Information Theory 101 and the Error in Glen's Test

From: richard@biblewheel.com
Date: Mon Aug 04 2003 - 20:35:35 EDT

  • Next message: richard@biblewheel.com: "One Simple Question"

    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