From: richard@biblewheel.com
Date: Mon Aug 04 2003 - 22:44:27 EDT
Glen, you and I agreed until we got to this point:
>
> >
> >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.
>
> We agree here. Semantic meaning is a private agreement that particular
> symbols mean something. The private agreement may be between 2 people or
an
> entire language speaking nation. But it is still a private agreement.
>
>
> >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.
>
>
> As you might expect, I don't agree that this exposes a weakness. More
below
>
>
The funny thing is that you never actually addressed my point. You said
"more below" but then all you addressed had to do with an alternate coding
scheme and DNA - whereas your test which I was discussing also had to do
with linguistic coding. Was this an oversight, or do you agree then that my
argument is valid?
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 - 22:43:47 EDT