|
daedalus 2.0
|
 |
« Reply #30 on: December 28, 2007, 10:23:36 AM » |
|
RF have you dropped out of these conversations for a reason or because they have shaken your Faith?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #31 on: December 30, 2007, 05:45:50 AM » |
|
Its a shame you won't continue this thread. I have more thoughts on the matter.
For example, can you tell me the difference between how we recognize something designed against a field of random events?
We can continue once we complete the original discussion. You claimed that actual (not hypothetical) rare events have occurred and continue to occur often who's probability of occurring considering both opportunity and detatchability from the multitude of equallily probible nonunique permutations is less than the UPB and therefore the UPB is meaningless. You have not made good on your claim and you have not agreed that you are unable to provide an example of this. Probability theory provides solid clues about why you are unable to offer an actual case and it is because these cases indeed don't occur in a universe with limited resources. Probability theory is the basis for much of scientific investigation, and the theories hold firmly. I am astonished that you think you can overturn this one. As we continue to communicate I am finding your claim empty. So why not admit that you are unable to overturn this aspect of probability theory. Why not admit that the theory is well founded so we can move on? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
|
« Reply #32 on: December 30, 2007, 01:19:28 PM » |
|
Probability theory is useful, but the UPB and ID is not.
ID (and the UPB) is not predictive, useful, accurate, applicable or meaningful.
Have you been able to come up with a number for the amount of specified complexity in something? Perhaps if you could, and if you could nail down a reasonable UPB, you might have yourself a hypothesis.
BTW, can you link the last time the UPB was used in a published scientific experiment? I'll even take a published journal of probability.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #33 on: December 31, 2007, 05:11:44 AM » |
|
The UPB is very commonly used in cryptographic analysis in assessing the capability to break encoded messages. In this field you find the number limited to resources available to humans so it is generally set at about 10^-90.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
|
« Reply #34 on: December 31, 2007, 05:57:09 AM » |
|
I think Dembski claims something of the sort.
Link please.
(BTW, I notice you aren't addressing my other questions anywhere else. Can I assume you don't know the amount of Specified Complexity in anything? Even Dembski only claimed to roughly work out Jesus Jr., except then in another chapter he claimed to have an objective formula to work it out. If you have the book, I'll give you the chapter and page number. Maybe you can work it out?)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #35 on: December 31, 2007, 05:33:20 PM » |
|
In cryptography the National Research Council has set 10^94 as the Universal Probability Bound to secure encryption schemes against random search attacks. For more information see, Kenneth Dam and Herbert Lin in "Cryptography's Role in Securing the Information Society", Washington National Press, 1996.
I generally don't respond to your arguments when I find them weak. You and I both know that I provided very specific examples of how to calculate information content in the past. Are you still trying to deceive even yourself?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
|
« Reply #36 on: December 31, 2007, 07:54:41 PM » |
|
Fine, ignore crucial aspects of your belief.
Does cryptography have a direct relationship to anything else? Say, genetics or the origins of the Universe?
No.
So, where are you going with this?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #37 on: January 01, 2008, 07:03:28 AM » |
|
Cryptography is all about probability, random chance, encoded deterministic information, artificial languages, communication channels and methods to develop, use, and decipher them. It is spot on topic and all of these same concepts apply in evaluating genetic change.
You first claimed that you can provide actual rare events that have occurred that contradict the concept of a universal probability bound. You have failed to make good on your claim. Next you claimed that the concept of a UPB is not a legitimate concept in probability. I have shown you that you are wrong about that also.
If you have no further false charges this thread seems complete.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
|
« Reply #38 on: January 01, 2008, 08:32:10 AM » |
|
I can't find anything on this except an excerpt from an ID paper entitled "The Problem with Evolution": The French mathematician Emile Borel proposed 1 in 1050 as a universal probability bound below which chance could definitively be precluded (i.e., any specified event as improbable as this could never be attributed to chance). Cryptographers assess the security of cryptosystems in terms of a brute force attack that employs as many probabilistic resources as are available in the universe to break a cryptosystem by chance. In its report on the role of cryptography in securing the information society, the National Research Council set 1 in 1094 as its universal probability bound to ensure the security of cryptosystems against chance-based attacks. As we shall see ... such levels of improbability are easily attained by real physical systems. It follows that if such systems are also specified, then they are designed." (Dembski W.A., "No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence," Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham MD, 2002, pp.21-22. Emphasis in original). Part of it is word for word of what you said. (Did you plagerize?) I also note the Lin and Dam part is straight out of Dembski's Book "No Free Lunch", found in the footnotes. So, perhaps you can find the part in the Lin/Dam report, since you must admit, Dembski has lost all credibility in this area, according to people who know. I did find this: http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:EIlwh2x8MGIJ:arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0011046+Dam+Line+Universal+probability+bound&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us#19which is more about the Universal Probability of QUANTUM ALGORITHMIC ENTROPY. It concludes that there is much more work to be done on shoring up any meaningful numbers. I would suggest that quantum theory has a direct relationshpi to Dembski's Universal Bound (which I realize only deals with macro events). Either way, I don't discount that idea that a concept of some sort of UPB exists for things. It is a nice guideline, but hardly an operative number that applies to biology or origin of the universe. First, you don't even have a proper definition of Information, Complexity, etc. when it comes to the things we are talking about (whereas Cryptographers know exactly the number of characters they have to deal with, and that the combinations must be made in a specific manner). Again, don't move the goal posts just because you have lost your case. I questioning Dembski's UPB and that it is a meaningless number when applied to Natural events (Origin of life, Origin of Universe, Evolutions, etc), since the unknowns are too vast. Plus, I point out that any UPB, even one in cryptography, can be undermined by a rare, random event. We are, after all, talking about probability - and rare events are probable. I think you take on the assumptions of Dembski and when you say "improbable" you mean to say "impossible" in order to make your ID-quackery stand against a strong scientific Theory. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #39 on: January 01, 2008, 09:06:22 AM » |
|
We started this thread with you claiming that you have actual cases of rare events that falsify a UPB. Now we have you admitting a UPB does apply in some cases where macro events operate to produce chance outcomes that are then selected by humans to break codes but you claim it does not apply to biology (macro events with chance mutation producing random outcomes then presumably selected to drive evolutionary change).
You cannot show how it applies in some cases but not others.
Nowhere have I used the word impossible in place of improbable. My reference to The National Research Council and ". . . Securing the Information Society" is from a conference and training course on Information Security I attended in 2004. I paraphrased from it. Perhaps Dembski attended also, unless I am mistaken, his discussion on his website on UPB does not include that reference. I'm sorry you are unable to find the material.
You continue to claim even now that rare events do occur that overcome these probability bounds but you have yet to produce even one actual case, in contradiction to your original claim. You are a fraud and you are unable to admit your failings.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
|
« Reply #40 on: January 01, 2008, 12:01:01 PM » |
|
You started this thread by paraphrasing something I said. Your inability to paraphrase very well is duly noted.
I submitted the ev program, which shows that random macro events fall below D's UPB.
You declared it didn't fit into your world view and rejected it.
I submitted that in a causal chain, a rare event could result in something considered highly improabable. You reject this.
I submit that Demski's UPB is not based on any known figures and therefore meaningless, you reject it.
I submit that something outside of the UPB is possible, you agree.
I submit that we must remain agnostic about the possibilities in the universe until all the elements are known. This seems to be you biggest disagreement and you bring up cases that are irrelevent (coins and cryptography - all of which are known).
I don't claim that the concept of a UP doesn't exist, but that Dembski's is irrelevent because he can't account for all he claims.
BTW, even after all this, the UP limits are simply suggestions that people sugget would indicate a hghly improbable event. Not impossible as you suggest.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #41 on: January 01, 2008, 05:18:37 PM » |
|
You started this thread by paraphrasing something I said. Your inability to paraphrase very well is duly noted.
I submitted the ev program, which shows that random macro events fall below D's UPB.
You declared it didn't fit into your world view and rejected it. You and I both know that the ev program does not produce random events. It is artificial and is designed and this is the reason it is not a valid illustration of your claim. I submitted that in a causal chain, a rare event could result in something considered highly improabable. You reject this. I did not reject it, I asked for an actual case not a could be just so narrative. You claimed you could provide an actual case and I asked you to make good on your claim. I submit that Demski's UPB is not based on any known figures and therefore meaningless, you reject it. You are a big mouthed architect and can submit any claim you wish but your claims are empty since you can't substantiate them. I submit that something outside of the UPB is possible, you agree. You claimed that you can provide an actual case of something outside of the UPB, I disagreed and you failed to provide the actual case as I predicted you . Then, instead you claimed it is possible but I say it is a just so narrative, an article of your faith in undemonstrated material mechanisms. I don't know if it is possible or not. I do know that if we encounter something who's probability of occurring by chance falls outside the UPB we would reasonably conclude that it did not occur by chance. I submit that we must remain agnostic about the possibilities in the universe until all the elements are known. This seems to be you biggest disagreement and you bring up cases that are irrelevent (coins and cryptography - all of which are known). If you were consistent on your appeal to remain agnostic it might be more persuasive. Trouble is that probability theory is a tool that is used to allow us to reach tentative conclusions even when we don't have perfect information. If you truly claim we should remain agnostic about a probability of less that 10^-150. then you would also argue that DNA evidence should be disregarded in court of law because the odds of a suspect matching DNA patterns and still not the source of the subject DNA is one in 300,000,000,000 which is a billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, . . . times more likely than the events you want to remain agnostic about. Your special pleadings are tiresome. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
|
« Reply #42 on: January 02, 2008, 07:02:37 AM » |
|
This is the ridiculous argument you make. Matching DNA is not what we are talking about.
When will you use an example of what we are talking about?
The problem is, I have many examples of things not designed that fall under Dembski's UPB. Would you like a list of them?
The Bacteria Flagellum
Human Being
Monkey
Snowflakes
Whale
Banana
Pine Tree
Sickle Cell Anemia
etc...
Would you care to explain those?
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: January 02, 2008, 07:04:49 AM by daedalus 2.0 »
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #43 on: January 03, 2008, 04:21:58 PM » |
|
This is the ridiculous argument you make. Matching DNA is not what we are talking about.
When will you use an example of what we are talking about? We are talking about rare chance events. My example fits wonderfully. The problem is, I have many examples of things not designed that fall under Dembski's UPB. Would you like a list of them?
The Bacteria Flagellum
Human Being
Monkey
Whale
Banana
Pine Tree
etc... You cannot demonstrate that any of these above items were derived by unintended contingent mechanisms. It is uncertain how these items were derived since we lack the causal history. None of these examples can be used without making a leap of faith. Snowflakes Snowflakes do not falsify the UPB, please show me otherwise with objective verifiable numbers. Sickle Cell Anemia The disease is not rare neither is derivation of the mutation from normal Hb genes. It occurs by random mutation more than once in fewer than a billion births. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
|
« Reply #44 on: January 03, 2008, 04:46:26 PM » |
|
The problem is, I have many examples of things not designed that fall under Dembski's UPB. Would you like a list of them?
The Bacteria Flagellum
Human Being
Monkey
Whale
Banana
Pine Tree
etc... You cannot demonstrate that any of these above items were derived by unintended contingent mechanisms. It is uncertain how these items were derived since we lack the causal history. None of these examples can be used without making a leap of faith. It is not my intention to show a proof of anything. You must support your claim (Remember that from the thread you posted?) BTW, the snowflake does meet the requirements and is a false positive. I believe that the very concept of complexity as disguised improbability is contrary to facts and logic. For example, under certain (rare) weather conditions, an unusual triangular shape of snowflakes can be observed. [26] Unlike more common forms of snowflakes with their intricately complex structure, these rare snowflakes have a simple structure. As Dembski asserted, [27] snow crystals' shapes are due to necessity—the laws of physics predetermine their appearance. However, triangular snowflakes, while indeed predetermined by laws of physics, occur only under certain weather conditions, which are very rare and unpredictable. Therefore we have to conclude that the emergence of the triangular snowflakes is a random event. This is another example where at least two causal antecedents—chance and law—are in play simultaneously.
Since the appropriate weather conditions occur very rarely, the probability of the chance emergence of the triangular snowflakes is very small; also, they have a uniquely specific shape. Hence, according to the EF, these snowflakes were deliberately designed. The more reasonable conclusion, however, is that they appeared by chance (plus the necessary contribution of law). (This is also another example of a false positive produced by the EF.) Since the probability of the occurrence of these snowflakes is small, then, according to Dembski's insistence that large complexity is equivalent to low probability, their complexity must be large. In fact, though, the rare triangular snowflakes have the simplest form among all the snowflakes observed. Thus, Dembski's thesis asserting that complexity is tantamount to small probability is an unsubstantiated and therefore misleading suggestion. http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Skeptic_paper.cfmI'd encourage you to read the articles available on the TalkReason website, and Panda's Thumb. Maybe even sign up and ask questions of some people in the actual field, rather than return again and again to your copy of Dembski and the DI site. BTW, can you settle a bet: Which sentence has more specified information, according to Dembski? A. The Capital of WA is Seattle. or B. The Capital of MS is Seattle. or C. The Capital of MS is Jackson. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: January 03, 2008, 05:52:05 PM by daedalus 2.0 »
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
|
