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

After reading a bit on Wikipedia, I can add to what Robb said.
For example, consider the following two strings of 32 lowercase letters and digits: abababababababababababababababab and 4c1j5b2p0cv4w1x8rx2y39umgw5q85s7 The first string has a short English-language description, namely "ab 16 times", which consists of 11 characters. The second one has no obvious simple description (using the same character set) other than writing down the string itself, which has 32 characters.
Therefore, the two strings have different Kolmogorov complexity and the same probability. So obviously the two ideas are not the same.Aleta_{November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PDT}

F/N: We already know coins are highly contingent. So, fr coins to be in a position that has 500 H's, that implies imitation of a low contingency outcome. On a chance process, that would be maximally implausible, but on design, that would be readily understood as a targetted pattern. So, ironically the seemingly simple outcome is the credible product of design as it is a special case of a highly contingent system maximally implausible on blind chance but very reasonable on design. The designer would implement an algorithm, that sets H then increments and does so over and over, requiring a second order complex system to effect the algorithm physically, i.e. controlled coin flipping per design that must recognise H, T -- a non-trivial problem -- and then manipulate and place the coins in the string. It is only by overlooking that implied process that we can think of setting 500 coins in a row is a simple exercise. By contrast, a system that uses existing electro-chemical and physical forces to crystallise and extend a unit cell of crystal from a solution or the like, has no requirement of an algorithm executing device or a manipulating device. One may make arguments about the underlying physics and its fine tuning relative the requisites of life and questions as to whether the cosmos is designed, but that is a different order of issue on different evidence requiring a cosmos as a going concern and intelligent observers with appropriate technology and instruments, which already implies massive existence of design. KFkairosfocus_{November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
04:30 PM
4
04
30
PM
PDT}

RObb, I went back and read the comment you linked to. It is reproduced here:
RObb, do you really read what you write before you post it here? Listen to yourself. In your passion to defend mathgrrl’s indefensible position you have actually gone around the bend of linguistic sanity. You are now saying that Dembski believes simple and complex is the same. “his [i.e., Dembski's] examples of . . . complexity include simple . . . sequences” Do you really believe Dembski believes simple things are complex? Give me a break.
To answer your question, I continue to believe that Dembski would not believe that a “simple sequence” is a “complex sequence.”Barry Arrington_{November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT}

Mung finds the word "information" in Orgel's work, and Joe finds the words "Kolmogorov" and "probability" in the same sentence. Waterloo!!!!R0bb_{November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
04:00 PM
4
04
00
PM
PDT}

Eric:
Just so everyone is on the same page, though, how would you describe the difference between, say, a string exhibiting Kolmogorov complexity and exhibiting improbability?
Randomly generate a string of 50 English characters. The following string is an improbable outcome (as is every other string of 50 English characters):
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
But it has low Kolmogorov complexity. The probability of a string depends on the process (or hypothesized process) that produced it. Kolmogorov complexity does not.R0bb_{November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT}

Hey keith, when " Orgel is talking about Kolmogorov complexity", was he he referring to this Kolmogorov?:
As we have already mentioned, the two main originators of the theory of Kolmogorov complexity were Ray Solomonoff (born 1926) and Andrei Nikolaevich Kolmogorov (1903-- 1987). The motivations behind their work were completely different; Solomonoff was interested in inductive inference and artificial intelligence and Kolmogorov was interested in the foundations of probability theory and, also, of information theory. (bold added)
Yeah baby. You may want to rethink your attackJoe_{November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT}

keith @29:
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.
OK. I don't really have a dog in that fight, but alright. Just so everyone is on the same page, though, how would you describe the difference between, say, a string exhibiting Kolmogorov complexity and exhibiting improbability?Eric Anderson_{November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT}

Barry, also, are you ever going let us in on the secret of determining, without a chance hypothesis, that the coin pattern is improbable?R0bb_{November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
03:11 PM
3
03
11
PM
PDT}

Barry, BTW, has your understanding of "specified complexity" changed since you scoffed at the claim that that Dembski's "examples of specified complexity include simple repetitive sequences, plain rectangular monoliths, and a narrowband signals epitomized by a pure sinusoidals[sic]"?R0bb_{November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT}

Barry, thanks for your response.
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.
So Orgel might assess the complexity of the coins by their degree of order or by their degree of contingency (which I assume you intend to be synonymous with improbability). If his usage of the term "complexity" is the same as Dembski's, as you have claimed it is, he would presumably do the latter, which you claim to be "right". To not use the term as Dembski does, and instead base the complexity assessment on the degree of order, is "wrong", you say. Setting aside the question of what you mean by right and wrong here, I have yet to see an actual defense of the claim that Orgel, previous to Dembski, equated "complexity" with "improbability". Dembski seems to want us to believe it, but I hope you'll understand that I don't accept claims on Dembski's say-so. And you haven't given us a single reason to believe it -- you've only claimed that it's obvious, even to a casual reader. Do you have any evidence that anyone previous to Dembski defined "complexity" to mean "improbability"? Is there anything in Orgel's writings that would give us any reason to believe that Orgel defined the term this way? I see nothing, although I do see him associating the term with disorder and, as keith has pointed out, Kolmogorov complexity. With regards to that last point, I don't know why the IDists on this site see Mung's quotes from Orgel as a good thing. Orgel makes it very clear that when he says "information", he's referring to algorithmic information, aka Kolmogorov complexity. Dembski, on the other had, always uses the term "information" to refer to probability measures, a la Shannon. Far from helping your case, Mung's quotes underscore the fact that Orgel was not talking about probability, but rather complexity vs. simplicity in the ordinary non-Dembskian sense.R0bb_{November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT}

Evolution can get 500 heads, Dawkins proved it. Evolution flips the coin. If it's a head, you keep it place it in a row and flip another. If it's a tails, you flip the same one. It really doesn't take that long! And keep in mind, evolution had billions of years. Evolution just keeps the positive mutations and keeps flipping the coin if it's a negative. You guys really don't understand how evolution works. :-) A little Thanksgiving sarcasm for ya.Silver Asiatic_{November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT}

Eric Anderson:
Q: How did Orgel define “specified complexity”? Specifically, what was his understanding of “complex”? A: “One can see intuitively that many instructions are needed to specify a complex structure. On the other hand a simple repeating structure can be specified in rather few instructions. Complex but random structures, by definition, need hardly be specified at all.” This is very much along the lines of what Dembski is talking about.
Not at all. Orgel is talking about Kolmogorov complexity while Dembski is talking about improbability.
You seem to be hung up on the idea that some “simple” structures can be designed.
No. Not sure where you got that idea.
Regardless, I’m not sure what your larger point is.
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.keith s_{November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT}

Also of interest is this quote from Neil Johnson, professor of physics who works in complexity theory and complex systems: ". . . even among scientists, there is no unique definition of complexity - and the scientific notion has traditionally been conveyed using particular examples . . ." (Courtesy Wikipedia, "Complexity")Eric Anderson_{November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT}

keith: Q: How did Orgel define "specified complexity"? Specifically, what was his understanding of "complex"? A: "One can see intuitively that many instructions are needed to specify a complex structure. On the other hand a simple repeating structure can be specified in rather few instructions. Complex but random structures, by definition, need hardly be specified at all." This is very much along the lines of what Dembski is talking about. You seem to be hung up on the idea that some "simple" structures can be designed. Sure they can. And as a result they might not get flagged as "designed" if we apply the concept of CSI and/or the explanatory filter on an initial examination of the structure. Dembski is not the first to talk about "specified complexity." And I don't think the one quote you have repeated from Orgel gives us any indication that he is talking about something meaningfully different than is Dembski. Regardless, I'm not sure what your larger point is. Do you just not like the name "complex specified information" or do you have a substantive issue with the idea of using complexity or probability as a tool to help recognize potential design?Eric Anderson_{November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT}

The point is that P(T|H) is a probability measure, not a complexity measure.
The two are one in the same, you willfully ignorant little person.Joe_{November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
03:08 AM
3
03
08
AM
PDT}

Mung @ 6 -
Do you mean for example a system that tosses all 500 coins at once in repeated attempts to have them show up all heads?
No.Bob O'H_{November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
12:55 AM
12
12
55
AM
PDT}

Eric, The point is that P(T|H) is a probability measure, not a complexity measure. "Complex specified information" and "specified complexity" are misnomers. Dembski's equation classifies anything that is specified and sufficiently improbable as exhibiting CSI/specified complexity, whether it is simple or complex. Again, CSI is a misnomer.keith s_{November 25, 2014
November
11
Nov
25
25
2014
11:12 PM
11
11
12
PM
PDT}

keith @7:
A cylindrical crystal of pure silicon is not complex at all, yet it is highly improbable by purely natural processes. That’s why we have to grow them to make silicon wafers instead of just mining them somewhere. Dembski’s equation would therefore attribute CSI/specified complexity to such a crystal, despite its simplicity. “Complex specified information” is really “improbable (under natural processes) specified information”. “CSI” is a misnomer.
This is an interesting comment and worth thinking about. Dembski speaks of complexity being cashed out as probability in many cases -- in many circumstances they are speaking to the same thing, particularly with functional machines, like the living organisms Orgel referred to. But more to the point, you seem to be assuming that Dembski's criteria would spit out "designed" when a cylindrical crystal of pure silicon is examined. I'm not sure this is the case. If we ran across such a crystal on another planet would we be forced, per Dembski's criteria, to conclude that it was designed? Probably not. The same goes for any repetitive pattern that is being examined initially. Dembski's criteria would initially classify it as not designed. This would be an example of a false negative. This isn't to say that you aren't on to something with your broader point about complexity and improbability. It probably partly turns on how we define "complex". ----- On a related note, you have stated that Orgel's definition of "complex" is different than Dembski's. Do you have any further evidence for that point, other than the single quote from Orgel? Not that it is critical (they may be using the words with slightly different connotations, but that doesn't demonstrate that Dembski's use is incorrect), but I'm just curious as to the claim regarding Orgel's use.Eric Anderson_{November 25, 2014
November
11
Nov
25
25
2014
10:29 PM
10
10
29
PM
PDT}

Lowered expectations. 25 heads in a row...Mung_{November 25, 2014
November
11
Nov
25
25
2014
10:13 PM
10
10
13
PM
PDT}

meanwhile ... 50 consecutive heads has still not been reached.Mung_{November 25, 2014
November
11
Nov
25
25
2014
10:02 PM
10
10
02
PM
PDT}

Aleta:
and to Mung: yes, absolutely, your program is extremely unlikely to show 500 heads in a row in your lifetime, or in the lifetime of the universe. And you know that.
Just trying to understand how this is known. Aleta:
But flipping 500 coins is not a good model for how things happen in the real world anyway. This is just an interesting discussion, to me, from a purely mathematical point of view.
Yup. Bob O'H can chime in now.Mung_{November 25, 2014
November
11
Nov
25
25
2014
09:58 PM
9
09
58
PM
PDT}

to Me_think: There are 2^500 possible results in throwing 500 coins, which is about 3.25 x 10^150. However, if you threw the coins that many time you would still have a certain probability of having no cases of 500 heads, a certain probability of 1 case, a certain probability of 2 cases, etc., all according to the binomial probability theorem. So I don't understand what you mean when you write,
The formula for getting number of required toss is 2*(2^N – 1), N is the number of heads, so for 500 Heads in a row you need 6.5*10^150 tosses.
Why do you have twice the number I have, and how can you make a statement about getting 500 heads without mentioning a probability - it certainly isn't a certainty that you would get 500 heads in 6.5 x 10^150 throws. Can you explain more. And, to Bob H: You write. More generally, any stochastic process on the number of heads with all heads and all tails as absorbing boundaries (i.e. once you’re in that state you can’t leave) will inevitably reach one of the absorbing states in finite time (if you have a finite number of heads, and if it’s possible to get from any state to any other). Could you explain more. What I think you might be saying is that after you flip the 500 coins, if a coin is a head it stays a head, and you flip the other coins again In which case, eventually you would approach all heads as the limiting case. Do you mean this, or something else? And how does this relate to flipping 500 coins at once. and to Mung: yes, absolutely, your program is extremely unlikely to show 500 heads in a row in your lifetime, or in the lifetime of the universe. And you know that. But flipping 500 coins is not a good model for how things happen in the real world anyway. This is just an interesting discussion, to me, from a purely mathematical point of view.Aleta_{November 25, 2014
November
11
Nov
25
25
2014
08:22 PM
8
08
22
PM
PDT}

Barry, honestly, who cares about Orgel and 500 coins. I can't even get 50 coins to come up all heads!Mung_{November 25, 2014
November
11
Nov
25
25
2014
07:52 PM
7
07
52
PM
PDT}

Me_Think, I hate giving up. I can throw a more computers at the problem. How many more computers do I need to add? 10? 100? 1000?
2*(2^N – 1),N is the number of heads, so for 500 Heads in a row you need 6.5*10^150 tosses.
crap. that seems to be right around Dembski's UPB. but I thought Dembski was a nutcase and ID was for loons. Are you saying that if I could set every atom in the universe to solving this problem that it would still fail? Meanwhile, a string of 50 heads in a row is still not achieved. ID must be false. It hasn't shown that 50 heads cannot possibly be achieved. Right?Mung_{November 25, 2014
November
11
Nov
25
25
2014
07:48 PM
7
07
48
PM
PDT}

Are you saying that I should terminate my program?
Yes. You should.You have not yet reached 10^15, you need to reach 10^150 range before you see 500 Heads.
Should I lower the expectation?
Definitely.Me_Think_{November 25, 2014
November
11
Nov
25
25
2014
07:02 PM
7
07
02
PM
PDT}

Me_Think, Some people require empirical evidence. Simply calculating probabilities are not enough. But thank you. Are you saying that I should terminate my program? No chance in hell of a positive result in my lifetime? Granted, its' still running. Not even 50 heads in a row, much less 500. Should I lower the expectation?Mung_{November 25, 2014
November
11
Nov
25
25
2014
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PDT}

Barry @5, not necessarily. They may simply be unintended consequences. The weighting, for example, could be a simple artifact of the creation process. Indeed, maybe the machine that was making them was malfunctioning and acting contrary to its design. In addition, some things can result from a design process, but not necessarily be designed (or indicative of design) themselves -- like shavings falling to the floor from a sculptor's knife, or scrap material from a manufacturing process. At any rate, I was just making the point clear to everyone that we need to exclude necessity for purposes of the coin examples.Eric Anderson_{November 25, 2014
November
11
Nov
25
25
2014
06:21 PM
6
06
21
PM
PDT}

Mung @ 11 I don't know why you are breaking your head over a simple problem. The formula for getting number of required toss is 2*(2^N – 1),N is the number of heads, so for 500 Heads in a row you need 6.5*10^150 tosses.Me_Think_{November 25, 2014
November
11
Nov
25
25
2014
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PDT}

Set the number of required HEADS to 50 and the program is still running =p Maybe it's a flaw in my code. I should probably add a display of average. But of course if the chance on he first toss is 50/50 = 1/2 then on the second it would be 1/2 x 1/2 and on the third 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 and this turns uot to be an exponential scale ... gah ... I may never see the result! Perhaps this should be a lesson to me. I can write a program and wait for the result, or I can try to calculate the probability.Mung_{November 25, 2014
November
11
Nov
25
25
2014
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT}

got to love keiths!: simple - not complex complex - not simple complex - complicated complicated - complex Add keiths to the list of critics who haven't read Orgel.
Paley was right to emphasize the need for special explanations of the existence of objects with high information content, for they cannot be formed in nonevolutionary, inorganic processes. – p. 196
So when Orgel said simple, he meant it in the ordinary English sense of NOT COMPLEX. And when Orgel said complex, he meant it in the ordinary English sense of NOT SIMPLE. And the evidence keiths offers is... ?Mung_{November 25, 2014
November
11
Nov
25
25
2014
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply