Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligent Design in Universities
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 151 of 310 (205574)
05-06-2005 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by paisano
05-06-2005 11:16 AM


Re:Jar's Coins
It seems to me that we need to raise the discussion to the level where JAR's question returns a determinate answer. I would be just as "happy" using "H" for '++' and "T" for '>>' 1-D symmetries thus if the microstates were properly delimited we might get to some estimates no other place/publisher has produced. In other terms, the distribution of the four T's might contain "more" information distributed to the right than randomly "mutated" throughout the sequence in a cosmopolitan species than one with limited geographic distribution where even the pure H pattern might contain most. Who knows??
Perhaps evc needs more posters with more diverse abilities to achieve this possibility. Of course if we are only subjectively each individually thinking what the the information might be "more of/for" we can not even get here with such addition(s) of contributions. I tend to think one list might give MORE with respect to showing that Wright's adapative landscape is not incomprehensible and does work. I dont know enough quantum to say if this discussion would suggest changes to physics sensu stricto or only exists (if)in the division of macrostates only. I wouldnt think quarks were needed but I could be wrong as to the effect of hierarchical thermodyanmics IN phenomenological thermo...
I have wondered if these illustrations of Langmuir might not assist in tentatively proceeding.
I also thought laughingly that L might have digrammed Cornell's Football Field rather than an actual mixture of chemicals.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 05-06-2005 12:13 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by paisano, posted 05-06-2005 11:16 AM paisano has not replied

Limbo
Inactive Member


Message 152 of 310 (205608)
05-06-2005 1:02 PM


One thing that is abundantly clear is that right or wrong Jerry is using science to argue ID...just has his opponents use science to argue against him.
The scientific community at large needs to stop writing it off as nothing more than creationism.
This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-06-2005 01:03 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by kjsimons, posted 05-06-2005 1:09 PM Limbo has not replied
 Message 154 by PaulK, posted 05-06-2005 2:05 PM Limbo has not replied

kjsimons
Member
Posts: 821
From: Orlando,FL
Joined: 06-17-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 153 of 310 (205611)
05-06-2005 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Limbo
05-06-2005 1:02 PM


Actually Jerry is mis-using science to argue ID. And no the scentific communuity at large is correct to write off ID as merely creationism in disguise until such time as ID proponents can come up with a falsifiable hypothesis of ID.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Limbo, posted 05-06-2005 1:02 PM Limbo has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 154 of 310 (205621)
05-06-2005 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Limbo
05-06-2005 1:02 PM


quote:
One thing that is abundantly clear is that right or wrong Jerry is using science to argue ID...just has his opponents use science to argue against him.
The scientific community at large needs to stop writing it off as nothing more than creationism.
Since the same could be said for creationists like Robert Gentry and Russell Humphreys this is hardly a point which distinguishes ID from creationism. Indeed the argument that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics contradicts evolution is an old favourite of creationists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Limbo, posted 05-06-2005 1:02 PM Limbo has not replied

Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 155 of 310 (205646)
05-06-2005 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by jar
05-06-2005 10:30 AM


Re: The Entropy of Flipped Coins
quote:
I look on a table and find three groupings of US quarters.
What color is the table?
Oh no, just kidding. Group 1 would be the most specified because it has the lowest odds of occurring. If we look up the word information at dictionary.com we can see that one definition of it is the probability of an experimental outcome. So I would feel pretty comfortable going with that.

Design Dynamics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by jar, posted 05-06-2005 10:30 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by jar, posted 05-06-2005 3:45 PM Jerry Don Bauer has replied
 Message 158 by kjsimons, posted 05-06-2005 4:01 PM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 156 of 310 (205648)
05-06-2005 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-06-2005 3:43 PM


Re: The Entropy of Flipped Coins
I did not ask that question.
I asked "Which group contains the greatest amount of information and why?"

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-06-2005 3:43 PM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-06-2005 4:54 PM jar has replied

Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 157 of 310 (205656)
05-06-2005 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by PaulK
05-06-2005 8:23 AM


quote:
My point is that you can't assume that configurational entropy operates in the same way as thermodynamic entropy under the rules you've defined. In the situation described there is NO tendency for the measure of configurational entropy to increase. It can only decrease.
Yes I can, because it does. What is the difference between matter and energy? Einstein said they are the same because E = MC^2.
Thermodynamic entropy deals only with energy, configurational, only with the arrangements of matter. In fact, both have been used together in the same formula expressed as total S= S(c) + S(t). I'm not doing anything new here.
quote:
Let us say that we have m + n coins with m heads and n tails.
The probability of a mutation producing no change is:
0.5 * m/(m + n) + 0.5 * n/(m + n) = 0.5
In any case but the minimum entropy case there is a non-zero probability of a decrease in entropy, so the general tendency is for S2 <= S1 in all but that case.
What is that math. Paul? Can you show me where you got it? It doesn't make a lick of sense. You didn't calculate any entropy because you didn't take the log of anything. Nothing you plug into n and m will ever equal .5.
quote:
And worse still for your case it is not argued in evolutionary circles that the general tendency is for mutations to be beneficial rather than detrimental.
Back that up because nothing could be further from the truth.

Design Dynamics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by PaulK, posted 05-06-2005 8:23 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by PaulK, posted 05-06-2005 5:05 PM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

kjsimons
Member
Posts: 821
From: Orlando,FL
Joined: 06-17-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 158 of 310 (205657)
05-06-2005 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-06-2005 3:43 PM


Re: The Entropy of Flipped Coins
Actually, if the order is important (and it appears it is), then all three groupings are equally likely (or unlikely) to occur. But like Jar said, that's not what he asked.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-06-2005 3:43 PM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied

Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 159 of 310 (205676)
05-06-2005 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by paisano
05-06-2005 11:16 AM


Re: The Entropy of Flipped Coins
quote:
Speak for yourself. You're just sort of slinging unrelated thermodynamics around, but have yet to construct a coherent case for why your argument is evidence for anything. You've made physics mistakes, and you've made biology mistakes. I think your argument depends on insisting the mistakes aren't really mistakes, and collapses if you admit they are mistakes. But try again, omitting the mistakes, if you like.
There you go again accusing me of making mistakes without being able to state what they are. Why do you repeatedly do this?
quote:
This logical entropy appears to be a creationist/IDist invention. It certainly is not physics. There is thermodynamic entropy, there is Shannon information entropy, and there is Kolmogorov entropy, which has applications in chaos theory.
They aren't interchangeable, and the 2LOT only applies to the thermodynamic entropy, so you can't invoke it if you are going to make arguments based on Shannon entropy, as you appear to be attempting to do.
Perhaps logical entropy represents the tendency of creationist/IDist arguments to become ever more incoherent with their duration?
LOL...You are a case. The site I sent you to was constructed by Brig Klyce a foaming-at the-mouth anti-creationist, atheist.
Why won't you research this? When I plug the term logical entropy into Google, almost 400 pages come up.
"Landauer realized that if the binary value of a bit is unknown, erasing the bit
changes the logical entropy of the system from klog2 to klog1 = 0 (shrinking the phase space available to the system has decreased the entropy by klog2)."
And look at 3 PhDs in materials science using thermodynamic entropy and configurational entropy in the same formula:
S = k ln Omegath(Omegac) = k lnOmegath + k lnOmegac = Sth + Sc
http://www.ldolphin.org/mystery/chapt8.html
quote:
Exactly my point.
Oh. The fact that the formula you wanted to use is "normally used to quantify thermodynamic reservoirs rather than what we are discussing" was exactly your point? Then why did you throw it out?
I give up. You have not backed up anything you have posted with references because THERE ARE NONE. I'm afraid you are not well enough versed in this area of physics to even discuss it, yet you think you know it all. I don't know how to deal with that.
So, I will thank you for your time and you may have the last comment.

Design Dynamics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by paisano, posted 05-06-2005 11:16 AM paisano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by paisano, posted 05-06-2005 5:36 PM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 160 of 310 (205677)
05-06-2005 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by jar
05-06-2005 3:45 PM


Re: The Entropy of Flipped Coins
[/quote]I asked "Which group contains the greatest amount of information and why?"[quote] Well gee. I told you group one and then why, because the specificity is higher. Did you misread the post?

Design Dynamics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by jar, posted 05-06-2005 3:45 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by jar, posted 05-06-2005 4:56 PM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 161 of 310 (205679)
05-06-2005 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-06-2005 4:54 PM


Re: The Entropy of Flipped Coins
Is order important or not?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-06-2005 4:54 PM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-06-2005 5:00 PM jar has replied

Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 162 of 310 (205680)
05-06-2005 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by jar
05-06-2005 4:56 PM


Re: The Entropy of Flipped Coins
quote:
Is order important or not?
LOL, it's important to me, I guess. What kind of question is that? What is your point?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by jar, posted 05-06-2005 4:56 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by jar, posted 05-06-2005 5:06 PM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 163 of 310 (205682)
05-06-2005 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-06-2005 3:58 PM


Oh dear, I think this conversation is taking a turn for the worse.
1) Since in the situation I described the configurational entropy can decrease (and has a probability of 0.5 of doing so) and cannot increase then it follows that there cannot be a law which states that the configurational entropy will tend to increase in that situation.
That being the case your version of the 2LotD does not apply.
2) I am sorry for assuming that you actually understood basic probability theory. Or indeed the table you presented.
There is no need to calculate any logarithms because all we need to do is observe that the entropy increases the closer the number of heads and the number of tails are to each other. Thus any change which makes the numbers closer will increase entropy and any change which makes them further apart will decrease it.
So, I am generalising my previous example to cover all sequences - taking m as the number of heads and n as the number of tails. Thus if we randomly choose a coin the probability of it being a a head is m/(m + n) (m heads and m + n coins). The probability of it being a tail is n(m + n) (n tails and m + n coins).
When the coin is flipped again the probability of it not changing state is 0.5 in each case.
The probability that the entropy remains unchanged is the probability of choosing a head and getting a head on the flip or of choosing a tail and getting a tail on the flip.
This is therefore 0.5 * m/(m + n) + 0.5 n/(m + n) = 0.5
To get a decrease in the entropy we need to pick a coin in the less common state and for the flip to change it.
The probability of that is 0.5 * min(m, n)/(m + n) which will be non-zero for all m,n where m > 0 and n > 0
Thus for all cases where both m and n are greater than zero "mutating" the sequence by choosing a coin and flipping it again will not tend to increase the entropy. The probability of an increase in entropy is always less than 0.5.
3) I'm sorry also that you are unfamiliar with basic evolutionary theory. Since a simple reference is in order try this:
Are Mutations Harmful?
"What is the net result," you may ask. Some mutations are fatal or very bad. These mutations get eliminated immediately. Some are silent and don't count. Sometimes a mutation is definitely advantageous; this is rare but it does happen. Almost all mutations which aren't silent and which aren't eliminated immediately are neither completely advantageous nor deleterious. The mutation produces a slightly different protein, and the cell and the living organism work slightly differently. Whether the mutation is helpful or harmful depends on the environment; it could be either.
Now why don't you back up YOUR assertion that the opposite is true ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-06-2005 3:58 PM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-06-2005 5:35 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 171 by Brad McFall, posted 05-06-2005 5:54 PM PaulK has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 164 of 310 (205683)
05-06-2005 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-06-2005 5:00 PM


Re: The Entropy of Flipped Coins
Is the order of the coins important in determining the amount of information in each group of coins?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-06-2005 5:00 PM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-06-2005 5:12 PM jar has replied

Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 165 of 310 (205685)
05-06-2005 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by jar
05-06-2005 5:06 PM


Re: The Entropy of Flipped Coins
quote:
Is the order of the coins important in determining the amount of information in each group of coins?
Depends on what you are looking at. One guy stated that they are all equiprobable and from one aspect he is correct.
But group 2 and 3 appeared more random to me. So, looking at specificity of the information, group one would be highest information if I have to pick one, which is the game I assume I'm playing.
But looking at configurational entropy, group 1 is the lowest. So you are going to have to get specific.
This message has been edited by Jerry Don Bauer, 05-06-2005 05:13 PM

Design Dynamics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by jar, posted 05-06-2005 5:06 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by jar, posted 05-06-2005 5:17 PM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024