 2012
August
08
Aug
16
16
2012
05:25 AM
5
05
25
AM
PDT
Maus,
And CSI and NS are defined as contrary to one another.
No, I don't believe that's the case. Can you provide a citation?
Such that if CSI is the case then NS is not and vice versa.
Well, ID's position is that NS does not and cannot produce anything other then minor variations (or wobbling stability). So NS can change (presumably) the amount of CSI. Or can it? I don't know tbh, do you?
All we need is to quantify the Natural Selection in an object. And for this we only need ask a biologist as to how to recognize and quantify it.
Are biologists making the claim that the "amount of natural selection" in "an object" can be determined then? Citation please. Whereas there are people on this actual thread making the same claim for CSI and building schematics.
Nothing could be simpler. After all, Evolution is a real science with a 150 year track record of adults getting work done.
And ID has a 2000+ year history and we're still here asking how to calculate CSI. But regarding the "amount of natural selection" there are some metrics that may be of interest.
Suppose that a character has been measured at two times, t1 and t2 ; t1 and t2 are expressed as times before the present in millions of years. The time interval between the two samples can be written as:Dt = t1 - t2, which is 1 million years if t1 = 15.2 and t2 =14.2 The average value of the character is defined as x1 in the earlier sample and x2 in the later sample; we then take natural logarithms of x1 and x2 (the natural logarithm is the log to base e where e = 2.718, and it is symbolized by ln ). The evolutionary rate (r) then is r = (ln(x2) - ln(x1)) / Dt The rate of evolution is measured in 'darwins'.
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/tutorials/Rates_of_evolution2.asp
The measure is most useful in palaeontology, where macroevolutionary changes in the dimensions of fossils can be compared. Where this is used it is an indirect measure as it relies on phenotypic rather than genotypic data. Several data are required to overcome natural variation within a population. The darwin only measures the evolution of a particular trait rather than a lineage; different traits may evolve at different rates within a lineage. The evolution of traits can however be used to infer as a proxy the evolution of lineages. Genetic information cannot be obtained from fossils, but modern (post-Haldane) techniques on extant organisms now rely on genetic data (q.v. phylogenetics).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(unit) So plug your numbers in for the building and you'll get, well, nothing useful. Whereas I hope the same won't be said for Kariosfocus's CSI generation pseudocode.mphillips
August 16, 2012
August
08
Aug
16
16
2012
02:53 AM
2
02
53
AM
PDT
mphillips:
I don’t understand what you mean. CSI is a metric, NS is a process. In what way are they “contrary”?
Bricklaying is a process. And it's part of the process of constructing a building, is it not? And CSI and NS are defined as contrary to one another. Such that if CSI is the case then NS is not and vice versa. (Or that's my understanding of Dembski on the matter.) So it really matters not at all if kairosfocus can produce here or not.
So if you have a problem with it, perhaps you could discuss it with him ...
My only problem has been trying to get a usable notion of CSI out of anyone for ages. Which is why I support your project. As I said, it's a fantastic idea and can be accomplished by simply making an end run around the idea of CSI in toto. All we need is to quantify the Natural Selection in an object. And for this we only need ask a biologist as to how to recognize and quantify it. Nothing could be simpler. After all, Evolution is a real science with a 150 year track record of adults getting work done.Maus
August 16, 2012
August
08
Aug
16
16
2012
02:36 AM
2
02
36
AM
PDT
kariosfocus,
Pardon, it is not just bits, it is bits that do a specific job [which is true of engineering designs in general], i.e a reasonably representative portrait of four specific historical figures of note in the US. It is not just complexity but specification AT THE SAME TIME. That’s what puts you into a special zone of a config space that the only credible way to get to, is by intelligent, active info. KF
I'd like to come back to this, if I may. When you look at a string of bits, how do you know that they have specification? E.G. If I give you two strings of bits of equal length, one representing Mt.Rushmore and one representing a mountain of similar size, will you be able to tell the difference? It seems to me that you cannot. Of course, you could use those bits to reconstruct the mountain and then recognize the faces that appear, but then you are using "extra bits" not present in the string (what the faces look like) to make that determination so whatever it is that you are measuring cannot soley reside in those bits alone. In any case,
Of course the digitised charts that specify the cathedral or the shack could in principle be used to quantify the CSI involved, especially to show that it is obviously well beyond 500 – 1,000 bits. (The same could be done per a nodes and arcs plot of Mt Rushmore.)
I'd like to attempt this. Here you can find a 3D model of São Paulo in Google Sketchup format: http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?mid=4f00282f4a7d878881c6df5b677bb577&prevstart=0 I'm not familiar with this file format but I'm sure it won't take long to work out. You'll probably need some time to work out the pseudocode in any case. If you could indicate your interest in this then I'll make a start. I'm happy to do the heavy lifting, i.e. programming, to make this happen.mphillips
August 16, 2012
August
08
Aug
16
16
2012
02:26 AM
2
02
26
AM
PDT
Maus @ 42,
I think this is a marvelous idea.
Thanks! I'm surprised nobody has done it before TBH.
But there’s no need to await a formal notion of CSI from the ID crowd.
My understanding from reading here is that there is such a formal notion and I'm asking kariosfocus who make the claim that it can be applied to architecture to support that claim and help me implement it.
After all, CSI and Natural Selection are contrary to one another.
I don't understand what you mean. CSI is a metric, NS is a process. In what way are they "contrary"?
So simply ask the scientists for the amount of Natural Selection present in a building and go from there.
It's not my claim that CSI can be quantified in a building, it's kariosfocus
. Of course the digitised charts that specify the cathedral or the shack could in principle be used to quantify the CSI involved, especially to show that it is obviously well beyond 500 – 1,000 bits. (The same could be done per a nodes and arcs plot of Mt Rushmore.)
So if you have a problem with it, perhaps you could discuss it with him, I'm only interested in obtaining some pseudocode that shows how it can be done "in principle". As I have a sneaky feeling that the shack will have more CSI then the Cathedral.......mphillips
August 16, 2012
August
08
Aug
16
16
2012
02:03 AM
2
02
03
AM
PDT
Joe,
How do I know in advance if something I am going to observe later has meaning or not? I ask my magic 8 ball.
Not quite. Kariosfocus says:
Pardon, it is not just bits, it is bits that do a specific job
What I'm asking is if you don't have the knowledge that the bits do a specific job then that changes the value of CSI, right? So how do you tell a string of bits with no function apart from a string of bits that has a function but you just don't know it?
And by eating the cake you are consuming the information- some stays with you and the rest is waste.
In what way does the "information" stay with you? can this be measured?mphillips
August 16, 2012
August
08
Aug
16
16
2012
01:58 AM
1
01
58
AM
PDT
kairofocus @ 40,
MP: Shannon info is a general metric of info carrying capacity. FSCI or more broadly CSI, is about bits in configs that do something in particular and so are constrained to come from particular narrow zones in spaces of possible configs. Not all possible strings of ASCII characters will be contextually responsive posts in this thread. But, a random string will have a certain number of bits worth of capacity. In fact, for a given string length, as all real codes have some redundancy, a truly flat random string will have the highest bit value. KF
Thanks for that, but I'm not sure what relevance "strings have lengths" is to be honest. Perhaps you missed my original request, I'll recap: As there are plenty of three dimensional object descriptions available would it be possible for you to describe, in pseudocode, the algorithm for how you would go about converting a given set of these “digitized charts” into a specific value of CSI? I’d be interested to attempt to program such a utility, if you could describe a potential in principle implementation. This is directly in response to your claim that:
Of course the digitised charts that specify the cathedral or the shack could in principle be used to quantify the CSI involved, especially to show that it is obviously well beyond 500 – 1,000 bits.
I'd like to attempt that, can you describe a potential in principle implementation in pseudocode?mphillips
August 16, 2012
August
08
Aug
16
16
2012
01:55 AM
1
01
55
AM
PDT
mphillips: "As I noted above, I’m interested in building a tool that will measure the CSI, if possible, in 3d representations of real buildings." I think this is a marvelous idea. But there's no need to await a formal notion of CSI from the ID crowd. After all, CSI and Natural Selection are contrary to one another. So simply ask the scientists for the amount of Natural Selection present in a building and go from there.Maus
August 15, 2012
August
08
Aug
15
15
2012
08:10 PM
8
08
10
PM
PDT
But when you look at a “string of bits” how do you determine in advance if it has meaning or not as once you’ve done that you’ve already determined it was designed?
How do I know in advance if something I am going to observe later has meaning or not? I ask my magic 8 ball.
Well it seems to me that determining which object(s) have the most of one thing over another was the point.
OK.
And you wondered where the value was in that, no?
Yup, to me it's an "apple v oranges" comparison.
Are there “undesigned” cakes out there?
Never seen one. However there may be a way to make a cake using only SI. And by eating the cake you are consuming the information- some stays with you and the rest is waste.Joe
August 15, 2012
August
08
Aug
15
15
2012
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT
MP: Shannon info is a general metric of info carrying capacity. FSCI or more broadly CSI, is about bits in configs that do something in particular and so are constrained to come from particular narrow zones in spaces of possible configs. Not all possible strings of ASCII characters will be contextually responsive posts in this thread. But, a random string will have a certain number of bits worth of capacity. In fact, for a given string length, as all real codes have some redundancy, a truly flat random string will have the highest bit value. KFkairosfocus
August 15, 2012
August
08
Aug
15
15
2012
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT
Joe @ 37, Right, I get that. But when you look at a "string of bits" how do you determine in advance if it has meaning or not as once you've done that you've already determined it was designed? Seems circular to me.
It’s possible. What’s the relevance?
I was just wondering if the values were complex enough to be unique.
In what way do I disagree with the OP?
Well it seems to me that determining which object(s) have the most of one thing over another was the point. And you wondered where the value was in that, no?
I don’t know.
What does that mean in terms of cake overall then? Are there "undesigned" cakes out there?
Eat one and let me know.
What happens to the CSI in a cake when you eat it, now you mention it. Where does it go?mphillips
August 15, 2012
August
08
Aug
15
15
2012
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply