From: richard@biblewheel.com
Date: Mon Aug 04 2003 - 20:35:35 EDT
The information in a sequence of symbols is measured by the theoretical
lower limit of the number of bits required to specify each element of the
sequence. A sequence such as ABAB...ABAB consisting of n repetitions of AB
can be specified by writing "repeat AB n times" which is much shorter than
the resulting string if n is large, so it contains little information. A
random string of digits contains maximal information because each digit must
be individually specified.
It is *extremely* important to note that information in strings is not the
same as semantic meaning. Strings do not contain semantic meaning. The
meaning emerges only when a string is "run" through an interpretive scheme.
This exposes the error in Glen Morton's test where he challenged people to
determine if certain strings were designed (I refer to post
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200308/0020.html). For example:
METHINKSITISAWEASEL is meaningful when interpreted according to the rules of
English, but not French.
0010010011101010010 is meaningful when interepreted as code by machine
(computer) designed to run it.
ENARXHIHNOLOGOS is meaningful when interpteted according to the rules of
Greek
AGGTTCCCTGCCGTGTACC is meaningful when interpreted by the DNA replication
machine.
Each of these sequences is "random" in the sense of information theory,
which means they contain maximal information because they require maximal
specification. They are algorythmically complex, unlike ABAB...ABAB which
can be specified by "repeat AB n times." But not one of them is semantically
*meaningful* in and of itself.
In every case, we recognize that the sequence was designed the moment we
discover the interpretive scheme the sequence was *designed for*. This is
because we can see that each element in a seemingly random sequence had to
be precisely specified to work in the interpretive scheme. I think that the
"interpretive scheme" corresponds to Dembski's idea of specification, though
I could be wrong since I am not an expert in Dembskian ID Theory. But
regardless of its relation to Dembski's ideas, is it not obvous that we
*recognise* design when we discover the interpretive scheme the sequence was
designed for?
Richard Amiel McGough
Discover the sevenfold symmetric perfection of the Holy Bible at
http://www.BibleWheel.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Aug 04 2003 - 20:32:26 EDT