11 Responses to “Buddies”

1. Rock Says:
   September 10th, 2011 at 3:34 pm

   Sorry to intrude. But I don't know how to properly introduce a general question.

   Kronecker asserted that God created the integers and man created all the other numbers.

   However fond mathematical theorists may be of the integers, for human design purposes the integers don’t naturally suggest themselves as suitable design “material” because they don’t form a ring. Likewise, the irrationals (like pi) don’t suggest themselves because (like the reals) they are not computable.

   Human designers show a marked preference for complex, algebraic, rational, and digital numbers. Traditionally, mathematical physicists have cast physical descriptions into the domain of the reals and real number operations.

   Obviously, not all numbers are equal. (LOL)

   Are all numbers equal in God’s eyes?

   The question was inspired by a topic over @UD, “Darwinian lobbyist knows…”

   Seems to me that the question was being begged: Is the DNA-code a digital code? Or is that just another “mere metaphor”? However evocative the comparison, it is w/o any real scientific content.

Comment by Rock — September 10, 2011 @ 3:34 pm

2. Guts Says:
   September 10th, 2011 at 5:38 pm

   It's a "quaternary code" as Dawkins would say.

Comment by Guts — September 10, 2011 @ 5:38 pm

3. Rock Says:
   September 11th, 2011 at 9:02 pm

   Four or sixty-four?

   Anyway, I was just curious and not sure I have a good handle on it.

   (Richard Dawkins?!)

Comment by Rock — September 11, 2011 @ 9:02 pm

4. Rob R. Says:
   September 11th, 2011 at 11:12 pm

   Four or sixty-four?

   42.

   {…}(Richard Dawkins?!)

   River Out Of Eden: A Darwinian View Of Life (page 17)

Comment by Rob R. — September 11, 2011 @ 11:12 pm

5. chunkdz Says:
   September 12th, 2011 at 2:38 am

   Rock:
   

   integers don’t naturally suggest themselves as suitable design “material” because they don’t form a ring

   They don't?

Comment by chunkdz — September 12, 2011 @ 2:38 am

6. Rock Says:
   September 14th, 2011 at 8:36 am

   Of course they do, chunkdz. Sorry. Don’t know what I was thinking. Actually, I do, but I was wrong. I was thinking that all numbers derived or formed by “construction,” such as the roots of low-order, computable, polynomial expressions, are properly “algebraic” numbers, even if they are also integral, real, rational, etc.

   Like I said, I’m confused.

   Any less "mystery" now? Do I know what IDers mean by "digital information"? Other than info that can't be produced naturally?

Comment by Rock — September 14, 2011 @ 8:36 am

7. chunkdz Says:
   September 14th, 2011 at 7:19 pm

   Rock, I take issue with several of your points. First point:

   "Human designers show a marked preference for complex, algebraic, rational, and digital numbers."

   The golden ratio is irrational. It is applied by human designers in everything from finance to architecture to music. The design of life is no different as we find the golden ratio used throughout biological life.

   "Likewise, the irrationals (like pi) don’t suggest themselves because (like the reals) they are not computable."

   And yet, human designers can construct irrational numbers quite exactly using geometry (and do so every single day). To say that "pi" does not "suggest itself" is to ignore the fact that pi repeatedly suggested itself to the Egyptians, Greeks, Indians, Chinese, etc. independently over thousands of years.

   "Do I know what IDers mean by "digital information"? Other than info that can't be produced naturally?"

   Why don't you ask an ID'er? I'd be happy to tell you that by "digital information" I mean information communicated using a language that can be read by both the encoder and the decoder, a synchronization scheme, a code based upon discrete symbols, a mechanism to specify the beginning and end of the message, and a mechanism for correcting errors in transmission.

   Which ID'er are you accusing of saying that digital information "can't be produced naturally"? I want names.

   "Kronecker asserted that God created the integers and man created all the other numbers."

   He was a weirdo.

Comment by chunkdz — September 14, 2011 @ 7:19 pm

8. Rock Says:
   September 15th, 2011 at 9:13 am

   “Why don't you ask an ID'er?”

   I thought I did? Did I come to the wrong place?

   Doesn't really matter to me who answers the question, though.

   “Which ID'er are you accusing of saying that digital information "can't be produced naturally"? I want names.

   I suppose I’d have to be pretty naïve (stupider than I usually am) to expect a straight answer if my questions are regarded as accusations. But I'm not so naive that it isn't exactly the kind of answer I have learned to expect.

   Nevermind. It's not important.

Comment by Rock — September 15, 2011 @ 9:13 am

9. chunkdz Says:
   September 15th, 2011 at 1:37 pm

   Rock:
   

   I suppose I’d have to be pretty naïve (stupider than I usually am) to expect a straight answer if my questions are regarded as accusations.

   I answered your question. Straightly, I might add.

   It's a digital code if it uses a language, discrete symbols, sync, start and stop indicators, and error correction. (Actually error correction is not necessarily a prerequisite, but smart designers usually include it.)

   I'm not so naive that it isn't exactly the kind of answer I have learned to expect.

   You expect that when you make an accusation ID'ers will ask you to back up your assertion with facts? That's good.

   Strange, but after a decade or so of listening to ID'ers I don't know of anyone who makes that argument (nature can't make digital information). Stranger still you can't seem to come up with a single name. And yet even stranger – when asked to defend your accusation you mumble something about "exactly what I've come to expect" and "nevermind, it's not important".

   I was hoping to engage a discussion about why human designers don't really care whether things are "computable". They care if things are "creatable". In this respect, humans are way better than computers, and tend to think geometrically rather than computationally. Irrational numbers are therefore perfectly fine design materials thanks to Pythagoras, Archimedes, Euclid, and the rest of the boys.

   That would have been a fun discussion. Unfortunately it will now not happen because some ID'er called you on your bullshit and hurt your precious, delicate ego.

   Pity.

Comment by chunkdz — September 15, 2011 @ 1:37 pm

10. chunkdz Says:
    September 15th, 2011 at 9:43 pm

    Rock:
    

    Is the DNA-code a digital code? Or is that just another “mere metaphor”?

    The DNA code is easily expressed as a Gray Code. A real Gray Code, not a "metaphorical" one.

Comment by chunkdz — September 15, 2011 @ 9:43 pm

11. chunkdz Says:
    September 19th, 2011 at 11:16 am

    Sorry, Rock. You're a good guy and don't deserve to be talked to that way. I apologize.

Comment by chunkdz — September 19, 2011 @ 11:16 am

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.