The pragmatic implication of ID for the abortion debate

For the completely amoral, who only care about material effectiveness and efficiency, and have no regard for the moral value of human life, ID is very relevant.

These people care only about utility, and ID shows that humans are the source of the greatest utility, as we are the only physical beings capable of creating information.  Everything else is downstream from information.

That is the importance of the scientific case for ID - it shows the amoral utilitarian that human life still has the greatest utility, and must be protected above all else.

For example, the Chinese government would realize that scientifically their one child policy is destined to make their country less successful, ultimately, than India.

Intelligent agent detection kit

I've finished a small app and analysis code that uses ID theory to differentiate between human and AI players in a game.  The players are engaged in a simple turn based tournament similar to battle bots, where each turn they move and fire bullets at each other.

Linux, Mac OSX: https://app.box.com/s/sc4j2xr95b5kjxu3c6l5
Winows: https://app.box.com/shared/isorfax3tp
(For the Windows version you will also need the Linux version for the analysis code)

The zip contains a README explaining usage.  The game is a Java JAR file, and can be run using an included "play" file.

The basic assumption is humans are better at bringing order out of chaos.  The metric measures the compressibility of histories of player perceptions, i.e. distance and direction of the closest agent, closest bullet, etc.  If a player's perceptions are more orderly, then they will be more compressible.  The metric selects the player with the most compressible perception history as the human.

A more detailed writeup is here:
https://app.box.com/shared/u13u3agxqg

The Java source code for the game is here:
https://app.box.com/s/w2yfuycmwqjqsj5ivfys

DARPA using ID theory for security research, they don't know it

Blog link: http://appliedintelligentdesign.blogspot.com/2014/01/darpa-using-id-theory-for-security.html

'The U.S. Department of Defense may have found a new way to scan millions of lines of software code for vulnerabilities, by turning the practice into a set of video games and puzzles and having volunteers do the work.
Having gamers identify potentially problematic chunks of code could help lower the work load of trained vulnerability analysts by "an order of magnitude or more," said John Murray, a program director in SRI International's computer science laboratory who helped create one of the games, called Xylem.'

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/print/9244630/DARPA_makes_games_of_finding_software_vulnerabilities

Similar to previous success FoldIt:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-27083_3-20108365-247/foldit-game-leads-to-aids-research-breakthrough/


The effectiveness of human assisted computer algorithms is predicted by ID theory, in particular Dembski's paper "Search for a Search".

http://evoinfo.org/papers/2010_TheSearchForASearch.pdf

Algorithms cannot create information, whereas intelligent agents, such as humans, can.  Therefore, if humans interact with a search algorithm, it will outperform the limitations imposed by the No Free Lunch Theorem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_free_lunch_in_search_and_optimization

Collecting and using the information created by intelligent agents is a very powerful paradigm that has only recently become understood.  We are just at the tip of the iceberg.  For further information, see the following paper and presentation from the Engineering and Metaphysics conference in 2011.

https://app.box.com/s/db806987237b7d3c5fe8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwRT-32IS2E

What does ID look like?

A question I've had for awhile: we know we can detect ID, but what does it look like?  In particular, how does a history of events look different if it is intelligently designed vs C&N?

A history of events is described by three points in time: Past (P), Current (C), and Future (F).Intelligent design is measured by how much information is known about C given knowledge of P or F, formalized as info(C|P or F).  If info(C|P) < info(C|F) and info(C|F) > info(F|C), then C is the result of intelligent agency.

In other words, if knowing the future tells you more about the present than knowing the past or present itself, then the present state is the result of intelligent agency.  The intuition is that intelligent action is purposeful, and best understood by the future purpose it achieves.

Based on simulations, as the number of choices increase, then so does the amount of information that can be created.  The following chart shows average increase in information with standard deviations.

An important implication of these results is Libertarian Free Will is a coherent concept, since it can be mathematically modeled.  For more information regarding the relation between ID and LFW, see the following article.

http://appliedintelligentdesign.blogspot.com/2014/01/intelligent-design-requires-libertarian.html

Data, chart and example time series:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ao8yyeY6k1wCdEUwZEU0UkFqc1FwMmRPaWpvUWhnOUE&usp=sharing

R code:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B48yyeY6k1wCZHpSOXZJc2Y3aTg/edit?usp=sharing

R code in online interpreter:
http://ideone.com/kZOB9C

Intelligent Design requires Libertarian Free Will

1.  Assume an intelligent agent has no free will, all products of an intelligent agent are necessary.
2.  Complex specified information is measured by the negative log of the probability of event E occurring multiplied by E's specification S: CSI = -log(P(E) * S(E)).
3.  If E is necessary, then its probability of occurrence is 1. -log(1 * S(E)) <= 0, which means CSI will never be created by an agent driven by necessity.
4.  An intelligent agent must be at least capable of creating CSI. Consequently, an agent driven by necessity cannot be an intelligent agent, which contradicts premise #1.
5.  Since the premise that intelligent agents have no free will results in a contradiction, an intelligent agent must have free will.

This means that if ID is true, then so is LFW.

-------------------------
NOTE: S is defined by Dembski's paper on Specification.

http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.06.Specification.pdf

The important point is S is an integer >= 1.  As such, 1 * S(E) >= 1.

"φ(T) = the number of patterns for which [the] semiotic description of
them is at least as simple as [the] semiotic description of T."

Principle of Relative Human Efficiency (Reason #324 why Evolution is false)

The scientists that are attempting to replicate evolutionary processes are dozens, even hundreds of *orders of magnitude* more efficient than undirected natural processes. If we can split the atom and eradicate smallpox, we should be able to produce multiple examples of a biological transformation that is purported to be as common as evolution.

Or at the very least, we should have been able to see it. If we can detect black holes and isotopes with a half life of less than one millionth of a second, then we surely should be able to observe something that has (according to the theory) happened billions of times.

Why Evolution is Completely False

The two tenets of evolution are Darwinism and common descent.

A. The only scientifically accepted mechanism of evolution, Darwinism, is mathematically impossible. Only some form of continuous intelligent intervention can account for the forms we see.

B. DNA only affects the proportions and characteristics of a creature's structure, but the structure itself is also partly derived from the process of generation, such as the egg and sperm. However, DNA is the only thing we know of that passes on genetic information. Consequently, major structural changes can't be passed on to later generations.  Therefore, different species cannot have a common ancestor.

So, if the structural changes necessary to change species can't be passed on, and constant intervention is required anyways, there isn't any compelling reason to believe in common descent. I know of no empirical evidence that necessitates common descent, everything I know of is much better explained in terms of the artifacts of engineering.

Thus, I conclude both major tenets of evolution to be false: Darwinism and common descent. Therefore, evolution as a whole is false.