The EricMH Information Argument and Simulation

Conversation Side Conversation
11

So this is mix of well established notation and terms, with very clear meaning, and biological terms with no precise analogue in information theory. The core of your claim is the equation, which is (at this point) merely an unjustified and untested hypothesis. Several things missing from this argument:

  1. Demonstration that this equation is correct, either (or both) by proof and/or simulation: I(X:Y) \geq I(E(X):Y),

  2. Definition of “complex organism” and “simple organism” in precise information theoretic terms. This gets to one of the common fudge terms in most ID arguments “complexity.” You have define this with ruthless precision, and ensure it maps precisely to the information theoretic analogue you are claiming. failing this, it is not valid.

  3. Logical reasoning explanation why it matters if the equation is true: I(X:Y) \geq I(E(X):Y). If you are using the way it seems you are, it is a tautology followed by a sequitur, almost like saying “because 2 > 1 by definition, evolution is false.” Though you have not even laid your reasoning, so it is not clear.

  4. Related to the prior point, why would mutual information here?

  5. You defined evolution as “some combination of algorithmic processing and randomness injection.” This is an idiosyncratic definition that neither

  6. An explanation (and demonstration) of why algoirthmic mutual information is the right type of information tor this question.

  7. There is a critically important distinction between theoretic algorithmic information (which is uncomputable), and computable algorithmic information (which is always greater than the former). The two are very different, and algebraic manipulations using each one are different. Which one is being referenced here? It is common in ID arguments to use switch between these two definitions (without notice) in the proofs or application.

  8. If this is your own argument, fine. If you are trying communicate one of Dembski or Marks or Durston’s arguments (etc.), something is being lost in translation. It would be helpful to know if you think you are repeating an established argument, or putting forward one of your own.

At minimum, those question need to be answered to even make sense of what you are putting forward. You have a lot of work to do to even lay out your case, let alone make your case.

Finally, I’m fairly certain that I can produce a clear counter example that falsifies the equation, at least according to the rules of information theory.

1 Like