Intelligent Reasoning: Measuring Information/ specified complexity

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

Measuring Information/ specified complexity

When discussing information some people want to know how much information does something contain?

If it is something straight-forward such as a definition, we can count the number of bits in that definition to find out how much information it contains.

For example:

aardvark: a large burrowing nocturnal mammal (Orycteropus afer) of sub-Saharan Africa that has a long snout, extensible tongue, powerful claws, large ears, and heavy tail and feeds especially on termites and ants

A simple character count reveals 202 characters which translates into 1010 bits of information/ specified complexity..

Now what do we do when all we have is an object?

One way of figuring out how much information it contains is to figure out how (the simplest way) to make it.

Then you write down the procedure without wasting words/ characters and count those bits.

That will give you an idea of the minimal information it contains.

I say that because all the information that goes into making something is therefor contained by it.

And if you already have the instructions and want to measure the information?

Again just count the bits in the instructions.

For example a cake would, at a minimum, contain all the information in the recipe.

Have you ever had to assemble something?

The object you assembled would, at a minimum, contain all the information in the assembly instructions.

Let the Richie Retardo arm flailing begin... (I will see you tomorrow)

147 Comments:

At 9:34 AM, Rich Hughes said…

Yes! More stupid than I could have hoped for!

This must mean that long words have more information than short words, eh Joe?
At 9:54 AM, Unknown said…

Very interesting, but I am not sure I understand completely. Forgive me if it takes a little time for me to catch on. Does a boxed cake mix have more CSI since there is a proper/brand name involved or less because some of the ingredients are combined and the directions only refer to a "mix pack" rather than it's constituent ingredients?
At 12:26 PM, Kristine said…

Did you intent to type 1616 instead of 1010?
At 7:24 AM, Joe G said…

This must mean that long words have more information than short words,

It all depends on their definition.

It is the DEFINITION that gives the word any information.

Duh.
At 7:26 AM, Joe G said…

Did you intent to type 1616 instead of 1010?

202 x 5 = 1010
At 7:28 AM, Joe G said…

Does a boxed cake mix have more CSI since there is a proper/brand name involved or less because some of the ingredients are combined and the directions only refer to a "mix pack" rather than it's constituent ingredients?

To determine the INFORMATION contained in a box mix you have to find out the ingredients and their measure.
At 7:52 AM, Joe G said…

So Richie Retardo,

Is that really the best you can muster to refute my premise?

You are even more retarded than I thought.

You are a mental midget uncapable of original thought.

Thank you for continuing to prove that.
At 9:49 AM, Rich Hughes said…

It is the DEFINITION that gives the word any information.

Ah, that would imply extra information outside of the 'recipe' as will as comp licitly hidden within the structure of language itself.

Your ideas are certainly ready for prime time - go put them up at UD!
At 10:07 AM, Joe G said…

It is the DEFINITION that gives the word any information.

Ah, that would imply extra information outside of the 'recipe' as will as comp licitly hidden within the structure of language itself.

The recipe itself carries with it all the definitions of the words it contains.

And then one reads what I have stated:

For example a cake would, at a minimum, contain all the information in the recipe.

the phrase "at a minimum" should be a clue.

This isn't meant to be exact.

It is only meant to demonstrate what it takes to get the job done.

The more information it takes the farher it is away from being reducible to matter, energy, chance and necessity.

And that is why 500 bits of specified information constitutes CSI- it is far enough away, no ifs ands or buts about it.

But again I don't expect you to be able to grasp that concept.
At 10:27 AM, Rich Hughes said…

I can compress your cake reciepe, Joe. So your claim is wrong (on so many levels) - have you ever even looked at information theory?
At 10:38 AM, Joe G said…

Richie Retardo chimes in again:
I can compress your cake reciepe, Joe.

Already taken care of in the OP:

One way of figuring out how much information it contains is to figure out how (the simplest way) to make it.

The cake recipe was just to provide an example of how to go about doing it- counting bits of what it takes to get the job done- that is once you figure out a way to do it.

The recipe was given so I used it.

If you want to analyze the recipe go ahead.

I can understand why a dolt like you would want to enter into such a distraction. But it is irrelevant to the point-

An object contains all the information that was required to bring it about.

And in the absence of designer input or direct observation the only way to figure out that information is by trying to duplicate it.

But again you won't be able to grasp that.

Heck you can't even read what I post.

Oh well...
At 10:48 AM, Rich Hughes said…

Okay Joe - here's just a few of the problems you face

1) You need to understand English to read your recipe
2) Your recipe is so imprecise you'll get a different cake (and different CSI) every time
3) If long words were shorter words, there would less information (see 1)
4) See Poachy's point (post 2)
5) In order to get exactly the same cake, you'd have to use *exactly the same eggs*, which would be impossible, or require a near infinite definition (see 1)
6) Cake baking is likely stochastic in any environment, but especially given your definition.

Go and post on UD, Joe - at least you've got the stones to try (and epically fail) which is more than they do.
At 11:04 AM, Joe G said…

Thank you for continuing to fulfill my predictions.

1) You need to understand English to read your recipe

It was just a fucking EXAMPLE people who can read English.

However it was not an example for a moronic dickhead like you.

Ya see moronic dickheads can twist anything they want to any way they they want.

2) Your recipe is so imprecise you'll get a different cake (and different CSI) every time

That wasn't the point either.

IOW you are truly a moron for picking on irrelevant things.

3) If long words were shorter words, there would less information

I explained that.

I take it you are too stupid to understand what I posted.

Again your stupidity is NOT my problem.

4) See Poachy's point (post 2)

I responded to his post also.

Do you have reading issues?

5) In order to get exactly the same cake, you'd have to use *exactly the same eggs*, which would be impossible, or require a near infinite definition (see 1)

How is that relevant?

6) Cake baking is likely stochastic in any environment, but especially given your definition.

Who cares? The cake still contains the information that was used in making it.

So Richie, exactly what do you think you have done besides get drool all over your keyboard?

gotta go- c-ya tomorrow
At 11:16 AM, Rich Hughes said…

1) so it doesn't measure CSI at all, then. THANK YOU.

(something you can't do, and still haven't done, despite repeated asking) - CSI needs to exist outside of a language.

Swearing just highlights your shortcomings and frustration.

2) CSI is an absolute measure, if it is to be used empirically as a hurdle for design. Whoopsey.

3) See 1.

4) You tried, but you're wrong. I define X as 'the complete works of Shakespeare' - how much CSI in X?

5) suppose I use an ostrich egg. How will that effect the CSI? ;-)

6) Well, it looks like your 'information' has some randomness in it. Not good for an empirical hurdle.

I'd run off too if I were you.

Post this up on UD, and try not to threaten anyone today, eh?

Byeeeeeee XOXOXOXOX
At 12:18 PM, Joe G said…

The translation is that just because Richie is too stupid or to twisted to understand what I am saying, what I am saying is wrong.

The frustration towards Richie can be likened to a parent's frustration with a hissy-fit throwing child who refuses to listen to anything and instead twists the words of the parents to perpetuate the hissy-fit mode.

I will say it again- the ONLY reason to ask for the CSI of something is you question how it came to be that way.

So if you really wanted to know the SI of a something all you have to do is to figure out how to make one, write down the instructions, and count the bits.

One final note- the point of CSI is to know whether or not it is present. Its presence is a signal of intentional design. Getting an exact number, although good for parlor games, may or may not be of any use scientifically.

The recipe- REGARDLESS of how perfect it is, was used as an example- AN EXAMPLE ONLY- of how one would go about determining the minimal information required.

You have to break it down into something that can be measured.

Then you measure it.

Period. End of story.

Now I have been trying to get that through to Richies pointed little head but now I understand his problem:

Richie looking for information

Try not to molest any children or beat any women today Richie.

And the drool- do something about that drool...
At 12:45 PM, J-Dog said…

I am a parent of three kids - all gifted - and I can tell you that if your kid is throwing a hissy fit, then you are doing it wrong.

Come to think of it, you ARE doing it wrong, so perhpas you could ease off on Rich and get yourself back to school and do a little readin' and book learnin' in the exciting world of Information Theory.
At 1:40 PM, Kristine said…

202 x 5 = 1010

Yes, very good. 5 bits per character? Why? Are you assuming one case only?
At 1:49 PM, Kristine said…

It is the DEFINITION that gives the word any information.

Wait a minute. What do you mean by that? English literature does not equal information theory.

Which has more information:
the word "plus"
or
+
?

"Methinks it is like a weasel"
or
"AJEODSFL;PWERNPSRESJKLP"?
At 2:43 PM, Tom Ames said…

I say that because all the information that goes into making something is therefor contained by it.

Actually, an important chunk of the information that goes into the development of, say, a Drosophila embryo comes from gradients in the egg that are determined by the mother. The information arising from these "maternal effects" are not necessarily encoded anywhere in the offspring's genome.
At 6:50 PM, Unknown said…

To determine the INFORMATION contained in a box mix you have to find out the ingredients and their measure.

Okay, so this would state that whether the ingredients were premixed would not change the CSI of a box mix cake relative to a homemade, given that the same amounts of identical ingredients are used? Intuitively, it makes sense, but there is one thing I don't get.

If the presence of CSI is the hallmark of design, wouldn't the act of creatively designing the pre-packaged, easy to use cake mix cake impart additional CSI? It would seem so, but since CSI must be conserved and the end results (finished cakes, whether made from a box or from scratch) have the same CSI, where does the additional CSI that came from the design and manufacturing process go?
At 7:27 AM, Joe G said…

I am a parent of three kids - all gifted - and I can tell you that if your kid is throwing a hissy fit, then you are doing it wrong.

Thank you for proving that you don't know anything.

Come to think of it, you ARE doing it wrong, so perhpas you could ease off on Rich and get yourself back to school and do a little readin' and book learnin' in the exciting world of Information Theory.

If IT were relevant you would have a point.
At 7:29 AM, Joe G said…

Yes, very good. 5 bits per character? Why? Are you assuming one case only?

Does the information content change if the letters are capitalized?

IOW would the definition change?

No.

So why complicate things?
At 7:33 AM, Joe G said…

I say that because all the information that goes into making something is therefor contained by it.

Actually, an important chunk of the information that goes into the development of, say, a Drosophila embryo comes from gradients in the egg that are determined by the mother.

So what?

Does that mean the offspring does not contain that information?

The information arising from these "maternal effects" are not necessarily encoded anywhere in the offspring's genome.

Fine. That just means that the information in an organism is NOT limited to its genome.

And I already knew that.

So what is your point?
At 7:37 AM, Joe G said…

To determine the INFORMATION contained in a box mix you have to find out the ingredients and their measure.

Okay, so this would state that whether the ingredients were premixed would not change the CSI of a box mix cake relative to a homemade, given that the same amounts of identical ingredients are used?

INFORMATION would be similar- yes.

If the presence of CSI is the hallmark of design, wouldn't the act of creatively designing the pre-packaged, easy to use cake mix cake impart additional CSI?

It could but that is irrelevant to my point.

My point is the cake that is baked contains all the information that was used in baking it.

That includes the recipe and all that entails.

It also includes all of the prep.
At 7:39 AM, Joe G said…

It is the DEFINITION that gives the word any information.

Wait a minute. What do you mean by that? English literature does not equal information theory.

I am not talking about IT.

I am talking about plain ole black & white information that humans (in general) use on a daily basis.

For example the INFORMATION required to bake a cake.

The baked cake contains all the information that was used to make it.
At 7:45 AM, Joe G said…

1) You need to understand English to read your recipe

Irrelevant- all baked cakes contain the information that went into making them.

2) Your recipe is so imprecise you'll get a different cake (and different CSI) every time

Irrelevant- all baked cakes contain the information, whatever that information was, that went into making them.

3) If long words were shorter words, there would less information

Irrelevant- all baked cakes contain the information, whatever that information was, that went into making them.

4) See Poachy's point (post 2)

Explained. Even a box mix contains all the information tat went into it. Then that information is transferred to the cake.

5) In order to get exactly the same cake, you'd have to use *exactly the same eggs*, which would be impossible, or require a near infinite definition (see 1)

Irrelevant- all baked cakes contain the information, whatever that information was, that went into making them.

6) Cake baking is likely stochastic in any environment, but especially given your definition.

Irrelevant- all baked cakes contain the information, whatever that information was, that went into making them.
At 8:31 AM, Duke York said…

One thought. Consider these two cake recipe:

Add flour, 1 tsp salt, and sugar to bowl

Add sugar, flour and salt to bowl

It seems to me that these are different pieces of information, since they give instructions in different orders (which is in many cases highly important, such as "wash hands then perform surgery").

From the point of view of the finished cake, however, there is no difference.

Where did the information in the order of adding ingredients go?

Duke
At 8:44 AM, Joe G said…

One thought. Consider these two cake recipe:

Add flour, 1 tsp salt, and sugar to bowl

Add sugar, flour and salt to bowl

Neither one is a cake recipe.

How much flour? How much sugar?

The ordering only makes a difference if it makes a difference to the final product.

IOW if the cake required a SPECIFIC order to mix the ingredients then that specification would be in the recipe.

The info in the recipe goes into the cake.
At 9:01 AM, oleg said…

Joe,

If I make two cakes from the same recipe, do they contain twice as much information?
At 9:01 AM, Joe G said…

The frustration towards Richie can be likened to a parent's frustration with a hissy-fit throwing child who refuses to listen to anything and instead twists the words of the parents to perpetuate the hissy-fit mode.

So Gary chimes in with:

I am a parent of three kids - all gifted - and I can tell you that if your kid is throwing a hissy fit, then you are doing it wrong.

I didn't say anything about MY kids.

I am saying that Richie Hughes acts like a litle child throwing a hissy-fit and twisting every word to suit his hissy-ft-throwing needs.

So perhaps Gary should also learn to read.
At 9:03 AM, Joe G said…

If I make two cakes from the same recipe, do they contain twice as much information?

Each cake contains the information required to make it.
At 9:06 AM, oleg said…

Each cake contains the information required to make it.

Joe, please answer my question. Do two cakes contain twice as much information as one cake?
At 9:07 AM, Joe G said…

And if anyone thinks that cakes do not contain the information used in making them then please demonstrate that a cake can arise without it.

Thank you.
At 9:09 AM, Joe G said…

Joe, please answer my question. Do two cakes contain twice as much information as one cake?

The answer is:

Each cake contains the information rtequired in making it.

That is it. Period.

"Twice as much information" is irrelevant" to the point being made.

Do you understand the point- that designed objects contain the information used in making them?
At 9:12 AM, Joe G said…

Now if you took a recipe and doubled it to make one BIG cake, then that big cake would contain all the information required to make it.

WHATEVER that information was.
At 9:20 AM, oleg said…

Joe,

You are talking about measuring information. You even stated how to quantify it. Now I need to know how I can work with this quantity. Is it additive? Entropy and Shannon information are additive. If your information is contained in a cake, then I would say that it should be additive.

What do you think?
At 9:27 AM, Joe G said…

You are talking about measuring information.

Yes TO MAKE A POINT.

That point, which you keep ignoring, is that a designed object contains, at a minimum, all the information required to make it.

Now I need to know how I can work with this quantity.

You NEED to know?

NEED?

I don't believe you.

What do you need it for?

If your information is contained in a cake, then I would say that it should be additive.

It isn't "my" information.

Do you understand the point? Yes or No.

The point being that a designed object contains the information required to make it.

Do you agree or disagree?

If you agree then fine we have nothing left to discuss in this thread.

If you disagree fine also. Just demonstrate that a cake can arise without agency involvement.
At 9:38 AM, oleg said…

Joe,

I am a theoretical physicist. My work is to connect the physical world with mathematical concepts. When someone is talking about a measurable quantity, I want to know the mathematical rules governing it. I hope this explains my interest.

In statistical physics we deal with entropy, which is the analog of information, up to a minus sign. I can see how an object "contains" a certain amount of entropy because entropy is what we call a function of state of the object: it does not depend on how the object arrived at that state. It has the same amount of entropy. The word contained hints at independence of that quantity of the surroundings. Whether or not there is another similar object nearby, ours has the same amount of entropy. Two identical objects in the same state have equal amounts of entropy and, furthermore, the total amount of entropy is twice as large. We can check that experimentally.

I would think that cake information should behave in a similar way. It should be additive. If it is I can see how it can be calculated. If not then you haven't thought it through.
At 9:56 AM, Rich Hughes said…

Rich:

Joe repeats and repeats:

"Irrelevant- all baked cakes contain the information, whatever that information was, that went into making them."

But each cake will have a slightly different weight, colour, density, etc. Aren't these pieces of information, or is an elephant a mouse?
At 9:58 AM, Rich Hughes said…

Why isn't this Front Page at UD?
At 10:10 AM, Kristine said…

I am not talking about IT.

Then why refer to "bits"?

I am talking about plain ole black & white information that humans (in general) use on a daily basis.

Then why refer to "information"?

For example the INFORMATION required to bake a cake.

You're speaking out of both sides of your mouth - natural language, and information theory. You can't conflate the two and then that claim you're not. And that's why people are laughing at you.

And if it doesn't matter whether words are capitalized or not, why do you SHOUT so much?
At 10:30 AM, Joe G said…

But each cake will have a slightly different weight, colour, density, etc.

Could be. So what?

Aren't these pieces of information, or is an elephant a mouse?

One more time-

A cake- any cake- contains all the information required to make it.

That said if you are given a cake and th exact recipe used, then at a minimum, that cake would contain all the information in that recipe.
At 10:34 AM, Joe G said…

oleg:
I am a theoretical physicist. My work is to connect the physical world with mathematical concepts. When someone is talking about a measurable quantity, I want to know the mathematical rules governing it. I hope this explains my interest.

Great. As I have already stated:

One final note- the point of CSI is to know whether or not it is present. Its presence is a signal of intentional design. Getting an exact number, although good for parlor games, may or may not be of any use scientifically.

IOW someone asked how can we tell if something contains CSI?

I said :
One way of figuring out how much information it contains is to figure out how (the simplest way) to make it.

That is it.

Don't try to make this into something that was never intended.
At 10:35 AM, Joe G said…

I am talking about plain ole black & white information that humans (in general) use on a daily basis.

Then why refer to "information"?

Are you saying that a definition of a word isn't information?

WTF?
At 10:52 AM, Kristine said…

No, Joe, that is not what I am saying. Calm down. I am saying that you are conflating different defintions and therefore making a fallacious argument.

The definition of a word as you use it here (plain use) has nothing to do with the amount of information in the word in Shannon's terms. You're confusing the two.

Anyway, look at a recipe and see if t and T are not in fact different amounts of baking soda. (t = teaspoon, T = tablespoon) I'm doing you a favor, you see?
At 11:38 AM, oleg said…

One final note- the point of CSI is to know whether or not it is present. Its presence is a signal of intentional design. Getting an exact number, although good for parlor games, may or may not be of any use scientifically.

In other words, you have no idea how much CSI there is in a cake but you are pretty sure it's there. Why didn't you say "I just know it's designed" from the start? We wouldn't be having this long conversation.
At 7:27 AM, Unknown said…

If the presence of CSI is the hallmark of design, wouldn't the act of creatively designing the pre-packaged, easy to use cake mix cake impart additional CSI?

It could but that is irrelevant to my point.

My point is the cake that is baked contains all the information that was used in baking it.

That includes the recipe and all that entails.

It also includes all of the prep.

Then it isn't irrelevant to your point because "all the prep" includes the design/manufacturing process associated with the box mix. And given that the industrial process is so different than the from scratch process, there must be more information. There is way more information in an industrial mixer than there is in a plastic spatula. So, there must be a different information content? Or should I assume that there is a limit to how far back in the design process we can go before the incremental information content imparted to the (eventual) cake is negligible?

To put it another way, think about a cherry pie. I would assume that there is different information content if I by a can of pre-packaged cherries at the store vs. picking them off a random cherry tree vs. planting and growing my own cherry tree. See what I mean
At 7:32 AM, Joe G said…

oleg:
In other words, you have no idea how much CSI there is in a cake but you are pretty sure it's there.

So you can't follow a discussion.

Is that supposed to impress me?

Ya see oleg it is AS I HAVE STATED:

A designed object contains all the information that went into making it.

Yes or no- Do you understand that point?

Why didn't you say "I just know it's designed" from the start?

Because that was not the point.

The point was to be able to determine whether or not a designed object contains CSI.

And the only way to make that determination in the absence of direct observation or designer input, is by studying the object in question and try to figure out how to duplicate it.
At 7:36 AM, Joe G said…

I am saying that you are conflating different defintions and therefore making a fallacious argument.

Prove that I am conflating different definitions- different definitions of what?

The definition of a word as you use it here (plain use) has nothing to do with the amount of information in the word in Shannon's terms.

I don't care about Shannon.

You're confusing the two.

No I am not.

Anyway, look at a recipe and see if t and T are not in fact different amounts of baking soda. (t = teaspoon, T = tablespoon) I'm doing you a favor, you see?

I have never seen a recipe that just uses jus a "T" for tablespoon.

That doesn't mean one doesn't exist but I would expect a good recipe writer to use tbsp and tsp.

But that is just me.
At 7:38 AM, Joe G said…

poachy,

I understand what you are saying and it is irrelevant to my point which is the cake/ pie- whatever- contains the information used to make it.

Do you understand that concept? (yes or no)
At 8:47 AM, oleg said…

Ya see oleg it is AS I HAVE STATED:

A designed object contains all the information that went into making it.

Yes or no- Do you understand that point?

Before I can agree or disagree with a statement I need to have a clear understanding of it. You have steadfastly refused to define your terms, so I will have to fill in the blanks as best I can.

On the basis of what you have said and by using what little I know about information and statistics I am forced to conclude that the information content of a cake is zero. Others in this thread and at AtBC have hinted at this outcome, but here is my simple proof.

Here are my assumptions. First, I assume along with you that the amount of CSI X in a cake is determined by the number of letters in the recipe. I further assume that CSI, like Shannon information and entropy, is an additive quantity. The third and final assumption is that CSI, like entropy, is a function of state: if two cakes are the same in size and taste, they contain the same amount of CSI. It does not matter how they were prepared.

It follows from these assumptions that the amount of CSI in a cake X=0. To see why this is so, note that the amount of CSI in 2 cakes of the same size is X+X because CSI is additive. On the other hand, a recipe for preparing two cakes can be obtained from a recipe for one by appending the single-word sentence Repeat. It follows that the amount of CSI in the second cake X is based on the number of letters in the sentence Repeat.

While that already is a pretty minimal amount of information, we can shrink it a bit further. 4 cakes can be made by appending another single-word sentence Repeat. The amount of CSI contained in the two new cakes, 2X, is again based on the number of letters in the sentence Repeat. Thus 2X = X, which means X = 0. Q.E.D.

I hope this answers your question, Joe.
At 9:06 AM, Joe G said…

You have steadfastly refused to define your terms, so I will have to fill in the blanks as best I can.

That is bullshit. I was never asked to define anything.

On the basis of what you have said and by using what little I know about information and statistics I am forced to conclude that the information content of a cake is zero.

So cakes can arise without agency involvement.

Can you support that claim?

First, I assume along with you that the amount of CSI X in a cake is determined by the number of letters in the recipe.

That is not what I assume. I don't assume anything about CSI.

CSI is only reached if the specified information reaches 500 bits.

I said AT A MINIMUM a cake would contain all the information required to make it.

the recipe is just part of that.

I further assume that CSI, like Shannon information and entropy, is an additive quantity.

And it could. As I said that is irrelevant to my point.

The third and final assumption is that CSI, like entropy, is a function of state: if two cakes are the same in size and taste, they contain the same amount of CSI.

That could be but agfain it is irrelevant to my point.

It follows from these assumptions that the amount of CSI in a cake X=0.

The assumptions are faulty.

To see why this is so, note that the amount of CSI in 2 cakes of the same size is X+X because CSI is additive.

We don't know if CSI is additive.

Are IQs additive?

If there are two people in the room one with an IQ of 150 and the other witrh an IQ of 100 do they equal a person with an IQ of 250?

No.

Does adding capactitors in series increase or decrease the capacitance of a circuit?

Series caps decrease the overall capacitance of the circuit.

So the bottom line is that people like you can take an idea and twist it so that it looks invalid.

However in the end reality sinks in and we realize that a cake cannot be made without a recipe- ie a means to make it.

And if the cake does not contain the information that was used in making it what happens to that info?

But anyway you did answer my question.

You have proved you refuse to understand a simple concept that a designed object contains all the info required to make it.

IOW you refuse to understand that a cake is reducible to matter, energy, chance, necessity and INFORMATION.

You must be proud of yourself.
At 9:11 AM, Joe G said…

It follows that the amount of CSI in the second cake X is based on the number of letters in the sentence Repeat.

Only if you are a dolt.

Ya see it is obvious that for the second cake a RECIPE would be used.

The SAME recipe as the first cake.

Ya see the word Repeat would carry ALL of the information that it entails.

However seeing that you would rather act like a little baby I doubt you will understand that basic fact.
At 9:19 AM, oleg said…

Don't blame me, Joe. I took your plainly stated recipe for measuring CSI content:

One way of figuring out how much information it contains is to figure out how (the simplest way) to make it.

Then you write down the procedure without wasting words/ characters and count those bits.

I added the standard properties of information and entropy—such as additivity— and logically derived the result for CSI of a cake. If you think some of my 3 assumptions are faulty, tell us which ones. The first one was your own, the other two are standard information theory and statistical physics.
At 9:27 AM, Joe G said…

Don't blame me, Joe. I took your plainly stated recipe for measuring CSI content:

I do blame you. YOU can't read!!!!

One way of figuring out how much information it contains is to figure out how (the simplest way) to make it.

Then you write down the procedure without wasting words/ characters and count those bits.

Where do you see "CSI" in my statement?

I told you was what wrong with your assumptions.

Read my post. And read what I post not what you want my post to say.

I also told you that your use of "repeat" proves that you are nothing but a little baby.
At 9:31 AM, oleg said…

Joe,

I understand that you don't like the outcome. Sorry, but there is no other way to put it: your recipe for measuring information content of an object is, well, half-baked. Don't shoot the messenger. Go back to the drawing board.
At 9:40 AM, Rich Hughes said…

Best thread ever, Cakeboy. Its been a while since a thread or a buffoon made me cry laughing. This is ready for prime-time! Get this up at UD!
At 10:06 AM, Unknown said…

I understand what you are saying and it is irrelevant to my point which is the cake/ pie- whatever- contains the information used to make it.

Do you understand that concept? (yes or no)

Yes, but I don't understand why you think that the bit count of the recipe is the only information. Surely the ingredients bring in their own information. So, unless you draw a line somewhere in the calculation, it is recipes all the way down.
At 10:12 AM, Joe G said…

oleg-

One step at a time:

Are you saying that although it takes information to make a cake, the cake does not contain that information.

Or are you saying that it doesn’t take any information to make a cake?

(BTW your "outcome" is nonsense and that is because you don't even understand what I posted.)
At 10:23 AM, Joe G said…

Yes, but I don't understand why you think that the bit count of the recipe is the only information.

I never said it was. And I never thought it was.
At 10:32 AM, Joe G said…

Richie Retardo-

poachy understands my point- so what is YOUR problem?

It also note-worthy that once again Richie has nothing to offer except his usual ignorant drooling.
At 10:35 AM, oleg said…

Are you saying that although it takes information to make a cake, the cake does not contain that information.

Or are you saying that it doesn’t take any information to make a cake?

The first sentence above conflates two different meanings of the word information. The first instance refers to the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence, the second to a quantitative measure of the content of information. As Kristine already mentioned, this is a logical fallacy.

The second sentence is closer to what I am saying, but I must qualify it further. I took your own recipe for evaluating the information content of a cake and showed that it gives (almost) the same answer for 1, 2, and 4 cakes. Coupled with additivity of information, this result suggests that information content of a cake is zero.

The proof is simple, so if you think the result is wrong then one of the assumptions that went into it must be faulty. That could be (1) tying the amount of information to the number of bits or letters in the recipe, (2) additivity of information and entropy, (3) the assumption that the information content is a function of state.

Take your pick.
At 10:43 AM, Joe G said…

This is pathetic:

When I say:

Are you saying that although it takes information to make a cake, the cake does not contain that information.

I am only talking about ONE type of information.

I am NOT conflating anything.

Do you understand English?

When I say

it takes information to make a cake, the cake does not contain THAT information.

The word "that" refers specifically to the first instance of the word and its meaning.

So what we have is proof you refuse to read what was posted.

The second sentence is closer to what I am saying, but I must qualify it further.

Or are you saying that it doesn’t take any information to make a cake?

I took your own recipe for evaluating the information content of a cake and showed that it gives (almost) the same answer for 1, 2, and 4 cakes. Coupled with additivity of information, this result suggests that information content of a cake is zero.

And that is a nonsensical approach.

To show that it doesn't take information to make a cake just demonstrate a cake arising without it.

If you can't do that then you have nothing.

Have at it.
At 10:45 AM, oleg said…

Joe, which of the 3 assumptions was wrong? Do tell.
At 11:04 AM, Kristine said…

Yes, my dear, I most certainly understand English. Inside and out. I studied the history of English, literature, argumentation, and rhetoric. I also studied various programming languages, information theory, information science, and pedagogy. You are not talking about one kind of information, but two: the associative "information" a word contains because of its use in natural language, and digital "information" in bits to send it over a telephone line, or nucleotides in DNA - and I particularly do not appreciate someone conflating human communication with encryption or genetic fragments. For someone arguing against the ostensive "materialism" of evolutionary theory, that is a particularly materialistic and dehumanized view of literature. It is astonishing that those who argue for intelligent design cannot see how, even as they appeal to some "higher" truth they diminish human values (viewing people as manufactured like Coke cans, or owned like property, or set in motion like a spinning top by the Designer).
At 11:09 AM, Joe G said…

oleg-

One more time

If you can demonstrate that a cake can arise without information you will have a point.

Have at it.
At 11:15 AM, Joe G said…

Yes, my dear, I most certainly understand English.

Good for you Kristine.

Except I wasn't talking to you.

Is that how you argue- butt in to other people's discussions without any regard to context?

You are not talking about one kind of information, but two: the associative "information" a word contains because of its use in natural language, and digital "information" in bits to send it over a telephone line,

I don't think so.

Ya see I was just trying to show how to measure the specified information by breaking it down into bits.

and I particularly do not appreciate someone conflating human communication with encryption or genetic fragments.

Umm I was just trying to make a simple point.

Just because you refuse to understand my point and instead want to twist it into something else, is meaningless to me.

Now if you have an issue with ID then all you have to do is support your position.
At 11:17 AM, oleg said…

Joe,

I am not here to prove that a cake can arise spontaneously. I am helping you evaluate its information content. I took your own procedure and showed formally that it gives zero information content.

You don't like this conclusion and tell me that my assumptions are wrong. Which ones? Your own procedure for measuring the amount of information? Standard premises of information theory and statistical physics? Please tell us.
At 11:25 AM, Joe G said…

I am not here to prove that a cake can arise spontaneously.

Yet you said you had "proof" it doesn't require any information.

I am helping you evaluate its information content.

You are a legend in your own mind.

With your "help" nothing would ever get accomplished.

I took your own procedure and showed formally that it gives zero information content.

You bastardized my procedure and twisted it to get some nonsensical result.

So I will say it again-

If YOUR "proof"/ outcome had any merit then you should be able to demonstrate a cake arising without information.

Failure to produce such a demonstration is a strong indication that YOU are full of shit.

Is that clear enough?
At 11:33 AM, oleg said…

Joe,

In what way do I "bastardize" your procedure? I use it quite literally: I equate information content with the length of the recipe.

It's obvious that a recipe for baking two identical cakes has essentially the same length as the recipe for one. It thus follows that two cakes do not have twice as much information as one if we adopt your definition. Then your cake information is either zero or not additive. The former outcome proves your definition vacuous (literally), the latter tells us that your information is not information at all.
At 12:06 PM, Kristine said…

"Other people's discussions"? Yes, I know you are not talking to me. That's why you avoided my points about teaspoon versus Tablespoon and why you don't answer my question about why you're referring to bits at all if you're talking about associative "meaning."

So much for AtBC "beating women" eh?
At 1:24 PM, Hermagoras said…

Joe, let's be honest, olegt knows more about information theory than you ever will. Also, unlike either of us, he is a scientist at one of the best universities in the world.

Oleg is not saying that a cake contains no information. He is saying that your argument about determining information content from a set of instructions is nonsensical.
At 3:56 PM, Joe G said…

So I will say it again-

If YOUR "proof"/ outcome had any merit then you should be able to demonstrate a cake arising without information.

Failure to produce such a demonstration is a strong indication that YOU are full of shit.

Is that clear enough?
At 3:56 PM, Joe G said…

Kellogg,

It is quite revealing that oleg cannot support his position.
At 4:27 PM, Hermagoras said…

Joe, oleg's position is, as I wrote before, that your argument about determining information content from a set of instructions is nonsensical.

He's supported that quite well.
At 4:32 PM, oleg said…

I don't have a position on this issue, Joe. I just take yours to its logical conclusion. If you don't like it, well, tough luck.
At 4:50 PM, Rich Hughes said…

" Joe G said...
So I will say it again-

If YOUR "proof"/ outcome had any merit then you should be able to demonstrate a cake arising without information.

Failure to produce such a demonstration is a strong indication that YOU are full of shit.

Is that clear enough?"

This is a false dichotomy based on your misunderstanding of 'information', Cakeboy.
At 5:11 PM, Joe G said…

In what way do I "bastardize" your procedure?

In about every way possible.

I use it quite literally: I equate information content with the length of the recipe.

And yet I do NOT. And that means right from the start you are wrong.

It's obvious that a recipe for baking two identical cakes has essentially the same length as the recipe for one.

And that is irrelevant.

My OP addresses a cake- meaning ONE.

Therefor you pulled another cake or two or three out of your ass.

That is a sure sign of bastardization- when someone takes my example and adds to it or twists it.

It thus follows that two cakes do not have twice as much information as one if we adopt your definition.

Yup and if I have one dictionary, and someone gives me an exact duplicate, I don't have twice as much information- in the sense I am talking about.

Then your cake information is either zero or not additive.

And if it is zero you should be able to show that a cake can arise without information.

The former outcome proves your definition vacuous (literally),

Or would be if you could just provide a demonstration.

Without that you don't have anything.

the latter tells us that your information is not information at all.

And yet a cake wouldn't exist without it.

Also the information I am referring to is what allows the world to work.

It is what separates design from nature, operating freely.
At 5:20 PM, Joe G said…

Joe, oleg's position is, as I wrote before, that your argument about determining information content from a set of instructions is nonsensical.

That premise is wrong. That is not what I am doing.

So either you are a complete dickhead or just stupid.

He's supported that quite well.

To a dickhead like you I am sure he has.
At 5:22 PM, Joe G said…

I don't have a position on this issue, Joe.

I beg to differ.

I would say your position is to misrepresent my position.

I just take yours to its logical conclusion.

And yet you haven't demonstrated an understanding of my position.

If you don't like it, well, tough luck.

It's my tough luck that you can misrepresent what my position is?

That makes sense.
At 5:23 PM, Joe G said…

And I see that Richie Retardo has been relegated to the role of cheerleader.

You rock beater-boy...
At 5:28 PM, Joe G said…

So I will say it again-

If YOUR "proof"/ outcome had any merit then you should be able to demonstrate a cake arising without information.

Failure to produce such a demonstration is a strong indication that YOU are full of shit.

Is that clear enough?"

Retardo:
This is a false dichotomy based on your misunderstanding of 'information'

More bald assertions from beater-boy.

If someone has a "proof" then that "proof" should have some means of verification.

Otherwise said "proof" is bullshit.
At 5:30 PM, Joe G said…

Yes, I know you are not talking to me. That's why you avoided my points about teaspoon versus Tablespoon and why you don't answer my question about why you're referring to bits at all if you're talking about associative "meaning."

I responded to your point about t vs T

As for bits it is for measure.

DMAIC-

Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control
At 5:36 PM, Rich Hughes said…

"If someone has a "proof" then that "proof" should have some means of verification.

Otherwise said "proof" is bullshit."

My goodness - that's like saying proving that a dog isn't horse means it is a cow. Are you really that stupid?
At 5:38 PM, Joe G said…

My goodness - that's like saying proving that a dog isn't horse means it is a cow.

It's not like saying that at all.

Are YOU that stupid?
At 5:43 PM, Rich Hughes said…

Oleg showed your definition of information to be nonsense. For you to claim he needs to show spontaneous generation of cake is silliness, its your definition that is wrong, not how the cake is formed.

Poor cakeboy!
At 5:47 PM, Joe G said…

Oleg showed your definition of information to be nonsense.

No he didn't.

He showed me that he could take my idea and twist it.

For you to claim he needs to show spontaneous generation of cake is silliness, its your definition that is wrong, not how the cake is formed.

He doesn't need to do anything.

However if he wants to show that his position is correct and mine is wrong he needs to do exactly what I stated.

And what teh fuck do you know?

Your just a dumbass cheerleading beater-boy...
At 7:36 PM, Hermagoras said…

The funny thing is that you had an opportunity to learn from Oleg, who is by any measure your intellectual superior. You blew that opportunity in a big way. Not only did you fail to learn a thing, but you responded with childish tantrums.

Joe, Oleg did you a favor: showing the flaws in someone's reasoning happens all the time in science, and it should be received with good grace. If you can't accept that Oleg (a) knows more than you about the science of information, and (b) might have had a point, it's hard to imagine what a civil disagreement with you might be like.
At 6:54 AM, Unknown said…

poachy understands my point-

Well, I understand your point, but I think you have implemented it poorly. By only counting the information content of the end recipe, you are leaving out a huge amount of CSI. Unless, of course, you can show that flour, baking soda, and frosting can arise by an accumulation of genetic accidents.
At 9:02 PM, blipey said…

This is the best! Nicely done, Joe. Are you adding all the people who have posted on this thread to your list? You know, the list of people who you have publicly shamed using your massive intellect?

You might need a larger piece of paper soon? Speaking of that, wouldn't a larger piece of paper have more CSI than a small piece of paper? But the definition of paper is identical. Hmmmm.
At 8:59 AM, Joe G said…

Kellogg chimns in with:
The funny thing is that you had an opportunity to learn from Oleg, who is by any measure your intellectual superior.

The even funnier thing is I demonstrated that oleg is a dolt.

See Destructing oleg, cakeboy strikes back!!!

And that means by any measure I am his intellectual superior.

So geez Kellogg, what do YOU think about it now?
At 9:02 AM, Joe G said…

Well, I understand your point, but I think you have implemented it poorly.

That could be but I don't think you are following along.

By only counting the information content of the end recipe, you are leaving out a huge amount of CSI.

That could be and that is why I said "at a minimum".

Read the OP again.

Unless, of course, you can show that flour, baking soda, and frosting can arise by an accumulation of genetic accidents.

No frosting. BUt again you need to reread the OP. This time slowly so you can absorb all the words.
At 10:54 AM, blipey said…

Most of the people in New Hampshire seems like nice folks. It's a wonder they put up with you.
At 3:40 AM, Unknown said…

That could be and that is why I said "at a minimum".

Ah, so you did. I am sorry, I thought you were trying to be accurate. I would have thought you would try to be more accurate than you are, but far be it for me to question your scientific revolution.
At 7:38 AM, Joe G said…

poachy,

As I had already stated:

One final note- the point of CSI is to know whether or not it is present. Its presence is a signal of intentional design. Getting an exact number, although good for parlor games, may or may not be of any use scientifically.
At 7:41 AM, Joe G said…

Are you adding all the people who have posted on this thread to your list?

Only scientists go on "the list".

oleg is the only scientist posting and he was already on it.

And if he wasn't he surely earned a spot on it by his posts in this thread as well as his flailing attempt to save face in another thread.
At 12:33 PM, Unknown said…

One final note- the point of CSI is to know whether or not it is present. Its presence is a signal of intentional design. Getting an exact number, although good for parlor games, may or may not be of any use scientifically.

I am a working engineer. If my boss asked me if we had a problem in a particular system and I responded that we have a problem but it isn't really important how big a problem it is, I would not be a working engineer for very long.

But, as I said, it is your scientific revolution. You are free to conduct it with whatever level of (im)precision you see fit.
At 7:56 AM, Joe G said…

I am a working engineer. If my boss asked me if we had a problem in a particular system and I responded that we have a problem but it isn't really important how big a problem it is, I would not be a working engineer for very long.

So what?

How is that relevant?

Ya see the only "problem" there is is determining whether or not CSI is present.

Once that is accomplished design is a given.

Then you investigate further to try to figure it out.

the only time I can see the exact number of bits woulod be required is to determine which object(s) have the most information.

But I don't see any value in that.
At 10:14 AM, Joe G said…

Most of the people in New Hampshire seems like nice folks.

Yup right up until the time they have to deal with dickheads like you.
At 4:28 PM, Unknown said…

Hilarious, Joe I haven't laughed so much in ages.

If I gave you a recipe describing how to turn hydrogen and oxygen into water would the water then contain all the information required to tell you how to turn hydrogen and oxygen into water? Would it contain more information than if I just gave you some water I found?

Do cakes contain their own recipes, even if the recipe involves making water from H and O instead of obtaining it ready made?

If a cake is made by a process that destroys evidence relating to the steps that are required to create it then how can it contain its own recipe?

Dumbass.

Oh, I nearly forgot - why 500 bits and not 499?
At 6:01 PM, Joe G said…

Well Laminar I take it you are also too stupid to follow a discussion.

Perhaps your stupidity is why you are laughing so much.

Stupid people always laugh at things they can't understand.

Why 500?

Read "No Free Lunch" it is all explained in the book.

Ooops you probably don't know how to read.
At 6:14 PM, Unknown said…

Following your example:

I assume the fact you haven't responded to most of my post is because you can't read or are too stupid to understand it.

Answer the fucking question dumbass - Why 500 and not 499 - prove to me that YOU understand WHY. I'm not going to do all the work for you. 499 is the REAL threshold for CSI, not 500.
At 6:40 PM, Joe G said…

IOW you are too stupid to read.

How is that my problem?

As for your assumption:

BWAAAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAA

It proves you are ignorant...
At 6:42 PM, Joe G said…

BTW if you don't like CSI just demonstrate that nature, operating freely can account for it.

IOW don't bother with CSI- just focus on supporting your fucked-up position.
At 8:39 PM, blipey said…

Man, every time you think you've seen the absolute best thread on the interwebs something else comes along.

Good work, Joe.
At 10:31 PM, Joe G said…

Man, every time you think you've seen the absolute best thread on the interwebs something else comes along.

Coming from an ignorant asshole like you that is a compliment.

Thanks.

BTW you and Richtard added together have a collective IQ lower than a rock- your drool-filled responses are evidence of that.

Again I thank you.

Just one question-

Why is it that you never- not once- demonstrate an understanding of the topic?

Do really really think that being a smug asshole refutes my arguments?

Go stroke your boyfreinds you little faggot...
At 3:22 PM, Doppelganger said…

So....

An aardvark has only 202 characters, but Berlinski came up with 50,000 DIFFERENCES bewteen a cow and a whale?

Poor aardvark....
At 3:49 PM, Joe G said…

Great- another evotard chimes in-

No, Scott, the DEFINITION of an aardvark has 202 characters.

Ya see "Dr" Page a definition is specified information.

The definition of "aardvark" was an example of specified information and how to measure it.

Berlinski came up with at least 50,000 transitions that have to had happened to get a whale from whatever the ungulate of the day is that was it's last fully terrestrial ancestor.

You know those transitions that you cannot provide genetic evidence for...
At 9:39 PM, Cubist said…

Second part of a two-part response...

To his credit, JoeG does recognize that not all definitions are created equal -- "One way of figuring out how much information (an object) contains is to figure out how (the simplest way) to make it. Then you write down the procedure without wasting words/characters and count those bits." Assuming "the simplest way" can be generalized to "the simplest description" without doing damage to JoeG's CSI-measuring protocol, what is "the simplest way" to describe an aardvark? If "the simplest way" is just the one with the lowest character-count, the 90-character Cambridge International definition is clearly the simplest of the six definitions at hand (1 being the Merriam-Webster that was quoted by JoeG, the other five being those I quoted). Fine... but while three of the six definitions explicitly state that aardvarks eat "ants and termites", the Cambridge definition just says it eats "insects", and the remaining two don't mention its preferred food at all. Likewise, two of the six definitions mention that aardvarks are "nocturnal", and the other four don't, three mention its claws, the other three don't; two mention its "heavy tail", and the other four don't mention its tail at all. So should the 'simplest' definition of an aardvark mention its claws, or not? How about the tail -- should the 'simplest' definition of an aardvark say something about that? And so on for any other piece of data that is only included in some, but not all, definitions of 'aardvark'. Generally speaking, what features of an object should be mentioned in that object's 'simplest' description, and which can be ignored? And once you've decided what features to include or leave out of your definition, what's the 'simplest' way to describe it?
Finally, it's worth noting that JoeG's protocol focuses, not on the object you're trying to determine the CSI of, but, rather, on a description of the object you're trying to determine the CSI of. Wouldn't it be better to give the secondary stuff a miss and get your CSI-related data straight from the horse's mouth, to coin a phrase?
At 9:39 PM, Cubist said…

Multi-part reply here, as Blogger not only insists on a 4K upper limit on post length, but thinks that 3909 characters exceeds its 4096-character upper limit...

There are rather more dictionaries than just the Merriam-Webster one whose 'aardvark'-definition JoeG quoted. I just asked the online dictionary onelook.com for a definition of aardvark, and OneLook.com found 24 dictionaries, the Merriam-Webster being one of them. In addition:

Compact Oxford English Dictionary: a badger-sized African burrowing mammal, with a tubular snout and a long tongue, feeding on ants and termites. (110 characters)

American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: A burrowing mammal (Orycteropus afer) of southern Africa, having a stocky, hairy body, large ears, a long tubular snout, and powerful digging claws. (148 characters)

Encarta® World English Dictionary, North American Edition: a burrowing mammal with a long snout, powerful claws, long tongue, and heavy tail. Native to: southern Africa. Latin name Orycteropus afer. (140 characters total)

Cambridge International Dictionary of English: an African mammal with a long nose and large ears which lives underground and eats insects (90 characters)

Webster's New World College Dictionary: a large, burrowing, nocturnal S African mammal (Orycteropus afer, order Tubulidentata) that feeds on ants and termites: it is squat and heavy with a long, sticky tongue and a long head ending in a round, piglike snout (217 characters)

In the very next sentence immediately after he quoted the Merriam-Webster definiton of 'aardvark', JoeG wrote "A simple character count reveals 202 characters which translates into 1010 bits of information/ specified complexity." Taking this sentence at face value, JoeG's protocol for measuring CSI can be expressed as to find the CSI of a given entity, count the number of characters in a definition of whatever-it-is, and multiply that by 5. Which is all well and good, but the five definitions of 'aardvark' I quoted have character-counts ranging from 90 to 217, hence the aardvark's CSI value could be as low as 450 or as high as 1085, depending on which of those definitions you choose to accept for this purpose. Hmmm.
At 6:58 AM, Joe G said…

Cubist:
There are rather more dictionaries than just the Merriam-Webster one whose 'aardvark'-definition JoeG quoted.

That is irrelevant.

I was just providing an example of specified information to measure.
At 7:01 AM, Joe G said…

Finally, it's worth noting that JoeG's protocol focuses, not on the object you're trying to determine the CSI of, but, rather, on a description of the object you're trying to determine the CSI of. Wouldn't it be better to give the secondary stuff a miss and get your CSI-related data straight from the horse's mouth, to coin a phrase?

Again the definition was just an example of specified information that I used to demonstrate how to measure it.

IOW Cubist apparently you aren't even smart enough to understand that.

Was I supposed to be impressed?
At 4:52 PM, Cubist said…

sez joeg: "Again the definition was just an example of specified information that I used to demonstrate how to measure it."
Yes, JoeG, count the number of characters in a definition of whatever-it-is, and multiply that by 5 certainly is a method by which one can measure CSI. The problem with this method is that when using it to measure the CSI of any one specific Object X, you can get an extremely wide range of different CSI values for Object X, depending entirely on which definition you happen to use. This might be acceptable if the method provided some way of determining which of those myriad CSI values for Object X is closest to the true value... but the method does not, in fact, provide any way to determine which of those myriad CSI values for Object X is the true value.

sez joeg: "IOW Cubist apparently you aren't even smart enough to understand that."
Perhaps not... but I am at least smart enough to understand that any measurement method which can yield wildly different results, depending on which dictionary the measurer happens to like, is a measurement method that really needs some work before it's "ready for prime time".
At 6:53 PM, Joe G said…

Cubist,

Apparently you are proud of your ignorance.

The definition was just an example of specified information.

That is it- period.

The true value is irrelevant for the example.

The example was just to A) Identify specified information and B) show how to measure it.

BTW do you understand why I multiply the number of characters by 5?
At 6:55 PM, Joe G said…

And speaking of measuring- does the theory of evolution provide anything that can be measured?

For example can we measure the number of mutations it would require to "evolve" a whale from a land animal?
At 6:57 PM, Joe G said…

Also Cubist- do you have any idea what CSI is?

Please explain CSI for me.

How many bits of specified information = CSI?
At 8:44 PM, Joe G said…

The definition I provided is an example of specified information.

I then measured the information contained in that definition.

It was an EXAMPLE of how to measure SI to see if CSI is present.

Yes or no- do you understand that?
At 4:14 AM, Unknown said…

JoeG, the only thing you have meaured is the length of a piece of text in a dictionary. It has nothing to do with the real object.

I can come up with an even simpler description: "Animal."
(If I use the Danish language it is even shorter, btw: "Dyr.")

This definition leave a lot of stuff out, but so does the longer description in your dictionary.

Also, sometimes you have defined CSI as the information you need to *produce* the repective object (cake, anyone?). This is quite obviously a very different metric.

Since it is very easy to come up with different examples which contradict your "example" your metric is not very usefull.

But don´t let that stop you! I suggest writing an article with Dembski: "The active information cost of a liquid aardvark oracle".
At 6:27 AM, Joe G said…

Marco chimes in:
JoeG, the only thing you have meaured is the length of a piece of text in a dictionary. It has nothing to do with the real object.

A definition is a real object.

But anyway, no need to go any further until you answer the question:

The definition I provided is an example of specified information.

I then measured the information contained in that definition.

It was an EXAMPLE of how to measure SI to see if CSI is present.

Yes or no- do you understand that?
At 6:28 AM, Joe G said…

Why is that evotards think theoir retardation is some sort of refutation of what I post?
At 11:49 AM, Unknown said…

Hey Joe,

Tried to ask this over at AtBC, found your link so I'll ask it here.

You had posted at AtBC:
********
1-The definition I provided is an example of specified information.

2-I then measured the information contained in that definition.

3- It was an EXAMPLE of how to measure SI to see if CSI is present.
********
Granting that SI can be measured, how much SI is required for CSI to be present?
Does CSI = Designed?

I am honestly interested in this, not trolling.
At 3:21 PM, Joe G said…

According to Wm. Dembski 500 bits of SI = CSI ("No Free Lunch")

And yes CSI = designed as it it beyond all probabilistic resources in the universe.

Does that mean that 499 is not designed? No.

Does that mean that blind, undirected processes can cobble together 499 bits of SI? No.
At 2:38 PM, Unknown said…

But wouldn't this lend credence to the critics? If something is defined with 100+ characters, it would meet the 500 bit threshold for CSI.

If it can be defined with fewer than 100 characters, but is designed, why would it not have CSI?

If it has CSI, but contains less than 500 bits of information, how is this number a useful threshold?
At 7:16 AM, Joe G said…

But wouldn't this lend credence to the critics?

Why would it?

If the "critics" applied their "criticism" equally they would be attacking the ToE too.

If something is defined with 100+ characters, it would meet the 500 bit threshold for CSI.

This is true- as long as all the characters are necessary.

If it can be defined with fewer than 100 characters, but is designed, why would it not have CSI?

500 bits of SI = CSI- period- according to "No Fee Lunch".

If it has CSI, but contains less than 500 bits of information, how is this number a useful threshold?

It cannot have CSI and be less than 500 bits of SI.

It can be designed and have less than 500 bits of SI.

As for a "useful threshold"- I don't even know if that is what Dembski was after, but CSI is greater than all the probabilistic resources in the universe.

I think that is all Dembski was after.
At 7:36 AM, Joe G said…

But wouldn't this lend credence to the critics?

The critics don't have any credence.

They don't have anything at all.

If it can be defined with fewer than 100 characters, but is designed, why would it not have CSI?

Because in order to contain CSI it must be at least 500 bits in length.

If it has CSI, but contains less than 500 bits of information, how is this number a useful threshold?

It cannot contain CSI and be less than 500 bits.

IOW Geoffrey read "No Free Lunch" and please buy a vowel- you need a clue...
At 1:04 PM, Unknown said…

Why did you multiply 202 by 5? To make it look like binary? Why not actually convert it to binary?
At 4:14 PM, Joe G said…

I explained why- are you retarded?
At 4:29 PM, Unknown said…

A simple search and read of the post and the comments indicates that you did not explain anywhere why you multiplied 202 by five nor how that translates into "bits". Perhaps you bit off more than you could chew?
At 4:34 PM, Joe G said…

Claude Shannon- 2^5 = 32. There are 26 letters. Including spaces and punctuation that gets you to 32. That means 5 bits per character.

Obviously you bit off too much...
At 5:04 PM, Unknown said…

Why did you multiply the number of characters by 5? No treatise on information theory ever mentions multiplying the number of bits by the number of characters to determine how much information is contained in the string. You can replace all of those letters, spaces, and punctuation with any other character in your set and get the same figure. It tells you nothing at all. That number is essentially meaningless as any random string will have the same measure as any specified string for that length. Information theory is a probabilistic measure. Your calculation is utter nonsense. Again, why did you multiply the number of characters by 5?
At 5:40 PM, Joe G said…

It is all explained. The definition is an example of specified information. With 26 letters and 6 other characters tat = 32, which = 2^5 which means 5 bits per character.
At 6:04 PM, Unknown said…

And that is not a measure of information. The measure of information is a measure of probability. Any random string of 202 characters will have the same value with your (unjustified and mathematically incoherent) calculation. So it cannot be considered specified or complex by your measure.

To summarize, your method makes no, and cannot make any, distinction between a random and non random string. And by any definition of information, your equation does not measure information.
At 7:46 PM, Joe G said…

Umm my "(unjustified and mathematically incoherent)" is a probability measurement
you moron. And it follows Shannon.

That means only an ignoramus would make such a claim, and here you are.

And it is a GIVEN that the definition is specified information, ie Shannon information with meaning/ function.

There is no difference in measuring random shit from coherent stuff. It's just that the random shit is really measuring information carrying capacity.

And by Shannon's definition, I am measuring information. So stuff it.

2^5 is the probability. 2^5 means that each character has 5 bits of information. All of that is per Shannon.
At 8:29 PM, Joe G said…

32 possible characters means that the probability for each place is 1 in 32.

To find the number of bits we break it down to 2^5. 2 for binary digit and the 5 means 2x2x2x2x2= 32, which also means 5 bits of information per character. All per Shannon. Al mathematically justified and very coherent- unless you are a total dolt.
At 2:26 AM, Unknown said…

First of all, and this is an issue of confusion I've seen with many creationists, a probability cannot be greater than 1, and so 2^5 is not a probability. Assuming that any character can take any one of 32 values, stating that the probability that any character takes on a particular value is 1/32 (1/2^5), is fine. But 2^5 is not a probability. We are not discussing pure randomness where any character can take on any value without regard to actual frequencies of occurrence. We are talking about specified complexity where the information content is non random and must obey deterministic statistics fundametally distinguishable from randomness. You are asserting a minimum lower bound but calculating a maximum upper bound and that makes no sense at all. We know that letter frequency combinations in natural language are not evenly distributed, but that some letters and combinations appear more frequently than others and that the information is compressable, so you have to include those statistics in your measure.

And you aren't even addressing Dembski's theory of CSI which states

s = -log_2[R*phi(T)*P(T)],

where phi(T) =< 10^120, P(T) is the probability of observing the instance of the sequence T, R = the number of chances to observe/create the sequence T, and s is the specified complexity. Not that this equation actually means anything or is even justified in information theory, but what you are doing has nothing to do with CSI and everything to do with misunderstanding Shannon entropy.

Here is a primer.

http://cs.brown.edu/courses/archive/2006-2007/cs195-5/extras/shannon-1951.pdf
At 9:40 AM, Joe G said…

James, you are an ignorant asshole.

1 in 32 is the probability. And to find the number of bits per each character we take that 32 and make it 2^5. That 5 becomes the number of bits per character.

I explained all of this and yet you prattle on like an ignorant child.

So go pound sand you moron
At 12:14 PM, Unknown said…

This website uses a java applet to perform Shannon's experiment on determining the information content (entropy) in bits of an English letter.

http://www.math.ucsd.edu/~crypto/java/ENTROPY

You will notice that nowhere does the experiment conclude that there are 5 bits of information needed per letter.

This paper by Shannon, which I've already posted but you have ignored, goes over in detail his method for determining the information content in bits in an English letter.

And given that Dembski's equation for CSI is

s = -log_2[R*phi(T)*P(T)],

nowhere is any one multiplying the number of characters by 5 to determine the CSI or Entropy of anything.
At 1:57 PM, Unknown said…

Here is a Shannon Entropy calculator.

http://www.shannonentropy.netmark.pl/

Note the absence of multiplying the number of characters by the number of bits.
At 1:58 PM, Unknown said…

Here is a Shannon Entropy calculator.

http://www.shannonentropy.netmark.pl/

Note the absence of multiplying the number of characters by the number of bits.
At 7:25 AM, Joe G said…

James, you are a moron. Shannon says the number of bits can be determined by base 2 logs.

So given 32 characters that gives us (base 2) log 2^32= 5. That means 5 bits per character given 32 characters.

Here is the paper: A Mathematical Theory of Communication- Note the end of page one and the start of page 2 where he states that a decimal digit (10 places) is about 3 1/3 bits. That is because 2^3 1/3 = 10.

So eat it you stupid fuck.
At 7:55 AM, Joe G said…

From James' reference:

If spaces and punctuation are ignored we have a twenty-six letter alphabet and Ff, may be taken (by definition) to be log-2 26, or 4.7 bits per letter.

Wow, that agrees with what I have been saying. James either you are a complete imbecile or you are just an ignorant ass.
At 7:05 AM, Joe G said…

LoL!

So given 32 characters that gives us (base 2) log 2^32= 5. That means 5 bits per character given 32 characters.

Should have been:

So given 32 characters that gives us (base 2) log 2^5= 5. That means 5 bits per character given 32 characters.
At 9:51 AM, Joe G said…

From James' link to a shannon entropy calculator- I entered the definition provided in the OP (aardvark)- it came back with:

Ok, but what does it mean?
Shannon entropy tells you what is the minimal number of bits per symbol needed to encode the information in binary form (if log base is 2). Given above calculated Shannon entropy rounded up, each symbol has to be encoded by 5 bits and your need to use 1010 bits to encode your string optimally.

Oh wow, exactly what I said 1010 bits.

Thanks James.
At 11:16 AM, Unknown said…

Wrong again. 1015 bits. The caclulator assumes a random string with no prior statistics and no specificity. If it was just a matter of multiplying the characater count by 5 bits, then you would be right and it would be an easy thing to do for any one, but you, ignoring the paper Shannon wrote on the entropy of natural language and the other link I provided with a java emplimentation of that paper, while lying about your results with the Shannon calculator, just keep reiterating the same piece of ignorance. It takes far fewer bits to encode language. On the order of 1.6 bits per character per experiment, making your original example closer to 323 bits of information.

And you still haven't addressed Specified Complexity which you claimed to measure. Despite giving you Dembski's equation and its explanation, you still haven't acknowledged it.

To recap, you are demonstrably wrong and willfully ignorant on every point.
At 11:42 AM, Joe G said…

James, you are just babbling now. Earlier YOU said that the definition and a random string would be the same measure:

That number is essentially meaningless as any random string will have the same measure as any specified string for that length.

Andwow, by your calculation I was off by a whopping 5 bits. That is still a measure of specified information, dumbass.

So even if you are right and I oversimplified, specified information was still measured. As I said the definition is a given example of specified information.

Dembski's only applies in situations in which we didn't know the origin and were trying to figure out if it was designed.

It takes far fewer bits to encode language.

Tell that to the computer. I would say the ASCII bit count is the same regardless of what I type.
At 11:49 AM, Joe G said…

BTW I know that the information decreases the more the receiver knows before-hand. The experiment requires knowledge of sentence structure and such. Whereas if you are just given a message you don't break it down like that. And every place has a 1 in X chance (the length of the choices) of occurring.

Give the definition to a kid just learning to read and the information measure changes.

Let a kid who is just learning to read do the experiment and the result changes and there is magically more information.

IOW you are just an ignorant ass.
At 11:56 AM, Joe G said…

This method exploits the knowledge of the language statistics possessed by those who speak the language, and depends on experimental results in prediction of the next letter when the preceding text is known.

Yes, if we already know the message then we haven't received any information. So yes prior knowledge of what is coming reduces the incoming information. Again you are confusing everything to try to make some aganda-driven dick-headed point.

Typing to a word document every character has the same number of bits.

Intelligent Reasoning

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

Measuring Information/ specified complexity

147 Comments:

About Me

Previous Posts