PvM wrote:
> Cryptography either uses known distributions of words or letters or
> becomes mostly a brute force method. Either way, it's not really about
> detecting design as much as unraveling a mapping function
> (regularity).
>
Yet in application, I hardly see what the difference would
be (other than semantics). If the enemy sends noise, and
then at a specified time, sends signal using a very good
code, whether you call it "mapping function" and "brute
force" or "design" is really irrelevant (beyond semantics).
Your interest at that point would be to spend your time
trying to find the difference between the noise and signal
and whose methods you employ (if you are actually intelligent)
is of no concern as long as the method does the job correctly.
Maybe I am more interested in application so I tend to think this
way.
More to the point, it is hard to see what is astoundingly new
about the Design Inference. Even Dembski's "universal
probability bound" (p 203-217) is at best anticlimactic.
I believe that was sometimes referred to as a "bootstrap
value" in engineering parlance.
Perhaps though, the hardness of their situation may help
them open a real field of mathematics... who knows. Why
must we always have the attitude that we must "stamp out!"
everything we don't agree with? _Serious_ individuals do
learn something even if the lesson is "don't go that way
next time!" and "you were a fool to take that one on".
Some of the best lessons do come from failure because
you learn what recourse you should take to avoid repeating
those mistakes. It is probably not a blessing to always be
successful.
by Grace we proceed,
Wayne
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jun 5 20:43:40 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jun 05 2007 - 20:43:40 EDT