Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Evolutionary Computation

Pages: (12) < ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] >

midwifetoad Posts: 3138 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2012,14:10    In my word evolver I simply kill off the highest scoring candidate, "randomly," 25 percent of the time. It seems to prevent getting stuck. -------------- ... a poster child for irresponsible and deceitful misrepresentation of design theory on the Internet. http://tinyurl.com/9axtwbe....9axtwbe

dvunkannon Posts: 1359 Joined: June 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2012,16:33    Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 06 2012,15:10) In my word evolver I simply kill off the highest scoring candidate, "randomly," 25 percent of the time. It seems to prevent getting stuck. How did this come up in a discussion of Chaitin and evolution? I'd be interested to hear what the arguments were. -------------- I’m referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter I’m not an evolutionist, I’m a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

midwifetoad Posts: 3138 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2012,08:01    Chaitin is the new darling at UD. Not sure why. -------------- ... a poster child for irresponsible and deceitful misrepresentation of design theory on the Internet. http://tinyurl.com/9axtwbe....9axtwbe

DiEb Posts: 197 Joined: May 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2012,16:19    I just took another go on Dembski's and Marks's Horizontal No Free Lunch Theorem, as KairosFocus referred to it at UncommonDescent: On a Wrong Remark in a Paper of Robert J. Marks II and William A Dembski   Quote Abstract: In their 2010 paper The Search for a Search - Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search, the authors William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II present as one of two results their so-called Horizontal No Free Lunch Theorem. One of the consequences of this theorem is their remark: If no information about a search exists, so that the underlying measure is uniform, then, on average, any other assumed measure will result in negative active information, thereby rendering the search performance worse than random search. This is quite surprising, as one would expect in the tradition of the No Free Lunch theorem that the performances are equally good (or bad). Using only very basic elements of probability theory, this essay shows that their remark is wrong - as is their theorem. The whole essay can be found here.

Henry J Posts: 3735 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2012,22:55    Well of course there's no free lunch. Even a slice of pizza costs something. Henry

DiEb Posts: 197 Joined: May 2008 (Permalink) Posted: May 24 2012,03:13    Quote (DiEb @ Mar. 13 2012,22:19) I just took another go on Dembski's and Marks's Horizontal No Free Lunch Theorem, as KairosFocus referred to it at UncommonDescent: On a Wrong Remark in a Paper of Robert J. Marks II and William A Dembski     Quote Abstract: In their 2010 paper The Search for a Search - Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search, the authors William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II present as one of two results their so-called Horizontal No Free Lunch Theorem. One of the consequences of this theorem is their remark: If no information about a search exists, so that the underlying measure is uniform, then, on average, any other assumed measure will result in negative active information, thereby rendering the search performance worse than random search. This is quite surprising, as one would expect in the tradition of the No Free Lunch theorem that the performances are equally good (or bad). Using only very basic elements of probability theory, this essay shows that their remark is wrong - as is their theorem. The whole essay can be found here. I was just informed by Winston Ewert that there is a new erratum at the paper A Search for a Search which should address (some of) my points. Here is my first reaction. And does the Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics know?

The whole truth Posts: 900 Joined: Jan. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: May 24 2012,04:35    Quote (DiEb @ May 24 2012,01:13) Quote (DiEb @ Mar. 13 2012,22:19) I just took another go on Dembski's and Marks's Horizontal No Free Lunch Theorem, as KairosFocus referred to it at UncommonDescent: On a Wrong Remark in a Paper of Robert J. Marks II and William A Dembski       Quote Abstract: In their 2010 paper The Search for a Search - Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search, the authors William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II present as one of two results their so-called Horizontal No Free Lunch Theorem. One of the consequences of this theorem is their remark: If no information about a search exists, so that the underlying measure is uniform, then, on average, any other assumed measure will result in negative active information, thereby rendering the search performance worse than random search. This is quite surprising, as one would expect in the tradition of the No Free Lunch theorem that the performances are equally good (or bad). Using only very basic elements of probability theory, this essay shows that their remark is wrong - as is their theorem. The whole essay can be found here. I was just informed by Winston Ewert that there is a new erratum at the paper A Search for a Search which should address (some of) my points. Here is my first reaction. And does the Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics know? Regarding ear stoppers, it wouldn't surprise me if one of these days that IDiots are found to have evolved a flap inside their ears that automatically and quickly closes at the first sign of any sort of reality trying to get in. Of course if such a flap were found the IDiots would claim that it's the result of intelligent design by their designer/creator, who did it so that they won't be plagued with hearing realistic challenges to their unsupported beliefs and assertions.  :) -------------- Fellatio is in fact a type of sodomy - gordon e mullings I don't even know what that means- "study CSI". - joe g Joe G is the only person I have ever encountered who could start a fight in an empty room and still manage to lose. - Amadan

DiEb Posts: 197 Joined: May 2008 (Permalink) Posted: May 24 2012,08:12    Quote (The whole truth @ May 24 2012,10:35) Quote (DiEb @ May 24 2012,01:13)   Quote (DiEb @ Mar. 13 2012,22:19) I just took another go on Dembski's and Marks's Horizontal No Free Lunch Theorem, as KairosFocus referred to it at UncommonDescent: On a Wrong Remark in a Paper of Robert J. Marks II and William A Dembski         Quote Abstract: In their 2010 paper The Search for a Search - Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search, the authors William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II present as one of two results their so-called Horizontal No Free Lunch Theorem. One of the consequences of this theorem is their remark: If no information about a search exists, so that the underlying measure is uniform, then, on average, any other assumed measure will result in negative active information, thereby rendering the search performance worse than random search. This is quite surprising, as one would expect in the tradition of the No Free Lunch theorem that the performances are equally good (or bad). Using only very basic elements of probability theory, this essay shows that their remark is wrong - as is their theorem. The whole essay can be found here. I was just informed by Winston Ewert that there is a new erratum at the paper A Search for a Search which should address (some of) my points. Here is my first reaction. And does the Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics know? Regarding ear stoppers, it wouldn't surprise me if one of these days that IDiots are found to have evolved a flap inside their ears that automatically and quickly closes at the first sign of any sort of reality trying to get in. Of course if such a flap were found the IDiots would claim that it's the result of intelligent design by their designer/creator, who did it so that they won't be plagued with hearing realistic challenges to their unsupported beliefs and assertions.  :) I exchanged emails on this subject with Bob Marks back in 2010! Even before the paper was published in the first place, I had pointed out this problem - in private and in public. In Sep 2010, Bob Marks informed me that has a policy not to engage in correspondence with anyone publically critical of him or his work, as independent of the validity or invalidity of the details of the exchange, these things are best discussed thoroughly before any public pronouncements. So he willfully  chose to ignore every unpleasant critic, on his own peril.

The whole truth Posts: 900 Joined: Jan. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: May 25 2012,01:10    Quote (DiEb @ May 24 2012,06:12) Quote (The whole truth @ May 24 2012,10:35)   Quote (DiEb @ May 24 2012,01:13)     Quote (DiEb @ Mar. 13 2012,22:19) I just took another go on Dembski's and Marks's Horizontal No Free Lunch Theorem, as KairosFocus referred to it at UncommonDescent: On a Wrong Remark in a Paper of Robert J. Marks II and William A Dembski           Quote Abstract: In their 2010 paper The Search for a Search - Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search, the authors William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II present as one of two results their so-called Horizontal No Free Lunch Theorem. One of the consequences of this theorem is their remark: If no information about a search exists, so that the underlying measure is uniform, then, on average, any other assumed measure will result in negative active information, thereby rendering the search performance worse than random search. This is quite surprising, as one would expect in the tradition of the No Free Lunch theorem that the performances are equally good (or bad). Using only very basic elements of probability theory, this essay shows that their remark is wrong - as is their theorem. The whole essay can be found here. I was just informed by Winston Ewert that there is a new erratum at the paper A Search for a Search which should address (some of) my points. Here is my first reaction. And does the Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics know? Regarding ear stoppers, it wouldn't surprise me if one of these days that IDiots are found to have evolved a flap inside their ears that automatically and quickly closes at the first sign of any sort of reality trying to get in. Of course if such a flap were found the IDiots would claim that it's the result of intelligent design by their designer/creator, who did it so that they won't be plagued with hearing realistic challenges to their unsupported beliefs and assertions.  :) I exchanged emails on this subject with Bob Marks back in 2010! Even before the paper was published in the first place, I had pointed out this problem - in private and in public. In Sep 2010, Bob Marks informed me that has a policy not to engage in correspondence with anyone publically critical of him or his work, as independent of the validity or invalidity of the details of the exchange, these things are best discussed thoroughly before any public pronouncements. So he willfully  chose to ignore every unpleasant critic, on his own peril. Ignoring critics, whether in public or in private, is a skill that IDiots have thoroughly mastered. I'm sure that Marks and the other IDiots never even consider that their assertions are or could be perilous, because to them being wrong just doesn't compute. They want to dictate and preach, not listen, discuss, learn, or be corrected. From what I've seen Marks seems to be one of the most isolated IDiots (and willingly so). -------------- Fellatio is in fact a type of sodomy - gordon e mullings I don't even know what that means- "study CSI". - joe g Joe G is the only person I have ever encountered who could start a fight in an empty room and still manage to lose. - Amadan

Pages: (12) < ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard