How NOT to Refute the Law of Conservation of Information, by R0b
It appears simple reasoning skills are beyond the capabilities of evoTARDs. Case in point a poster named R0b (R0bb). R0b's blunder
In thinking of a counterexample to the LCI, we should remember that this two-level search hierarchy is nothing more than a chain of two random variables. (Dembski’s search hierarchy is like a Markov chain, except that each transition is from one state space to another, rather than within the same state space.) One of the simplest examples of a chain of random variables is a one-dimensional random walk. Think of a system that periodically changes state, with each state transition represented by a shift to the left or to the right on an state diagram. If we know at a certain point in time that it is in one of, say, three states, namely n-1 or n or n+1, then after the next transition it will be in n-2, n-1, n, n+1, or n+2, as in the following diagram:
Follow the link for the diagram
Assume that the system is always equally likely to shift left as to shift right, and let the “target” be defined as the center node n. If the state at time t is, say, n-1, then the probability of success q is 1/2. Of the three original states, two (namely n-1 and n+1) yield this probability of success, so p1 is 2/3. Finally, p2 is 1/5 since the target consists of only one of the final five states. The LCI says that p1 ≤ p2/q. Plugging in our numbers for this example, we get 2/3 ≤ (1/5)/(1/2), which is clearly false.
R0b, at any given point in time there will only be 2 final states (given the intial postion and two possible moves), not 5. Ya see even though we can see there COULD be 5 different final states. However the thing can only "see" two from its position.
So yes, if one totally fucks up the scenrio then LCI falls. However in reality it is safe, just not safe from you. ;)