Orgel and 500 Coins

_{Barry Arrington

November 25, 2014

Intelligent Design}

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

In his 1973 book The Origins of Life Leslie Orgel wrote: “Living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals such as granite fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity.” (189).

In my post On “Specified Complexity,” Orgel and Dembski I demonstrated that in this passage Orgel was getting at the exact same concept that Dembski calls “specified complexity.” In a comment to that post “Robb” asks:

500 coins, all heads, and therefore a highly ordered pattern.
What would Orgel say — complex or not?

Orgel said that crystals, even though they display highly ordered patterns, lack complexity. Would he also say that the highly ordered pattern of “500 coins; all heads” lacks complexity?

In a complexity analysis, the issue is not whether the patterns are “highly ordered.” The issue is how the patterns came to be highly ordered. If a pattern came to be highly ordered as a result of natural processes (e.g., the lawlike processes that result in crystal formation), it is not complex. If a pattern came to be highly ordered in the very teeth of what we would expect from natural processes (we can be certain that natural chance/law processes did not create the 500 coin pattern), the pattern is complex.

Complexity turns on contingency. The pattern of a granite crystal is not contingent. Therefore, it is not complex. The “500 coins; all heads” pattern is highly contingent. Therefore, it is complex.

What would Orgel say? We cannot know what Orgel would say. We can say that if he viewed the “500 coins; all heads” pattern at a very superficial level (it is just an ordered pattern), he might say it lacks complexity, in which case he would have been wrong. If he viewed the “500 coin; all heads” pattern in terms of the extreme level of contingency displayed in the pattern, he would have said the pattern is complex, and he would have been right.

About one thing we can be absolutely certain. Orgel would have known without the slightest doubt that the “500 coin; all heads” pattern was far beyond the ability of chance/law forces, and he would therefore have made a design inference.

Comments

Keith,
[ Keith quoting Jeffrey Shallit ]: But that’s Barry’s M. O.: spout nonsense, never admit he’s wrong, claim victory, and ban dissenters.
Your buddy Jeffrey Shallit you keep talking about, is that the same 'barking mad' Jeffrey Shallit who claims that a shakespearean sonnet is “more random” than keyboard pounding? If so, he is a fine one to talk about "spouting nonsense".Box_{November 27, 2014
November
11
Nov
27
27
2014
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT}

Barry, About that thread you deleted yesterday -- what is your explanation of your behavior?keith s_{November 27, 2014
November
11
Nov
27
27
2014
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT}

I am not arguing I was just making an observation that the two scenarios are pretty much the same wrt the contestants, ie the people trying to determine the probabilityJoe_{November 27, 2014
November
11
Nov
27
27
2014
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT}

I'm not sure what we arguing about. In both cases the observer, who is the contestant in the Monte Hall problem, have some beginning knowledge, which includes some beginning probabilities. Then the observer learns something new that changes the probabilities in respect to the original situation. That is what is similar about the two problems, although other aspects of the problems are different.Aleta_{November 27, 2014
November
11
Nov
27
27
2014
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT}

So what? The contestant is the one getting the boost in odds if she/he chooses to switch. The Monte Hall scenario pertains to the contestants and your scenario pertains to the outside observer.Joe_{November 27, 2014
November
11
Nov
27
27
2014
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT}

Yes, but Monte is the guy who opens the door before presenting the contestant with the offer of switching his original choice or not.Aleta_{November 27, 2014
November
11
Nov
27
27
2014
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT}

Umm the Monte Hall problem pertains to the contestant(s), not Monte.Joe_{November 27, 2014
November
11
Nov
27
27
2014
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT}

To Joe: not exactly the same as the Monte Hall problem, but a similar concept. A key difference in the two problems is that in the Monte Hall problem, Monte knows what is behind each door and chooses a door that he knows does not hide the prize. In the two children problem, the child that shows up in the window is a random choice between the two children. So the two problems are different in that regard.Aleta_{November 27, 2014
November
11
Nov
27
27
2014
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT}

BTW your example of 2 children is the same as the "Monty Hall" problem.Joe_{November 27, 2014
November
11
Nov
27
27
2014
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT}

OK Aleta, good luck with thatJoe_{November 27, 2014
November
11
Nov
27
27
2014
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT}

Hi Joe. I'm not discussing evolution. I'm discussing probability. I'm interested in the way the world unfolds in general, and in how we can use math to model various aspects of the world, but I'm not very interested in the evolution debate that goes on here.Aleta_{November 27, 2014
November
11
Nov
27
27
2014
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT}

Joe writes,
Earth to Aleta- Instead of playing games why don’t you at least try to support your position?
My position is that computing probabilities is more complicated than just simple one-step events composed of a multitude of independent events, such as throwing 500 coins. In particular, models that don't take into account multiple steps in which each step is dependent on what happened before are not likely to be good models of what happens in the real world. The 500 coins example is commonly used to illustrate a situation in probability theory. I am offering some more complicated examples from probability theory in order to illustrate some complexities that the 500 coins example doesn't cover. My examples and comments are supporting my position, I believe.Aleta_{November 27, 2014
November
11
Nov
27
27
2014
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT}

Aleta unguided evolution cannot be modelled so how can we have a good model for it? Probabilities are all we have wrt unguided evolution yet evos cannot provide those probabilities and they want to blame ID. Why don't you find that strange?Joe_{November 27, 2014
November
11
Nov
27
27
2014
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT}

Bob writes,
Coin flipping models do models situations with time too, but the probabilities of a Heads depend on the previous set of coin flips.
Yes, that's why I asked the question I did back at 19: if we flip coins, and then do someting else that depends on the first outcomes, we now have a step-by-step situation that is different than just throwing all the coins at once and looking at just that result. It's like the game of yahtzee: if I throw five dice, the probability of all five being the same is 1 out of 6^4 = 1 out of 1296. However, if I can leave some behind and throw the remainder, and then do that once more, the probability of getting all five the same would be much less - about 1 out of 21, according to several places on the internet. This goes to the heart of a statement I have made in this thread: that merely throwing 500 coins is not a good model for things that happen in the real world. Mung says I am blatantly wrong, and I have asked him to give me an example so I can understand why he thinks that.Aleta_{November 27, 2014
November
11
Nov
27
27
2014
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT}

And keith blows it again- he quotes Dembski:
But given nothing more than ordinary probability theory, Kolmogorov could at most say that each of these events had the same small probability of occurring, namely 1 in 2^100, or approximately 1 in 10^30. Indeed, every sequence of 100 coin tosses has exactly this same small probability of occurring. Since probabilities alone could not discriminate E sub R from E sub N, Kolmogorov looked elsewhere. Where he looked was computational complexity theory. The Design Inference, p. 169
All that means is sometimes one needs more information to make an inference wrt randomness- one also needs the context.Joe_{November 27, 2014
November
11
Nov
27
27
2014
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PDT}

Earth to Aleta- Instead of playing games why don't you at least try to support your position? Or is your position so pathetic that it cannot be supported?Joe_{November 27, 2014
November
11
Nov
27
27
2014
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT}

If there aren't any cases in which something complex also has a high probability of occurring then it is clear the Kolmogorov complexity and probability go hand in hand.Joe_{November 27, 2014
November
11
Nov
27
27
2014
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT}

Re: Fun with probability at 64. I knew Keith would know. I figured, however, that the question wouldn't draw much interest. This one won't either, but I'll offer it anyway - maybe someone here will have not seen it and find it an fun problem to think about. Three players, A, B, and C, are placed at the vertices of an equilateral triangle, armed with "guns". They are to take turns shooting at each other, one shot per turn. If a player shoots at another player and hits him, the second player is out of the game (i.e., "dead"). On his turn, a player may shoot at any surviving player, or pass and not shoot at anyone. The contest continues until one player wins by being the only survivor. A has a 1/3 chance of hitting on any shot (33 1/3%), B has a 1/2 chance of hitting on any shot (50%), and C always hits (100%). A gets to shoot first. If B is still alive, he gets to shoot second. If C is still alive then he gets to shoot next. The rotation continues between the surviving players until only one person is left. Some Assumptions We assume that each player knows the accuracy level of each of the other players (e.g., both players know that C is a sure shot, A knows that B is a 50% shooter, and so on.) We assume that each player will adopt the strategy which maximizes his own chance of survival, and we assume that each player knows that the other players will act so as to maximize their own survival. The questions are: a) given that everyone plays to maximize their own chances of survival, who has the best chance of winning? b) what are the best strategies for each player? c) what are the exact odds of each person surviving if everyone follows their best strategy?Aleta_{November 27, 2014
November
11
Nov
27
27
2014
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT}

Keith, Just to make sure, this Jeffrey Shallit you keep talking about, is that the same idiot who claims that a shakespearean sonnet is “more random” than keyboard pounding?Box_{November 27, 2014
November
11
Nov
27
27
2014
03:15 AM
3
03
15
AM
PDT}

I just discovered something even funnier: Jeffrey Shallit himself -- the very authority that Barry appeals to -- confirms that Barry got it completely wrong: Barry Arrington: A Walking Dunning-Kruger Effect:
The wonderful thing about lawyer and CPA Barry Arrington taking over the ID creationist blog, Uncommon Descent, is that he's so completely clueless about nearly everything. He truly is the gift that keeps on giving. For example, here Barry claims, "Kolmogorov complexity is a measure of randomness (i.e., probability). Don’t believe me? Just ask your buddy Jeffrey Shallit (see here)". Barry doesn't have even a glimmer about why he's completely wrong. In contrast to Shannon, Kolmogorov complexity is a completely probability-free theory of information. That is, in fact, its virtue: it assigns a measure of complexity that is independent of a probability distribution. It makes no sense at all to say Kolmogorov is a "measure of randomness (i.e., probability)". You can define a certain probability measure based on Kolmogorov complexity, but that's another matter entirely. But that's Barry's M. O.: spout nonsense, never admit he's wrong, claim victory, and ban dissenters. I'm guessing he'll apply the same strategy here. If there's any better example of how a religion-addled mind works, I don't know one.
Excellent work, Barry. You've shown all of us that: 1. You have strong opinions about things you know nothing about. 2. You've attempted to mock someone who understands this stuff far better than you do. 3. The very authority you appealed to confirms that you got it completely wrong, as do Robb and I and Dembski himself, through his book. 4. You tried to erase the evidence by deleting the entire thread. You look pretty ridiculous right now. Is there anything else you'd like to do to embarrass yourself in front of your audience?keith s_{November 27, 2014
November
11
Nov
27
27
2014
12:36 AM
12
12
36
AM
PDT}

keith s @ 69
It’s because 500 bits is Dembski’s “universal probability bound”, aka “the UPB”.
OK, that makes senseMe_Think_{November 27, 2014
November
11
Nov
27
27
2014
12:14 AM
12
12
14
AM
PDT}

keiths #29, to Eric:
My point is to refute the silly notion that Barry and KF keep repeating: that Dembski’s “specified complexity” is essentially the same thing as Orgel’s. It obviously isn’t. Kolmogorov complexity and improbability are not the same thing.
Barry disagreed and even posted a mocking OP to that effect which he later surreptitiously deleted. From the deleted OP:
Keiths responds:
Not at all. Orgel is talking about Kolmogorov complexity while Dembski is talking about improbability.
Uh, Keiths, Kolmogorov complexity is a measure of randomness (i.e., probability). Don't believe me? Just ask your buddy Jeffrey Shallit (see here).
Once he realized his error, Barry deleted the thread to hide the evidence. That's funny enough, but here's another good one: Dembski himself stresses the distinction between Kolmogorov complexity and improbability:
But given nothing more than ordinary probability theory, Kolmogorov could at most say that each of these events had the same small probability of occurring, namely 1 in 2^100, or approximately 1 in 10^30. Indeed, every sequence of 100 coin tosses has exactly this same small probability of occurring. Since probabilities alone could not discriminate E sub R from E sub N, Kolmogorov looked elsewhere. Where he looked was computational complexity theory. The Design Inference, p. 169
I look forward to Barry's explanation of how Dembski is an idiot, and how we should all trust Barry instead when he tells us that Kolmogorov complexity and improbability are the same thing.keith s_{November 27, 2014
November
11
Nov
27
27
2014
12:10 AM
12
12
10
AM
PDT}

Mung
Meanwhile, in the realm of what is actually possible, still no 40 heads in a row.
So ?
Now give us the correlation with Salvador Cordoza.
?????Me_Think_{November 27, 2014
November
11
Nov
27
27
2014
12:09 AM
12
12
09
AM
PDT}

Aleta @ 60 - Coin flipping models do models situations with time too, but the probabilities of a Heads depend on the previous set of coin flips. This is how the Wright-Fisher model in population genetics works, as well as a lot of stochastic process models. The first comment on this thread is trying to engage with Barry on this, but he keeps on ignoring it. Incidentally, a lot of the early work developing the maths behind stochastic processes was done by Kolmonogorov.Bob O'H_{November 27, 2014
November
11
Nov
27
27
2014
12:02 AM
12
12
02
AM
PDT}

Aleta:
Fun with probability – maybe you guys know this one: A family moves into a house across the street. You know they have two children, but you know nothing about their gender. One day you see a boy in the window. Assuming equal probabilities for boys and girls, what is the probability the other child is also a boy?
I was waiting to see if any of the IDers would tackle this, but since they haven't, I will. The probability that the other child is a boy is 1/3.keith s_{November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
11:16 PM
11
11
16
PM
PDT}

R0bb @59: Quoting Dembski:
For something to exhibit specified complexity, it must conform to a specification that signifies an event that has small probability (i.e., is probabilistically complex) but also is simple as far as patterns go (i.e., has low patterned complexity).
Yes, unfortunately this is one of the more misunderstood statements by Dembski. I mean among ID proponents. Nearly everything Dembski said is misunderstood by his detractors. :) His reference to "simple" here needs to be properly understood. He is simply saying that there is some generalized pattern, as opposed to a pure random distribution. Obviously a Shakespearean sonnet is quite complex in terms of its probability, as well as having a specification. Yet is it less complex (more "simple") than a pure random distribution of English characters, because it follows certain rules of spelling, grammar, punctuation, as well as higher order patterns of word phrases and perhaps even ideas conveyed. Thus, while not an absolute truism, it is often the case that a designed object will be more "simple" than a pure random distribution. That is all Dembski is referring to. But this comparative "simplicity" versus a random draw is very different from the kind of simplicity that arises through necessity: repeating patterns with little complexity. ----- What this means in practice, is that at one end of the spectrum we have a repetitive, non-complex pattern. At the other far end of the spectrum we have a pure random distribution (as random as such a thing can be). Designed objects can be anywhere along the spectrum, because an agent can purposely produce a simple repetitive pattern or something essentially indistinguishable from a random draw. However, in most cases, designed things will lie somewhere in the middle of the spectrum. The design filter (or CSI if you prefer) will not pick up a designed object at the first end of the spectrum because it is not complex enough. It will not pick up something designed to look like a random draw at the other end of the spectrum because it lacks a recognizable specification. In both such cases, the design filter will return a false negative. However, in the sweet spot (which is actually quite wide and covers much of the spectrum) it will properly flag designed objects, because they have a recognizable specification plus adequate complexity.Eric Anderson_{November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
10:13 PM
10
10
13
PM
PDT}

R0bb @36: There is a serious problem with the "everything-is-just-as-improbable" line of argumentation when we are talking about ascertaining the origin of something.
Randomly generate a string of 50 English characters. The following string is an improbable outcome (as is every other string of 50 English characters):
Yes, but that is assuming the string is generated by a random generator. However, the way in which an artifact was generated when we are examining it to determine its origin is precisely the question at issue. Saying that every string of that length is just as improbable as any other, in the context of design detection, is to assume as a premise the very conclusion you are trying to reach. We cannot say, when we see a string of characters (or any other artifact) that exhibits a specification or particular pattern, that "Well, every other outcome is just as improbable, so nothing special to see here." The improbability, as you point out, is based on the process that produced it. And the process that produced it is precisely the question at issue. When we come across a string like: aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa or some physical equivalent, like a crystal structure or a repeating pulse from a pulsar, we most definitely do not conclude it was produced by some random process that just happened to produce all a's this time around, because, hey, every sequence is just as improbable as the other.Eric Anderson_{November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
09:57 PM
9
09
57
PM
PDT}

Meanwhile, in the realm of what is actually possible, still no 40 heads in a row.Mung_{November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
08:07 PM
8
08
07
PM
PDT}

Why do you think Barry deleted the other thread along with your comments?
He realized that it (somehow) violated the ONH of opening posts containing "keith".Joe_{November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
08:06 PM
8
08
06
PM
PDT}

keiths could perhaps be taken serious if he asserts that there is no maximum number of events that could possibly have happened in the history of the universe.Mung_{November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
08:01 PM
8
08
01
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply