Driver
Posts: 649
Joined: June 2011
|
| Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 21 2014,18:01) | | Quote (Driver @ Feb. 21 2014,04:28) | | Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 20 2014,19:49) | | Quote (Driver @ Feb. 17 2014,02:58) | | Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 16 2014,13:37) | | Quote (Driver @ Feb. 15 2014,23:56) | | Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 16 2014,00:07) | | Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 15 2014,18:04) | | Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 15 2014,18:00) | | Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 15 2014,17:54) | | Poor Fattytard. He's ronery again. :( |
Hi Timmy you ignorant fuck- Are you still clueless as to who posited blind watchmaker evolution, dumbass? |
Was it the same Fattytard who calculated the CSI of a cake by counting the letters in the recipe? :D :D :D |
Only a moron would think that is what happened. And here you are, Timmy.
You must be proud to be a dumbass, Timmy. |
Joe: [A] cake would, at a minimum, contain all the information in the recipe.
Of course, in any given language, the meaning of a one bit word can in principle be defined as any string S.
For example, let the definition of a new word, "u" (pronounced "caek") be the recipe for Banoffee marshmallow cake here
That is, the definition of "u" is the string S where S is
"Ingredients
165g butter, plus extra for greasing
165g soft light brown or light brown muscovado sugar
325g self-raising flour..."
...etc...
"Method
Heat oven to 190C/170C fan/gas 5. Grease and line the bottom of a round 21cm loose-bottomed cake tin..."
...etc.
Then the 'Joe CSI' of the cake would be the minimum required to specify the recipe, i.e. one bit represented by the word "u".
In practice in a real language, "u" would be defined as a combination of strings, S1, S2, S3 etc, where S1 might be "Ingredients" and S2 might be defined as "the mixture of 165g butter, plus extra for greasing
165g soft light brown or light brown muscovado sugar
325g self-raising flour"
and so on. Yet it remains that any recipe can be specified by a one bit word (presuming all valid one bit words haven't already been used), whether the one bit word is defined as the whole recipe or as a combination of parts of the recipe.
Any valid string of letters can be the definition of a new one bit word. The limit on the (for want of a better word) compressibility of any string is only the length of the available (unused) valid words in that language.
Now, although God is an Englishman - that is, He is at least certainly not French and by no means a woman - there is nothing special about English. We can always define any string in English as a one bit word in a different language, so that the minimum length of cake recipe is one bit.
That is, in Caekian, the minimum recipe of our cake is "!"
A real world example of this power of language would be the word "asshole" in the somewhat limited language, Gallien. "Asshole" means anything and everything, and as such is the perfect reply to any criticism.
Another possible reply in Gallien, to use our new word "u", meaning caek (that particular caek) is "i know u are, but what am i?"
Now, when you eat the cake, I have seen it implied that you eat the recipe, or at least part of the recipe. The rest stays with you as waste. English would be well served to add a definition of "waste" as the contents of the blog "Intelligent Reasoning", or any post from that blog. |
Driver are you proud to be an ignorant ass? Why do you quote-mine?
The recipe is a capturing of the ACTIONS. |
So the ingredients don't matter as far as how much information there is?
My point also applies to actions. Define the word "u" as "Mix together X,Y, and Z then bake at 160 degrees for 1 hour". One bit. You can define a one bit word to represent any actions. One bit recipe. |
Good luck convincing anyone in the real world. When I see recipes being replaced by one letter you will have a point. Until then you are still just an asshole. |
Everyone in the real world understands my point. Although in a slightly different form, it is actually the same point as oleg's point about the recipe for a second cake: "Repeat."
Please calculate the CSI for caeks of your choice though.
Asshole, did you say? I never would have predicted that. |
Driver, your "point" is to be a moron.
You cannot capture the actions just by saying "repeat". I explained that to oleg many times.
Also you don't calculate the CSI- you measure the information to see if CSI is present. |
What languages are valid for measuring the information of a tree frog? When are they valid from? Are dead languages allowed? What is a valid "capturing of the actions" if "repeat" isn't?
Good to see you say that CSI can't be calculated. Can you measure the information in a tree frog to see if CSI is present though?
If you can't determine the CSI of objects, why were you trying to determine the CSI of caek in the first place?
Come on Joe, show off your math.
--------------
Why would I concern myself with evidence, when IMO "evidence" is only the mind arranging thought and matter to support what one already wishes to believe? - William J Murray
[A]t this time a forum like this one is nothing less than a national security risk. - Gary Gaulin
|
