I must agree here and note that agreement is boring.
>So, I have to take issue with your statement that specificity requires a
>specifier.
I stand corrected. Your point here is fatal to my thought that a specifier was
implied. More boredom.
>GM:=====
>>I
>>suspect when they use complexity they mean organized in Yockey's terminology
>>(see p. 129 Mystery of Life's origin). But they make a mistake when they
> say,
>>
>>"A random arrangement of letters in a book is aperiodic but contains little
>>if any useful information since it is devoid of meaning." (p. 129)
>>
>>The footnote attached has Yockey telling them that meaning is extraneous to
>>the sequence. I suspect he was telling them that meaning does not equal
>>information but they didn't understand that.
>>
>
>Yes, I think you're assessment is correct.
This is getting old. More boredom. If this keeps up, I may not talk to you
again. :-)
>Its really hard for me to find
>too much fault with Bradley on this though. Awhile back I spent a lot
>of time looking through the literature to find examples of this type of
>thing. What one finds is a whole host of very prominent folks (including
>Manfred Eigen) who have tried to use information theory to separate
>messages with "meaningful information" from random sequences.
That may be. But I think Yockey is correct that meaning is external and
different from information. I have used my abysmal knowledge of Chinese to
illustrate things like this. The string:
"Ru gua ni you sheng dan de hua, name zai gua qu ni yao si le"
has no meaning in English. But in Mandarin it means
"If you have a birthday then in the future you will die"
The information content is probably different yet the meaning is the same.
information in the technical sense.
>>"Thus both random sequences and highly organized sequences are complex
>>because a long algorithm is needed to describe each one. Information theory
>>shows that it is fundamentally undecidable whether a given sequence has been
>>generated by a stochastic process or by a highly organized process. This is
>>in contrast with the classical law of the excluded middle(tertium nondatur),
>>that is, the doctrine that a statement or theorem must be either true or
>>false. Algorithmic information theory shows that truth or validity may also
>>be indeterminate or fundamentally undecidable."~Hubert Yockey, Information
>>Theory and Molecular Systems, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992),
>>p. 82.
>
>Again, I tend to agree on this (man, its really tough agreeing with Captain
>Hook, where's my worthy opponent? :). More importantly, IMHO, it makes
>it very difficult to relate specificity directly to information content, thus
>excluding the unseemly situation where random sequences contain the
>maximal information content. I think it's this idea that really bugs folks,
>not just Bradley.
I am going to make a prediction. The sad thing and important thing is that the
ID folks have latched onto Yockey like a leach to the leg. (sorry for the bad
visual image) and they expect that information theory will prove a designer.
Yet they have no concept that information theory specifically excludes this
conclusion. Many in the laity will be persuaded that information theory does
prove a designer, because most of them don't understand information theory and
so can't judge for themselves.
Note the use of complexity to disprove evolution.
"Yet the level of complexity in biological organisms is stunning--far greater
than could be explained by integrated sets of, say, 50,60, or 100 genes.
Organisms exhibit systems of multiple structures, which must 'fit' or
integrate with one another in order to function. The coding for the majority
of such structures would require sets of dozens, if not hundreds or thousands
of genes for each. These structures are orchestrated to work together and to
adjust the organism to its environment. A biological organism is more than the
sum of its individual structures; its ability to function successfully is due
to an entire 'adaptational package.' We cannot really evaluate the proposed
origin-random gene mutations or intelligent design--of these packages, without
an understanding of the concept."~Percival Davis and Dean Kenyon, Of Pandas
and People, (Dallas;Haughton Publishing Co., 1993), p. 69
They are saying it is possible to determine origin which is what Yockey showed
was impossible.
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm