We Are Mystified by Eric Holloway

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@EricMH

Never once I have challenged LoING.

Err, since the beginning you kept claiming you could falsify it. After awhile you changed your position to be that it was not empirically applicable. But, that’s water under the bridge.

No. You misunderstood me. Please show me any quotes that show I was arguing against the law of non information growth. I would like to see them. That is one of the great things about having this exchange on a forum. We can go back and look at what was said. Please show many any quotes that you think show I contested the law of no-information growth.

I never did.

In fact, I explained it and proved it several times. I repeated over and over again the problem was your application of it to the empirical domain. You frequently forgot this, and I had to repeat it again. Not what I wrote on August 10th, at the very beginning of our many exchanges:

@swamidass

• 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.

Remember why we went down the path of simulation?

@swamidass

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.

And here, I mean in the empirical domain. As is clear from the context I just quoted.

@EricMH

This seems a very strong assertion. Prima facie it seems false.

Prima facia it seems true to me, as a person who works with biological data all the time. You often note that you do not know much about biology. Why should we trust your instincts over mine?

@EricMH

Also, I’m not going to make any character statements here, but it at least seems you are more eager to turn people against ID than you are to make a honest effort to understand ID. I see this in how you jumped on my concession in this thread. But, this may just be my perception.

It is your perception. I’m trying to help you.

@pnelson is a good friend of mine. He has said many times that one role I can play for ID is to help you root out your bad arguments. If you want ID to be taken seriously, you need to ruthlessly slaughter every bad argument in the ID camp. It will be a blood bath, and I’ve been one of the few scholars willing to help you with this.

Remember, I do not reject design. God created us. He designed us all. At the same time, fallacious arguments do great damage to our understanding of truth. I do not believe God wants fallacious arguments from us. The information arguments for ID are a lot like:

We know God designed us, because 1 + 1 = 3.

I see no value in protecting these arguments. Remember, also, from the beginning the claim has been that only intelligence can produce MI in DNA. It turns out that common descent can too, precisely as I have been saying from the beginning. This was blindingly obvious to me. It was obvious to @dga471, and others here too, as they were immediately able to follow the logic of information theory as I laid it out.

In contrast, It has taken an immense amount of effort to bring you along. It seems it has required unlearning many things. The only reason I’m doing that is with people like @pnelson in mind. I am doing this to help you in a way that only a friend could do for you.

Be ruthless in shedding the bad arguments. Maybe thing you’ll sift through it all and find a good argument. So I am here to help you. Not to hurt you.