CSI and baseballs- a Repost for blipey the clueless clown
-
blipey the clueless clown has challenged me to "calculate" the CSI of a baseball.
What can be done is to "calculate" the amount of information it takes to make one from scratch. And this calculation is nothing more than a counting of the bits that information contains.
Counting appears to be above blipey's capabilities.
So blipey I will count the bits for you if you provide the specifications and assembly instructions. I do not have the time to search for them.
And that goes for anything else- for living organisms provide the genome and all known protein sequences of the organism in question.
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.
An EXAMPLE of what blipey needs to provide:
How to make a baseball
"Construction varies. Generally the core of the ball is cork, rubber, or a mixture of the two, and is sometimes layered. Around that are various linear materials including yarn and twine, sometimes wool is used. A leather cover is put on, in two pieces, and stitched together using 108 stitches of waxed red cotton thread. Rolled stitching is flatter and creates less air-resistance. This is the type of stitching used for major league balls and is ideal for the game and everyday play. Official Major League balls sold by Rawlings are made to the exact MLB specifications (5 ounces, 108 stitches) and are stamped with the signature of Commissioner Allan "Bud" Selig on each ball."
The more specifications required the more information required-
First you would need a BOM (bill of materials)
1- a specified core
2- specified material that will be wrapped around the core
3- specified leather cover
4- specified thread
That's just the BOM. Next you would need assembly instructions-
How tightly to wrap the core
Direction of wrapping
How much material to use
The cover would be cut in a specified manner
It would then be sewn in a specified manner.
After the ball is made it would then be tested to see if it meets the specifications- weight, diameter/ circumference and rebound.
All those bits of information, taken together, are what would determine if CSI was present or not. It should be obvious that specified information is present and that CSI just puts a lower limit on the number of bits required.
That is how one measures the amount of information - count the number of bits.
To gather all the data required is a lot of work. As I told Erik Pratt if he did that work I would count the bits. If Erik wants me to do all of the work then he has to pay me. And doing work for assholes is expensive.
blipey the clueless clown has challenged me to "calculate" the CSI of a baseball.
What can be done is to "calculate" the amount of information it takes to make one from scratch. And this calculation is nothing more than a counting of the bits that information contains.
Counting appears to be above blipey's capabilities.
So blipey I will count the bits for you if you provide the specifications and assembly instructions. I do not have the time to search for them.
And that goes for anything else- for living organisms provide the genome and all known protein sequences of the organism in question.
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.
An EXAMPLE of what blipey needs to provide:
How to make a baseball
"Construction varies. Generally the core of the ball is cork, rubber, or a mixture of the two, and is sometimes layered. Around that are various linear materials including yarn and twine, sometimes wool is used. A leather cover is put on, in two pieces, and stitched together using 108 stitches of waxed red cotton thread. Rolled stitching is flatter and creates less air-resistance. This is the type of stitching used for major league balls and is ideal for the game and everyday play. Official Major League balls sold by Rawlings are made to the exact MLB specifications (5 ounces, 108 stitches) and are stamped with the signature of Commissioner Allan "Bud" Selig on each ball."
The more specifications required the more information required-
First you would need a BOM (bill of materials)
1- a specified core
2- specified material that will be wrapped around the core
3- specified leather cover
4- specified thread
That's just the BOM. Next you would need assembly instructions-
How tightly to wrap the core
Direction of wrapping
How much material to use
The cover would be cut in a specified manner
It would then be sewn in a specified manner.
After the ball is made it would then be tested to see if it meets the specifications- weight, diameter/ circumference and rebound.
All those bits of information, taken together, are what would determine if CSI was present or not. It should be obvious that specified information is present and that CSI just puts a lower limit on the number of bits required.
That is how one measures the amount of information - count the number of bits.
To gather all the data required is a lot of work. As I told Erik Pratt if he did that work I would count the bits. If Erik wants me to do all of the work then he has to pay me. And doing work for assholes is expensive.
posted by Joe G @ 4:47 PM
19 Comments:
At 11:45 PM,
blipey said…
So you have no idea what the information content of a baseball is? That's fine; just say so.
At 8:57 AM,
Joe G said…
No, I have a good idea.
I just don't have an exact number.
And if YOU want a number then YOU have to do some of the work.
Ya see I don't need a number and you appear to need it.
So do the work or admit that you are a coward and a dishonest one at that.
At 11:17 AM,
blipey said…
So, give us a range. What ballpark do you think the value is in? Would you like multiple choice?
At 11:18 AM,
blipey said…
Why don't you need a number? If you don't need a value, then you probably don't need the metric. If you don't need the metric, it probably isn't useful....
At 11:18 AM,
Joe G said…
CSI is present.
If you want anything more than that do the work you are required to do.
At 11:34 AM,
Joe G said…
Why don't you need a number?
As I have told you many times I have no doubt that a baseball is the result of intelligent design.
Only someone who doubts that needs an exact number.
So they need to do the work, not I.
At 11:58 AM,
blipey said…
I don't have any doubt that a baseball is designed either. That's really not the point, Joe. The point is that you are trying to convince us that there is an objective way to determine the design or non-design of things we aren't sure of.
This process should easily tell us whether or not a baseball is designed.
However, you have given us no method, no process, and no example that would allow us to determine design.
At what value of information content is CSI present? To test this theory, you should be able plot the information values of several objects--those with more than your number should have CSI, those less should not.
You (nor anyone else) has ever presented this plot. Why is that?
At 12:46 PM,
Joe G said…
The point is that you are trying to convince us that there is an objective way to determine the design or non-design of things we aren't sure of.
And scientists and laypeople use such methodolgies on a daily basis.
You seem to doubt that.
You seem to think that we determine design because it looks designed.
You seem to think we need to know the who before we can tell whether or not it was designed.
This process should easily tell us whether or not a baseball is designed.
I am 100% certain that design detection is not limited to one process.
However I am very interested to know of the methodologies involved in determining the basis for your position.
So far all you have is the refusal to accept the design inference.
However, you have given us no method, no process, and no example that would allow us to determine design.
And yet I have done exactly that one more than one occasion.
Other people have also.
And all you have to do to refute us is to actually substantiate the claims of YOUR position.
Yet you have have failed to do so.
Instead you think your ignorant-laiden rantings against ID are meaningful discourse.
At 12:54 PM,
Joe G said…
At what value of information content is CSI present?
We have been over and over this already.
To test this theory, you should be able plot the information values of several objects--those with more than your number should have CSI, those less should not.
Not at all.
Ya see Erik in order for you to refute something you FIRST have to demonstrate an understanding of it.
CSI is (was) based on the UPB value of 10^150.
I think that has changed to 10^120 in Dembski's latest paper on specification.
Also CSI is NOT a demarcation for design/ not designed.
As I have been telling you (again and again) CSI would be more of a design VERIFIER.
And this all has to do with REDUCIBILITY.
And REDUCIBILITY is directly related to and is at the heart of answering science's three basic questions
At 1:51 PM,
blipey said…
Ah, a verifier! Well, what is the method for determining design in the first place then?
For example, a rock in tumbler and a rock tumbled along a riverbed. Your methodology should be able to tell us which is which.
What objective DETAILS would you use to determine design? After this design or non-design is determined, what appreciable difference would there be in the information content of each rock?
At 1:56 PM,
blipey said…
And scientists and laypeople use such methodolgies on a daily basis.
What methodologies are these? Archeology is not a methodology.
Now this next bit is good.
blipey: To test this theory, you should be able plot the information values of several objects--those with more than your number should have CSI, those less should not.
JoeG: Not at all.
JoeG has said that CSI is determinate on the information content of an object. In fact, he has just stated that it is based on the UPB which is 10^120. He also says that no plot exists for which things less than 10^120 bits of info have no CSI and for which things greater than 10^120 bits of information have CSI.
Which is it, Joe. There is either an informational content at which things have CSI or there isn't. You seem to be in both camps.
At 4:54 PM,
Joe G said…
What methodologies are these? Archeology is not a methodology.
They do not flip coins and they do not say "it looks designed".
So what do you think they do?
JoeG has said that CSI is determinate on the information content of an object. In fact, he has just stated that it is based on the UPB which is 10^120. He also says that no plot exists for which things less than 10^120 bits of info have no CSI and for which things greater than 10^120 bits of information have CSI.
Everything greater than or equal to 10^120 is CSI.
Everything less is not.
However this is NOT a demarcation for designed or not designed.
That is what confuses you.
At 4:56 PM,
Joe G said…
Well, what is the method for determining design in the first place then?
Do you really think that going over this AGAIN is going to help?
Personally I do not.
There is a reason we have investigative venues such as forensic science, archaeology and SETI.
That is because it makes a huge difference to any investigation as to the nature- ie the reality- behind what it is we are investigating.
At 5:10 PM,
blipey said…
So, what use is CSI then? Apparently it is of no use. Why then do all the ID people prattle on about it so much? It apparently isn't used at all in determining design. Strange that they would spend so much effort on it.
Have you called Dembski and told him he's wasting his time? What about Behe? If you did, you'd probably be a hero.
If everything above 10^120 bits of info has CSI and everything less than 10^120 bits has no CSI why then did you say:
you should NOT BE ABLE to plot the information values of several objects--those with more than your number should have CSI, those less should not.
It seems that you are now saying that you could create such a plot.
maybe your theory need a little more work....
At 5:46 PM,
Joe G said…
So, what use is CSI then?
It is excellent as a design inference verifier.
You know in cases in which there may be doubt.
And it could be used for design determinations- it all depends on the circumstance.
As I said there isn't just one process for determining design or not.
BTW I did NOT say the following:
you should NOT BE ABLE to plot the information values of several objects--those with more than your number should have CSI, those less should not.
All I said was that your alleged test is bullshit.
And obviously your position needs a lot of work if all you have is to misrepresent the opposition.
At 6:18 PM,
blipey said…
Really. You're saying that no plot exists for information content that shows when objects have CSI or not.
Then you describe a function that can be plotted in just that manner.
Perhaps you should go take some high school math classes.
At 6:20 PM,
blipey said…
Right. A verifier. So completely superfluous to the process of design detection. Unnecessary.
Unless... You could give us an EXAMPLE of something in which CSI is used to DETERMINE design. You have said such circumstances exist. What object can be determined this way?
At 6:57 PM,
Joe G said…
You're saying that no plot exists for information content that shows when objects have CSI or not.
Really I am not saying any such thing.
Right. A verifier. So completely superfluous to the process of design detection. Unnecessary.
A verifier is not superfluous.
A verifier helps in removing any doubt.
You could give us an EXAMPLE of something in which CSI is used to DETERMINE design. You have said such circumstances exist. What object can be determined this way?
Any sequence of numbers, letters, RNA, DNA and amino acids.
At 7:01 PM,
Joe G said…
So the methodology used to determine the non-telic cause for things is to misrepresent the opposition and deny the design inference.
Thank you for making that clear.
Post a Comment
<< Home