Art: We are comparing a popular book, written for interested laypersons with a
scientific publication.
Art points out indeed the difference between Spetner and Shannon
Art: Are you suggesting that Spetner is ignorant of Shannon, or are you
suggesting that the only way things matter is if they are expressed as
mathematical equations?
Surely you are kidding here Art. If Spetner suggests that information/complexity cannot increase then it surely is based upon a quantitative analysis. How can Spetner make such determinations when he lacks the tools to measure and quantify? Indeed as you said in the introduction, that's the difference between a 'popular book' and scientific publications.
Art: Intelligent people (mathematicians aside) can express complex and subtle ideas in simple terms.
Well, if these ideas are simple terms, share them with us. That would at least bring the discussion from hadnwaving to a scientific level.
Art: Show me Shannon's ideas expressed in another popular book (I hasven't seen that one) and then we can compare apples with apples.
That's the worst approach, rather than reducing Shannon to the level of Spetner, should Spetner not rise to the level of Shannon? We should not let the lowest common denominator determine how science should be applied now.