{"id":724,"date":"2008-12-29T08:25:52","date_gmt":"2008-12-29T08:25:52","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/scientopia.org\/blogs\/goodmath\/2008\/12\/29\/idiotic-gitt-aig-and-bad-information-theory-classic-repost\/"},"modified":"2008-12-29T08:25:52","modified_gmt":"2008-12-29T08:25:52","slug":"idiotic-gitt-aig-and-bad-information-theory-classic-repost","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/2008\/12\/29\/idiotic-gitt-aig-and-bad-information-theory-classic-repost\/","title":{"rendered":"Idiotic Gitt: AiG and Bad Information Theory (classic repost)"},"content":{"rendered":"

I’m away on vacation this week, taking my kids to Disney World. Since I’m not likely to have time to write while I’m away, I’m taking the opportunity to re-run some old classic posts which were first posted in the summer of 2006. These posts are mildly revised.<\/em><\/p>\n

Back when I first wrote this post, I was taking a break from some puzzling debugging.
\nSince I was already a bit frazzled, and I felt like I needed some comic relief, I decided to
\nhit one of my favorite comedy sites, Answers in Genesis. I can pretty much always find
\nsomething sufficiently stupid to amuse me on their site. On that fateful day, I came across a
\ngem called Information, science and biology”<\/a>, by the all too appropriately named
\n“Werner Gitt”. It’s yet another attempt by a creationist twit to find some way to use
\ninformation theory to prove that life must have been created by god.<\/p>\n

This article really interested me in the bad-math way, because I’m a big fan of information theory. I don’t pretend to be anything close to an expert in it, but I’m
\nfascinated by it. I’ve read several texts on it, taken one course in grad school, and had the incredible good fortune of getting to know Greg Chaitin, one of the co-inventors of algorithmic information theory. Basically, it’s safe to say that I know enough about
\ninformation theory to get myself into trouble.<\/p>\n

Unlike admission above, it looks like the Gitt hasn’t actually read<\/em> any real
\ninformation theory much less understood it. All that he’s done is heard Dembski presenting
\none of his wretched mischaracterizations, and then regurgitated and expanded upon them.
\nDembski was bad enough; building on an incomplete understanding of Dembski’s misrepresentations, misunderstandings, and outright and errors produces a result
\nthat is just astonishingly ridiculous. It’s actually a splendid example of my mantra on this blog: “the worst math is no math<\/em>“; the entire article pretends to be doing math – but it’s actual mathematical content is nil. Still, to the day of this repost, I continue
\nto see references to this article as “Gitt’s math” or “Gitt’s proof”.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Gitt starts his article by thoroughly butchering an introduction to Shannon
\ninformation theory. I’ll just let that breeze by; no sense belaboring the obvious. After
\nhis botched introduction, he moves on to the rubbish that I’ll focus on.<\/p>\n

\nThe highest information density known to us is that of the DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid)
\nmolecules of living cells. This chemical storage medium is 2 nm in diameter and has a 3.4 NM
\nhelix pitch (see Figure 1). This results in a volume of 10.68×10-21<\/sup>
\ncm3<\/sup> per spiral. Each spiral contains ten chemical letters (nucleotides), resulting
\nin a volumetric information density of 0.94×1021<\/sup> letters\/cm3<\/sup>. In
\nthe genetic alphabet, the DNA molecules contain only the four nucleotide bases, that is,
\nadenine, thymine, guanine and cytosine. The information content of such a letter is 2
\nbits\/nucleotide. Thus, the statistical information density is 1.88×1021<\/sup>
\nbits\/cm3<\/sup>.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This is, of course, utter gibberish. DNA is not<\/em> the “highest information density
\nknown”. In fact, the concept of information density<\/em> is not well-defined. Without a good definition, it’s meaningless: How do you compare the “information density” of a DNA molecule with the information density of an electromagnetic wave emitted by a pulsar? You can’t: it’s meaningless to compare. This is just a sign of the kind of nonsense to come: Gitt is a guy who doesn’t believe that he needs to be bothered with trivial little details like
\ndefinition. He’s a big idea guy!<\/p>\n

Anyway… we can define a kind of information density as bits per cubit centimeter. Of course, that’s still<\/em> not well-defined; how do we decide what’s a bit? Naively it
\nseems obvious, but when you think about it in detail, you’ll realize where the ambiguity comes in. Is a bit a specific chunk that can be one of several options – as in the segments
\nof DNA? Is a bit the magnetic alignment of a bit of iron? Is a bit the charge of an ion? Any of those are perfectly plausible definitions of a unit of information encoded into a physical
\nform. Depending on how you define it, you can come up with a number of different “highest information density known to us”.<\/p>\n

Consider, for example, the information density of a crystal, like a
\ndiamond. A diamond is an incredibly compact crystal of carbon atoms. There are no perfect
\ndiamonds: all crystals contain irregularities and impurities. Consider how dense the
\ninformation of that crystal is: the position of every flaw, every impurity, the positions of
\nthe subset of carbon atoms in the crystal that are carbon-14 as opposed to carbon-12.<\/p>\n

Just take the impurities, and look up the density of a diamond. Assume that there’s one
\nnon-carbon atom per billion in the diamond – that’s probably on the low-end of the number
\nof impurities. Use its position in the diamond lattice as a bit indicator. Assume that the
\nimpurity encodes only one bit – even though you could encode quite a lot more. Now, work
\nout the “information density” of the diamond.<\/p>\n

Considerably denser than DNA, huh?<\/p>\n

After this is where it really<\/em> starts to get silly. Our Gitt claims that Shannon
\ntheory is incomplete, because after all, it’s got a strictly quantitative<\/em> measure of
\ninformation: it doesn’t care about what the message means<\/em>. So he sets out to “fix”
\nthat problem. He proposes five levels of information: statistics, syntax, semantics,
\npragmatics, and apobetics. He claims that Shannon theory (and in fact information theory
\nas a whole) only concerns itself with the first; it’s incomplete because it doesn’t
\ndifferentiate between syntactically valid and invalid information, much less attempt to reason about the higher levels. <\/p>\n

Let’s take a quick run through the five, before I start mocking them.<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Statistics:<\/b> This is what information theory refers to as information content, expressed in terms of an event sequence (as I said, he’s following Dembski); so we’re looking at a series of events, each of which is receiving a character of a message, and the information added by each event is how surprising that event was. That’s why he calls it statistical.<\/li>\n
  2. Syntax:<\/b> The structure of the language encoded by the message. At this level, it is assumed that every message is written in a code<\/em>; you can distinguish between “valid” and “invalid” messages by checking whether they are valid strings of characters for the given code.<\/li>\n
  3. Semantics:<\/b> What the message means<\/em>.<\/li>\n
  4. Pragmatics:<\/b> The primitive intention<\/em> of the transmitter of the message; the specific events\/actions that the transmitter wanted to occur as a result of sending the message.<\/li>\n
  5. Apobetics:<\/b> The purpose<\/em> of the message.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    According to him, level 5 is the most important one.<\/p>\n

    Before moving on, I’ll just briefly note: formulating things this way is assuming
    \nthe conclusion. What he wants to prove is that all real information includes
    \na message which was sent with intent and purpose – and thus can’t be created by
    \nanything other than an intelligent sender. But he’s already assuming<\/em> in his definition of information that it must<\/em> have these components – including the intention of the sender and the purpose of the message.<\/p>\n

    Throughout the article, he constantly writes “theorems”. He clearly doesn’t understand what the word “theorem” means, because these things are just statements that he would <\/em>like<\/em> to be true, but which are unproven, and often unprovable. These aren’t<\/em> theorems. In math, the word “theorem” means something very specific. A theorem isn’t just “a statement that I think is true”, or “a statement that I want to specifically label because it’s important”. A theorem is a proven statement<\/em>. If
    \nyou don’t show a proof for it, it’s not a theorem. No matter how obvious it seems, no
    \nmatter how straightforward, it’s not a theorem if you don’t have a proof.<\/p>\n

    Now let’s look a few examples of his so-called theorems. I’m quoting the
    \nentire theorems<\/em> here – a series of them and the start of the discussion
    \nthat follows. This is really<\/em> how he presents “theorems”. This comes
    \nfrom his section on what he calls the syntax level of information.<\/p>\n

    \n

    Theorem 4: A code is an absolutely necessary condition for the representation
    \nof information.<\/p>\n

    Theorem 5: The assignment of the symbol set is based on convention and
    \nconstitutes a mental process.<\/p>\n

    Theorem 6: Once the code has been freely defined by convention, this definition
    \nmust be strictly observed thereafter.<\/p>\n

    Theorem 7: The code used must be known both to the transmitter and receiver if
    \nthe information is to be understood.<\/p>\n

    Theorem 8: Only those structures that are based on a code can represent
    \ninformation (because of Theorem 4). This is a necessary, but still inadequate,
    \ncondition for the existence of information.<\/p>\n

    These theorems already allow fundamental statements to be made at the level of
    \nthe code. If, for example, a basic code is found in any system, it can be
    \nconcluded that the system originates from a mental concept.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

    How do we conclude that a code is a necessary condition for the representation of information? We just assert it. Worse, how do we conclude that only<\/em> things that are based on a code represent information? Again, just an assertion – but an incredibly<\/em> strong one. He is asserting that nothing<\/em> without a
    \nstructured encoding is information. And this is also the absolute crux of his argument: information only exists as a part of a code designed by an intelligent process<\/em>. <\/p>\n

    Despite the fact that he claims to be completing Shannon theory, there is nothing<\/em> to do with math in the rest of this article. It’s all words. “Theorems” like the ones quoted above, but becoming progressively more outrageous and unjustified. <\/p>\n

    For example, his theorem 11:<\/p>\n

    \nThe apobetic aspect of information is the most important, because it embraces
    \nthe objective of the transmitter. The entire effort involved in the four lower
    \nlevels is necessary only as a means to an end in order to achieve this
    \nobjective.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    After this, we get to his conclusion, which is quite a prize.<\/p>\n

    \nOn the basis of Shannon’s information theory, which can now be regarded as
    \nbeing mathematically complete, we have extended the concept of information as
    \nfar as the fifth level. The most important empirical principles relating to the
    \nconcept of information have been defined in the form of theorems.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    See, to him, a theorem is nothing but a “form”: a syntactic structure. And this whole article, to him, is mathematically complete. <\/p>\n

    \n

    The Bible has long made it clear that the creation of the original groups of
    \nfully operational living creatures, programmed to transmit their information to
    \ntheir descendants, was the deliberate act of the mind and the will of the
    \nCreator, the great Logos Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n

    We have already shown that life is overwhelmingly loaded with information; it
    \nshould be clear that a rigorous application of the science of information is
    \ndevastating to materialistic philosophy in the guise of evolution, and strongly
    \nsupportive of Genesis creation.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

    That’s where he wanted to go all through this train-wreck. DNA is the highest-possible
    \ndensity information source. It’s a message originated by god, and transmitted by each
    \ngeneration to its children. <\/p>\n

    And as usual for the twits (or Gitts) that write this stuff, they’re pretending to put
    \ntogether logical\/scientific\/mathematical arguments for god; but they can only do it by
    \nspecifically including the necessity of god as a premise. In this case, he asserts that DNA
    \nis a message; and a message must have an intelligent agent creating it. Since living things
    \ncannot be the original creators of the message, since the DNA had to be created before us.
    \nTherefore there must be a god.<\/p>\n

    Same old shit.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    I’m away on vacation this week, taking my kids to Disney World. Since I’m not likely to have time to write while I’m away, I’m taking the opportunity to re-run some old classic posts which were first posted in the summer of 2006. These posts are mildly revised. Back when I first wrote this post, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[13,31],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-724","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-classics","category-intelligent-design"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p4lzZS-bG","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/724","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=724"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/724\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=724"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=724"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=724"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}