Tom_English
2p2 comments posted · 0 followers · following 0
10 years ago @ Salvo Magazine: Scienc... - Immaterial Evidence by... · 0 replies · 0 points
10 years ago @ Salvo Magazine: Scienc... - Immaterial Evidence by... · 0 replies · 0 points
If samplers have no information about the samples they draw, then how do we account for the fact that sampler ("search") A is more likely than sampler B to select a sample that includes at least one element of the target (to "hit the target")? There is not the least mystery here. Samplers differ in their biases. That is the gist of why I was wrong to indicate in 1996 that information somehow resides in samplers, and why Dembski and Marks are wrong to do so today.
The following includes a technical correction of my own errors, but ends with exposition that should make sense to everyone who is able to follow you:
http://boundedtheoretics.blogspot.com/2014/08/sam...
The errors of Dembski and Marks apparently derive from a misunderstanding of the "no free lunch" theorem for search. The following links to an interview in which Marks attempts to explain the theorem in layperson's terms, and provides an accessible discussion of how he goes awry:
http://boundedtheoretics.blogspot.com/2012/04/bob...