|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Discontinuing research about ID | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dubreuil Member (Idle past 3364 days) Posts: 84 Joined: |
We should expect that patterns will arise, not be surprised by them. Yes, with a probability of 1:10^2, not with 1:10^7. I stated on my own that the pattern is a side product of standard TV show creating processes, but I also stated that conscious and unconscious human behaviour was not responsible for it. What do you suggest has actually created the pattern? Humans? Rules about how to write a script? Rules about how to film? I already asked this question in Message 61: "Any other ideas for an natural origin?" Just to say "show creating processes" is to unspecific. With the hypothesis about the pattern and ID, ID is a part of the "show creating processes". When you say: "the producers are just following standard TV show creating processes, and those processes lead to similarities that show up as patterns." than there is now difference between your hypothesis and my hypothesis. Edited by Dubreuil, : No reason given. Edited by Dubreuil, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Yes, with a probability of 1:10^2, not with 1:10^7. I doubt your 1:10^7 is either appropriate or correct.
What do you suggest has actually created the pattern? Humans? Rules about how to write a script? Rules about how to film? I already asked this question in Message 61: "Any other ideas for an natural origin?" All that as well as what I said in the message you just replied to:
quote: .
Just to say "show creating processes" is to unspecific. Too unspecific for what?
With the hypothesis about the pattern and ID, is ID a part of the "show creating processes". When you say: "the producers are just following standard TV show creating processes, and those processes lead to similarities that show up as patterns." than there is now difference between your hypothesis and my hypothesis. I don't understand what you are saying there. There's some grammatical errors that are confusing me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dubreuil Member (Idle past 3364 days) Posts: 84 Joined: |
I corrected the grammatical error.
The genre and setting and characters and all that stuff is going to constrain the ability of the writers to make huge differences between episodes. The genre, setting and charakteres are different for all 4 examined series. The episodes would be differently constrained and different patterns would emerge.
Adding the editors, directors, and producers, on top of all that, that are trying to create a cohesive TV show that people will like is going to make for all kinds of similarities that will be found to make all kinds of patterns. The editors, directors, and producers were different for all 4 examined series. The episodes would be differently constrained and different patterns would emerge.
I doubt your 1:10^7 is either appropriate or correct. And I doubt you are familiar with basic probability calculation when you can only "doubt" the results.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I corrected the grammatical error. Were all you doing is pointing out that I think differently on how the patterns emerge?
The genre, setting and charakteres are different for all 4 examined series. The episodes would be differently constrained and different patterns would emerge. Well, no, not really. Even across genres and settings, TV shows are going to have a lot of similarities. A lot of them are just going to follow a standard three-act structure:
That the similarities can even just be plotted as a graph should make you realize that if you do a bunch of abstract nomenclature and then crunch them through a bunch of math models that you're going to see all kinds of different patterns.
And I doubt you are familiar with basic probability calculation when you can only "doubt" the results. That's no way to convince someone that your paper has any merit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
What do you suggest has actually created the pattern? Humans? Well, every word of every script is in fact written by a human being, isn't it? You do not propose, do you, that angels are carrying Star Trek scripts down from heaven written on stone tablets and delivering them to the series producer? Hence, if God does have a hand in the scripts, it would be by over-riding the free will of the scriptwriters, but in such a way that they don't notice --- he forces them to write such-and-such a character into a scene, and he deceives them into thinking that it was their own idea. Which again would leave us with some interesting theological questions, such as what the fuck is God up to?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dubreuil Member (Idle past 3364 days) Posts: 84 Joined: |
Your presentation has nothing to do with the pattern. Only the first minute is quantised mostly. I agree that there are patterns for longer times. But the 1:10^7 probability is only about a pattern in the first one or two minutes.
That's no way to convince someone that your paper has any merit. I was sceptical from the beginning how reviews here could have a good quality if no one is familiar with the sciences about the paper. You don't have to comment this part if you are not familiar with it. Edited by Dubreuil, : No reason given. Edited by Dubreuil, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Only the first minute is quantised mostly. I agree that there are patterns for longer times. But the 1:10^7 probability is only about a pattern in the first one or two minutes. Even worse, or course there are patterns in the first few moments of almost all television shows. What does that have to do with ID at all? And aren't you just basing this on "not chance" = "ID"?
I was sceptical from the beginning how reviews here could have a good quality if no one is familiar with the sciences about the paper. Well I asked you to explain it in plain English without reference to your paper and you were unable to do that. So apparently even you do not understand the sciences in this paper.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dubreuil Member (Idle past 3364 days) Posts: 84 Joined: |
Even worse, or course there are patterns in the first few moments of almost all television shows. But not a recurring pattern that appears with a probability of 1:10^7. There could be a pattern that in the first 5 seconds a person appears with a certainty of 99.9 percent. The found pattern has a certainty of 99.99999 percent.
Well I asked you to explain it in plain English without reference to your paper and you were unable to do that. So apparently even you do not understand the sciences in this paper. Explained in Message 14
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
But not a recurring pattern that appears with a probability of 1:10^7. But that is the probability that it is solely a result of chance. We know that isn't true, there's lots of constraints involved in making a successful TV show.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 176 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined:
|
Faith has created her own world in the Q Continuum. The Q must have stripped her of her powers to teach her a lesson of some kind.The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1727 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I want to clear up some of your initial obfuscations.
First -- what is being analyzed:
... Only the first minute is quantised mostly. I agree that there are patterns for longer times. But the 1:10^7 probability is only about a pattern in the first one or two minutes. So you are ONLY talking about the first 2 minutes of the introduction/s to the episodes and not to the whole episodes, and that is where you find your pattern. and Second -- what "triggers" your "pattern" recording:
quote: Now I note that this is a list of 14 rather different "triggers" that let you designate\count an appearance etc of P.A1 ... and that when we look at the pattern analysis for this "trigger" we have:
quote: So even with 14 different "triggers" P.A1 only appears in 11 out of 15 episodes? Similar argument can be made for P.BW (7 "triggers" -- "colour black/white, silver, ice, cold, invisible, 6") and for P.En (2 "triggers" listed -- energy, lovely -- but then expanded in the discussion following: "P.En appears wherever the word energy or the word lovely is mentioned. As person P.En appears often as young women. The warp core as source of all energy counts as an appearance of P.En too if it is shown or mentioned.") Curiously the fact that these "triggers" seem to be rather arbitrary (ie unrelated to one another of the same category) leads me to the conclusion that your "pattern" is an artifact of your analysis rather than a pattern in the tv show. This would also explain how you find the same "pattern" in other documents. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1727 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
It appears that you are walking away from your claim of ID involvement.
RAZD writes: And you still fail to make any kind of rational reason to claim that patterns in a tv show mean that ID is involved in the origin of life. The papers topic is about testing ID at the present time, not in the past. It was not the main topic to show that ID is involved in the origin of life in this paper. Now, again I refer to the discussion of ID in your paper (from Message 26):
Let me extract only those parts that discuss Intelligent Design:
quote: Your answer to this (Message 51) was that you were just quoting others regrading the probability of origins of life rather than testing it or actually (god forbid) applying your "pattern" technique to extract evidence of it. So the ONLY role of ID in this paper is that IF ID is present, THEN it can be found (will result) in a pattern, ... and the follow-up claim is that IF a pattern emerges. THEN ID can be inferred. Yes? You do realize that this is the logical fallacy called Affirming the Consequent:
quote: So your article title ("About testing Intelligent Design at the present time and references about a triune God") is misleading: you have not tested ID, just assumed it. In fact, you could remove all references to ID from the paper (and to god/s) and the valid conclusions from your paper would be unaffected (if not improved). Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Curiously the fact that these "triggers" seem to be rather arbitrary (ie unrelated to one another of the same category) leads me to the conclusion that your "pattern" is an artifact of your analysis rather than a pattern in the tv show. I brought that up in Message 65:
quote: I was merely guessing, as I hadn't really dug into the data like you just did. But thanks for that, 'cause it really looks like I was right. He didn't respond to that portion of my message...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Wherefrom shall I know this? If you can't think of a reason why God would do it, then the existence of the alleged anomalies is not a prediction of the hypothesis that God exists. By analogy, suppose you wake up one morning and find that your house has been egged. From this, you infer the existence of a volcano in your neighborhood as the cause. Then it would be reasonable for people to ask: "Why would a volcano cause your house to be covered in egg?" If you have no sensible answer, then there's no good reason to infer the volcano. If it was molten lava, you'd have a point, since we expect volcanos to cover things in lava. But not in egg. Similarly, we do not expect God to introduce (alleged) statistical anomalies into Star Trek, so if we find such anomalies we are not justified in inferring God as a cause. If we saw a series of overt miracles tending to the well-being of the Jewish people, then we would infer the God of the Bible as a cause, since that is the sort of thing we'd expect him to do. But meddling with Star Trek scripts is not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dubreuil Member (Idle past 3364 days) Posts: 84 Joined: |
Dr Adequate writes: If you can't think of a reason why God would do it, then the existence of the alleged anomalies is not a prediction of the hypothesis that God exists. From Message 39: "... that the number 3 is part of P.Ya. If there is a triune God as designer that wants to be known, then a person called God could always appear as P.Ya. ..."
Cat Sci writes: We know that isn't true, there's lots of constraints involved in making a successful TV show. Please name them. You named previously genre, setting, characters, editors, directors and producers. I explained they can not explain the pattern: Message 78. If you can name other constraints, then I will comment them.
Cat Sci writes: I was merely guessing, as I hadn't really dug into the data like you just did. But thanks for that, 'cause it really looks like I was right. He didn't respond to that portion of my message... Your language was difficult to understand: Message 69 RAZD writes: So you are ONLY talking about the first 2 minutes of the introduction/s to the episodes and not to the whole episodes, and that is where you find your pattern. Yes.
RAZD writes: So even with 14 different "triggers" P.A1 only appears in 11 out of 15 episodes? No. E1 to E15 are the 15 events from the pattern. Message 28 explains what the pattern is. There is an exemplary pattern with E1 to E4 explained and how the fit was tested. The actual pattern has 15 parts. You can also read the example in words on page 6 in the paper.
RAZD writes: Curiously the fact that these "triggers" seem to be rather arbitrary (ie unrelated to one another of the same category) leads me to the conclusion that your "pattern" is an artifact of your analysis rather than a pattern in the tv show. I maybe was too diligent about this. Only a few of these options are actually necessary. After I introduced P.Al for everytime more than 5 person are visible I noticed that the named elements tended to appear only if P.Al appears too and added them to P.Al then. I probably could remove the most of this options without affecting the pattern. But with the additional options the pattern has a higher predictive power. If I would remove for example stones or the number 4, then stone and the number 4 could appear randomly. Attached to P.Al they are only allowed to appear at 11 out of 15 events.
RAZD writes: So the ONLY role of ID in this paper is that IF ID is present, THEN it can be found (will result) in a pattern, ... and the follow-up claim is that IF a pattern emerges. THEN ID can be inferred. Yes? If ID is present at the present time, then it COULD have been involved in the origin of life. That is not a main part of the paper, the paper is about testing at the present time. IF ID is present, THEN it could be found in a pattern. If there is no other explanation like chance, conscious or unconscious human behaviour or other restraints left, then it COULD be ID. It's an indication that intelligent design exists at the present time. That it could be caused by ID and not by magic little pigs is inferred from the residual uncertainty of 1:10^3 about a triune God: Message 39.
Dr Adequate writes: Twelve bar blues. Thousands of songs with identical chord progressions. That can't be by chance, so I guess goddidit. This similarities can be explained by the survival of the most popular song: Message 52. The found pattern can not be explained like this: Message 58. You named no references with a low residual uncertainty about your assumption "goddidit". Therefore there is no reason to assume that any God created it. W.C. Handy created it: Twelve bar blues. The found pattern was mostly created by chance. From Message 31: "Appearances are mostly coincidental triggered and depend on camera positions and environmental conditions, for example a tree that covers a person. There are also offscreen voices that coincidental add appearances and affected person to the usual onscreen appearances, as in 1x01 ST:TNG. Because the pattern quantises coincidental appearances that emerge to a pattern that was not created by chance with a probability of 1:10^7 it is assumed that there is a bias or an intelligent agent in chance itself." Maybe "Cat Sci" can name other restraints that have an effect on the found pattern. If there are such restraints, then even in this case the involvement of chance would corrupt the pattern to a residual uncertainty far above 1:10^7.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025