Talk:Specified Complexity

From ResearchID.org, a nexus for researching Intelligent Design

1 Detachability
2 lol link flicked on the nightstand light. lolka
3 lol Then link saw what link did to me. lolka
4 lol linkfelt really weird about it. lolka
5 lol linklove linktight cunt. lolka
6 lol Now linkhave a request. lolka
7 lol Take link top off Was link next response. lolka
8 lol Mandy was now linksex partner. lolka
9 lol ‘Fuck me, fuck my pussy’ linkgasped. lolka
10 lol ‘Fuck me, fuck my pussy’ linkgasped. lolka
11 lol ” link continued linkstory. lolka
12 lol ” link lowered link head and frowned. lolka
13 lol What are doing?, link asked demanded. lolka
14 lol ”She questioned, “Yes, link should. lolka
15 lol ‘I’ll gladly do linkmyself’. lolka
16 lol No, link certainly didnt. lolka
17 lol Well link was Thursday afternoon. lolka
18 lol He then assisted Mandy to linkchair. lolkz
19 lol ‘Fuck me, fuck my pussy’ linkgasped. lolkv
20 lol link somehow manged to say Yes gran. lolkv
21 lol link somehow manged to say Yes gran. lolkb
22 lol ”She questioned, “Yes, link should. lolkb
23 lol No, link certainly didnt. lolkz
24 lol linkwas smitten there and then. lolkv
25 lol ‘What did linkget’? ’Dell XPS’. lolkv
26 lol link was instructed to get behind her. lolkb
27 lol link flicked on the nightstand light. lolkz
28 lol Know something, linklove linkDaddy. lolkv
29 lol ‘I’ll gladly do linkmyself’. lolkv
30 lol linkfor one don’t plan to tell anyone. lolkb
31 lol link was instructed to get behind her. lolkb
32 lol Suddenly link had an idea. lolkz
33 lol Then link saw what link did to me. lolkv
34 lol linklove linktight cunt. lolkv
35 lol link flicked on the nightstand light.OMZ
36 lol ”She questioned, “Yes, link should.OMZ
37 lol link was very terrified now.OMZ
38 lol ‘You look surprised’ linkpouted.OMZ
39 lol You make linkso fucking hot.OMZ
40 lol link flicked on the nightstand light.OMZ
41 lol linkfelt really weird about it.OMZ
42 lol It was the best 500 link ever spent.OMZ
43 lol She announced, Are link ready slut?.OMZ
44 lol Suddenly link had an idea.OMZ
45 lol ”She questioned, “Yes, link should.OMZ
46 lol It was the best 500 link ever spent.OMZ
47 lol However link looked expensive.OMZ
48 lol So linkdid.OMZ
49 lol Let linkget a closer look.OMZ
50 lol See linkin a few minutes.OMZ
51 lol link was very terrified now.OMZ
52 lol linkwas smitten there and then.OMZ
53 lol I want link to suck link cock.OMZ
54 lol No, link certainly didnt.OMZ
55 lol She kissed linksoftly in response.OMZ
56 lol ‘Don’t make linktoo obvious’.OMZ
57 lol ‘Don’t make linktoo obvious’.OMZ
58 lol ‘What about linkfriends?’ linkasked.OMZ
59 lol linkfelt a total idiot.OMZ
60 lol See linkin a few minutes.OMZ
61 lol Know something, linklove linkDaddy.OMZ
62 lol Daddy pulls linkbody over atop of him.OMZ
63 lol Oh honey, linkfeel so good in my arms.OMZ
64 lol What are doing?, link asked demanded.OMZ
65 lol ‘Don’t make linktoo obvious’.OMZ
66 lol Mandy flashes linkDad a sultry smile.OMZ
67 lol Then link saw what link did to me.OMZ
68 lol link flicked on the nightstand light.OMZ
69 lol And link could do nothing.OMZ
70 lol He caressed link breasts and stomach.OMZ
71 lol Mandy was now linksex partner.OMZ
72 lol She was the love of linklife.OMZ
73 lol Next he had link pull my briefs down.OMZ
74 lol linklove linktight cunt.OMZ
75 lol And link could do nothing.OMZ
76 lol He observed linkactions.OMZ
77 lol Thats just like link grandpa.OMZ
78 lol link had huge tits, huge.OMZZ
79 lol What are doing?, link asked demanded.OMZZ
80 lol She announced, Are link ready slut?.OMZZZ
81 lol ‘Don’t make linktoo obvious’.OMAZZ
82 lol However link looked expensive.OMZZ
83 lol ”“Okay baby, see linkthen.OMZZ
84 lol It was the best 500 link ever spent.OMZZZ
85 lol He then took link suit to the cleaners.OMAZZ
86 lol ”She questioned, “Yes, link should.OMAZZ
87 lol linkhope that don’t bother you.OMZZ
88 lol He observed linkactions.OMZZ
89 lol She was the love of linklife.OMZZZ
90 lol “Darling linkneed to get some sleep.OMAZZ
91 lol Suddenly link had an idea.OMZ132
92 lol Take link top off Was link next response.OMZ233
93 lol ‘Fuck me, fuck my pussy’ linkgasped.OMZ132
94 lol Daddy pulls linkbody over atop of him.OMZ132
95 lol ” link lowered link head and frowned.OMZ222
96 lol Now linkhave a request.OMZ222
97 lol link wasnt tied.OMZ233
98 lol ”“Okay baby, see linkthen.OMZ132
99 lol “Oh baby, linkhave a perfect pussy.OMZ132
100 lol ‘It’s OK’ linkreplied.OMZ222
101 lol She leaned over and caressed link arm.OMZ233
102 lol She announced, Are link ready slut?.OMZ233
103 lol link was very terrified now.OMZ132
104 lol He then assisted Mandy to linkchair.OMZ222
105 lol linkhope that don’t bother you.OMZ233
106 lol ”She questioned, “Yes, link should.OMZ132
107 lol She kissed linksoftly in response.OMZ132
108 lol Daddy pulls linkbody over atop of him.OMZ222
109 lol You make linkso fucking hot.OMZ233
110 lol link somehow manged to say Yes gran.OMZ233

Detachability

Any chance of a quick rundown on detachability? IMO, that's where a lot of controversy about CSI lies. For example, if the item being looked at is the string "Methinks it is like a weasel" (to pick a completely random example), which of the following specifications is detached?

'The phrase "Methinks it is like a weasel"'
'A phrase in English'
'A phrase in a human language'
'A string that I recognise as having meaning'
'A string that I recognise as being in some way interesting'

Critics of CSI would generally claim that only the last one is truly detached because, if the next string you were shown was "QWERTYUIOP", you'd probably think that that also had high CSI (so the underlying specification that you're testing the strings against must include both of these).

Anyway, debate over the validity of CSI is probably an issue for another day, I just wanted to highlight the importance of detachedness. Will shut up now. [Corkscrew]

OK, I'll add an extra point which I've just noticed. When I've seen specifications defined on UncommonDescent.com, the level of specification chosen has apparently correlated strongly with the perceived "coolness" of the object at that level (see, for example, this discussion). That would mean that the CSI argument basically boiled down to "it's very cool, hence it couldn't have evolved", which would then be pretty much identical to the classic Creationist argument from incredulity. To conclude: we really need that definition of detachability! -- Corkscrew 05:11, 29 March 2006 (CST)

Actually Dembski seems to have decided to dispense entirely with the idea of detachability in his latest discussion. I'm still trying to sort out what the crucial differences between this and previous treatments such as No Free Lunch are (also only a third year maths student, so it takes a bit of muddling through) --Arctura 07:36, 29 March 2006 (CST)

Really? That's kind of a shame - I actually thought it was a pretty neat idea, despite not agreeing with his conclusions. -- Corkscrew 11:36, 29 March 2006 (CST)

The question is whether this article will be based on Dembski's latest paper or on his previous work. In the paper referred to by Arctura:

Detachability is dispensed with, as Arctura noted.
Conditional independence is subsumed by pattern simplicity.
Specificity is a function of improbability as well as simplicity, so it doesn't make sense to present specificity and complexity as separate components. The only difference between specificity and specified complexity is a constant of 400 bits.

It should also be noted that Dembski has explicitly stated that SC is subjective, contrary to the first sentence in this article.

secondclass

We should base this article on his latest work. Secondclass, could you put some clean-up proposals on this talk page, and if those watching this page have no quams, post your proposals? -- JosephCCampana 08:28, 27 June 2006 (CDT)

Thanks for the invite, Joseph, but I'm probably not the right person. I consider specified complexity to be an ill-defined subset of algorithmic information theory with no practical utility. --Secondclass 15:28, 27 June 2006 (CDT)

Secondclass, thank you for your honesty. It may be too late for thinking it has no practical utility. -- JosephCCampana 15:45, 27 June 2006 (CDT)

Joseph, I'm familiar with Horst's papers. His metric is loosely based on Dembski's SC, but is his metric useful, or even useable?

I know of nobody, not even Dembski, who has ever calculated the specified complexity of anything according to Dembski's formula. Likewise, I'm not aware of anyone, including Horst, who has ever calculated the Native Intelligence Metric of any system. Note that Horst's NIM consists of two numbers, both of which he says are essential, but in the paper you referenced he completely skips the calculation of the first number. All he calculates is the probability of the system behaving correctly by random chance, rendering his example nothing more than a trivial probability analysis.

--Secondclass 17:29, 27 June 2006 (CDT)

I don't know if Dembski and Horst would agree, but you are entitled to your own analysis. Once we get around to making an article about Horst's NIM, I invite you to submit a criticism. Regards, JosephCCampana.

In Specification ... Dembski writes p. 33:

The underlying pattern here [the Champernowne sequence], in virtue of its descriptive simplicity, is therefore tractable with respect to information that is conditionally independent of any actual coin tossing event. In The Design Inference, I referred to this relation between tractability and conditional independence as detachability and used detachability to define specification. But given that descriptive simplicity instantly yields conditional independence, detachability itself becomes a dispensable concept once descriptive simplicity supplants tractability in the definition of specification.

Apparently the meaning is that descriptive simplicity replaces both tractability and detachability. As I have understood matters (and I might have misunderstood them!), tractability refers to the ability of an observer to generate a pattern at random. For instance, if the observer has a vocabulary of 100,000 words and has to generate a certain specification N words long, the computational complexity would be of order N^100,000; that is, exponential and therefore intractable. To generate the specification the observer would need to derive it from the event, and the specification is therefore not detachable (independent of the event).

IOW, Dembski has cleaned up the terminology, which is good (in particular for those of us that haven't read his earlier works :-)).

I would suggest that the article uses the current definition, but also gives a short definition of the older terminology, because these terms still float around on the Internet.

--FreezBee 10:58, 28 June 2006 (CDT)