In 2015, Winston Ewert, William Dembski and Robert Marks published a paper entitled Algorithmic Specified Complexity in the Game of Life.
The paper was a wreck. We examined it here at TSZ and found well over 20 substantive errors in it.
ID supporter Eric Holloway describes it as a “neat paper”. I describe it as an “abysmal mess”.
Eric has been touting the virtues of ASC here at TSZ, so now is a good time to reopen the discussion of this paper.
I’ll be quoting a number of comments from the old thread.
One of them involves the very first sentence of the abstract, in which Ewert, Dembski and Marks claim that ASC is a measure of meaning:
The introduction of the published article is different from that of the paper we reviewed.
Tom,
Interesting. What’s the nature of the changes?
Another complaint, related to the first:
Eric,
Before you get involved in this new discussion, it would be good of you to acknowledge that Joe was right and you were wrong about the conservation of CSI as claimed by Dembski in No Free Lunch.
I’ve perused the old ASC thread, and it seems there are a number of interesting observations. For instance, Dr. English thinks there is a problem in that ASC is a log ratio of a probability and semimeasure. But, if he’s read ‘improbability of ASC’ or even the 3rd party ‘algorithmic significance method’ that he found, he’d know this is not an issue.
Then keiths thinks the very definition of ASC is problematic, even though it is a generalization of the well known randomness deficiency, which Dr. English has also acknowledged in one of my recent OPs.
Then there is Dr. Felsenstein’s question about how this infers design. An interesting question, but not one addressed by the paper, so hard to see how this is a flaw in the paper.
Thus, at least in my brief perusal, it seems the problems identified by keiths and Dr. English go way beyond anything in the paper. If keiths and Dr. English are right, then luminaries such as Kolmogorov and Levin are dealing in fundamentally flawed theory. I believe keiths and Dr. English can at least win a Fields medal by publishing their findings, so I highly recommend they publish their results in some well respected mathematics journal. It’s not everyday someone finds such crucial flaws in widely accepted theorems.
I can’t imagine how I ever thought that people discussing ASC were intending it to be used to infer design. How could I have made that mistake?
Oh, wait:
Aha.
In my last comment, I reminded Eric:
Joe’s argument stands unrefuted. And in failing to refute it, not only did Eric mistakenly attribute CSI to a random permutation function, he also confused the permutation with an XOR mask!
Mistakes don’t get much more obvious than that. The honest thing would be to acknowledge them.
Joe writes, sarcastically:
…and then quotes Eric shooting himself in the foot.
Well, it isn’t just Eric shooting Eric’s foot — the paper does it too. From the conclusion:
Note to Eric: If you want to defend a paper, it’s a good idea to read and understand it first.
Eric:
This is the second time Eric has tried the goofy “Fields Medal” gambit on me, pretending that I am saying something that contradicts well-established mathematical knowledge. I’m not, of course.
If I were, Eric would be able to quote me doing so.
Eric,
When Joe and I tried to get you to talk about CSI, you wanted to talk about ASC instead. Now that I’m trying to get you to talk about ASC, you’re avoiding the issues I’m raising. What’s up with that? You should be eager to defend ASC.
See these two comments: Link, Link.
Does Eric have any issue with my meagre contribution:
“1. In Conway’s Life: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life
2. There is the Glider-Producing Switch Engine http://conwaylife.com/wiki/Glider-producing_switch_engine
3. It is coded by 123 “On Cells” but requires a space of 67×60 in a specific configuration.
4. That’s 4,020 bits, > UPB.
5. It contains well matched parts : 4bli,3blo,2bee,1boat,1loaf,1ship,1glider http://wwwhomes.uni-bielefeld.de/achim/moving.html
6. It occurs naturally out of randomly configured dust : http://wwwhomes.uni-bielefeld.de/achim/moving.html
7. It can evolve from a much smaller entity (“time bomb” – 17 active cells): http://conwaylife.appspot.com/pattern/timebomb”
What are the implications of this?
That Conway’s game of Life is intelligently designed 😉
Humans obviously smuggled in the information from outside. Or something.
Regarding the glider-producing switch engine, Richardthughes asks:
The implications are dire for the paper.
In the original thread, I looked at a couple of “naturally occurring objects” that Rich tracked down: the CP-pulsar and the glider-producing switch engine. The following two comments deal with those objects.
Regarding the CP-pulsar:
Regarding the glider-producing switch engine:
Eric, July 1st:
I’m starting to wonder about that.
https://media.giphy.com/media/1Zbeweu52ZaQE/giphy.gif
Just to give you someone to talk to, since Eric seems to have ridden off into the sunset, here is a question for you on Montanez paper:
What is the meaning of the word “conservation” used in Thm 2? How does it relates to Dembski’s meaning(s?) of the word in claiming conservation of CSI?
And how do any of these meaning relate to what “conservation” means in the conservation laws of classical physics or in the conservation of quantum information in the formalism of QM (ignoring measurement)?
Bruce,
Let’s save the discussion of the Montañez paper for Tom’s forthcoming thread.
Looks like Eric bailed out of yet another discussion when things got too difficult for him.
Bruce coined the term “pulling an Eric” to describe this sort of behavior.
It fits.
The crickets are still chirping, Eric.
OASC is a sufficient but not necessary measure of meaning.
Something with negative OASC can be meaningful.
Something with positive OASC cannot be nonmeaningful.
It’s called having a busy life.
EricMH:
You’re hedging, but Ewert, Dembski and Marks don’t. Here’s the very first sentence of their abstract:
Period. No qualifiers.
Also, ASC gives false positives, as I showed in #16a.
#16b is even worse, as it shows that false positives can’t be avoided no matter how high the ASC threshold is set.
They don’t say it measures the degree to which an object is not meaningful.
Mathematically impossible. The probability bound is proven. I guess you are another fan of Swamidass’ claim math doesn’t apply to the real world.
Like the way you proved it was mathematically impossible for evolution to occur?
BIG HINT: When you claim something is mathematically impossible and that something is empirically observed to occur in the real world, it’s not reality which is fucked up and wrong.
keiths, to EricMH:
EricMH:
Come on, Eric. If ASC measures the degree of meaningfulness, as EDM claim, then higher values indicate more meaningfulness and lower values indicate less meaningfulness.
keiths:
Eric:
Not only is it possible — I show exactly how it happens:
When? Where?
Asks the guy who thinks “supernatural, but we can’t understand it” is an “answer” to such questions.
Look phoodoo, I haz a gut feelz about it. That, you believe, is sufficient to convince others. Has it now become somewhat unconvincing when offered to you as an “explanation”?
OMagain,
So no empirical observations of evolution then right?
Thanks.
Stop pretending you care. You are just fine with not knowing, and someone could say to you “it can’t be known, it just happens” and then you’d be fine with it, as long as the word “supernatural” is used and it’s served with a comfortable fable about salvation and eternal life.
You are, at bottom, a goddamn hypocrite. Stop demanding of us what you can’t provide yourself, what you think is not even a demand that needs to be answered. Stop pretending your position is evidentially or ethically superior. It isn’t, it’s intellectual trash and a science stopper. Your entire position consists of “I believe on blind faith that everyone can feel it’s occult magic in the same way I do”.
You have nothing to offer on any of the sciences involving life or the mind.
None you are capable of understanding or would accept anyway. But that’s not science’s problem.
Not sure what happened to the link there, it’s supposed to be a link to this post of phoodoo’s where he basically says that if you just define your position to be unknowable, then not knowing is totally fine: http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/science-uprising-who-wins-the-battle-over-mind/comment-page-7/#comment-258486.
Rumraket: So? You can’t prove anything either, na,na!
Adapa: Na, NAH, NAH! So there!
Rumraket: Hypocrite!
Adapa: You don’t know science anyway. Omagain told me.
Rumraket: I am not sure what I want to say, but..you suck immaterialist!
No point in casting pearls before swine.
And he still has no answer to any of it. Hypocrite and proud of it. He can’t rebut it, he can just try cast it some caricatured form to try to dismiss it, which is transparent.
Answer to what, you nut? You still can’t grasp that its called supernatural because you can’t see it, or touch it?
How does that help your inability to say what a decision is in materialism?
Your hypocricy and defeatism, you nut. That you are a hypocrite because you demand of others what you can’t provide yourself and then, hilariously, you act as if your position is superior merely because you’ve managed to persuade yourself that definitional labeling of your position as “supernatural” somehow gets you off the hook.
That, and that your position is inherently defeatist and intellectually and scientifically stultifying bunk. It invariably leads to a stop of scientific progress and innovation. That’s what happens when you convince yourself the questions are unanswerable. You’ve become an apologist for not doing research into the nature and function of mind and intelligence.
At what point in history could magic-nutters like yourself not have declared some scientific question to be unanswerable in principle? Why do my children get sick? What makes the plants grow? How do I transport this water home?
We can be thankful that there have been thinkers and inventors who didn’t listen to people like you or we would still have been banging rocks together and living in caves.
No, it’s called supernatural as an excuse for why you can’t find any evidence for it. You’ve just defined it to be unable to produce evidence. It’s an excuse invented out of desperation.
Person A: Guys I totally, totally have a girlfriend it’s just that she goes to another school.
Person B: What other school?
Person A: Oh it’s an invisible one, outside of space and time, and you can’t touch or smell or hear it, and they’re not in the phonebook.
Person B: Dude, those are all shitty excuses you’ve made up because you don’t want to admit you don’t have a girlfriend.
Person A: No because my girlfriend is supernatural you see, so she’s just a by definition invisible and immaterial.
Person B: LOL, that’s still just a shitty excuse for there being no evidence you have a girlfriend.
Person A: Haha why haven’t you figured out that supernatural girlfriends are invisible and can’t be touched? That’s just what the word means.
Sorry phoodoo but the gig is up. Everyone can see what you’re doing.
I have explained that multiple times. How decisions work. The right input produces the right output, according to your nature. Look at the AND gate again you should be able to figure this out(I wish).
How much does nature weigh? What does it look like? How do you know?
Wait, is it, Oh it’s an invisible one, outside of space and time, and you can’t touch or smell or hear it, and they’re not in the phonebook.?
You understand that there’s an actual answer to this question, right? All known ordinary matter in the universe has been estimated to weigh approximately 1.5×10^53 kg. Of course, then there’s about 6 times as much dark matter, so you can add that weight on top.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe#Mass
If you zoom out a lot, mostly like this.
By having eyes and using them.
No, that’s how we can describe your level of comprehension and intellectual honesty. Invisible, outside of space and time, imperceptible to the senses.
Also known as indistinguishable from the nonexistant. Another defining attribute of the supernatural.
This all applies to mathematics. It is outside of space and time, invisible, cannot be physically sensed in any way. I guess mathematics doesn’t exist and we should stop using it because there is no evidence for mathematics.
I’m pretty sure my computer can do mathematics, and it’s right here next to me. It doesn’t magically teleport out of existence when it does calculations. Maybe I should strap a camera on it to make sure. If you’re right I could be getting awesome feeds from outside of space and time.
Eric:
Those are problems for platonists, but not for mathematical fictionalists.
Mathematics is not a thing but a process that takes place in people’s brains. That is where it exists.
Great, then how much does YOUR nature weigh?
Don’t include your fingernails though, because that is not your nature, right? Or your hair, that is not the thing you call your nature, right? because if all that counted as “your nature” as you put it, why do you say “you” AND “your nature”? Or do you just mean “you” but you don’t know how to speak, so you say you AND your nature?
And don’t include the space in between your atoms, that is not your nature right?
And is each atom, part of your nature? What happens, when one atom leaves and is replaced by another, does the old atom count? What about the water inside you, is that your nature? When you sweat, part of your nature goes to someone else’s nature? The air inside your lungs, is that your nature?
So please tell me then Rummy, what does your nature weigh?