Replies

Thank you so much for the reply and link! It just gave me a 404, but I'll try it a little later on.

I was just fixing to add something to my previous post for the lurkers who may be following our discussion.

The way I worded my post to you, it sounds as though algorithmically irreducible information would support my hypothesis algorithm at inception is proof of intelligent design.

To the contrary, it would falsify it; but every hypothesis must have a means to falsify (Popper.) IOW, I must have a way to show that information content cannot be reduced by algorithm, i.e. that it is truly random.

In this scenario, at inception - where nothing (null) precedes, whatever is must be truly random - if it contains algorithm (step by step instruction), then there must be an intelligent designer.

Sigh, I'd better quit typing until I down a cup of coffee. I left the thought in my previous post wide open.

For the lurkers: if my hypothesis is falsified, it does not constitute proof for or against an intelligent designer - it would only show that my hypothesis is no good.