kronbelt888: Messages can be decoded if one has an idea what one is looking for.

Yes, following a trail of evidence distinguishes a search from aimless wandering. (Not that there is anything wrong with that!)

kronbelt888: If an alien intelligence wanted to convey a message to humans, it seems natural that it would either be an easily recognizable image or a text that conforms to something important and fundamental that humans have discovered in another way.

We would not expect a message in a genome because we have strong evidence that the patterns in genomes are due to natural evolutionary processes.

kornbelt888: That seem quite a bit more open ended than an encoded picture or text in a genome, of say a picture of a human, or some important fundamental mathematical construct.

There is no more reason to suppose a message in a genome than in tea leaves.

kornbelt888: It could be a lot easier that expecting something like SETI to find a radio beacon, if they're across the galaxy or otherwise inaccessible.

Again. Modern genomes are highly derived having evolved from primitive beginnings over billions of years. They have also been subjected to extensive data analysis with no indication of artifice. You might have better luck with goat entrails.

Zachriel: It's just silly.

kornbelt888: Now there a profound scientific pronouncement

silly: exhibiting or indicative of a lack of common sense or sound judgment.

Yes, that's the word I was looking for. You have every right to be as silly as you want (but not to expect others to mistake silliness for sound judgment). Aimless wandering can be fun, and who knows what you will find.

Many genomes are available in the public domain. Take a look. Let us know if you find anything.

Zachriel: There are an unlimited number of ways of encoding a message. There are an unlimited number of mediums to transmit the message.

Quite right. That's what cryptography is all about. Messages can be decoded if one has an idea what one is looking for. If an alien intelligence wanted to convey a message to humans, it seems natural that it would either be an easily recognizable image or a text that conforms to something important and fundamental that humans have discovered in another way. That narrows things down quite a bit. But how will we know if we don't look?

Maybe tea leaves or the position of the planets really do prognosticate the future. Maybe you can read your fate in the entrails of a goat. Or in the lines of the hand. Or maybe you should throw bones to receive messages from the Beyond.

That seem quite a bit more open ended than an encoded picture or text in a genome, of say a picture of a human, or some important fundamental mathematical construct.

Without some theory as to how and why a message would be found here rather than there, and how to read the message, your 'project' is worse than vacuous.

I've provided "some theory." Aliens putting an easily recognizable image or text in a genome to let us know they are there. It could be a lot easier that expecting something like SETI to find a radio beacon, if they're across the galaxy or otherwise inaccessible. And not encoded to fool us or deliberately hide it, but encoded in such a way as to resist mutational corruption.

It's just silly.

Now there a profound scientific pronouncement.

Zachriel: An image is distinguished by having regions of self-similarity, so this will result in a localized statistical anomaly.

kornbelt888: Not necessarily so obvious if the image was constructed using, say, some kind ELS system, among other techniques.

You show quite well why your 'project' is vacuous.

There are an unlimited number of ways of encoding a message. There are an unlimited number of mediums to transmit the message. Maybe tea leaves or the position of the planets really do prognosticate the future. Maybe you can read your fate in the entrails of a goat. Or in the lines of the hand. Or maybe you should throw bones to receive messages from the Beyond.

Without some theory as to how and why a message would be found here rather than there, and how to read the message, your 'project' is worse than vacuous. It's just silly.

Zachriel: Wouldn't it be for you to clarify, as you were the one who suggested looking for some vague "signatures within genomes".

I don't think that it's "aimless" to search a data space using all known forms of analysis. That seems pretty "aim-ful" to me.

Zachriel: An image is distinguished by having regions of self-similarity, so this will result in a localized statistical anomaly.

Not necessarily so obvious if the image was constructed using, say, some kind ELS system, among other techniques.

As Finding Mona demonstrates, even the tinest discernable bitmap image stands out to even the simplest statistical analysis. We can safely say that no such image exists in the genome examined.

What does your Finding Mona bitmap look like when each Mona pixel is separated by a gap of a 1000, or 10000 pixels? Or a progressive gap. Tell you what, want me to encode an image within your E Coli bitmap and see if you can find it? If you can't, does that mean it doesn't exist? Or would it mean you didn't bother to analyze the image enough?

genomes have already been poked and prodded with no evidence of such a "signature".

Which genomes? And to what degree?

Furthermore, there are an unlimited number of ways of encoding a message, so you could look forever regardless of the existence of a "signature".

Yes, and that's the point. The encoding method might not be as obvious as your example. It may be deliberately difficult, but not impossible. Even I could do it in a way that would make it difficult to find, indistinguishable from random noise by visual inspection, and I'm not very smart.

kornbelt888: Looking for evidence qualifies as a scientific activity, or activity that is a part of science. Interesting and fruitful scientific endeavors have often been prompted by intuitive hunches.

Zachriel: Sure. But the intuition is then normally framed as a testable hypothesis.

A testable hypothesis can be as simple "there is an image in there." An intuitive hunch is all that's needed to make a start. It helps to know various methods of analysis.

kornbelt888: (By the way, I predicted (to myself) that your answer would take essentially the form it has, thereby adding confirmation to my theory about you, personally. So, at the very least, the exchange has scientific merit. )

Zachriel: Publish or perish.

I would worry more about that if I made my living off of it, or was a serious culture warrior.

At any rate, I find it strange that anyone would think that looking for evidence of a signature within genomes is a "speculation that has [no] empirical merit—even in principle." So far, you've given me no insight into the reasons for your view.

the universe is a cryptogram set by the Almighty — Isaac Newton

kornbelt888: I don't know how "aimless" the search has to be.

Well, let's see what level of "aimlessness" you can achieve.

kornbelt888: since you did not specify exactly what you mean by "aimless", it's difficult to reply without clarification.

Wouldn't it be for you to clarify, as you were the one who suggested looking for some vague "signatures within genomes".

kornbelt888: Various kinds of searches could be attempted, all of them with an "aim" to find certain kinds of patterns unnecessary to the functioning of the genome, but obviously containing meaningful information to us. Images, for example.

An image is distinguished by having regions of self-similarity, so this will result in a localized statistical anomaly.

kornbelt888: And if a signature is there, I suspect it will only be found if someone were to actually look for it.

As Finding Mona demonstrates, even the tinest discernable bitmap image stands out to even the simplest statistical analysis. We can safely say that no such image exists in the genome examined.

kornbelt888: Why you think such a search is an unworthy activity cannot be based on any scientific conclusions. What you are basing your view on?

There is no evidence that anyone placed a "signature" in an ancient genome (which excludes cases where modern humans have done so), and genomes have already been poked and prodded with no evidence of such a "signature". Furthermore, there are an unlimited number of ways of encoding a message, so you could look forever regardless of the existence of a "signature".

kornbelt888: Looking for evidence qualifies as a scientific activity, or activity that is a part of science. Interesting and fruitful scientific endeavors have often been prompted by intuitive hunches.

Sure. But the intuition is then normally framed as a testable hypothesis.

kornbelt888: (By the way, I predicted (to myself) that your answer would take essentially the form it has, thereby adding confirmation to my theory about you, personally. So, at the very least, the exchange has scientific merit. )

Publish or perish.

Zachriel: I have never seen an ID speculation that has any empirical merit—even in principle.

Zachriel: Wandering aimlessly is science?

You seem to be equating "empirical merit" with "science." I didn't know those were exchangeable terms.

I don't know how "aimless" the search has to be. But since you did not specify exactly what you mean by "aimless", it's difficult to reply without clarification. Various kinds of searches could be attempted, all of them with an "aim" to find certain kinds of patterns unnecessary to the functioning of the genome, but obviously containing meaningful information to us. Images, for example. And if a signature is there, I suspect it will only be found if someone were to actually look for it.

Why you think such a search is an unworthy activity cannot be based on any scientific conclusions. What you are basing your view on?

Looking for evidence qualifies as a scientific activity, or activity that is a part of science. Interesting and fruitful scientific endeavors have often been prompted by intuitive hunches. What would constitute an aim-ful search to you?

(By the way, I predicted (to myself) that your answer would take essentially the form it has, thereby adding confirmation to my theory about you, personally. So, at the very least, the exchange has scientific merit. )

kornbelt888: So looking for signatures within genomes has no empirical merit, even in principle?

Wandering aimlessly is science? Here is my search for a Mona Lisa in a genome.

But Mona Lisa must have had the highway blues.
You can tell by the way she smiles. — Bob Dylan

Zachriel: I have never seen an ID speculation that has any empirical merit—even in principle.

So looking for signatures within genomes has no empirical merit, even in principle?

Nothingness ain't what it used to be.

no
Nothing is still nothing.

What I think you mean to say is that things we thought to be equal to nothing turned out to be something.

This could well be the case for a hypothetical substrate houseing the singularity that exploded into the big bang.

If such a substrate turns out to exist it’s existence would not tell us what caused the universe It would be yet another aspect of the universe that would need to be explained by this cause.

The discovery of an unstable universe creating substrate would make the universe more difficult to explain not less.

Instead of simply explaining a universe that pops into existence out of nothing now we would have to explain the existence of an unexplained substrate with the power to create universes at random for no reason at all.

thats a much harder task.

This hypothetical substrate would need to produce at least one universe fined tuned for life but not an infinite number.

Peace

fifth monarchy man: Are there any arguments analogous to the law of non-contradiction that have collapsed?

Nothingness ain't what it used to be.

fifth monarchy man: Have you seem any speculation that has empricial merit?

Yes. Many scientific speculations can and have been crafted as testable hypotheses.

fifth monarchy man: Michael Sherman has proposed such a testable model for biology.

I've browsed Sherman's paper on the "Universal Genome". It appears contrary to the evidence, but leaving that aside, it doesn't seem to say anything about the origin of the "Universal Genome" or Intelligent Design.