|
Author
|
Topic: Nature reports on Intelligent Design, University Research Ideas
|
andyg
Member
Member # 415
|
posted 23. May 2005 12:46
Quoth Salvador:
quote:
Have I thoroughly confused you all?
Frankly, yes. You write:
quote:
A repeating string in terms of Kolmogorov Complexity has low information but in terms of Probabilistic Complexity, if the string is improbable, the string has high information content.
You offered me two dice patterns:
A. 1351 1152 1125 3125
B. 3535 3535 3535 3535
The probability of rolling each pattern is the same (6^16), correct? Both A and B are equally improbable. They have equal Probabilistic Complexity, but B has less Kolmogorov complexity.
I had no way of telling whether either string was designed, except in a trivial sense (you just repeated my A string back at me, and you chose a repeated string in B to demonstrate a point that is still obscure).
I'm afraid your dice example has not been at all illuminating in determining how one divines CSI. Can you outline the lesson plan with dice you use for undergrad IDEA club students, or is it the same as the one you cited over at ARN? It didn't seem to get to the actual issue of how to detect things that are designed.
So far, you have introduced the concepts of physical versus conceptual information, but have provided no clues as to how a naive observer can detect conceptual information. In fact, you have admitted that you are agnostic about being able to use this methodology to detect CSI in biological objects.
Can you explain again why Dembski claims that a telephone number has CSI, but a random string of digits of the same length does not?
Can you address the central claim of Wilkins and Elsberry that the detection of CSI is very sensitive to the state of knowledge of the observer?
[ 23. May 2005, 16:47: Message edited by: andyg ]
IP: Logged
|
|
andyg
Member
Member # 415
|
posted 23. May 2005 14:49
Jerry,
Do you want to address the points I made in my last post to the "Paper on Specificity" topic? I still maintain that you are misunderstanding both what CSI is (or else your definition is way out of whack with everyone else's), and how probabilities can be used to infer design.
[ 23. May 2005, 17:34: Message edited by: andyg ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry D. Bauer
Member
Member # 756
|
posted 23. May 2005 18:10
quote:
Finally, reiterating another point - this example has excellent parallels with biology, so much so that, IMO, the position that bridge cannot be studied or analyzed from a Dembskian perspective is tantamount to stating that biology is likewise not amenable to analysis in the CSI context.
Why you would think bridge is so mysterious that the probabilities cannot be calculated escapes me. It's quite simple to me.
You stated this: "Try calculating the specified information of one of the four hands in a deal of bridge."
I calculated that for you and it was a piece of cake. I can calculate any bridge hand you might happen to be dealt without breaking a sweat. NOTHING that involves states of probability cannot be calculated. So any problems you may see here are not shared by others.
If these probabilities could not be known, every casino in the world would shut down. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
And biology is no different than anything else with probabilities involved. Geneticists, and biologists (note: population entropy) use this same type of math somewhere every day. It ain't no thang.
IP: Logged
|
|
Art
Member
Member # 179
|
posted 23. May 2005 18:53
quote:
Why you would think bridge is so mysterious that the probabilities cannot be calculated escapes me. It's quite simple to me.
I am pretty sure you are missing my point.
Let's try it this way - calculate, if you will, the probability that a six of diamonds will win a trick in a hand of bridge.
Show your work, because it will be needed to illustrate to Sal the relevance to biology.
IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry D. Bauer
Member
Member # 756
|
posted 23. May 2005 19:20
This is changing the game, but I can still calculate it. The problem is, you don't give enough information to calculate it. What other diamonds are in that hand? How many diamonds have been played? Are diamonds trumps? If not, what is trumps and how many of those are in that hand?
IP: Logged
|
|
andyg
Member
Member # 415
|
posted 23. May 2005 19:29
Jerry wrote:
quote:
I calculated that for you and it was a piece of cake. I can calculate any bridge hand you might happen to be dealt without breaking a sweat. NOTHING that involves states of probability cannot be calculated.
Art was asking you to calculate the specified information of one of the four hands in a deal of bridge. You were simply calculating the probability of getting a particular hand. That's not the same thing, as I understand it. Specified information is information that conforms to a recognizable pattern.
IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry D. Bauer
Member
Member # 756
|
posted 23. May 2005 19:36
You're not reading my posts, Andy. As I clearly stated"
"This is not even specified as one card works just the same to form a randomly dealt deck as does any other."
IP: Logged
|
|
Art
Member
Member # 179
|
posted 23. May 2005 19:39
Jerry: quote:
This is changing the game,
Um, no, this IS the game - bridge.
quote:
but I can still calculate it.
By all means.
quote:
The problem is, you don't give enough information to calculate it. What other diamonds are in that hand? How many diamonds have been played? Are diamonds trumps? If not, what is trumps and how many of those are in that hand?
Good questions all, and quite relevant (in an analogical way) to the matter of specification in biology. (Hopefully, this isn't too obscure a point.)
However, I would claim that a clever mathematician could get a start on the problem without having these answers. A rule book and knowledge of the nature of a deck of cards should be enough.
So, Jerry, carry on. You've given Sal one lesson, and I am hopeful that you can continue in your good work.
(Just so we don't forget - this probability is but one facet of the answer to the overall question, the amount of specified information in a hand of bridge.)
[ 23. May 2005, 19:40: Message edited by: Art ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry D. Bauer
Member
Member # 756
|
posted 23. May 2005 19:55
quote:
Um, no, this IS the game - bridge.
Um....no. I just read a page on your bridge game and there was nothing anywhere in there about calculating the odds of the 6 of diamonds winning a given hand. You just made this up and stuck it in the rule book.
quote:
Good questions all, and quite relevant (in an analogical way) to the matter of specification in biology. (Hopefully, this isn't too obscure a point.)
However, I would claim that a clever mathematician could get a start on the problem without having these answers. A rule book and knowledge of the nature of a deck of cards should be enough.
Are you saying you are not clever? Show how this could be done not knowing anything about any of the hands except that one hand holds a 6 of diamonds?
Now I want you to calculate the probabilities of state of a protein. I'm not going to tell you anything about it other than it contains one molecule of the amino acid Alanine. Now once you have this calculated I will use this math from the aether to calculate your 6 of diamonds.
quote:
So, Jerry, carry on. You've given Sal one lesson, and I am hopeful that you can continue in your good work.
If you want to post to Sal, post to him. Don't continue to harass him by posting to me ABOUT him. I grow weary of your juvenile games.
quote:
(Just so we don't forget - this probability is but one facet of the answer to the overall question, the amount of specified information in a hand of bridge.)
Right. And as I told you in the first post, there ain't any. Now do your protein.
IP: Logged
|
|
andyg
Member
Member # 415
|
posted 23. May 2005 20:08
Jerry,
We are talking past each other. You have given your definition of specificity quote:
Specificity is inversely proportional to the odds of an event occurring.
This is not how Dembski defines specified information. If we are going to talk about CSI, we should use a standard definition, or at least one we can agree on. Going back to your description of the checkerboard pattern on the wall - the checkerboard pattern is specified but not complex sensu Dembski, as it has a recognizable pattern, but very low complexity. A random array of squares would be complex but not specified sensu Dembski, as the array has high complexity, but no recognizable pattern.
[ 23. May 2005, 20:09: Message edited by: andyg ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Art
Member
Member # 179
|
posted 23. May 2005 20:11
quote:
Are you saying you are not clever? Show how this could be done not knowing anything about any of the hands except that one hand holds a 6 of diamonds?
Now I want you to calculate the probabilities of state of a protein. I'm not going to tell you anything about it other than it contains one molecule of the amino acid Alanine. Now once you have this calculated I will use this math from the aether to calculate your 6 of diamonds.
One clarification - the item about the six of diamonds referred to a single trick, not a hand of 13 plays. (This is bridge termininology, and the correction may not be needed. But I need it to keep from confusing myself.)
The matter of the "probability" in a protein has been discussed in exceeding length on ISCID. I don't need a calculator, since direct experimental measurement shows that this number will range (generously) between 1 in 10^10 and 1 in 10^20.
So I've answered your question. Jerry. Let's get back to mine, but add a twist that simplifies and complicates (all at the same time) the issue.
Instead of a six of diamonds, calculate the pobability that an ace of spades will win a trick. (Hint - you'll find the going easier in concept if you break the problem down to a hand-by-hand proposition.)
The principles are the same as for the six of diamonds, but the actual estimate is much easier to make. The reasons why constitute one of the lessons of the exercise.
[ 23. May 2005, 20:12: Message edited by: Art ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry D. Bauer
Member
Member # 756
|
posted 23. May 2005 20:37
quote:
One clarification - the item about the six of diamonds referred to a single trick, not a hand of 13 plays. (This is bridge termininology, and the correction may not be needed. But I need it to keep from confusing myself.)
I know what a trick is. Since you were not going to tell me what bridge is about and just wanted me to start calculating things in it, I researched it. It's little different than other card games I'm familiar with. Your question as posed is still nonsensical as you won't tell me what other diamonds are out there, what is trump or anything else I would need to calculate it.
quote:
The matter of the "probability" in a protein has been discussed in exceeding length on ISCID. I don't need a calculator, since direct experimental measurement shows that this number will range (generously) between 1 in 10^10 and 1 in 10^20.
So I've answered your question. Jerry. Let's get back to mine, but add a twist that simplifies and complicates (all at the same time) the issue.
No, you haven't answered my question. You didn't even say anything that makes a lick of sense. I asked you to calculate the probabilities of state of a protein but all I'm going to tell you is that the protein contains at least one molecule of the amino acid, Alanine.
That math is the number of differing amino acids taken to the power of the length of the amino acid chain. Since there are 20 AAs in organisms and polypeptides will average out at about 300 unit chains, you will need to come out somewhere in the neighborhood of 20^300, so you aren't even close. In fact, the math you threw out is meaningless.
quote:
Instead of a six of diamonds, calculate the pobability that an ace of spades will win a trick. (Hint - you'll find the going easier in concept if you break the problem down to a hand-by-hand proposition.)
LOL...Since you are teaching the forum probability mathematics here, I'll ask the teacher to work through an example for us, then I will run with it.
IP: Logged
|
|
Art
Member
Member # 179
|
posted 23. May 2005 21:01
quote:
LOL...Since you are teaching the forum probability mathematics here, I'll ask the teacher to work through an example for us, then I will run with it.
OK. I'll do the ace of spades, and you can do the six of diamonds.
Let's assume, for the time being, that, for any hand (with one set of exceptions) that has an ace of spades, this card will win a spade trick. (IOW, we'll put aside for now the very interesting cases in which noncanonical play is executed.) The exceptions, of course, would be hands in which the declarer (or dummy) has a void in spades.
Given these conditions, to a first approximation, we can estimate that the probability that the ace of spades will win a trick is one minus the proportion of all possible deals in which a void in the suit of spades is dealt, multiplied by a factor that accounts for the likelihood that the holder of the void will be either declarer or dummy.
OK, Jerry, now take us through the calculation for the six of diamonds.
(Anyone else who is following this can help out, perhaps by commenting on the nuances, some of which we are already are bypassing for the time being.)
IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry D. Bauer
Member
Member # 756
|
posted 23. May 2005 21:45
quote:
OK. I'll do the ace of spades, and you can do the six of diamonds.
Let's assume, for the time being, that, for any hand (with one set of exceptions) that has an ace of spades, this card will win a spade trick. (IOW, we'll put aside for now the very interesting cases in which noncanonical play is executed.) The exceptions, of course, would be hands in which the declarer (or dummy) has a void in spades.
Given these conditions, to a first approximation, we can estimate that the probability that the ace of spades will win a trick is one minus the proportion of all possible deals in which a void in the suit of spades is dealt, multiplied by a factor that accounts for the likelihood that the holder of the void will be either declarer or dummy.
OK, Jerry, now take us through the calculation for the six of diamonds.
But you didn't calculate anything. Or maybe this is new math I'm unaware of or possibly Zen? ![[Smile]](smile.gif) I don't see any numbers in there. Don't we have to have numbers somewhere in order to mathematically calculate something?
Besides. You need to go back and do your protein. You just ignored that. And you don't know that ace would win a trick. I don't have any spades, so I trumped that sucker with a deuce of trumps.
Thanks for your posts, Art. This conversation could not be any sillier and I grow as weary with the conversation as I'm sure the readers are. You get the last word.
[ 24. May 2005, 03:25: Message edited by: Jerry D. Bauer ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Art
Member
Member # 179
|
posted 26. May 2005 22:17
A few notes for Jerry, and then some new material.
First, Jerry, your calculation of the probability of getting any particular bridge hand is off by some 10 orders of magnitude. Second, I did account for hands void of spades when I spelled out how to start estimating the probability that an ace of spades will win a trick, no other information being known. Third, I do believe algebra is mathematics.
So, where do we go from here? For sure, we can calculate the probability of obtaining any hand in a deal, and this takes us to a value for information. But this is not specified information. For this, we need to know the specification.
But what might this be? Making a contract? Defeating a contract? Both of these? The specific contract being contested? Or the whole "space" of possible contracts? Something else?
As interestingly, for a given deal, it seems at first glance that the quantity of specified information will depend on the specification. This raises an issue I tossed out some time ago - that "specified information" may in fact not be a "state variable", and thus not analogous to entropy. This would seem to me to have very important implications.
These are issues that, IMO, a budding ID theorist should jump on, Sal. And that's before we start to make analogies with biological systems.
[added in edit - that pun was quite unintentional]
[ 28. May 2005, 22:14: Message edited by: Art ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic