Home
» Intelligent Design » Dembski speaking at Texas A&M Thursday, November 12, 2009, 7:00pm
Dembski speaking at Texas A&M Thursday, November 12, 2009, 7:00pm
| November 12, 2009 | Posted by William Dembski under Intelligent Design |
I’ll be speaking on the Texas A&M campus at Rudder Theater from 7:00 to 9:00pm tomorrow (Thursday) November 12, 2009. For the flyer describing my talk, click here:
www.uncommondescent.com/images/flyer
36 Responses to Dembski speaking at Texas A&M Thursday, November 12, 2009, 7:00pm
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Dear Dr. W. Dembski,
your formulation of a more generally version of theorem IV Conservation of Uniformity unintentionally doesn’t exclude the case k = 0. That’s where my problem came from: Ω = M^0 can be a compact metric space without being a vector space, while you have a natural vector space structure on the measure spaces containing M^k, k>0 …
I don’t think that Prof. P. Olofsson would have objected the publication of your email-exchange, but your unilateral act seems to be a little odd given your concerns about copyright law.
Peter O.: You publicly charged me with making a very elementary error in my field of expertise, probability/measure theory. I then pointed the error out to you in correspondence. You had the opportunity to correct it here on this blog, where you made the charge. You didn’t. Also, the correspondence in question was copied to my colleague Robert Marks. So no, I don’t make a habit of posting private emails. And yes, I make exceptions when I perceive that people aren’t playing straight with me.
I’ll get your last name right in the future.
Bill[30],
I did correct it, in my comment 23 (which was supposed to refer to 13, not 12). Since the discussion about vector-valued integration is highly technical, and only DiEb and I were involved, I didn’t elaborate.
I certainly did not mean to discredit your expertise in probability/measure theory. If you feel that I did, I sincerely aplogize.
I’m still not clear over the mathematical technicalities. When you introduce the measure-valued integral, its existence is either due to (1) directly applying a theorem from one of the references in your article, or (2) mimicking the construction of the integral in a different setting. Perhaps it’s trivial.
Actually, I’ve seen a lot of different spellings of my last name and I accept most of them.
Dear Peter,
You’re very kind. Thanks also for your private note to me. As the constant target of criticisms I am sometimes overly sensitive. In any case, I misssed your comment #23. But even if I hadn’t, I should have contacted you first privately about posting a correction before posting our correspondence. I apologize.
And as you pointed out, I left out in posting our corresondence that I had invited you to lunch. The offer stands if you’re ever passing through Waco.
Bill[34],
Thanks for your note. WFL sounds good.
Dr. Dembski,
I’m wondering if you can comment on Prof. Olofsson’s final point in his email, namely:
Indeed, I’m having a hard time seeing the significance of your definition of active entropy, other than it being the negative relative entropy. If the intent is to average the active information over a set of potential targets, then I don’t see why it’s weighted by ψ(Ti), as ψ(Ti) is not the probability of Ti being a target.
Also, since the active entropy of φ with respect to ψ is always negative, it can’t tell us whether φ or ψ is the better performing distribution. Furthermore, it seems that all distributions should perform equally when averaged over all possible targets.
I would sincerely appreciate your help in clearing up my confusion on these issues.