Comment Re:Ridiculous argument (Score 2, Insightful) 308
Now let's look at your examples : -> a perfectly flat desert : LOW entropy. Perhaps a bit higher than a not-quite-flat-but-looking-flat desert, but defineately LOW entropy.
Nope. It's the other way around. When you can't find a pattern, it's high entropy. The desert in this example is not a flat monomolecular sheet, it's white noise of sand. You don't get much higher entropy than this.
Therefore it is not made by an intelligence. (according to this measure)
You can't possibly make that deduction based on the entropy level. Intelligence can obviously create objects with either high or low entropy.
-> The surface of most gas planets : LOW entropy (obviously). Compare it to earth's ocean floor. It is mostly very, very flat. When a robot is standing on the ocean floor, he will see kilometers of perfectly flat dark terrain. The only real features, like volcanoes or sunken ships, come from external activity with high entropy (though not necessarily intelligence) That terrain does not have instabilities. It has very, very LOW entropy.
Same thing here. You completely misunderstood what entropy is.
Therefore you can conclude it not to be man-made. You'd conclude the ships to be intelligently-made, which is correct, but you'd also call the volcanoes intelligently-made which is not correct. Unless the zulus are right and we better start throwing women into volcanoes to placate the volcano god, that is.
You can't conclude anything. Especially when you don't have a clue of what entropy is.
Now let's take another example.
Let's not. Instead, read up entropy, and then, maybe, start discussing the subject matter.
