From: Iain Strachan <igd.strachan@gmail.com>

Date: Sun Nov 13 2005 - 18:08:14 EST

Date: Sun Nov 13 2005 - 18:08:14 EST

*>
*

*> --- Iain Strachan <igd.strachan@gmail.com> wrote:
*

*>
*

*> > A simpler lo-tech solution than calling a random number generator is to
*

*> toss
*

*> > a coin 500 times, or throw a die 200 times and concatenate the values.
*

*> Both
*

*> > of these will generate events with probability < 10^-150. But as I said
*

*> > earlier that's no big deal. It's a big deal when a pre-specified event
*

*> of
*

*> > very small probability occurs because then there are a limited number of
*

*> > outcomes, as opposed to a vast number. Randy's example of getting the
*

*> same
*

*> > deal in a pack of cards twice in a row is an example of this. Or if I
*

*> tossed
*

*> > a coin 500 times and you tossed a coin 500 times and we compared notes
*

*> later
*

*> > and found we'd got exactly the same sequence. In the case of a single
*

*> 500
*

*> > coin toss sequence, there are 10^150 possible outcomes, each with
*

*> > probability 10^-150, so there is no big deal. For the second coin-toss
*

*> > sequence to match, there is only ONE outcome that achieves this, so it
*

*> then
*

*> > becomes remarkable that this specified event of probability 1e-150 has
*

*> > occurred.
*

*>
*

*> Agreed. Is this what Bill Dembski means by "specified complexity"?
*

I think that's a part of it. Specified complexity is not a term in general

use, though Dembski uses it. However, the idea of description length (see my

earlier post in response to the idea bout the repeated deals of a deck of

cards), is a very widely used concept.

Iain

Received on Sun Nov 13 18:11:48 2005

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8
: Sun Nov 13 2005 - 18:11:48 EST
*