|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Discontinuing research about ID | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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. The constraints don't explain the pattern, they explain why calculating the probability of the pattern happening solely by chance is not appropriate. TV shows aren't developed randomly, they follow patterns from the get-go.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
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. ..." "Could" is not good enough. I could egg your house, but if it happened, why would you infer that I did it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dubreuil Member (Idle past 3357 days) Posts: 84 Joined: |
Dr Adequate writes: "Could" is not good enough. I could egg your house, but if it happened, why would you infer that I did it? It was just one possible answer to your question. The other is the residual uncertainty of 1:10^3 about a triune God.
Cat Sci writes: TV shows aren't developed randomly, they follow patterns from the get-go. TV shows as whole are developed, but the first few minutes are not developed in the same way for every episode.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
TV shows as whole are developed, but the first few minutes are not developed in the same way for every episode. Not in the exact same way, but they do follow patterns. There's no reason to think that the first few minutes should be random so your calculation that is based solely on chance was inappropriate and misplaced.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dubreuil Member (Idle past 3357 days) Posts: 84 Joined: |
Cat Sci writes: Not in the exact same way, but they do follow patterns. Name an example like this. A pattern that is ubiquitous enough to explain the results in the first few minutes. I can only imagine very simple patterns like: "in the first 5 seconds a person appears""No one dies in the first minute" "someone says something in the first minute" They would not create a complex pattern with a low residual uncertainty.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
They would not create a complex pattern with a low residual uncertainty. Well what do you know? How many TV shows have you produced?
Name an example like this. A pattern that is ubiquitous enough to explain the results in the first few minutes. I can only imagine very simple patterns like: Regardless, your calculation of the pattern emerging solely by chance is still the wrong calculation to use. Edited by Cat Sci, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dubreuil Member (Idle past 3357 days) Posts: 84 Joined: |
Well what do you know? How many TV shows have you produced? The first two minutes are mostly "Teasers": Cold open - Wikipedia.You will read there: "On television, this is often done". Often, not always. The rules how to create the first minutes are very different for different series and episodes. To create the first minutes in a very different way than it is normally done can also increase it's popularity. We should therefore expect that patterns will normally be ignored in the first minutes. Regardless, your calculation of the pattern emerging solely by chance is still the wrong calculation to use. The pattern was not created by chance. The pattern was not created by your current suggestion (statement above). Any more ideas for an natural origin? Assuming the case that there are rules that actually imprint a complex pattern into every episode that is produced. Then chance is still involved into the creation process. From Message 31: "Appearances ... 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.". These and other processes are coincidental triggered. Assuming that this contribution is even very small and only creates a deviation in every third episode. Then the pattern still wouldn't fit with these deviated episodes and would only have a residual uncertainty of maybe 1:10^2. Therefore any rule, or whatever you mean, can not create a complex pattern with a residual uncertainty of 1:10^7 because of the involvement of chance. Chance itself has not created the pattern and any other natural origin can not have created the pattern because of the involvement of chance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2689 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
Oh, so you're saying there IS a human driven explanation for patterns in the first few minutes. Ok, looks settled to me. JB
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dubreuil Member (Idle past 3357 days) Posts: 84 Joined: |
Oh, so you're saying there IS a human driven explanation for patterns in the first few minutes. Ok, looks settled to me. No. Teasers appear sometimes, not always. The pattern appears in series with and without teasers. "Cat Sci"s suggestion is therefore not an explanation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
It was just one possible answer to your question. It's not an answer to my question at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
The pattern was not created by chance. The pattern was not created by your current suggestion (statement above). Any more ideas for an natural origin? Yeah, the Sharpshooter Fallacy. But why limit ourselves to natural explanations? I'm leaning towards the hypothesis that it was caused by three magic invisible unicorns with a keen interest in science fiction. You should be more open-minded. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The rules how to create the first minutes are very different for different series and episodes. Not really, they do follow patterns. Are you trying to stand by the claim that calculating the probability of patters in cold opening of TV shows should be based solely on chance? That's ridiculous. Like, in this episode of Star Trek, the Captain and Lt. Commander are going to find themselves in bit of trouble with the Klingons again. So let's open with the camera sitting on the ground facing up and then float an avocado into the frame with a polka-dotted helium balloon and then have a midget shoot it with a blow gun. Why would they just pick random crap to open an episode with?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dubreuil Member (Idle past 3357 days) Posts: 84 Joined: |
Dr Adequate writes: It's not an answer to my question at all. Then the residual uncertainty about a triune God is an answer: Message 39.
Cat Sci writes: Are you trying to stand by the claim that calculating the probability of patters in cold opening of TV shows should be based solely on chance? It's not solely coincidentally, but chance is involved. From Message 97: "Chance itself has not created the pattern and any other natural origin can not have created the pattern because of the involvement of chance. "
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2689 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
Dubreuil writes: No. Teasers appear sometimes, not always. The pattern appears in series with and without teasers. Now you're just being coy (or Dunning-Kruger) By your own link, a "teaser" is an opening segment presented without title credits. So let's look at the options for a series without teasers: A: Same plot content as a teaser, but simply including the credits overlaysB: Opening credits without plot content (blank background or other). So in the case of "A", OF COURSE the same human introduced patterns are going to be there as the shows with teasers because the action is the same. The only difference is the overlay. In the case of "B", I'm pretty darn sure you're not claiming that relevant patterns appear in a blank background or standard opening background. Either way, you've done absolutely nothing to filter out human pattern introduction from your pattern. JB
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
It's not solely coincidentally, but chance is involved. So then you agree that your probability of it happening "solely" by chance is wrong and inappropriate.
any other natural origin can not have created the pattern because of the involvement of chance. Well that's a particularly stupid and illogical thing to say. What makes you think that?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025