Do you have a new theory of intelligent tossing? Is it sort of like intelligent falling? Or is it just the old, tired treatment of intelligence as something infectious — i.e., when I touch the coin, it becomes intelligent, and the outcome of the toss is biased?

Here’s how you started all of this:

“Any algorithm strongly suggests intelligence. Do anti-IDists even understand the word ‘algorithm’? Apparently not. Has anyone ever observed unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) process produce an algorithm? No.”

If we reject intelligent tossing theory, then I have demonstrated exactly what you suggested could not exist. You placed no restriction on the language in which algorithms would be expressed. And you should not have, because your claim was that there was no way for a random process to produce an algorithm. I made a natural choice of language — prefix-free, compact, binary descriptions of Turing machines. This type of language plays an important role in the theory of Solomonoff-Chaitin-Kolmogorov complexity.

You whined and whined for proof. Now that I have proved exactly what you wanted proved, you insinuate that I cheated, but offer no counterargument. That’s worthless behavior.

Also Wiki can hardly be considered an authority on anything.

Thanks again for demonstrating an algorithm requires intelligence.

BTW I never once thought that you were saying every algorithm can be generated without intelligence. The confusion is still all yours.

The negation of your claim is merely that SOME algorithm can arise by chance-and-necessity. I evidently have confused you by arguing that EVERY algorithm can be generated without “intelligence.” So let’s take the simple route and be done with this. I am going to demonstrate that “coin tossing” generates algorithms with high probability. As always, when you don’t understand something, see Wiki.

A universal Turing machine (UTM) is a Turing-complete system. A UTM is “programmed” with a description of a Turing machine (TM). When the TM description specifies no transitions, the UTM merely halts on all inputs. Such a TM description is the shortest algorithm for the UTM. For some UTMs the TM description must be self-delimiting, and we require such a UTM here. In other words, each description must encode its own length in some fashion.

In the TM description language we use here, every sufficiently long sequence of bits begins with a TM description. A description begins with a possibly-empty string of M 0′s, which indicates that M bits are required to encode TM states. Then there is a non-empty string of N 1′s, which indicates that N bits are required to encode TM symbols. Then a 0 serves as a delimiter. If M is nonzero, the following M + N bits give the number of transitions in base-2 notation. Otherwise there are no additional bits in the TM description. For instance, a TM with two states, four symbols, and three transitions has a description

0110011 [plus 18 bits for transitions].

Any TM that has no states (i.e., has a description that starts with 1) has no transitions, and halts on all inputs. Thus the following are all algorithms.

10, 110, 1110, …

All TM descriptions beginning with 1 belong to the preceding sequence.

Now let’s generate a TM description M by tossing a fair coin, and writing down 1 for heads and 0 for tails. The procedure is well defined, because every sufficiently long sequence of bits begins with a TM description, and all TM descriptions are self-delimiting. The probability that a M begins with 1 (hence is an algorithm) is 1 / 2. The probability that M is the algorithm 01000 (note that there are no transitions) is 2 ^ 5. Thus the probability of generating an algorithm by coin tossing is greater than 1 / 2.

Did I rig this result? No. The UTM is the original model of universal computation. In fact, the notion of Turing-completeness is defined in terms of the UTM. The choice of self-delimiting TM’s was natural here. How else would we have guaranteed that every sequence of coin tosses gave a description? Is it really that surprising that the simplest algorithms should merely halt, and that they should occur often in random generation of “programs”?

I’m sure you are not satisfied with algorithms that merely halt. Perhaps I should mention that coin tossing will also generate nontrivial, though short, algorithms with fairly high probability. Before barking at the stranger again, why not go back to No Free Lunch and observe that Bill Dembski rejects chance at 500 bits of complexity. There are many algorithms shorter than 500 bits. Coin tossing will turn up short algorithms, and this is no contradiction to what Bill has written.

Why did I not go directly to this proof? Because it is not particularly interesting. I wanted to talk about design inference, not basic probability and the plain old theory of computation.

From http://www.chiasmus.com/archive/msg00190.html:

One night, while serving as [Lyndon Baines Johnson's] press secretary, Bill Moyers was saying grace in a soft and respectful voice before a White House dinner. LBJ startled everyone when he interrupted Moyers, saying, “Speak up, Bill! Speak up!” Not letting the president rattle him, Moyers softly replied: “I wasn’t addressing you, Mr. President.”

Tom English:
My point, precisely.

Weird because I asked for CHANCE hypotheses.

Tom English:
Did it really never occur to you that my sequence of bits could come from space too?

I have asked you several times for a demonstration and you failed to do so. In that light it occurred to me that you were just blowing smoke.

Also we were talking about ALGORITHMS implying INTELLIGENCE. And from your responses I would have to say that is as safe an inference as there could be.

My point, precisely. A wizard. A giant. The Devil. I have wasted a lot of time here.

You should know that Bill Dembski has inferred design in a fictitious observation — a sequence of binary-coded prime numbers (excluding 59) coming from deep space. Did it really never occur to you that my sequence of bits could come from space too? Did you stop to think that my sequence was less complex than the prime sequence, and that a design inference was therefore not a slamdunk?

Your hypothesis is rejected because it has not and cannot be substantiated. Show us a sequence of strings arising from nothing via chance-and-necessity. I can demonstrate intelligent agencies putting together a sequence of strings.

Gee I wonder how many chance hypotheses were rejected before Stonehenge was deemed an artifact?

Tom posts:
“Early interpretations

Many early historians were influenced by supernatural folktales in their explanations. Some legends held that Merlin the wizard had a giant build the structure for him or that he had magically transported it from Mount Killaraus in Ireland, while others held the Devil responsible.”

Those are design-centric hypotheses. Were there ever ANY chance hypotheses?

From the Wiki article on Stonehenge:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonehenge

“Early interpretations

Many early historians were influenced by supernatural folktales in their explanations. Some legends held that Merlin the wizard had a giant build the structure for him or that he had magically transported it from Mount Killaraus in Ireland, while others held the Devil responsible.”

Did you see post 61 in http://www.uncommondescent.com.....hives/1464, especially “Evolution is necessity operating on chance inputs”?

“I expect you to prove the chance hypothesis.”

No one can prove a statistical hypothesis. In Bill’s approach to design inference, a chance hypothesis is a null hypotheses. It is accepted in the absence of strong evidence to reject it. My hypothesis that the sequence of strings can arise by chance-and-necessity stands until someone gives evidence that it should be rejected in favor of design. This isn’t something self-serving I am doing. It is simply the nature of null hypotheses.

A legitimate request would have been to ask me to derive a probability for my hypothesis. I have already done some work to estimate what’s known as the universal probability of the sequence, and I was prepared to take an honest stab at rejecting the chance hypothesis myself.

“All I can do is point to what I know is designed, compare and contrast it with what I suspect is designed, and ask which is the better explanation – design or chance.”

I have no objection whatsoever to your doing that to form your personal worldview. But I hope you don’t expect such informal methods to lead to scientific knowledge. By the way, I have a personal worldview that could not be less scientific.

Tom English:
You truly do not understand what a logical and linguistic abomination that is, do you?

It is reality. Therefore I understand your reaction. Reality doesn’t appear to be your strong suit.

Tom English:
I tried to get you to reason through what you were saying, and you entirely ignored me — to your own detriment.

Yup you are a legend in search of a mind.

Tom English:
I gave you the hypothesis that the enumeration can arise by chance.

And I asked you to demonstrate that. IOW show us an enumeration that arose without the aid of an intelligent agency.

Tom English:
It is your responsibility, as the ID advocate, to show how to reject the hypothesis and make a design inference.

Show me where this hypothetical enumeration exists. That is how it (science) is conducted- by examining the data. If the enumeration exists only in your head then I would sau it is an empty hypothesis- one not worth pursuing.

Gee I wonder how many chance hypotheses were rejected before Stonehenge was deemed an artifact?