Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 51 (9179 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,177 Year: 5,434/9,624 Month: 459/323 Week: 99/204 Day: 15/26 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Discontinuing research about ID
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 151 of 393 (755975)
04-14-2015 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Dubreuil
04-14-2015 11:57 AM


I wonder why I ever had the idea to post here. If you would spend less time with offending other people, then I actually could imagine to discuss with you. But you don't want that. I wonder, can I ask someone to banish you for calling me "dishonest filth"?
You certainly can. Send a private message to "Admin".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Dubreuil, posted 04-14-2015 11:57 AM Dubreuil has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 13084
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.5


(2)
Message 152 of 393 (755983)
04-14-2015 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Dubreuil
04-14-2015 11:57 AM


Moderator On Duty
Dubreuil writes:
I wonder, can I ask someone to banish you for calling me "dishonest filth"?
Of course you can, over at Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0, but there's no need to do that in this thread because I've been reading every word.
If the other participants here are anything like me then they see in you someone who is arrogant with an undisguised contempt for other people's intelligence. Unsurprisingly, people find this off-putting. I think that an approach that was absent the arrogance and demeaning attitude would yield a better outcome. There's nothing complicated about your math and most people here have no problem understanding it. People are telling you that your underlying assumptions are unsound and your analysis flawed, and you need to engage with this feedback instead of merely repeating yourself and referencing your "paper," which somehow managed to avoid any proofreading.
I sense there may also be a language problem. Is English a second language for you? If so that might explain your apparent unawareness of how you're coming across.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Dubreuil, posted 04-14-2015 11:57 AM Dubreuil has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by marc9000, posted 04-14-2015 10:04 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1516 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 153 of 393 (755984)
04-14-2015 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Dubreuil
04-14-2015 11:57 AM


and the "pattern" is?
... can I ask someone to banish you for calling me "dishonest filth"?
You can ask for a temporary suspension for failing to follow guidelines for respectful debate
Forum Guidelines
quote:
1. Please follow all moderator requests. Concerns about moderation should be taken to the Report Discussion Problems Here thread.
But people do tend to get snippy when you claim that they said something that wasn't said.
For the record, I too have stated that I see no support at all in the paper for the assertion that ID is involved, due to the logially incomplete (to put it kindly) argument (actually invalid is more to the point), and that I saw absolutely no connection to any specific god other than wishful thinking. This:
RAZD writes:
How about 3 invisible pigs?
was sarcasm regarding your assumption of a triune god/s. (a combination of "when pigs fly" with "the three little pigs" and "invisible unicorns")
RAZD writes:
So am I correct now, to think that everything listed in each column can occur either together or in any series composed of just those elements in the columns?
Yes.
Okay, that helps understand what that horrid table was all about. Let me see if I can summarize it in english -- events occur in a sequence of events, one after the other as follows:

Event #1:Fifteen (15) elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.Al, P.BW, P.Da, P.LF, P.Pi,P.Tr, P.WeC, P.Wo, P.WSA, M1, M2, M5, M6, M7. M13.
then
Event #2: Ten (10) elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.A1, P.BeC, P.BW, P.Da,, P.LF, P.Ri, P.WeC, P.Ya, M4, M5.
then
Event #3: Fourteen (14) elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.A1, P.BW, P.Da, P.En, P.Pi, P.Ri, P.Tr, P.Wo, P.WSA, P.Ya, M1, M3, M5, M6.
then
Event #4: Four (4) elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.A1, P.Wo, M4, M10.
then
Event #5: fourteen (14) elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.BeC, P.BW, P.Da, P.En, P.LF, P.Pi, P.Ri, P.Wo, P.Ya, M2, M4, M5, M7, M10.
then
Event #6: seven (7) elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.A1, P.Pi, P.Ri, P.Tr, P.Wo, M1, M6.
then
Event #7: sixteen (16) elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.A1. P.BeC, P.BW, P.Da, P.En, P.LF, P.Pi, P.Ri, P.Tr, P.WeC, P.Wo, P.Ya, M2, M4, M7, M14.
then
Event #8: sixteen (16) elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.A1, P.BW, P.Da, P.En, P.LF, P.Pi, P.Ri, P.Tr, P.WeC, P.Wo, M1, M4, M5, M6, M10, M13.
then
Event #9: seventeen (17) elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.A1., P.BeC, P.BW, P.Da, P.En, P.LF, P.Pi, P.Ri, P.Tr, P.WeC, P.Wo, P.Ya, M1, M2, M4, M7, M11, M14.
then
Event #10: six (6) elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.Da, P.LF, P.Pi, P.Wo, P.WSA, P.Ya.
then
Event #11: eleven (11) elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.Da, P.En, P.LF, P.Pi, P.Ri, P.WeC, P.Wo, P.WSA, M1, M6, M7.
then
Event #12: eleven (11) elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.A1. P.BeC, P.BW, P.Da, P.En, P.LF, P.Pi, P.Tr, P.Ya, M2, M10.
then
Event #13: fourteen (14) elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.BW, P.Da, P.En, P.LF, P.Pi, P.Ri, P.Tr, P.WeC, P.Wo, P.WSA, M1, M5, M6, M7.
then
Event #14: eighteen (18) elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.A1, P.BeC, P.BW, P.Da, P.LF, P.Pi, P.Ri, P.Tr, P.WeC, P.Wo, P.WSA, P.Ya, M1, M2, M3, M6, M7, M13.
and finally
Event #15: sixteen (16) elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.A1, P.BeC, P.BW, P.Da, P.En, P.LF, P.Pi, P.Ri, P.Tr, P.WeC, P.Wo, P.WSA, P.Ya, M4, M12, M14.
Am I correct in thinking that none of these "events" can be omitted or put in a different order without breaking the "pattern"?
RAZD writes:
ie -- that you do not have sub-events within these "events" yes?
How do you define a "sub-event"?
Any sub-part of the listed "events" that would fit, from each single person being a different sub-event, for instance.
I referred to your symbolism from [Msg=130]. It is not the same as the {} used before. These are all elements that can't occur at E1.
That is confusing, you should use something else, like |P.Ri, P.Tr| to denote simultaneous appearances ... if that is actually necessary given that either can appear before the other in the same event. I put it down to extraneous information, just as the + and - designations do not appear to add any real significance to the purported pattere.
Is there a reason for that you coloured "*P.Ri" red?
Yes, you said that P.Ri could not be in event #1 and then listed him as being in event #1. Again I think you are being inconsistent and that is causing confusion and giving the impression that you don't really know what you are talking about. Please simplify and clarify as much as possible..
If I am not correct on the "pattern" as I have listed it then please correct it.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : ..

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Dubreuil, posted 04-14-2015 11:57 AM Dubreuil has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Dubreuil, posted 04-14-2015 3:19 PM RAZD has replied

  
Dubreuil
Member (Idle past 3153 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 04-02-2015


Message 154 of 393 (755995)
04-14-2015 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by RAZD
04-14-2015 1:37 PM


Re: and the "pattern" is?
RAZD writes:
Am I correct in thinking that none of these "events" can be omitted or put in a different order without breaking the "pattern"?
The events 10 and 11 don't have to appear. E4-E8 can be absent together. These words are the first words under the table. And they can't be put in a different order.
RAZD writes:
Is there a reason for that you coloured "*P.Ri" red?
Yes, you said that P.Ri could not be in event #1 and then listed him as being in event #1. Again I think you are being inconsistent and that is causing confusion and giving the impression that you don't really know what you are talking about. Please simplify and clarify as much as possible..
I listed it as not being part of E1. From Message 141: "There are 32 elements that can't occur at E1. These are: {*P.BeC, *P.En, *P.Ri, ...".
RAZD writes:
Any sub-part of the listed "events" that would fit, from each single person being a different sub-event, for instance.
Only 15 parts of the pattern were introduced, not more.
RAZD writes:
That is confusing, you should use something else, like |P.Ri, P.Tr| to denote simultaneous appearances ... if that is actually necessary given that either can appear before the other in the same event.
It becomes important for, for example 5 persons that appear simultaneous. They appear simultaneous, therefore there are denoted to appear simultaneous.
RAZD writes:
If I am not correct on the "pattern" as I have listed it then please correct it.
It is mainly correct. There are a few mistakes. For example:
P.Al, not P.A1
M14 is listed at E5, not M10
There is no P.En listed at E11 and E13
There is no P.BW listed at E13
Admin writes:
Is English a second language for you?
English is my second language.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by RAZD, posted 04-14-2015 1:37 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by RAZD, posted 04-14-2015 5:22 PM Dubreuil has not replied

  
Tempe 12ft Chicken
Member (Idle past 446 days)
Posts: 438
From: Tempe, Az.
Joined: 10-25-2012


Message 155 of 393 (756006)
04-14-2015 5:06 PM


Questions (without talking about the math)
Okay, so I am extremely confused by the premise of your paper. There are several questions that reading through it has brought up, even without getting into the mathematics contained in your paper. That being said, let's see if you can offer some explanation to sort out these questions. Since it won't even involve the maths, we can focus on plain English/water cooler explanations.
The first question comes up, just reading through your abstract:
Deubreuil writes:
Prompted by previous research results human decision processes were analysed for unconscious patterns.
So, if we are looking for an unconscious pattern within the structure of ST:TNG, as you are, we would also need verification that this same unconscious pattern is apparent in, if not all, many other television shows. Not only that, but we would also have to ensure that this pattern is not a residual effect of industry standards and protocols. Have you compared your pattern to other show types to see if the pattern holds true? What about the Simpsons? There is a consistent pattern within that franchise of always including an opening segment that, while leading into the major storyline, has very little to do with the major plot points that will occur within the rest of the story. Or does it require the same hour long format? if so, how about we look for the same pattern within something like Stargate SG-1? If this is an unconscious pattern in human thought, than the concordance should not be present in only ST:TNG, but should make similar appearances in multiple shows, since all shows were, ya know, created by humans who would share this unconscious pattern.
Another point of contention is your statement:
Deubreuil writes:
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause
What is your criteria for determining which objects have an intelligent cause and which do not, since you only mention that certain features are best explained this way? Do you include examples of unintelligent design, such as the recurrent laryngeal nerve in giraffes? Your explanation must be able to determine which items were designed and which were not, otherwise you are simply adding an ad-hoc "best" explanation that fits your preconceived biases.
You include that items should be black with a white object next to it as one of your criterion for the pattern in ST:TNG, how do you determine when this pattern occurs in the Biblical text when you compare that to this pattern? The Bible is specifically a book of words, with different interpretations of it coming out all the time. What you may see as black and white objects, another may see as something completely different. How did you determine which version of the Bible and which interpretations of the text were your sources? If they were simply your viewing of the text, how did you control for your personal bias when analyzing the situations?
Also, in your section analyzing Biblical text, you seem to be cherry picking only the areas that agree with your predetermined pattern, why? If this is an unconscious human motivation to write stories in this pattern, why are so many Bible sections missing from your review? If they don't follow the same pattern, why are you not including the misses in your calculations? An unconscious motivation would force more elements of the story to fit into your supposed template, yet out of the 66 books of the bible, you were only able to find a similar (not identical, but similar) pattern in 27 of them. Combine that with the obviously missing season 2 of ST:TNG (Why remove it because the cast changed, your claim has nothing to do with specific cast members, but with the storytelling of humans. The individual playing the part is not the key to your pattern) and I wonder whether this pattern is only something you are cherry picking data to fit.
Finally....getting to the Triune God.
Nowhere in your paper did I once see a disproving of Zeus, Thor, FSM, Satan, nor any of the other myriad of Gods that humanity has created over time. How did you make the leap from the pattern to the specific Judeo-Christian God? Is it because of your comparison with the Bible? If so, how does this prove Triune God more so than consistent means of storytelling in human history? After all, both the Bible and ST:TNG are examples of storytelling by humans, how does their similarity relate not only to a Deity, but specifically to the Christian god?

The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. - Richard Dawkins
Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. - Issac Asimov
If you removed all the arteries, veins, & capillaries from a person’s body, and tied them end-to-endthe person will die. - Neil Degrasse Tyson
What would Buddha do? Nothing! What does the Buddhist terrorist do? Goes into the middle of the street, takes the gas, *pfft*, Self-Barbecue. The Christian and the Muslim on either side are yelling, "What the Fuck are you doing?" The Buddhist says, "Making you deal with your shit. - Robin Williams

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1516 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 156 of 393 (756008)
04-14-2015 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Dubreuil
04-14-2015 3:19 PM


Re: and the "pattern" is?
The Events 10 and 11 don't have to appear. E4-E8 can be absent together. These words are the first words under the table. And they can't be put in a different order.
It is mainly correct. There are a few mistakes. For example:
P.Al, not P.AI
M14 is listed at E5, not M10
There is no P.En listed at E11 and E13
There is no P.BW listed at E13
So the corrected "Pattern" would be:

  • Event #1:Fifteen (15) elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.Al, P.BW, P.Da, P.LF, P.Pi,P.Tr, P.WeC, P.Wo, P.WSA, M1, M2, M5, M6, M7. M13.
    then
  • Event #2: Ten (10) elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.AI, P.BeC, P.BW, P.Da,, P.LF, P.Ri, P.WeC, P.Ya, M4, M5.
    then
  • Event #3: Fourteen (14) elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.AI, P.BW, P.Da, P.En, P.Pi, P.Ri, P.Tr, P.Wo, P.WSA, P.Ya, M1, M3, M5, M6.
    then
    • OPTIONAL:
    • Event #4: Four (4) elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.AI, P.Wo, M4, M10.
      then
    • Event #5: fourteen (14) elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.BeC, P.BW, P.Da, P.En, P.LF, P.Pi, P.Ri, P.Wo, P.Ya, M2, M4, M5, M7, M10 M14.
      then
    • Event #6: seven (7) elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.AI, P.Pi, P.Ri, P.Tr, P.Wo, M1, M6.
      then
    • Event #7: sixteen (16) elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.AI. P.BeC, P.BW, P.Da, P.En, P.LF, P.Pi, P.Ri, P.Tr, P.WeC, P.Wo, P.Ya, M2, M4, M7, M14.
      then
    • Event #8: sixteen (16) elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.AI, P.BW, P.Da, P.En, P.LF, P.Pi, P.Ri, P.Tr, P.WeC, P.Wo, M1, M4, M5, M6, M10, M13.
    then
  • Event #9: seventeen (17) elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.AI., P.BeC, P.BW, P.Da, P.En, P.LF, P.Pi, P.Ri, P.Tr, P.WeC, P.Wo, P.Ya, M1, M2, M4, M7, M11, M14.
    then
  • OPTIONAL: Event #10: six (6) elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.Da, P.LF, P.Pi, P.Wo, P.WSA, P.Ya.
    then
  • OPTIONAL: Event #11: eleven (11) elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.Da, P.En, P.LF, P.Pi, P.Ri, P.WeC, P.Wo, P.WSA, M1, M6, M7.
    then
  • Event #12: eleven (11) elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.AI. P.BeC, P.BW, P.Da, P.En, P.LF, P.Pi, P.Tr, P.Ya, M2, M10.
    then
  • Event #13: fourteen (14) elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.BW, P.Da, P.En, P.LF, P.Pi, P.Ri, P.Tr, P.WeC, P.Wo, P.WSA, M1, M5, M6, M7.
    then
  • Event #14: eighteen (18) elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.AI, P.BeC, P.BW, P.Da, P.LF, P.Pi, P.Ri, P.Tr, P.WeC, P.Wo, P.WSA, P.Ya, M1, M2, M3, M6, M7, M13.
    and finally
  • Event #15: sixteen (16) elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.AI, P.BeC, P.BW, P.Da, P.En, P.LF, P.Pi, P.Ri, P.Tr, P.WeC, P.Wo, P.WSA, P.Ya, M4, M12, M14.
Only optional events 10 and/or 11 and/or group {4,5,6,7,8} can be omitted, the order of events cannot be changed.
Is this correct?
English is my second language.
As I had conjectured.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : ...

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Dubreuil, posted 04-14-2015 3:19 PM Dubreuil has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2217 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 157 of 393 (756023)
04-14-2015 8:54 PM


What a theory really is
Deubreuil writes:
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause
"Intelligent design" is not a theory, certainly not a scientific theory.
It is really a religious belief trying (unsuccessfully) to masquerade as a scientific theory.
To be a scientific theory, there are a few steps that must be included that intelligent design leaves out, probably hoping nobody will notice.
Here are a couple of definitions of theory:
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.
Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
In essence, a scientific theory is the single best explanation for a given set of facts--but it is an explanation that has been rigorously tested, explains all the relevant facts, is not contradicted by any relevant facts, and can make successful predictions.
Intelligent design fails on all of these points.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 158 of 393 (756035)
04-14-2015 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Admin
04-14-2015 1:32 PM


Re: Moderator On Duty
Of course you can, over at Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0, but there's no need to do that in this thread because I've been reading every word.
Nervous are you?
If the other participants here are anything like me then they see in you someone who is arrogant with an undisguised contempt for other people's intelligence.
The irony meter just exploded
I sense there may also be a language problem. Is English a second language for you? If so that might explain your apparent unawareness of how you're coming across.
I sense a lot of atheists coming unglued over something they can't handle. Dubreuil actually comes across as amazingly patient with the arrogance directed at him. I suspect you'll delete this whole thread, not just my post.
Have at it, ban me, I'll toss and turn all night. Small wonder this place is increasingly labeled as a joke.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Admin, posted 04-14-2015 1:32 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Larni, posted 04-15-2015 5:44 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 160 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 04-15-2015 6:00 AM marc9000 has not replied

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 159 of 393 (756058)
04-15-2015 5:44 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by marc9000
04-14-2015 10:04 PM


Re: Moderator On Duty
I sense a lot of atheists coming unglued over something they can't handle. Dubreuil actually comes across as amazingly patient with the arrogance directed at him. I suspect you'll delete this whole thread, not just my post.
You appear to be defining arrogance as not agreeing. It does not appear that anyone agrees that that Star Trek is proof of a triune god, rather than arrogance.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by marc9000, posted 04-14-2015 10:04 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 2484 days)
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


(2)
Message 160 of 393 (756059)
04-15-2015 6:00 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by marc9000
04-14-2015 10:04 PM


Re: Moderator On Duty
marc9000 writes:
I sense a lot of atheists coming unglued over something they can't handle.
Yeah, because a god who would take the time off from killing innocent babies in africa to coyly reveal himself in ST:TNG would be such a threatening concept to an atheist.
JB
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : NOTE - 24 hour suspension for this message. - Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by marc9000, posted 04-14-2015 10:04 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 13084
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 161 of 393 (756060)
04-15-2015 6:55 AM


Moderator On Duty
I'd like to encourage participants to remain focused on the topic. It appears to me that the claims in Dubreuil's paper are being questioned on three levels:
  • Underlying assumptions concerning the randomness of Star Trek Next Generation openings.
  • Data gathering techniques, specifically the identification of "events".
  • The conclusion that the results, if valid, imply a triune God.
In case anyone is wondering, no thread has ever been deleted at EvC Forum. Even the spam threads you see pop up every now and then are not deleted - they're merely moved to a hidden forum called Spam Threads.
For those interested in a little more detail, the forum software doesn't actually have the ability to truly delete threads. If a moderator or administrator were to delete a thread, all that would really happen is that the software would set a delete flag causing the thread to no longer appear in thread lists. The same is true of messages. In other words, anything deleted can be restored. There's no expunge capability at the current time.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
Dubreuil
Member (Idle past 3153 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 04-02-2015


Message 162 of 393 (756116)
04-15-2015 12:17 PM


RAZD writes:
Only optional events 10 and/or 11 and/or group {4,5,6,7,8} can be omitted, the order of events cannot be changed.
Is this correct?
Nearly. I checked it completely and the remaining mistakes are:
It is P.Al, not P.AI.
There is no *P.BW listed at E2
There is no *P.Da listed at E2
There is no *P.Pi listed at E6
There is no *P.Ri listed at E6
There is no *P.Al listed at E8
There is no *P.En listed at E8
There is no *P.WeC listed at E8
There is no *P.Pi listed at E11
There is no *P.Da listed at E12
There is no *P.LF listed at E12
There is M12 listed at E12
There is no *P.Pi listed at E13
There is no *P.Tr listed at E13
There is no *P.Wo listed at E15
And you forgot + and -. Everything else is correct.
Tempe 12ft Chicken writes:
So, if we are looking for an unconscious pattern within the structure of ST:TNG, as you are, we would also need verification that this same unconscious pattern is apparent in, if not all, many other television shows. Not only that, but we would also have to ensure that this pattern is not a residual effect of industry standards and protocols. Have you compared your pattern to other show types to see if the pattern holds true? What about the Simpsons? There is a consistent pattern within that franchise of always including an opening segment that, while leading into the major storyline, has very little to do with the major plot points that will occur within the rest of the story. Or does it require the same hour long format? if so, how about we look for the same pattern within something like Stargate SG-1? If this is an unconscious pattern in human thought, than the concordance should not be present in only ST:TNG, but should make similar appearances in multiple shows, since all shows were, ya know, created by humans who would share this unconscious pattern.
4 different series were examined in the paper. The industry standards and protocols were different for all series, but the same pattern was found in them. The opening segment is skipped, it is always the same.
Tempe 12ft Chicken writes:
You include that items should be black with a white object next to it as one of your criterion for the pattern in ST:TNG, how do you determine when this pattern occurs in the Biblical text when you compare that to this pattern? The Bible is specifically a book of words, with different interpretations of it coming out all the time. What you may see as black and white objects, another may see as something completely different. How did you determine which version of the Bible and which interpretations of the text were your sources? If they were simply your viewing of the text, how did you control for your personal bias when analyzing the situations?
The pattern would probably not fit with a book. It requires audible and visual information that are quantised to test whether it fits. The colours black and white are mostly well defined. I doubt anyone would confuse white with blue or black with red.
Tempe 12ft Chicken writes:
Also, in your section analyzing Biblical text, you seem to be cherry picking only the areas that agree with your predetermined pattern, why?
Where have I analysed Biblical texts?
Tempe 12ft Chicken writes:
Combine that with the obviously missing season 2 of ST:TNG (Why remove it because the cast changed, your claim has nothing to do with specific cast members, but with the storytelling of humans. The individual playing the part is not the key to your pattern)
On page 43 is shown that 2x05 also fits with the pattern. The other episodes could also fit, but it wasn't tested yet. Season 7 is also missing.
Tempe 12ft Chicken writes:
Nowhere in your paper did I once see a disproving of Zeus, Thor, FSM, Satan, nor any of the other myriad of Gods that humanity has created over time. How did you make the leap from the pattern to the specific Judeo-Christian God? Is it because of your comparison with the Bible? If so, how does this prove Triune God more so than consistent means of storytelling in human history? After all, both the Bible and ST:TNG are examples of storytelling by humans, how does their similarity relate not only to a Deity, but specifically to the Christian god?
The reference resulted from a test about the persons God, Jesus and Bible: [Msg=39]. You are right that it is only about a triune deity as in the bible, not the Judeo-Christian God. You are also right that Zeus, Thor, FSM, Satan weren't disproved. They also could possibly exist, but there is yet no evidence that would support these claims.
Tempe 12ft Chicken writes:
What is your criteria for determining which objects have an intelligent cause and which do not, since you only mention that certain features are best explained this way?
I explained it with a few questions in [Msg=136]:
1. Do you agree there is an coincidental contribution?
2. Do you agree that a coincidental contribution will change the row of appearances?
3. Do you agree that a change in the row of appearances will cause the pattern to not fit sometimes?
4. Do you agree that if the pattern doesn't fit that often, then the pattern will have only a low residual uncertainty like 1:10^2?
If all this questions are answered with Yes, then the involvement of chance precludes a pattern with a residual uncertainty of 1:10^7 because: 1.->2.->3.->4. This would indicate an intelligent cause in chance. But this includes mathematics, therefore we can keep this in suspense until other questions are solved.
Edited by Dubreuil, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-15-2015 12:21 PM Dubreuil has not replied
 Message 164 by RAZD, posted 04-15-2015 1:53 PM Dubreuil has not replied
 Message 165 by RAZD, posted 04-15-2015 3:11 PM Dubreuil has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 163 of 393 (756120)
04-15-2015 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Dubreuil
04-15-2015 12:17 PM


but the same pattern was found in them
It sure would be cool if you'd be willing to describe that pattern in regular words.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Dubreuil, posted 04-15-2015 12:17 PM Dubreuil has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1516 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 164 of 393 (756138)
04-15-2015 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Dubreuil
04-15-2015 12:17 PM


Nearly. I checked it completely and the remaining mistakes are:
It is P.Al, not P.AI.
There is no *P.BW listed at E2
There is no *P.Da listed at E2
There is no *P.Pi listed at E6
There is no *P.Ri listed at E6
There is no *P.Al listed at E8
There is no *P.En listed at E8
There is no *P.WeC listed at E8
There is no *P.Pi listed at E11
There is no *P.Da listed at E12
There is no *P.LF listed at E12
There is M12 listed at E12
There is no *P.Pi listed at E13
There is no *P.Tr listed at E13
There is no *P.Wo listed at E15
And you forgot + and -. Everything else is correct.
P.Al and P.AI look the same with the font on my computer, I did not find M12 listed at E12 ...
... as a side note I find your nomenclature overly complex and clunky to use ... this could have been just "PA" -- symbols are just place holders. For this reason I have intentionally omitted the + and - symbols because I don't see that they add anything at this point.
So now the corrected corrected "Pattern" (less +'s and -'s ... which YOU can add if you feel it is necessary) would be:

  • Event #1:Fifteen (15) elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.Al, P.BW, P.Da, P.LF, P.Pi,P.Tr, P.WeC, P.Wo, P.WSA, M1, M2, M5, M6, M7. M13.
    then
  • Event #2: Eight (8) elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.Al, P.BeC, P.BW, P.Da, P.LF, P.Ri, P.WeC, P.Ya, M4, M5.
    then
  • Event #3: Fourteen (14) elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.Al, P.BW, P.Da, P.En, P.Pi, P.Ri, P.Tr, P.Wo, P.WSA, P.Ya, M1, M3, M5, M6.
    then
    • OPTIONAL:
    • Event #4: Four (4) elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.Al, P.Wo, M4, M10.
      then
    • Event #5: fourteen (14) elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.BeC, P.BW, P.Da, P.En, P.LF, P.Pi, P.Ri, P.Wo, P.Ya, M2, M4, M5, M7, M10 M14.
      then
    • Event #6: five (5) elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.Al, P.Pi, P.Ri, P.Tr, P.Wo, M1, M6.
      then
    • Event #7: sixteen (16) elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.Al. P.BeC, P.BW, P.Da, P.En, P.LF, P.Pi, P.Ri, P.Tr, P.WeC, P.Wo, P.Ya, M2, M4, M7, M14.
      then
    • Event #8: nine (9) elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.Al, P.BW, P.Da, >P.En,P.WeC, P.Wo, M1, M4, M5, M6, M10, M13.
    then
  • Event #9: eighteen (18) elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.Al., P.BeC, P.BW, P.Da, P.En, P.LF, P.Pi, P.Ri, P.Tr, P.WeC, P.Wo, P.Ya, M1, M2, M4, M7, M11, M14.
    then
  • OPTIONAL: Event #10: six (6) elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.Da, P.LF, P.Pi, P.Wo, P.WSA, P.Ya.
    then
  • OPTIONAL: Event #11: nine (9) elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.Da, P.En, P.LF, P.Pi, P.Ri, P.WeC, P.Wo, P.WSA, M1, M6, M7.
    then
  • Event #12: nine (9) elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.Al. P.BeC, P.BW, P.Da, P.En, P.LF, P.Pi, P.Tr, P.Ya, M2, M10.
    then
  • Event #13: ten (10) elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.BW, P.Da, P.En, P.LF, P.Pi, P.Ri, P.Tr, P.WeC, P.Wo, P.WSA, M1, M5, M6, M7.
    then
  • Event #14: eighteen (18) elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.Al, P.BeC, P.BW, P.Da, P.LF, P.Pi, P.Ri, P.Tr, P.WeC, P.Wo, P.WSA, P.Ya, M1, M2, M3, M6, M7, M13.
    and finally
  • Event #15: fifteen (15) elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.Al, P.BeC, P.BW, P.Da, P.En, P.LF, P.Pi, P.Ri, P.Tr, P.WeC, P.Wo, P.WSA, P.Ya, M4, M12, M14.
Only optional events 10 and/or 11 and/or group {4,5,6,7,8} can be omitted, the order of events cannot be changed.
Is this NOW correct?
If it is not then please make the corrections yourself (you can copy what I have done by using the "peek" function, either the |PEEK| button at the bottom of the post or "peek mode" (Normal: Peek Mode:) when in the reply window).
In the meantime I will proceed on the basis of this being correct.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Dubreuil, posted 04-15-2015 12:17 PM Dubreuil has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1516 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 165 of 393 (756151)
04-15-2015 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Dubreuil
04-15-2015 12:17 PM


and so it goes
So we now have your "pattern" correctly spelled out in simple english ... that wasn't too bad, was it?
So we have Event #1 with 15 possible elements, which if they occur singly or in combination with other elements of this event means (1x15!)+ (15x14!)+ (105x13!)+ (455x12!)+ (1365x11!)+ (3003x10!)+ (5005x9!)+ (6435x8!)+ (6435x7!)+ (5005x6!)+ (3003x5!)+ (1365x4!)+ (455x3!)+ (105x2!)+ (15x1!) = = 3.554627472075E+12 possible permutations (variations) of elements for this event, where no element repeats in this event;
... Event #2 with 8 possible elements, which if they occur singly or in combination with other elements of this event means (1x8!)+ (8x7!)+ (28x6!)+ (56x5!)+ (70x4!)+ (56x3!)+ (28x2!)+ (8x1!) = 1.09600E+5 possible permutations (variations) of elements for this event, where no element repeats in this event;
... Event #3 with 14 possible elements, which if they occur singly or in combination with other elements of this event means (1x14!)+ (14x13!)+ (91x12!)+ (364x11!)+ (1001x10!)+ (2002x9!)+ (3003x8!)+ (3432x7!)+ (3003x6!)+ (2002x5!)+ (1001x4!)+ (364x3!)+ (91x2!)+ (14x1!) = 2.36975164804E+11 possible permutations (variations) of elements for this event, where no element repeats in this event;
... Event #4 with 4 possible elements, which if they occur singly or in combination with other elements of this event means (1x4!)+ (4x3!)+ (6x2!)+ (4x1!) = 6.4e+1 possible permutations (variations) of elements for this event, where no element repeats in this event;
... Event #5 with 14 possible elements, which if they occur singly or in combination with other elements of this event means (1x14!)+ (14x13!)+ (91x12!)+ (364x11!)+ (1001x10!)+ (2002x9!)+ (3003x8!)+ (3432x7!)+ (3003x6!)+ (2002x5!)+ (1001x4!)+ (364x3!)+ (91x2!)+ (14x1!) = 2.36975164804E+11 possible permutations (variations) of elements for this event, where no element repeats in this event;
... Event #6 with 5 possible elements, which if they occur singly or in combination with other elements of this event means (1x5!)+ (5x4!)+ (10x3!)+ (10x2!)+ (5x1!)
= 3.25E+2 possible permutations (variations) of elements for this event, where no element repeats in this event;
... Event #7 with 16 possible elements, which if they occur singly or in combination with other elements of this event means (1x16!)+ (16x15!)+ (120x14!)+ (560x13!)+ (1820x12!)+ (4368x11!)+ (8008x10!)+ (11440x9!)+ (12870x8!)+ (11440x7!)+ (8008x6!)+ (4368x5!)+ (1820x4!)+ (560x3!)+ (120x2!)+ (16x1!) = 1.74034561032844E+16 possible permutations (variations) of elements for this event, where no element repeats in this event;
... Event #8 with 9 possible elements, which if they occur singly or in combination with other elements of this event means (1x9!)+ (9x8!)+ (36x7!)+ (84x6!)+ (126x5!)+ (126x4!)+ (84x3!)+ (36x2!)+ (9x1!)
= 9.86409E+5 possible permutations (variations) of elements for this event, where no element repeats in this event;
... Event #9 with 18 possible elements, which if they occur singly or in combination with other elements of this event means (1x18!)+ (18x17!)+ (153x16!)+ (816x15!)+ (3060x14!)+ (8568x13!)+ (18564x12!)+ (31824x11!)+ (43758x10!)+ (48620x9!)+ (43758x8!)+ (31824x7!)+ (18564x6!)+ (8568x5!)+ (3060x4!)+ (816x3!) (153x2!) (18x1!) = 1.7403456103284400e+16 possible permutations (variations) of elements for this event, where no element repeats in this event;
... Event #10 with 6 possible elements, which if they occur singly or in combination with other elements of this event means (1x6!)+ (6x5!)+ (15x4!)+ (20x3!)+ (15x2!)+ (6x1!) = 1.956E+3 possible permutations (variations) of elements for this event, where no element repeats in this event;
... Event #11 with 9 possible elements, which if they occur singly or in combination with other elements of this event means (1x9!)+ (9x8!)+ (36x7!)+ (84x6!)+ (126x5!)+ (126x4!)+ (84x3!)+ (36x2!)+ (9x1!) = 9.86409E+5 possible permutations (variations) of elements for this event, where no element repeats in this event;
... Event #12 with 9 possible elements, which if they occur singly or in combination with other elements of this event means (1x9!)+ (9x8!)+ (36x7!)+ (84x6!)+ (126x5!)+ (126x4!)+ (84x3!)+ (36x2!)+ (9x1!) = 9.86409E+5 possible permutations (variations) of elements for this event, where no element repeats in this event;
... Event #13 with 10 possible elements, which if they occur singly or in combination with other elements of this event means (1x10!)+ (10x9!)+ (45x8!)+ (120x7!)+ (210x6!)+ (252x5!)+ (210x4!)+ (120x3!)+ (45x2!)+ (10x1!) = 9.8641006 possible permutations (variations) of elements for this event, where no element repeats in this event;
... Event #14 with 18 possible elements, which if they occur singly or in combination with other elements of this event means (1x18!)+ (18x17!)+ (153x16!)+ (816x15!)+ (3060x14!)+ (8568x13!)+ (18564x12!)+ (31824x11!)+ (43758x10!)+ (48620x9!)+ (43758x8!)+ (31824x7!)+ (18564x6!)+ (8568x5!)+ (3060x4!)+ (816x3!) (153x2!) (18x1!) = 1.74034561032844E+016 possible permutations (variations) of elements for this event, where no element repeats in this event;
... Event #15 with 15 possible elements, which if they occur singly or in combination with other elements of this event means (1x15!)+ (15x14!)+ (105x13!)+ (455x12!)+ (1365x11!)+ (3003x10!)+ (5005x9!)+ (6435x8!)+ (6435x7!)+ (5005x6!)+ (3003x5!)+ (1365x4!)+ (455x3!)+ (105x2!)+ (15x1!) = 3.554627472075E+12 possible permutations (variations) of elements for this event, where no element repeats in this event;
AND thus a first order approximation of the total possible permutation\variations allowed to fit this "pattern" is 3.55E+12 x 1.10E+5 x 2.37E+11 x 6.40E+1 x 2.37E+11 x 3.25E+2 x 5.69E+13 x 9.86E+5 x 1.74E+16 x 1.96E+3 x 9.86E+5 x 9.86E+5 x 9.86E+6 x 1.74E+16 x 3.55E+12 = 5.16E+131 permutations (variations) of the "pattern" for all events, where no element repeats in any one event.
IF, as you allow, elements can repeat within an "event" then the number of possible permutations\variations explodes exponentially, for instance in event #4 you have 4 elements and if each one repeats within the event we now have 8 elements and 109,600 possible permutations instead of 64 (ie - over a 1700 fold increase), and if each one can repeat a third time that makes 12 elements and 1,302,061,344 possible permutations (ie - over a 20,000,000 fold increase) ... and each of the other "events" would grow in similar manner, resulting in virtually infinite possibilities, certainly as far as the episodes being written are concerned. Without knowing the number of repetitions the final calculation is indeterminant, and extremely divergent rather than trending to a final value. The similar calculation for the number of non-possibilities is equally indeterminate and widely variable from the information given. That means that your probability calculation must be flawed: you have to know the possibilities before you can derive the probabilities, and your result is either a mistake or an artifact of an incomplete analysis.
That's problem #1 with your concept.
No ID, no triune god/s involved, just human error.
Next, if you want to continue, we can get into the issue of replicating your work, especially why your elements are grouped the way they are: why would/should I conclude that these all are the same pattern being followed?
Events Episode A Episode B Episode C Episode D Episode E
Event #1 P.Al P.BW P.Da P.LF P.Tr
Event #2 P.BeC M5 P.LF P.WeC P.Ya
Event #3 P.En P.Pi P.Ri P.Tr P.Wo
Event #4 P.Wo P.Al M4 M10
Event #5 P.Da P.En P.Wo P.Ya
Event #6 M1 P.Ri P.Al M6
Event #7 P.BW P.Tr P.WeC P.Wo
Event #8 M4 P.Wo P.BW P.Da
Event #9 P.Ri P.BeC P.En P.BW M2
Event #10 P.WSA P.Pi P.Da
Event #11 P.WeC P.LF M7
Event #12 P.Tr P.Ya P.BeC M2 M10
Event #13 M5 M6 M1 M7 P.LF
Event #14 M2 M3 M13 P.BeC P.Pi
Event #15 M14 M4 M12 P.En P.BeC
... when each of these "sample episodes" has different elements at each event; these "sample episodes" are different lengths, and no single character appears more than once in any of these episodes?
It seems to me on a first level evaluation, that these are in reality 5 completely different patterns and that not one of them fits the other "sample episodes" even though they all "comply" with your "pattern" ...
What can I do to make these all fit a single pattern without arbitrarily grouping elements? What is your method for doing this? What are the reasons for your groupings?
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Dubreuil, posted 04-15-2015 12:17 PM Dubreuil has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Dubreuil, posted 04-15-2015 4:48 PM RAZD has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024