From: Glenn Morton (glennmorton@entouch.net)
Date: Mon Aug 04 2003 - 23:40:52 EDT
Hi Richard,
>-----Original Message-----
>From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
>Behalf Of richard@biblewheel.com
>Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 9:31 PM
>To: asa@calvin.edu
>Subject: Re: Information Theory 101 and the Error in Glen's Test
>
>
>Re post http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200308/0069.html:
>
>Glen and I agreed on most of what I said <big smile>, but he then suggested
>I consider this point:
>
>> But, Richard, you missed this point. There are coding systems in which
>> letters of keywords are used to find the replacement letter. <snip>
>
>How do these coding systems differ from any other? The point remains if you
>supply me with a string I will racongize it as designed the moment I
>discover the correct "interpretive scheme" - i.e. the coding system - no
>matter how complex. Is there a reason the extra step you insert should add
>anything fundamental to this analysis?
You are still missing the point in the coding. Logically, the system I
outlined can do this:
meaningful code==> known keyword of length L==> unique coding
That codes a sequence uniquely. But if you have a sequence which is unknown
and you try to decode the unknown sequence, you have this situation
Unknown origin sequence===>unknown keyword(L^26 possibilities)==>L^26
possible decodings
Thus, because the keyword can be any length up to the length of the message.
You have L^26 where L is the length of the message, possible keywords and
L^26 possible decodings. Given that these are equal, exactly how are you
going to recognize the correct sequence? There will be lots of meaningful
sequences which could be the correct meaning.
>
>>Thus, my point is, Dembski's claim that ID is a means of
>>detecting design, simply fails for fundamental reasons.
>>You can't ever rule out that a sequence before you wasn't
>>encoded in this fashion and actually
>>contains a meaningful sentence.
>
>I agree, but I think you got it backwards. This limitation on
>Dembski's test
>for design means that there are elements of design that he might miss, not
>that he would be finding design that wasn't there. In other words, you have
>exposed the fact that Dembski's method may *underestimate* the amount of
>design. This seems to bolster his case.
since the unknown keyword for the unknown sequence has as many possibllities
as there are possible sequences for a decoding, Design can not be
recognized. No way, at all.
>
>Your ultimate point was that there's no one who "who writes DNA or in
>DNAese." This may or may not be correct. But that's not the point as I see
>it. ID Science does not stand or fall on this one point of "reading DNA."
For the ID group, that is what they are trying to claim. God alone makes the
DNA. Thus they have a grand circularity in their position.
>The real question is the recognition of design. And this leads me to the
>fundamental question that we really should be concentrating on .... I know
>you can recognize design in many areas of life. How do you do it? How would
>you fomalize the method you use everyday to determine if we live in an ID
>Universe?
Dembski claims to be able to recognize design. I haven't seen anyone prove
that he can.
In your other note you wrote:
>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?
I did address your point. It was the alternate coding allows only a one way
uniqueness when the keyword is known. Without knowledge of the keyword,
which you have with a sequence of unknown origin, it means that you can't
recognize design because all possible decodings are there.
Take the sequence ieuryssddddfrw I think that is 14 characters. Was it
designed? Using the code I outlined, you can turn that into
"thecatinthehat" or absolutely ANY other 14 letter message by merely
changing the keyword, which you don't know. so you don't know which keyword
to use and thus can't know if any of the possible messages are designed. It
is a fundamental limitation on the coding system.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Aug 04 2003 - 23:40:58 EDT