RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Posts: 182
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2007,16:23   

1. Something has CSI if it conforms to a pattern that is “compressible,” in the sense that it can be described by a smallish program and/or rule set.

2. Such patterns, as opposed to non-compressible patterns, are exceptionally rare (assuming, of course, that the system generating the patterns generates them uniformly (i.e. is not biased towards compressible patterns)

3. The observation of such a pattern is exceedingly unlikely to be due to “chance” so, having observed it, one can reasonably infer design.

We'll see if anyone at UD spots the problem here.  #2 assumes that the system has a uniformly random output.  So if the output turns out to be highly compressible, all we can infer is that the assumption was wrong.  IOW, the source was not random.  We have no justification for making a leap from "non-random" to "designed".

"I wasn't aware that classical physics had established a position on whether intelligent agents exercising free were constrained by 2LOT into increasing entropy." -DaveScot

  29999 replies since Jan. 16 2006,11:43 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (1000) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]