Salvador T. Cordova: Say what Zachriel?

Dembski presented a definition of specificity.

σ = "“log2[ φS(T)·P(T|H)]

Dembski says we can determine the specificity of a pattern "even if nothing is known about how it arose". Please make your arguments in reference to the paper in question (or simply admit Dembski's paper is flawed).

. Dembski's paper clearly states that we are examining the pattern itself even if nothing is known about how it arose. That's the whole point of the paper.

Say what Zachriel? The pattern has to relate to a physical object in a space of possible configurations, or at the very least you define a space and an associated distribution for each possible outcome. You've done none of that in your questions….

For example if you are asserting bit strings like the first 64 binary bits of PI, and asking if that number is designed, that is not appropriate. That sort of question echoes the misrepresentations of Shallit (Dembski's teacher) and Elsberry….

However, it is appropriate if you have something like a set of coins (with a number to identify each one), and the coins follow the binary sequence of PI, then design is strongly implicated (perhaps not as strongly as a designs satisfying UPB, but pretty strong)….

Do you see the difference?

You have to provide at least a hypothetical physcial context and distribution. You'll only add to the confusion if you insist on bit strings in isolation.

We are trying to find out if physical objects are desgined aren't we? It's confusing to be asking if PI, or the Omega number, or even if the Champernown sequence (in isolation) is designed.

To clarify, if you wish to present bit sequences for examination, it would be appropriate to say they represent a hypothetical layout of coins (coins are designed). The question is whether the heads/tail pattern reflected by these designed coins signifies design in the way they were layed out. When you do that, you are closer to representing ID literature accurately….

Bradford: The physical resemblance lies in the use of physical processes to convey messages.

An all-encompassing resemblance.

Salvador T. Cordova: If the symbols you derirved are not from a physical object, and if you don't define the space of possibilities of the physical object, then this is inappropriate question.

Dembski: Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause?

Bradford: Salvador's point as to whether or not the symbols are physically derived, as opposed to expressed through a physical medium, addresses Dembski's point about "features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause."

That doesn't answer the objection. Dembski's paper clearly states that we are examining the pattern itself even if nothing is known about how it arose. That's the whole point of the paper. This sort of confusion is why I want to see a few patterns worked out in detail based on the paper's analysis.

Salvador T. Cordova: 1. how much specificity does the analogy contain, how well does it identify PHYSICAL objects from a large space of possibilities in the physical universe

Zachriel: As "transcription" comes from from the Latin word scribere for writing, and is akin to the Greek skariphasthai for scratching an outline, the objects of gene transcription have no physical resemblance whatsoever to scratching ink on parchment.

The physical resemblance lies in the use of physical processes to convey messages.

Salvador T. Cordova: If the symbols you derirved are not from a physical object, and if you don't define the space of possibilities of the physical object, then this is inappropriate question.

Dembski: Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause?

Salvador's point as to whether or not the symbols are physically derived, as opposed to expressed through a physical medium, addresses Dembski's point about "features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause."

Salvador T. Cordova: 1. how much specificity does the analogy contain, how well does it identify PHYSICAL objects from a large space of possibilities in the physical universe

As "transcription" comes from from the Latin word scribere for writing, and is akin to the Greek skariphasthai for scratching an outline, the objects of gene transcription have no physical resemblance whatsoever to scratching ink on parchment.

Salvador T. Cordova: If the symbols you derirved are not from a physical object, and if you don't define the space of possibilities of the physical object, then this is inappropriate question.

Dembski: Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause?

Even if nothing is known about how they arose.

Analogies are what the human mind do. Planets spin like tops. Atoms are like solar systems. Electricity flows like water in a pipe. Family trees. Angry skies. And so on. Analogies can be helpful, but when pushed beyond their applicability, they can lead to misunderstandings.

But it is clear in the space of objects of the semiotic agent (the agent that tries to impose meaning and project analogies), some analogies fit better than others. The question is :

1. how much specificity does the analogy contain, how well does it identify PHYSICAL objects from a large space of possibilities in the physical universe

2. will a simple stochastic process not readily generate objects which will fit the analogy. Do you expect a simple stochastic process (defined by things like a mean or a few statistical moments), to generate recognizable sentences, for example, or certain Bachus-Naur forms.

That's fine. Then let's try a few examples. What is the specificity of

22313320111011202202232310222122223331
30111202000213033103303301312023213011
20033032023103122111222132010312100101

and

10111011111011110110
00110011101111110111
11110010110100110101
11011111101011110111
11101100001110001111
00100110011111010011
10110011100001110010
11100111110101111011
01111000111111111000
00111000100110001011

From what physical object did you derive that string? If the symbols you derirved are not from a physical object, and if you don't define the space of possibilities of the physical object, then this is inappropriate question. Further more, the context was:

Salvador T. Cordova: The other possibility is that the designer knows what patterns the observer will recognize.

You didn't give me a pattern I recognized. You didn't under stand what I was trying to say.

Bradford: Zachriel, why isn't the operative pattern the focus of attention?

Dembski provides a mathematical definition of specificity.

σ = "“log2[φS(T)·P(T|H)]

If the specificity exceeds a certain threshold (the Universal Probability Bound), he considers it specified complexity, and therefore, intelligent. Other than that, the result is considered undetermined. I've been trying to find someone who can follow through on the calculations for a few examples, but no one seems inclined to do so.

Today, William got an incredible deal on an old Victorian house. Highly satisfied with his business acumen, William settled in for a blissful night of sleep in his new home.

SLAM!

William woke with a start. He listened intently. But he didn't hear anything, so he settled back to sleep.

Cree..eak

William listened even more closely this time until, after a bit, the creaking noise died away. For some reason, he recalled the seller's maniacal laughter just after William signed the papers to buy the house.

SLAM!

William was trembling and his teeth were rattling. He thought about getting out of bed to investigate. Instead, he pulled the covers over his head.

Cree..eak

Hmm, William thought. Being a famous design theoretician, I can use the patented (not really) Dembski Inference to determine if the pattern is being caused by a ghost, er some unspecified intelligent cause.

SLAM!
Cree..eak
SLAM!
Cree..eak
SLAM!
Cree..eak
SLAM!
Cree..eak
"¦

For our first calculation. Let's assume the pattern is 01010101010101 "¦

Using Dembski's Inference, what can we infer about the pattern without risking a venture about the house? Assume the pattern is regular for now. Be sure to show your math (e.g. Chance Hypothesis). And remember! No peeking from underneath the covers!

"”
Specified Complexity
χ = "“log2[10^120·φS(T)·P(T|H)]

This example illustrates an essential problem with detection of design without any a priori knowledge about the designer. A pattern he uses may be quite specific to him, but it may not be apparent to you, just like in this case. It helps to know something about the designer in order to determine the space of the possible patterns. Zachriel had an idea about that and you didn't. Know thy designer.

Salvador: The other possibility is that the designer knows what patterns the observer will recognize. The Designer knows thee.:wink:

Zachriel: That's fine. Then let's try a few examples. What is the specificity of

Zachriel, why isn't the operative pattern the focus of attention? The biological pattern is composed of four different nucleotides and the pattern is not only apparent, it is also mapped to functions.

Salvador T. Cordova: The other possibility is that the designer knows what patterns the observer will recognize.

That's fine. Then let's try a few examples. What is the specificity of

22313320111011202202232310222122223331
30111202000213033103303301312023213011
20033032023103122111222132010312100101

and

10111011111011110110
00110011101111110111
11110010110100110101
11011111101011110111
11101100001110001111
00100110011111010011
10110011100001110010
11100111110101111011
01111000111111111000
00111000100110001011

Please show your work.