Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Orgel and 500 Coins

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
Joe, Why do you think Barry deleted the other thread along with your comments?keith s
November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
07:57 PM
7
07
57
PM
PDT
Me_Think:
A simple search shows UD is obsessed with 500 coins. Apparently 500 coin flips are somehow metaphysically linked to evolution of life.
It's because 500 bits is Dembski's "universal probability bound", aka "the UPB". He "justifies" it by calculating the maximum number of events that could possibly have happened in the history of the universe, taking the log base 2, and then rounding up to 500 bits.keith s
November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
07:55 PM
7
07
55
PM
PDT
Me Think- We talk about probabilities because you and yours don't have anything else for us to discuss. So we are providing examples of our methodology but you and your ilk don't seem to be able to grasp those. It's kind of difficult to proceed if the examples are troublesome so we keep trying.Joe
November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
07:39 PM
7
07
39
PM
PDT
If complexity isn't linked to probability what examples are there of complex objects, structures or events that have a high probability of occurring?Joe
November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
07:36 PM
7
07
36
PM
PDT
Me_Think, Now give us the correlation with Salvador Cordoza. ThanksMung
November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
07:36 PM
7
07
36
PM
PDT
A simple search shows UD is obsessed with 500 coins. Apparently 500 coin flips are somehow metaphysically linked to evolution of life.Me_Think
November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PDT
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?Aleta
November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
07:00 PM
7
07
00
PM
PDT
Ooops- Barry- 500 heads in a row is a simple sequence. And by Dembski's standards it is complex. You have to watch out for ALL of their little traps, Barry.Joe
November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
06:54 PM
6
06
54
PM
PDT
Given abababababababababababababababab and 4c1j5b2p0cv4w1x8rx2y39umgw5q85s7 we would say the first was caused by a deterministic process whereas the second was via a random process (or was designed to appear random). The probability of the two sequences is not the same. And R0bb 500 heads in a row is a simple pattern with a small probabilityJoe
November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
06:50 PM
6
06
50
PM
PDT
Barry even deleted the thread after Joe had already posted a couple of comments to it. Poor Joe gets no respect from anybody.keith s
November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
06:32 PM
6
06
32
PM
PDT
Let me be clearer. Flipping coins is an example of independent events, when the probability of one event isn't affected by the outcome of some other event. I'm sure there are real world example that this might model, such as electoral polling of a random sample of people. However, what it doesn't model is situations where things develop through a series of steps where what happens on step 2 is affected by what happened on step 1.Aleta
November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT
Barry:
To answer your question, I continue to believe that Dembski would not believe that a “simple sequence” is a “complex sequence.”
We both know that Dembski believes that a simple sequence can also be complex. For example:
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).
Your response will be that he's using complex and simple in different senses. And my response is that I was too, of course.R0bb
November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
06:26 PM
6
06
26
PM
PDT
Give me an example, Mung. I'm willing to learn. I explained the kind of things it doesn't model - things which happens through a series of steps, and I can't think of any significant things it does model. Can you give me an example?Aleta
November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
06:16 PM
6
06
16
PM
PDT
Aleta:
Earlier I pointed out that flipping 500 coins doesn’t model anything realistic about the world.
This is just so blatantly wrong. I leave it to you to figure out why. Which is to say that I have you in the category of "capable of self-correction." I hope I'm right about that. I'll flip you for it.Mung
November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
06:10 PM
6
06
10
PM
PDT
It perhaps would have been better for Barry to explain his mistake, in part to help, as Eric said, "everyone to be on the same page" rather than just deleting the whole thread.Aleta
November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PDT
keiths, ignorance is not something to be scolded, it's something to be corrected. Self-imposed ignorance aka willful ignorance, on the other hand, is different. Are you accusing Barry of willful ignorance? I find it difficult to think of anything worse on this planet than a willfully ignorant person, with the possible exception of someone who revels in their willful ignorance. What do you think?Mung
November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
06:02 PM
6
06
02
PM
PDT
R0bb:
Kolmogorov most definitely was interested in probability theory.
Good for you.
There are two common approaches to the quantitative definition of "information"; combinatorial and probabilistic. The author briefly describes the major features of these approaches and introduces a new algorithmic approach that uses the theory of recursive functions. - Three Approaches to the Quantitative Definition of Information
Well there I went again. But this time it wasn't Orgel using the word "information" but Kolmogorov. Can't wait to see your snide remark about this one.Mung
November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PDT
Mung asks, "But what about the probabilities? How then do we calculate them?" Earlier I pointed out that flipping 500 coins doesn't model anything realistic about the world. The reason is that the real world goes from one moment to the next, and probabilities about what might happen in any one moment affect all further calculations about the next moment, and so on through very many moments. Therefore, one needs to use probability trees to calculate the probability of events that take place through a series of steps. That's the general answer. In practice, in real world situations, I imagine this is very difficult. But flipping coins is not a good model for real situations at all, because it doesn't take the passage of time into account.Aleta
November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
05:51 PM
5
05
51
PM
PDT
Mung, Will you be scolding Barry for his ignorance?keith s
November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
05:51 PM
5
05
51
PM
PDT
That's amusing. So the answer to Mung's question in 46 "Who thought they were? [the same]" is "Barry does".Aleta
November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
05:45 PM
5
05
45
PM
PDT
R0bb:
Mung finds the word “information” in Orgel’s work, and Joe finds the words “Kolmogorov” and “probability” in the same sentence. Waterloo!!!!
Well pardon me for answering your question. I guess I was wrong about you and need to move you over to the "not to be taken seriously" category.Mung
November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
05:44 PM
5
05
44
PM
PDT
This is hilarious. Earlier today, Barry posted a mocking thread entitled Keiths: The Gift that Keeps On Giving to ID In it he tried to use Jeffrey Shallit to demonstrate that Kolmogorov complexity and "Dembski complexity" were the same thing. I was about to reply a few minutes ago, but the thread was gone. That's right. Barry 1) posted a mocking thread; 2) realized, after reading R0bb's comments above, that it was going to backfire horribly on him; and 3) tried to erase the evidence by deleting the entire thread, including two comments by Joe. Here are screenshots of the vanishing OP and the comments bar. Barry, do you realize how pitiful your behavior is, and how you appear to the onlookers?keith s
November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
05:34 PM
5
05
34
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic:
Evolution can get 500 heads, Dawkins proved it.
ok, so my program, once it encounters a tails, it starts the process all over again. But that's not evolution? So I need to flip each coin until it is a heads and then move on to the next coin and repeat, but never ever start over? So programming in a massive meteor strike is out? ok, I can change my code. But what about the probabilities? How then do we calculate them? And once we do, does that give us the probability that evolution is true?Mung
November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT
to Mung: is there a difference? If I say throwing HHH has a probability of 1/8, is that not a measurement of a probability? I remember back when some geometry textbooks for high school kids made them continually make a distinction between a line AB and the length of the line mAB, so that lines were congruent but the lengths of the lines were equal. Although the distinction is worth making and understanding, constantly making the distinction is pedantic, I think. So, to rephrase, is there a significant difference between probability and probability measure?Aleta
November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT
keiths: Kolmogorov complexity and improbability are not the same thing. Who thought they were? This is getting tedious.Mung
November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT
keiths: P(T|H) is a probability keiths: P(T|H) is a probability measureMung
November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PDT
Joe, I was addressing the issue that Kolmogorov complexity is not the same as improbability. Specification has nothing to do with that distinction. Eric asked a question in 34, and the answer, as supplied by Robb, seems pretty clear. Do you think Kolmogorov complexity is a measure of improbability?Aleta
November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT
Kolmogorov most definitely was interested in probability theory. He may have been interested in gardening also, for all I know.R0bb
November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT
So R0bb is saying the paper is wrong and Kolmogorov wasn't interested in the foundation of probability theory, even though I can cite several other sources that say he was? Really?Joe
November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT
They only have the same probability given the chance hypothesis. However no one would expect chance alone to produce ababababababababab... rookiesJoe
November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 6

Leave a Reply