For outstanding faith in the evolution of primordial goo we present this prestigious award.. Oops, I am sorry... that's "Golden Woo" not "Golden Goo" HA.

Mike Egnor's reply

## Thursday, January 29, 2009

## Wednesday, January 07, 2009

### The Jeff Shallit's "Information" (but really raw K-complexity) Quiz.

Jeff Shallit..

According to Shallit however..

Jeff Shallit continues...

In order to complete Shannon and Komogorov's theories, the

If there is no

Information(A) is always information "about" something (B). Randomness is not information "about" anything. Graphically now, "in-FORM-ation" is K-complex on the "y" axis while being irreducibly K-simple (ordered/formed) on the "x" axis. A random string is just naked/raw K-complexity. The introduction of

As I see it..

In Q1 Jeff is trying to defend RANDOM gene duplications.

In Q2 Jeff is trying to defend RANDOM point mutations.

In Q3 Jeff is trying to defend RANDOM gene deletions.

In Q4 Jeff is trying to defend RANDOM gene shuffling/rearrangement.

In Q5 Jeff is trying to defend RANDOM gene shuffling/recombination.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

No. While

"Q1: Can information be created by gene duplication or polyploidy? More specifically, if x is a string of symbols, is it possible for xx to contain more information than x?"

**K-complexity may indeed be increased, raw K-complexity is***raw/naked***not**information. The second x is just a**repeat**of the information in the first and it can therefore be compressed back into the first x. The first x, however, as an optimized information string, cannot be further compressed without**information loss**. --*The fact that there are two x's (instead of one), is a system-level information(fact), not information contained in x.*No. While"Q2: Can information be created by point mutations? More specifically, if xay is a string of symbols, is it possible that xby contains significantly more information? Here a, b are distinct symbols, and x, y are strings."

**K-complexity may indeed be increased, random (unspecified) mutations can only destroy information. Point mutations are -- by definition -- uncorrelated and non-symbolic (at the level in question). The replacement of "a" (a correlated, coordinated specified symbol) with "b" (an uncorrelated, uncoordinated, unspecified{random} character) at very least, negates the information contained in "a" and may well damage the rest of the string -- a string that may well depend critically upon "a."***raw*No. While"Q3: Can information be created by deletion? More specifically, if xyz is a string of symbols, is it possible that xz contains signficantly more information?"

**raw**K-compexity may again be increased. The loss of functioning symbol "y" constitutes a loss of information.No. "Random rearrangement/purmutation" ALONE always replaces coordinated (non random) information with uncoordinated (random) events and information is almost always lost. While"Q4: Can information be created by random rearrangement? More specifically, if x is a string of symbols, is it possible that some permutation of x contains significantly more information?"

**raw**K-compexity may indeed be increased, this**is***raw K-complexity***not**information and is wholly parasitic upon the underlying system level of complexity.No. This question is somewhat ambiguous however. Is that A: "an imperfect shuffle of two strings of information", or B: "an imperfect shuffle of two strings of meaningless binary digits?" In both cases however the answer is no. Unless the information (A:) is suitably protected, a sustained RANDOM shuffling will only decrease information. While"Q5. Can information be created by recombination? More specifically, let x and y be strings of the same length, and let s(x, y) be any single string obtained by "shuffling" x and y together. Here I do not mean what is sometimes called "perfect shuffle", but rather a possibly imperfect shuffle where x and y both appear left-to-right in s(x, y) , but not necessarily contiguously. For example, a perfect shuffle of 0000 and 1111 gives 01010101, and one possible non-perfect shuffle of 0000 and 1111 is 01101100. Can an imperfect shuffle of two strings have more information than the sum of the information in each string?"

**K-complexity may once again be increased by this action, raw***raw***unspecified**K-complexity is**not**specified/correlated and it is subsequently not information.According to Shallit however..

"The answer to each question is 'yes.'In fact, for questions Q2-Q5, I can even prove that the given transformation can arbitrarily increase the amount of information in the string, in the sense that there exist strings for which the given transformation increases the complexity by an arbitrarily large multiplicative factor. I won't give the proofs here, because that's part of the challenge: ask your creationist to provide a proof for each of Q1-Q5. "

**Yes**to raw K-complexity increase but**no**to semantic information increase. Proofs of raw K-complexity increase are not proofs of informational K-complexity increase.Jeff Shallit continues...

"The Kolmogorov model is incomplete. The Shannon model is also incomplete. The Shannon model needs to be supplemented with a correlational improbability and the Kolmogorov model needs to be supplemented with irreducible correlational couplings. These additions are necessary to avoid the falsehood of... "Because both random strings and information strings are K-complex (true)...therefore, randomness= information (false)." The second part of this generic statement ("randomness = information") is false. When I produced this post I did not produce aNow I asserted that creationists usually cannot answer these

questions correctly, and here is some proof.

"Q1. In his book No Free Lunch, William Dembski claimed (p. 129) that "there is no more information in two copies of Shakespeare's Hamlet than in a single copy. This is of course patently obvious, and any formal account of information had better agree." Too bad for him that Kolmogorov complexity is a formal account of information

theory, and it does not agree. "

"Q2. Lee Spetner and the odious Ken Ham are fond of claiming that mutations cannot increase information. And this creationist web page flatly claims that "No mutation has yet been found that increased the genetic information." All of them are wrong in the Kolmogorov model of information."

"Q4. R. L. Wysong, in his book The Creation-Evolution Controversy, claimed (p. 109) that "random rearrangements in DNA would result in loss of DNA information". Wrong in the Kolmogorov model."

**random**string of letters. Instead I produced**information -**a textual (B) correlation of what I have in my mind(A).In order to complete Shannon and Komogorov's theories, the

**extended/projected**nature of information must be mathematically formalized. I have proposed doing this by means of a correlational improbability figure in Shannon's theory and irreducible coupling for information in Kolmogorov's theory.If there is no

**correlation**between the**email that you send your friend and the information he/she receives then the "extention"(from A to B) has failed and the****information**has been lost. "**Information**" thus depends critically upon**correlational integrity**(input to output mapping)**. Randomness is not correlated/coordinated (by definition) and does not depend on correlational integrity. Randomness depends upon lack of correlation.**Information(A) is always information "about" something (B). Randomness is not information "about" anything. Graphically now, "in-FORM-ation" is K-complex on the "y" axis while being irreducibly K-simple (ordered/formed) on the "x" axis. A random string is just naked/raw K-complexity. The introduction of

**random**events into the DNA information string is a loosing proposition.As I see it..

In Q1 Jeff is trying to defend RANDOM gene duplications.

In Q2 Jeff is trying to defend RANDOM point mutations.

In Q3 Jeff is trying to defend RANDOM gene deletions.

In Q4 Jeff is trying to defend RANDOM gene shuffling/rearrangement.

In Q5 Jeff is trying to defend RANDOM gene shuffling/recombination.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)