In the thread Measuring Information/ specified complexity, olegt said:
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.
So even after I told him that his assumptions are faulty, what does olegt do? Presses on regardless!
Oleg, it is the actions not the words. The word "repeat" does nothing but tell you to repeat the actions.
And the actions of the second cake are in addition to the actions of the first cake.
Therefor the information of a cake is additive, despite oleg's spewage.
It is the actions, not the words, which are important:
It is obvious by reading my post on Measuring Information/ specified complexity, that I am talking about reproducing the ACTIONS of the designer(s) in order to get a representation of the information the designer(s) imparted onto/ into their design.
So why am I bringing this up now?
Well olegt is over on Telic Thoughts running his mouth as if he did something to my premise.
olegt is an intellectual coward and crackpot.
Joe,
ReplyDeleteIf it's "the actions, not the words," that count then your original proposal—"write down the procedure without wasting words/ characters and count those bits"— is invalidated. Information content of a cake is determined not by the number of bits in the recipe but by the actions required.
It has always been about the actions, not words, when dealing with something that is not words nor bits to begin with.
ReplyDeleteAlways.
"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."
I even explained it to you:
destructing oleg
IOW oleg thanks for proving that you are a crackpot.
What part of-
ReplyDeleteData collection and compression. (six sigma DMAIC- define, measure, analyze, improve, control)
A recipe is nothing more than a capturing of actions. The baker is the artist, the cake is the art.
don't you understand?
I know much of this is over your head but perhaps I can help you.
But I have to know what is wrong.
So far the problem is your inability to understand what I post.
The reason for the words is it gives us something to measure.
Define what it is you are trying to achieve.
Find a way to measure it- science oleg.
So all that bit counting was completely irrelevant to CSI content, right?
ReplyDeleteThat is how you figure out if CSI is present oleg.
ReplyDeleteCSI = 500 bits or more of specified information.
The capturing of the actions via words is one way of putting actions into a measurable form.
Have you ever heard of six sigma?
When someone wants to implement or improve a process six sigma is a proven method to get 'er done.
If it is the actions and not the words, Joe, why are we counting the words?
ReplyDeleteIf it is all action, as you now say, then the words have zero applicability to CSI.
Zero.
None.
Crackpot.
Of course, you could probably clear all this up by working an example....
ReplyDeleteSo, how about it? What is the information content of a cake? Pick a cake of your choosing and tell us what the CSI is. It is becoming increasingly apparent that you cannot do this.
If it is the actions and not the words, Joe, why are we counting the words?
ReplyDeleteFor the reason provided.
You really need to learn how to read.
If it is all action, as you now say, then the words have zero applicability to CSI.
Yes they do for the reasons provided.
Again your ignorance is not a refutation.
What is the information content of a cake?
ReplyDeleteAll the information required to make it.
Cakes do not spontaneously arise.
But you have no idea what the CSI of a cake is, do you? You probably couldn't give us a number within 6 orders of magnitude of the answer, could you?
ReplyDeleteYou now say that words are an appropriate manner in which to calculate the CSI of something. But you also maintain that words are not the way to calculate the CSI of a thing. Which is it, Joe?
ReplyDeleteYou could clear up your stance by working an example. Why don't you do so?
If actions are what matters, how does the definition of something matter? Wouldn't we then be calculating the CSI of the action of writing the definition? The definition of a thing is no means of describing the actions of creating a thing.
ReplyDeleteFor example, anardvark...according to your new (an ever changing) process, one must now describe (define?) the sex act in order to describe (define?) an aardvark.
This seems completely beyond the realm of possibility. It also seems completely useless as a tool. It would seem that zero things would contain under 500 bits of information in your new process. If this is true, it merely means that there is no demarcation between designed things and undesigned things--because everything is designed.
To save your process, you must not only give an example of something that is designed you must also give us an example of something that is determined to be undesigned according to CSI analysis.
Please provide both.
But you have no idea what the CSI of a cake is, do you?
ReplyDeleteWhat cake?
Be specific.
You now say that words are an appropriate manner in which to calculate the CSI of something.
ReplyDeleteBits. Words can be converted to bits.
But you also maintain that words are not the way to calculate the CSI of a thing.
Obviously you have no idea what I am saying.
If actions are what matters, how does the definition of something matter?
ReplyDeleteContext asshole.
It all depends on the context.
I have explained this already.
What we have here is an ignorant clown who thinks its ignorance is meaningful discourse and refutes what I posted.
Do you wake up every day and say "Let me see if I can be a bigger asshole today than I was yesterday."?
blipey,
ReplyDeleteThere is a reason why you are a clown.
Obviously this stuff is way over your pointy little head....
Joe G:
ReplyDeleteI am having trouble grasping the concept of an object "containing" information in the way you are using the term.
For example, using your concept, a blank CD contains information by virtue of the number of letters in the instructions used to manufacture it.
By my understanding of information a blank CD contains no information at all.
In other words, I don't see that either a cake or a rock contains information.
Is my problem a semantic problem? If you said a cake or a rock has the "information equivalent" of the number of letters in the instructions required to make it, then this would make more sense.
Doublee,
ReplyDeleteThe information it takes to make a CD is different from the information encoded on it.
Last I checked CDs do not spontaneously arise- information and agency are required.
That is my point.
Joe G:
ReplyDeleteThat is exactly my point also.
You agree then that cake does not contain information just as a blank CD does not "contain" informatiion?
If you can.
ReplyDeleteOkay, Joe. What is the CSI of a blank CD?
ReplyDeleteDo actually know what the CSI of anything is? Any single thing, Joe. "What cake" indeed. I told you to pick a cake of your choice. So please choose one and tell us what the CSI is.
SO far you have managed to calculate the CSI of zero objects. While impressive, I don't think that it is impressive in a "get-this-taught-in-school" kind of way. You may want to do a little prep work before submitting CSI calculation to a classroom.
ReplyDeleteFor example, is the following question appropriate for high school students:
"What is the CSI of a blank CD?"
Both contain the information it takes to make them.
ReplyDeleteDo you think that information just goes away once the designer is finished with the product?
What is the CSI of a blank CD?
ReplyDeleteAgain that isn't even a valid question.
With every post all you do is to further expose your ignorance.
A CD contains all the ionformation it tales to make it.
So all YOU have to do is do some research to find out what that information is.
SO far you have managed to calculate the CSI of zero objects.
ReplyDeleteAnd I have been over and over this clownie.
So far you have managed to do nothing except badger me with your ignorance.
Doublee,
ReplyDeleteInformation flows from artist to art- from designer to design.
IOW whatever information it takes to make something is contained by it.
Doublee,
ReplyDeleteArtifact:
"The causal tie between an artifact and its intended character -- or, strictly speaking, between an artifact and its author's productive intention -- is constituted by an author's actions, that is, by his work on the object."
For example, is the following question appropriate for high school students:
ReplyDelete"What is the CSI of a blank CD?"
Absolutely not.
As I have said- unlike you 13 year olds actually understand what I say.
As I have said- unlike you 13 year olds actually understand what I say.
ReplyDeleteThat explains why only those with the mental level of a 13 year old accept ID as valid science.
It explains why only those with a mental level less than a 13 year old do not.
ReplyDeleteMix ingredients. Bake.
ReplyDelete22*5 = 110 bits?
What's your point?
ReplyDeleteWhat ingredients?
How are they mixed?
Bake at what temperature?
What's your point?
ReplyDeleteWhat ingredients?
How are they mixed?
Bake at what temperature?
I'm just measuring the SI of a cake. That was the minumum I could think of (well, I could actually make it even less, but that's another story).
If you have alternative calculations, I would be happy to see them.
I'm just measuring the SI of a cake.
ReplyDeleteWhat cake?
What cake?
ReplyDeleteThe sort that comes in a packet. Why don't you tell me how you would calculate cake-SI and I'll tell you what's wrong with your approach?
What cake?
ReplyDeleteThe sort that comes in a packet.
IOW you are just being an obtuse asshole.
Why don't you tell me how you would calculate cake-SI and I'll tell you what's wrong with your approach?
You measure it by figuring out what it takes to get the cake.
IOW you are just being an obtuse asshole.
ReplyDeleteNo. But I think that Freud would have had something to say about your affinity for calling people assholes ...
You measure it by figuring out what it takes to get the cake.
That is precisely what I did. You't even say what is wrong with the approach. You can't even say how one is supposed to do it. You are using an argument from PMS.
Hawks,
ReplyDeleteYou have to take into account the information it took to put the ingredients into the packet.
The cake contains ALL OF THE INFORMATION REQUIRED TO MAKE IT.
What part of that are you too stupid to understand?
The cake contains ALL OF THE INFORMATION REQUIRED TO MAKE IT.
ReplyDeleteWhat part of that are you too stupid to understand?
The same part the everyone else but you is able to understand. Why don't you show us instead of arguing from PMS? Your lingonberry weeks must be terrible.
The same part the everyone else but you is able to understand.
ReplyDeleteOnly you and your ilk appear to be the only people incapable of understanding what I posted.
Do I really need to show you that it takes specified information in order to make a cake?
I don't know of anyone who would argue against that...
Do I really need to show you that it takes specified information in order to make a cake?
ReplyDeleteI don't know of anyone who would argue against that...
Where did I argue against that? All I want is for you to show us how YOU calculate the SI of a cake. Any cake. But you can't can you? You can call people stupid, but you can't eat buns with your arse (an old saying that really has little relevance here, but I like it).
All I want is for you to show us how YOU calculate the SI of a cake.
ReplyDeleteI MEASURE it.
And I MEASURE it by figuring out what it takes to bring the cale into existence.
JUST AS I HAVE BEEN SAYING FOR YEARS.
Now what part of that don't you understand?
I MEASURE it.
ReplyDeleteAnd I MEASURE it by figuring out what it takes to bring the cale into existence.
JUST AS I HAVE BEEN SAYING FOR YEARS.
Now what part of that don't you understand?
So, measure it then. It seems like no-one but you understands how to do that. In fact, your refusal to show how to do such a measurement makes me think that you are simply lying when you say that you know how to. But, go ahead. Show me wrong.
Measuring Information
ReplyDeleteWhat part of that don't you understand?
Be specific.
As I have said 13 year olds understand what I posted.
So I don't have any choice but to think you are the problem.
Measuring Information
ReplyDeleteWhat part of that don't you understand?
Be specific.
As I have said 13 year olds understand what I posted.
So I don't have any choice but to think you are the problem.
What I don't understand is how you apply this to measuring the SI of a cake. Considering that I have said so numerous times, I suspect that you fail to read what I write.
If you are not a liar, I urge you to show such a measurement. It sure would help everyone else. Here is a link to a sponge cake recipe. Show me the SI, please:
http://www.recipes4cakes.com/sponge_cake/bestsponge_cake.htm
What I don't understand is how you apply this to measuring the SI of a cake.
ReplyDeleteIt is in the post I linked to.
Did you read it?
Ah, so you HAVE calculated the CSI of a real world object?
ReplyDeleteWhat is it? The object and the CSI value please.
blipey,
ReplyDeleteIf you want something from me just tell me when you are in New Hampshire and where you will be staying.
I will gladly meet you and show you all you need.
It is in the post I linked to.
ReplyDeleteDid you read it?
Yes. I don't understand. Neither do you since you can't apply it to anything. I think you'd better get a fire extinguisher for your undies...
I don't think you read it.
ReplyDeleteYa see I applied it to a definition and I explained how to do it with an somethinmg else.
And as I said 13 year olds understand what I posted so the problem must be you and your ilk.
I cannot fix stupidity and some things are just to far over people's heads to even try.
IOW Hawks you need to understand your limitations....
ReplyDeleteIOW Hawks you need to understand your limitations...
ReplyDeleteI do understand them. I've said so numerous times now.
How about if you tried to understand yours, liar.
So you call me a liar because you are too stupid to understand what I post- got it.
ReplyDeleteAs for my limitations-
ReplyDeleteI understand that I cannot teach the willfully ignorant.
So you call me a liar because you are too stupid to understand what I post- got it.
ReplyDeleteNo, I called you a liar because you can't measure SI either.
I understand that I cannot teach the willfully ignorant.
If you were able to measure the SI of a cake, then you could teach me. I'm ready to learn. You're ready only to lie.
If you were able to measure the SI of a cake, then you could teach me.
ReplyDeleteNo one can teach the willfully ignorant Hawks.
And seeing that 13 year olds understand how to measure the SI of a cake- thanks to me- the problem is you.
No one can teach the willfully ignorant Hawks.
ReplyDeleteBut you could always prove that you are not a liar. But then I seriously doubt that that will happen.
Hypothesis: If Joe knew how to measure the SI of cake he would. Joe hasn't measured the SI of a cake. Conclusion:...
And seeing that 13 year olds understand how to measure the SI of a cake- thanks to me- the problem is you.
I have yet to see a 13-year-old do it either. WHy is that?
Hawks,
ReplyDeleteHave you ever observed a cake spontaneously arise? Yes or No.
Have you ever heard of a cake spontaneously arising? Yes or No.
If I told someone with no baking nor cooking experience to bake a cake- no other information- do you think that person could do it? Yes or No.
Can you count? Yes or No.
Can you do simple multiplication? Yes or No.
Now read the following very carefully-
A cake contains all the information required to make it.
If you take the recipe you tried to link to earlier- the link didn't work- that cake, at a minimum, contains all that information.
A recipe is SI and could be CSI.
Start counting characters and then multiply by 5.
A cake contains all the information required to make it.
ReplyDelete...
Start counting characters and then multiply by 5.
Does that premade packet where you only mix the water+packet and bake contains less SI than a cake made from scratch? Should one include instructions for how to make flour and baking powder? How to build an oven?
If you are not going to answer my questions then fuck off.
ReplyDeleteIf you are not going to answer my questions then fuck off.
ReplyDeleteIt's not going to help neither me nor you if I do so. But here we go:
Have you ever observed a cake spontaneously arise? No.
Have you ever heard of a cake spontaneously arising? Well, I've read fairy tales, so perhaps. But otherwise no.
If I told someone with no baking nor cooking experience to bake a cake- no other information- do you think that person could do it? Possibly. pre-made packets make these things fairly simple.
Can you count? Yes. Quite far.
Can you do simple multiplication? Yes. Even in my head.
As for the last two question, I have one. You seem to get quite annoyed when someone asks you how to CALCULATE rather than MEASURE the SI of a cake. Seems to be me that calculations are required.
Now back to you and I'll repeat my questions:Does that premade packet where you only mix the water+packet and bake contains less SI than a cake made from scratch? Should one include instructions for how to make flour and baking powder? How to build an oven?
These questions indicate that I don't understand how to calcualte the SI of a cake. Doesn't the milling of flour enter into the SI of the cake? If not, why not?
The easiest thing would be for you to show me how to do it. Liar.
It's not going to help neither me nor you if I do so.
ReplyDeleteIf I am going to teach you then I need to know the answers to those questions.
So it would help me.
IOW answering those questions would help you.
If I told someone with no baking nor cooking experience to bake a cake- no other information- do you think that person could do it?
Possibly. pre-made packets make these things fairly simple.
Then they would need more information- information about those pre-made packets.
Does that premade packet where you only mix the water+packet and bake contains less SI than a cake made from scratch? Should one include instructions for how to make flour and baking powder? How to build an oven?
What is the relevance of your questions?
Please be specific.
These questions indicate that I don't understand how to calcualte the SI of a cake.
Actually they indicate that you are a fucking asshole.
Is that what you wanted to do?
The easiest thing would be for you to show me how to do it.
"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."
If you need more than that then you are in over your head and need to find something that you can understand- like finger-painting.
Now read the following very carefully-
ReplyDeleteA cake contains all the information required to make it.
If you take the recipe you tried to link to earlier- the link didn't work- that cake, at a minimum, contains all that information.
A recipe is SI and could be CSI.
Start counting characters and then multiply by 5.
What part of that didn't you understand?
Now read the following very carefully-
ReplyDeleteA cake contains all the information required to make it.
If you take the recipe you tried to link to earlier- the link didn't work- that cake, at a minimum, contains all that information.
A recipe is SI and could be CSI.
Start counting characters and then multiply by 5.
What part of that didn't you understand?
English = cake. French = gateau.
English = flour. French = farine.
English = eggs. French = oeufs.
English = oven. French = fourneau.
In your example the CSI of the baked object you create is heavily dependent on the language of the recipe. How does ID explain that Joe?
In your example the CSI of the baked object you create is heavily dependent on the language of the recipe. How does ID explain that Joe?
ReplyDeleteI have already explained that you ignorant fuck.
IOW once again Thorton thinks his ignorance is meaningful discourse...
J: "A recipe is SI and could be CSI.
ReplyDeleteStart counting characters and then multiply by 5.
What part of that didn't you understand?"
T: "English = cake. French = gateau.
English = flour. French = farine.
English = eggs. French = oeufs.
English = oven. French = fourneau.
In your example the CSI of the baked object you create is heavily dependent on the language of the recipe. How does ID explain that Joe?"
J: "I have already explained that you ignorant fuck."
Of course you didn't explain it you moron. You can't explain it, other than to admit you fucked up. Your dumbass "count the number of characters in the recipe and multiply by 5" is BUSTED!
Yes I have explained it- last year as a matter of fact.
ReplyDeleteAgain your ignorance is not a refutation.
You keep telling us you IDiots can calculate the CSI in an object just by examining the object itself.
ReplyDeleteNow you say to determine the CSI in a cake you need someone to show you the recipe, and you calculate the CSI from that. Even then, the CSI value you get will be different depending on what language the recipe is written in.
Thanks for admitting you can't calculate the CSI of an object just from the object itself.
Thorton,
ReplyDeleteThank you for continuing to expose your ignorance.
And yes it is very funny that you think your ignorance is some sort of refutation.
One way of figuring out how much information it contains is to figure out how (the simplest way) to make it."
ReplyDeleteMix packet with water. Bake at 350 degrees for 15 mins. 55*5 bits. Cool.
One way of figuring out how much information it contains is to figure out how (the simplest way) to make it."
ReplyDeleteMix packet with water. Bake at 350 degrees for 15 mins. 55*5 bits. Cool.
Cool what?
Cool that you like to prove that you are an obtuse moron?
As I said in the original thread and told you directly if you are going to use a packet you have to include all the information- that is all the actions- required to get everything but water into that packet.
All the information and all the actions you ignorant freak.
All the information and all the actions you ignorant freak.
ReplyDeleteInclusing how to mill the flour?
All the information and all the actions you ignorant freak.
ReplyDeleteAll the information and all the actions you ignorant freak.
ReplyDeleteIncluding sowing the wheat?
Now you understand how much agency involvement is required just to get a cake.
ReplyDeleteOr maybe not- you don't appear capable of understanding anything.
Or maybe not- you don't appear capable of understanding anything.Or maybe not- you don't appear capable of understanding anything.
ReplyDeleteMy biggest problem is trying to understand how you could even perform simple everyday chores, such as wiping your own arse. In fact, doubt that you are able to do this. Methinks that either you have a helper or that you have a colostomy bag. The latter option is obviously an ID hypothesis.
My biggest problem is trying to understand how you could even perform simple everyday chores, such as wiping your own arse.
ReplyDeleteNice projection.
Nice projection.
ReplyDeleteYou're too stupid to even come up with your own insults.
You're so stupid that you insult yourself.
ReplyDeleteWhat sits in the corner and gets smaller?
ReplyDeleteIt's Joe shaving himself with a cheesegrater.
What sits in the corner and plays with itself?
ReplyDeleteHawks the sreaming wanker
and here's one for Freud:
Who has an Oedipus complex and also suffers from penis envy?
Hawks the screaming wanker
Why does Joe stare at the orange juice?
ReplyDeleteIt says "concentrate".
Fresh squeeezed only in my house.
ReplyDeleteLoser.
Don't squeeze it too hard, if you know what I mean...
ReplyDeleteYour mother squeezes it for me, if you know what I mean...
ReplyDeleteAnd I'm the one with the Oedipus complex...
ReplyDeletePaging Dr. Freud.
And I'm the one with the Oedipus complex...
ReplyDeleteUmm YOUR mother squeezing MY oranges.
I understand she squeezes yours also- that is where Oedipus comes in you moron.