Peter Pike and Calvinist Information Theory

Peter Pike's wrestling with the concepts of information theory and algorithmic complexity over here. He thinks there's something fishy with the idea of random strings being more complex than repetitive or structured strings. Let's take a look at his analysis...

Unfortunately for T-Stone, if he paid attention to what he has written here he’d see that he’s soundly refuted Dawkins. After all, if maximal randomness is equivalent to maximal complexity, then it is easy for me to write a program that will generate completely random output.

That's quite a claim, Peter. Do you know what's involved in writing a program that generates completely random output? It's a tricky problem, and "complete randomness" ends up having the program access some physical process external to the virtual environment -- radioactive decay events are often chosen as the source of random input. The system calls in your OS's standard libraries are pseudo-random, not "completely random", and without adding in additional code to address the problem, quite predictable and repeatable in many cases. Even then, if you look at the code you are invoking by a single call to rand(), you'll see it doesn't come for free, even pseudo-random data generation.

But it's important keep our points of reference intact, here. It's the design argument that objects to the idea of emergent complexity, and materialist interpretations of our history promote the idea that complexity emerges, and that in some cases, simpler configurations give rise to more complex configurations. If humans can point back to single-celled organisms as their ancestors, relying on impersonal, natural processes, clearly there are mechanisms and dynamics involved that will produce increasing complexity over time. This is why science supposes the design argument is a vacuous one. Dawkins "Ultimate 747" argument explicitly opposes the design argument, appealing to "crane" processes, and descrying "skyhook" processes as absurdities.

In other words, it is easy for me—a person who is not maximally complex—to produce a program with output that is maximally complex. Thus, if we want to play T-Stone’s game and use complexity in this sense, then Dawkin’s argument must be surrendered.

This is wrong in several ways. First, you are not a 1,000x,1,000 pixel grid, Peter. So, while such a grid populated by random values is maximally complex, it doesn't have nearly the scope a system as complex as a human being has, so in absolute terms, it's shy by multiple orders of magnitude. The random grid is as complex as it can be, for its size, but it's infinitesimal in size in comparison to a complete description of a human.

Second, there's a profound difference between a program that produces random output, and a program that (re)produces a given output that in this case happens to be random. For example, this bit of code has almost no algorithmic complexity:

int main()
{
 for(i= 0; i < 1000; i++) 
 {
    for(j= 0; j < 1000; j++)
       cout << rand() ;
 }
}

This program will produce 1,000x1,000 output of random integers (or pixel values), but it will produce a different output every time. Algorithmic complexity is a measure of the instructions needed to render a given, specific output, so this code would be a "disqualified" in terms of measuring complexity, Kolmogorov-style. It is incapable of rendering the output requested of it. In order to produce a given string, one that is provided and is non-compressible (random), the program needs to "echo" every single value, making the program scale linearly with the size of the output. So, in order to reproduce this string "99585249515829886853", something like this is needed programmatically:

int main()
{
 cout << '9';
 cout << '9'; 
 cout << '5';
 cout << '8';
 cout << '5';
 cout << '2';
 cout << '4';
 cout << '5';
 cout << '1';
 cout << '5';
 // ... etc, shortened for brevity

}

So, in order to achieve the alogorithmic complexity needed for any given random output, Peter would need to "handcode" every value in the output. This is why we say a random string has maximal algorithmic complexity -- it defines algorithmic abstraction, and requires "hand-made" output echoes for every discrete value.

Third, Peter has gotten so wrapped around the axle of information theory that he has apparently who is arguing for the plausibility of emergent complexity. Just so we're straight, Peter, it's the materialist explanation that embraces emergent complexity, the progression from more simple configurations to more complex ones, and without any personal oversight or intervention. It is theistic arguments that cannot accept emergent complexity that lead to absurdities -- "skyhooks", as Dawkins calls them.

If I can make a program that is more complex than I am, then God can create a universe that is more complex than He is.

That may be! But it proves to much for the theist, as it makes God superfluous -- that was what the design argument aimed at, remember, demonstrating the necessity of God. If simpler can give rise to complex, then we have Dawkins' "crane", and the design argument is defeated. A simple, singularity can unfold to unfathomable complexity, and that is what materialist cosmologies and evolutionary biologies propose.

FWIW, I disagree with T-Stone’s version of information and complexity.

Well, then this would be a fine opportunity for Peter to show he isn't just BSing once again, and give us his "version of information and complexity". How do you define 'information' and 'complexity', Peter? How do you measure each?

And despite what his post would lead you to believe, the idea that “maximal randomness = maximal complexity” is not true for all information theories.

The competing theories are conspicuous in the absence, here, Peter. What alternative information/complexity theory do you embrace/propose, if not that of Shannon, Kolmogorov and Chaitin. If you've got something better, or even roughly equivalent, you'll be famous by Friday.

And in fact, if I were to use T-Stone’s definition of complexity then I would ask him to explain not why there is so much complexity in the universe, but rather why there is so little complexity.

Peter, how little is there? And how much do you calculate there should be? If you give me the calculations for your expectations, and your calculation for the actuals, I can try to give you an account for the difference, looking at your maths. As is it, I suspect you have no clue what you are talking about in terms of your request.

If complexity = randomness, then it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that there’s a lot of the universe that is not random, and therefore there is a lot of this universe that is not complex. Under his information theory, randomness is the default. We do not need to explain random data. We do need to explain structured and ordered data. Therefore, we do not need to explain complexity; we need to explain non-complexity.

I have no idea what "randomness is the default" -- it's a seemingly random thing to assert, here. Be that as it may, noone with any expertise or even casual knowledge of the involved sciences is promoting the idea that the "universe is random". That's a creationist bogeyman, a concept alien to science. Our understanding of the universe identifies sources of randomness, combined with uniform constraints that provide structure. A combination of random "inputs" then, filtered through structuralizing processes, producing (often) complex outputs. The timing of decay events in a radioactive isotope is random at the event level, but the physical laws that randomness operates within produce a very nice logarithmic curve in charting the production of daughter isotopes, over time and statistically significant instances. Randomness driving structured output through physical constraints.

T-Stone is just giving a sleight of hand here. It would be like a mathematician saying "a > b" and having T-Stone say, "The greater than sign is inverted with the less than sign, therefore 'a > b' means 'a is less than b'."

This is complete nonsense. What is the 'sleight of hand' here, Peter? I've not inverted any operator semantics, nor can I identify anything that maps to "operator inversion". I'm deploying the concepts of information theory and algorithmic complexity in completely uncontroversial fashion, using them as they are used day in and day out by people who understand and work with information and algorithmic complexity everyday, for purposes mundane and sublime.

Butas soon as he engages in his sleight of hand, we respond: "If the greater than sign is inverted with the less than sign, then 'a > b' is no longer true, rather 'a < b' is. Inverting the operator without inverting the operands does not refute the original expression.

Complete gibberish, not matched to anything I've said. Pathetic hand-waving.

Suit-and-Tie Atheism: And the “Church-ification” of the Godless

Let me tell you about me and my activities on a typical night off work. I wake up around 4 to 5 pm because I usually work nights and those are my hours. I get up and have a glass of iced tea, some sodas, or a few (or more) beers, depending on my taste and mood. Then I’ll grab some take-out food, which usually consists of the greasiest grub I can find (What can I say? My arteries hate me!) I live in a 750-square-foot world where the Fri-Daddy is god, where snacking on chips, whole cashews, chocolate bars, and anything peanut butter is the divine moral order, and where shrimp and bacon are only one step away from being “holy” foods. There are probably more preservatives in me than blood cells! There are as many paper cups, plastic wrappers, and empty junk-food containers in my kitchen as there are strands of carpet in the living room! At my place, it’s an ongoing battle just to keep up with throwing them all away. So it’s safe to say I’m pretty much your exuberant Class-A slob.

When I’m done eating, I go back to doing what consumes most of my pathetically anal and highly obsessive/compulsive life—reading articles, writing articles, and editing articles, both for freelance and for freethought purposes. I spend the first half of the day doing what I want and the last half of the day doing work, which includes maintaining my blogs and answering emails. In between this time, I peruse the web for documentaries, audio clips, and videos, so much so that your typical, shorthand-using, 14-year-old, internet troll has nothing on me! I also love comedy of all kinds, particularly satire, to the extent that I try daily to gratify my ominously dark and disturbing sense of humor.

But I’m always thinking, thinking when my fat ass is hold up on the recliner, thinking when that searingly hot water is running over my head and beading off my back in the shower. And I’m a tactile thinker. I like to feel myself thinking, so it’s not uncommon for me to spend some amount of money on new keyboards that provide a nice, rough feel for the tips of my fingers to motivate me to keep on writing even when I feel like crap (which is often). I love a keyboard just before the keys get shiny as the surfacing begins to rub off from frequent use! I sometimes grit my teeth as I write, whether I’m mad or not. It just feels good. I also spend a decent amount of money collecting flashlights and pens. I love to feel them. Holding them in my hands helps me to think better.

Though not often, I can be moody, but I am always all-or-nothing; what I love I love and what I hate I hate. I love a cloudy or stormy day. I love the wind whipping through my hair. I love hot peppers. I love a well-timed shot of liquor. I love the cold air’s bite on my cheeks. I love the smell of jasmine. I love doing bizarre things, like sharpening backscratchers so that the intensity of the scratch is stronger on my skin. I play with my hair and rubber bands when I’m mind-numbingly bored, and I sculpt when I’m feeling creative. I love a good game of chess. I do other things too that I won’t go into much detail on, primal things that involve members of the opposite sex and me in handcuffs, but you get the picture.

And some days, the futility of existence is just too much for me, so I don’t get out of bed at all. I just lay there until I have a headache and stare up at the ceiling for hours because I can’t find the motivation to get up. I just lay in the dark, groveling on my bed until I can’t stand it anymore. I hate a lot of things too, like cinnamon and heights and mosquitoes and needles. I never lick my fingers and I hate it when others do around me and are otherwise not germ conscious. Unlike so many atheists, I don’t care much for leftwing politics. I am somewhat of a political enigma, being pro-torture and pro-death penalty on the one hand, and pro-euthanasia and pro-abortion on the other. I don’t care about “going green” to save the planet either. It matters about as much to me as that cross on the neck of a hot-legged Catholic schoolgirl you wish you’d banged when you had the chance.

And I am plenty aware of my faults too. I am impatient, selfish, picky, and much like I do life in general, I absolutely despise large portions of the population, especially cattle-like people who never struggle with the meaning of their existence (though, in a way, I’m a bit envious of them.) I don’t really care for the poor, and the mentally deficient tend to bother me, as do most special interest groups and other near-parasitical forces of society (Hey, at least I’m honest about it!) I am a recluse, by and large, and I prefer to keep it that way.

My ultimate desire in this predictably short charade I call life is to pass on my experiences and knowledge by way of the written word. I am a student of this cruel-but-curiously-stimulating universe, and if I can pass on my observations to future generations so that they may live through them or somehow make use of them, that is perfectly delightful to me. But all of this just describes one atheist—me. It doesn’t describe all atheists, but in fact describes very few atheists.

One atheist may have nothing in common with another except for one thing: both don’t believe in a deity. That is all—end of story. There need be no other similarities between them. An atheist may be educated or uneducated, smart or stupid, kind or mean-spirited, a law-abiding citizen or an outlaw. He may be charitable or stingy, morally straight-laced or downright perverted. She may be a republican, a libertarian, or a flat-out Marxist. I keep thinking the point has been made already. It isn’t that complicated, and yet I see so little understanding of this in relations between believers and atheists.

We vocal atheists have dealt with our share of email exchanges explaining to clueless inquisitors that agnosticism is not a halfway house between atheism and theism, but only a degree of atheism; an agnostic or weak atheist is less convicted and perhaps less vocal than a positive or strong atheist. And that is what atheism is—a conviction and not a philosophy, though it is sometimes classified as a philosophy or a discipline for reference purposes in the field of philosophy. But this simple misunderstanding has done leagues to impede the progress of our debates for who knows how long.

You see this royal misinformation at work every time some Simple Simon makes reference to “the church of atheism” or “the religion of the godless.” Since atheism is strictly a negative conviction, it cannot have a church or any institution built on it with creedal beliefs or affirmative regulations that affect belief, identity, conduct, or character (which is what churches and religions have and do). And yet, even amongst my atheist comrades, these same misunderstandings are being unknowingly propagated with what I have come to call “suit-and-tie atheism.”

Suit-and-tie atheism is the vain attempt on the part of some atheists to “churchify” their godless convictions under differing militant and evangelistic banners. They show frantic worry about “making de-converts” to join us in our “fight for unbelief.” The suit-and-tie atheist is concerned especially with “coming off” right (which usually means putting on a smiley face and displaying pretentiously Christian-like behavior). The suit-and-tie atheist’s goal: they want believers to be impressed with them in hopes of winning over an on-the-fence Christian who just might say, “These cats aren’t so bad. Maybe my Christian stereotypes of atheists are wrong? I think I’ll join them in their quest for reason.” But it doesn’t happen that way, regardless of how little profanity an atheist uses or how kind and inviting an atheist is in a written or oral debate, or if an atheist chooses the term “non-theist” instead of atheist to ward off any nasty preconceptions of them.

It is very important to the suit-and-tie atheist that no atheist in their company comes off like a “village atheist”—an unsophisticated, homegrown, “I’ll believe it when I see it” type who does not continually pay lip-service to the glories of Aristotelian logic, and who doesn’t have a big interest in arguing atheism with anyone and everyone he knows. But even worse to the suit-and-tie atheist is the “angry atheist” because the angry atheist makes all other atheists look depressed and grumpy—a cardinal sin in the eyes of so many happy-go-lucky, pro-marijuana, planet-loving, Toyota Echo-driving naturalists.

Since the suit-and-tie atheist is concerned mainly with appearance and getting people to agree with him/her – always careful to be pleasant to a fault – they naturally shy away from atheists like myself who are too edgy, too rambunctious, and just too brutally honest for their taste. The suit-and-tie atheist is more like a politician, distancing himself from bad imagery, shaking hands with a big smile on his face, while patting kids on the head as he works the crowd on the campaign trail. But as noble as it sounds to try and line up atheists as charming and inviting, it’s a bad idea because it creates yet another of what should be forthrightly shunned—an unfounded stereotype.

Atheists far and wide seem to be contributing to this suit-and-tie silliness, like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett (among others), who have voiced their desire for all atheists to identify themselves as “Brights.” “The New Atheists” is another description that is catching on and becoming increasingly popular. I was always amazed as a preacher at the tendency of churches to wear denominational names and the names of religious leaders, but I am just as amazed as an atheist at how quickly and easily atheists are guilty of the very same thing. The put-your-best-foot-forward mentality, the desire to label and re-label things to reflect excellence and great personal achievement appears to be universal.

As much as I hate to burst the bloated bubbles of these highly publicized and widely adored atheists, this label-wearing malarkey has got to stop. There are no “Brights” or “New Atheists” anymore than there are “New Deists.” The term “atheist” covers everything that needs to be covered. To go further than that only feeds the already fat market of misinformation on the identity of unbelievers and what we are all about. Add to that, the term “Brights” has a mighty arrogant come-off to it, regardless of whether it was intended to have or not. Those who go around saying (by implication or otherwise), “I am bright and you are not!” to them I proudly extend a middle finger, and rightly so! And why do we need “new” atheism anyway? What was wrong with the old? In addition to being a virtual spit in the face to us behind-the-times “old” atheists, gimmicky and trendy names like these wreak of being little more than pathetic sales-pitches for a new age.

Well, how about we get back to the four basic food groups of atheism: 1) Atheism, 2) is a, 3) conviction, 4) only! And being a conviction only, it does not and cannot lead to moral excellence or decay. It is not an idealistic construct. It offers me nothing. It offers you nothing. Like me, it may be the only position you can come to and honestly profess belief in, or it may not be. If you find atheism sound, then great; maybe you already fight at my side to break the rusting and corroding shackles of superstition, but if not, I won’t lose any sleep over the matter. If you believe in God, I have better things to do than to try and get you off that drug.

The truth is, I don’t care whether you believe in a ghost with a capital “G” or not. It doesn’t matter to me at all. I only want to make my experiences available to those who happen to be in a position to benefit from learning about them, and I will only fight against religious beliefs when they happen to be thrown in my face or when some Jeebus-ite starts to wax too missionary in his/her beliefs. But that’s it. Beyond that, I have no interest in “making atheists” out of anyone or putting new and cute labels on those who already identify themselves as infidels. Worship and pray to whomever or whatever you want, or don’t worship and pray at all. See if I care.

As far as the remaining theists are concerned, evolution will take care of them as God-belief ever-gradually continues to fade from the planet. Every time a Sunday school girl makes her teacher mad because she demands to know where Cain got his wife, religion is fading. Every time a young man begins to doubt the veracity of the great flood and the story of Noah’s ark, religion is fading. Every time another college student becomes emboldened enough to throw off his parent’s religion because of what he learned in geology class, we see that the age-old, male-glorifying, monotheistic blood-gods who for so long have vilified reason and promised damnation to those who think for themselves are at last losing the war. They are running for the hills as your eyes finish this sentence.

Atheism is the logical result of knowledge acquired by the sound use of reason. It does not come from pandering to Christians and straightening that proverbial tie to look good for the “camera” of public perception. Instead of worrying about who’s “hurting the cause of atheism,” we should instead see to it that atheism is understood; understanding that will eliminate the illusionary damage that has led to the public’s vilification of the position. The advancement of atheism is not about upholding an image, and it’s not about receiving a message. It’s about mankind being ready and able to accept the truth of her humble origins, her inevitable and hopeless demise, and her limited place in the cosmos. And when she is ready, she will! As the world becomes more enlightened, the atheists are going to be here. I have no doubt about it—unless, of course, a meteor hits the earth and the only ones who survive are the Sean Hannity types, but hey, we’re talking about more realistic possibilities!

Gentlemen, lose the jackets. Get rid of the ties. Ladies, let down your hair. And it’s okay to put your feet on the coffee table.

(JH)

Richard Dawkins: "The Enemies of Reason"

Part II below:


The Enemies of Reason is a two-part television documentary, written and presented by evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins. From the makers:

Is it rational that the dead can communicate with the living and give sound advice on how they should live their lives? What about sticking pins into your body to free the flow of Chi energy and cure your illness? Or the bending of spoons using your mind alone? Is that rational? Richard Dawkins doesn’t think so, and feels it is his duty to expose those areas of belief that exist without scientific proof, yet manage to hold the nation under their spell. He will take on the world’s leading proponents in their field of expertise, meet the victims who have used them and expose the history of the movements – from the charlatans who have milked these practices to the experiments and testing that have failed to produce conclusive results.

[Thanks to www.exchristian.net for this].