The 'Chinese' Theory: For and Against

[rikforto]

Noy suppose that the error rate is such that half of the d become l.  Then the probs would become d=1/4, l=1/2, r=1/8,  s=1/8.  Surprise: the entropy of that distribution is still 1.25 bits, so the word entropy would not change.  (But of course now a fraction of that entropy is no longer meaningful information, it has been replaced by noise.)
All the best, --stolfi

Putting this another way, then, as long as the same phonotactical *distribution* is maintained, these errors could well cancel each other out. So it, at least, isn't categorically at odds with the Chinese Theory.

I will note, though, that this is a pretty narrow path; if the distribution is disturbed---such as if the error rate were either higher or lower, or into other dimensions---the entropy would change. Occam's razor cuts against this explanation, which isn't to say its impossible, but it is to say it's another highly contingent interpretation buttressing your theory.

My other points, about how the destruction of information quickly renders the identification unfalsifiable, at least under what you've argued so far, stand.