Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Discontinuing research about ID
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 196 of 393 (756455)
04-20-2015 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by Dubreuil
04-19-2015 4:02 PM


It doesn't tell where it come from, but it tells where it doesn't come from.
No, it really doesn't.
The probability for the pattern to occur coincidental was 0.625 for the random data test and <0.711 for the calculation, although the pattern fit at (00:00). The probability that this is the result of chance was calculated to 1:10^7. Because of this it is almost impossible that the pattern occured because of coincidental effects.
Nope, that's just a big ol' non-sequitur. It simply does not follow.
That it could not have come about by chance was shown with the 1:10^7 probability.
You said that number was the odds of the pattern existing. The odds of something existing tells us nothing about how it came about.
The four questions show that any naturally imprinted pattern would be corrupted to a residual uncertainty below 1:10^2 through the involvement of chance.
Not really. A coincidental contribution changing the rows of appearances so that the pattern doesn't fit as well doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the pattern occurs naturally.
Only the first three appearances were mixed here and it has already changed whether the pattern fits or not. Every coincidental contribution can change the row of appearances or simultaneous appearances and affects whether the pattern fits or not. Although coincidental contributions should have highly influenced any naturally imprinted pattern, the found pattern has a high likelihood to appear and a high residual uncertainty, against the coincidental contributions.
But if your pattern, itself, is designed around something that has a pattern, then all you're doing is making a known pattern more complicated. The fact that if you deviate from the pattern then your pattern doesn't fit anymore doesn't tell us anything about how the patterns emerged.
If you want to keep discussing about this, then I insist that you answer all four question. That will simplify the discussion.
You can put me down for 4 yes's. I've already accepted that the pattern did not come about by chance.
You still have to address the fact that it could have occurred naturally.
And don't just copy and paste something you've already written. They didn't work the last times you did so they won't work the next time either.
Yes, it is only an indication for Intelligent Design.
I don't think you'll find anyone to disagree with the fact that Star Trek episodes were designed by intelligent people.
Intelligent Design claims there is a intelligent cause in evolution and this pattern shows a signal in evolution-like processes.
No offense, but the real actual Intelligent Design movement is just a bunch of unscientific malarkey to disguise creationism.
The residual uncertainty of 1:10^3 is an other reference and the four questions above can preclude an other natural origin.
That simply is not true. The questions don't have anything to do with whether or not the origin was natural.
The distinctness of the pattern was actually created this way. From Message 166: "The elements therefore have to be grouped in a way to create a pattern of the most possible distinctness". The pattern was created to fit with the first three seasons of the data source and was then tested on a data source it was not created for. The argument about this is that there is such a complex pattern at all. From Message 166: "If you are interested about this, then the pages 11 to 13 of the paper could be revealing to you. It was tried there to add actual random data from episodes to the pattern. To make the pattern fit with this random data, it became a random pattern itself.
That sounds like the thing that you are making the pattern for has an effect on the pattern itself. When its random you get randomness and when its not you don't.
So, if your making your pattern on a TV show that already follows patterns, then you're just going to get a more complicated pattern.
That's what I mean by the complexity and odds of your pattern occurring are an artifact of the way that you are creating it.
This shows a difference between the actual beginning and random data.
There's nothing at all random about the opening scenes in TV shows, and they do follow patterns.
So it makes sense that you are going to find patterns that fit there.
If you then follow a process to make patterns out of those patterns, then you're going to get more complicated stuff that has lower odds of occurring.
But that doesn't tell you anything about how those patterns emerged and you don't know if your pattern creating process has an effect on the whole thing.
And the way you made the pattern involved a lot of subjective interpretation, so there's no confidence that the pattern that you've created is even accurate in the first place.
How much stuff did you leave out, for instance? You're M# observations are just arbitrary.
If you have to ignore a bunch of stuff to make a pattern, and then you keep ignoring that stuff when testing the pattern, then of course your going to be able to create something that fits!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Dubreuil, posted 04-19-2015 4:02 PM Dubreuil has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 197 of 393 (756456)
04-20-2015 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by Dubreuil
04-19-2015 4:02 PM


people ...
RAZD writes:
There are other transitions like this:
E1->E2: 6 possible transitions
What are those 6 possible transitions? I get 13 to 15
*P.BeC, P.BW-, P.Da-, *P.Ri, *P.Ya, M4
Every element that is present in E2 but not in E1 will cause a transition. An element that is present in E1 and E2 will not cause a transition. An element that is not present in E1 and E2 will break the pattern at E1.
So again my transition chart from Message 192 modified so that the transition column is either "yes" if it forces a change from E1 to E2 and "no" if it doesn't, where either and "end" or "begin" transition occurs if an element is in E1 but not in E2 OR it is is E2 and not in E1 and "no" if it is the same for E1 and E2:
E1transitionE2
*P.Al&‘yesnoyes
*P.Al&+nonono
*P.Al&-yesendno
*P.BeC&‘nobeginyes
*P.BeC&+nonono
*P.BeC&-nonono
*P.BW&‘yesendno
*P.BW&+yesendno
*P.BW&-nobeginyes
*P.Da&‘yesendno
*P.Da&+nonono
*P.Da&-nobeginyes
*P.En&‘nonono
*P.En&+nonono
*P.En&-nonono
*P.LF&‘yesnoyes
*P.LF&+nonono
*P.LF&-nonono
*P.Pi&‘yesendno
*P.Pi&+nonono
*P.Pi&-nonono
*P.Ri&‘nobeginyes
*P.Ri&+nonono
*P.Ri&-nonono
*P.Tr&‘yesendno
*P.Tr&+yesendno
*P.Tr&-nonono
*P.WeC&‘yesnoyes
*P.WeC&+nonono
*P.WeC&-yesendno
*P.Wo&‘yesendno
*P.Wo&+nonono
*P.Wo&-nonono
*P.WSA&‘yesendno
*P.WSA&+nonono
*P.WSA&-nonono
*P.Ya&‘nobeginyes
*P.Ya&+nonono
*P.Ya&-nonono
M1yesyesno
M2yesyesno
M3nonono
M4nobeginyes
M5yesnoyes
M6yesnono
M7yesendno
M10nonono
M11nonono
M12nonono
M13yesendno
M14nonono
MSEyesnoyes
So I get your 6 "begin" transitions but it seems you missed the 14 "end" transitions -- elements that must exit before Event #2 can begin (and before any of the "begin" transitions occur).
And you can also have E1 → E2 without any transition if they have just the people common to both events. This ambiguity would end with a transition to an event element not in both E1 and E2.
RAZD writes:
Caveat: +/- cannot be observed without * appearance of individual.
It can. For Example:
E5: *P.Pi /E6: P.Pi- /E7: P.Pi+, *P.Pi /E8: P.Pi-
Yes, they are identified but it is not an appearance. An appearance for this pattern is defined as someone being named, start to speak or appear. And "he" or "she" is not a name.
Pedantic hair splitting -- you know who is identified by "he" or "she" as plainly as if they were named because you assign +/- to them.
You try to rewrite the pattern rules. For example that every affected person includes an appearance of the person. If you look at table 4 on page 5, then you will see there a lot - or + without *. If they are all replaced from "+" and "-" to "*, +" and "*, -", then an reappearance of this person would not cause a transition.
Except segregating *P.(A)‘, *P.(A)+, *P.(A)- into distinct elements would mean that the appearance of *P.(A)‘ after *P.(A)+ or *P.(A)- would still be a transition because it is (now) a different element.
Now I note that you previously said that P.(A)+ and P.(A)- were not elements, but you are treating them as elements now. Can you clarify this?
With the actual rules:
E1: *P.Da /E2: P.Da- /E3: *P.Da /E9: *P.WeC /E11: *P.Da /E12: P.Da- /E13: *P.Da
For your rules (probably):
E1: *P.Da /E2: P.Da-, *P.Da, *P.WeC, *P.Da, P.Da-, *P.Da
No, I would get (system A with 52 independent elements):
E1: *P.Da‘ /E2: *P.Da- /E3: *P.Da‘ /E9: *P.WeC‘ /E11: *P.Da‘ /E12: *P.Da- /E13: *P.Da‘
or (system B with 28 independent elements):
E1: *P.Da /E2: M- /E3: *P.Da /E9: *P.WeC /E11: *P.Da /E12: M- /E13: *P.Da
You can test your revised system A and B, but they are completely different to the pattern introduced in the paper. ...
Curiously I see them as being the same pattern. Perhaps there is something missing that is not in your verbal descriptions of how the pattern works, or is applied.
... Didn't you said you wanted to reproduce the work and not to create your own?
Oh I am very interested in reproducing the work, and that includes deriving the pattern rather than just accepting it as written.
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 193 by Dubreuil, posted 04-19-2015 4:02 PM Dubreuil has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


(1)
Message 198 of 393 (756460)
04-20-2015 2:20 PM


save time
The abstract indicates that this over-lengthy paper is a typical ID argument-via-analogy, followed by a totally unwarranted extrapolation, and nothing more. That is probably why even pro-ID folks didn't care about it - it is their usual fluff weighed down with unnecessarily complicated math.

  
Dubreuil
Member (Idle past 3041 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 04-02-2015


Message 199 of 393 (756461)
04-20-2015 2:27 PM


RAZD writes:
it seems to me that I can make B15 be P.Da and then E is unique from A-C:
No. I will explain it again:
An element that is present at E1 and present at E2 will not cause a transition.
An element that is present at E1 and not present at E2 will not cause a transition.
An element that is not present at E1 and present at E2 will cause a transition.
An element that is not present at E1 and not present at E2 will break the pattern.
*P.Da will not cause a transition at E14. *P.Da is part of E14 and E15.
This is detailed explained on page 6:
E11:
P.Da appears. *P.Da is not part of E9, but part of E11, therefore E11 is triggered.
E12:
The crew is mentioned. The crew in ST:TNG consist of 1000 persons. *P.Al is not part of E11, but part of E12, therefore E12 is triggered
E13:
The first officer is named. *P.Ri is not part of E12, but part of E13, therefore E13 is triggered.
E14:
P.Pi appears. *P.Pi is not part of E13, but part of E14, therefore E14 is triggered.
E15:
Commander William Riker is commended to be a highly experienced man. P.Ri+ is not part of E14, but part of E15, therefore E15 is triggered
Other examples in your A-E table:
Episode A E4: *P.Wo is part of E3 and E4. *P.Wo doesn't cause a transition at E3.
Episode A E9: *P.Ri is part of E8 and E9. *P.Ri doesn't cause a transition at E8.
Episode B E2: M5 is part of E1 and E2. M5 doesn't cause a transition at E1.
Episode B E4: *P.Al is part of E3 and E4. *P.Al doesn't cause a transition at E3.
Episode B E6: *P.Ri is not part of E6.
Episode B E7: *P.Tr is part of E6 and E7. *P.Tr doesn't cause a transition at E6.
Episode B E8: *P.Wo is part of E7 and E8. *P.Wo doesn't cause a transition at E7.
Episode B E11: *P.LF is part of E9 and E11. *P.LF doesn't cause a transition at E9.
Episode B E15: *P.Da is part of E14 and E15. *P.Da doesn't cause a transition at E14.
Episode C E2: *P.LF is part of E1 and E2. *P.LF doesn't cause a transition at E1.
Episode C E3: *P.Ri is part of E2 and E3. *P.Ri doesn't cause a transition at E2.
Episode C E5: *P.Wo is part of E4 and E5. *P.Wo doesn't cause a transition at E4.
Episode C E8: *P.BW is part of E7 and E8. *P.BW doesn't cause a transition at E7.
Episode C E10: *P.Pi is part of E9 and E10. *P.Pi doesn't cause a transition at E9.
Episode D E2: *P.Al is part of E1 and E2. *P.Al doesn't cause a transition at E1.
Episode D E8: *P.Ri is part of E7 and E8. *P.Ri doesn't cause a transition at E7.
RAZD writes:
There is no pattern here that I can see: what should I be seeing that I am missing?
You use a random data source. For the random data test it was not possible to create a distinct pattern that fits with the random data.
RAZD writes:
When you assemble mirrors and bits of colored plastic in a kaleidoscope you can create the appearance of colored patterns, where any one would be highly unlikely to occur, but the pattern is an artifact caused by the mirrors, not the colored plastic bits.
It's not an unlikely pattern that occurred once. It is an unlikely pattern with a high complexity, but it didn't occurred only once, it occurred 45 out of 47 times. It's like you use your kaleidoscope and 45 out of 47 times the same unlikely pattern occurs. And a kaleidoscope is not an evolution-like process.
RAZD writes:
Well isn't that a problem that applies to other instances -- your subjective evaluation of good/evil, based on your worldview?
It's based on the worldview of the persons. For example:
P.evilperson1, P.evilperson2, P.otherperson1, P.otherperson2
P.ep1: "I feel so sick."
P.ep2: "Where is P.op2? That's terrible."
P.op1: "I will go to P.op2. I will make sure he won't help them."
Is: *P.ep1, P.ep1-, *P.ep2, *P.op2, P.ep2-, *P.op1, *P.op2, {P.ep1-, P.ep2-}
The worldview of the persons is defined. An objective worldview is not always defined.
RAZD writes:
Curiously I think the pattern would be more universal: what I am trying to do is figure out is how you develop the pattern, so I figure a simpler system would be easier to start with.
The pattern was created for the first 76 episode. It was revised until it did fit with the first 76 episode. Table 5 on page 8 shows the origin of the pattern. If you want to develop a pattern on your own, then you will need a data source with a similar size. Write down all quantisations and create a distinct pattern for it. Then test it on a random data source and one or more data sources it was not created for. That will take a few years. It took that long for this paper with 60 pages. You can then tell about your results in a few years.
RAZD writes:
So I get your 6 "begin" transitions but it seems you missed the 14 "end" transitions -- elements that must exit before Event #2 can begin (and before any of the "begin" transitions occur).
There are no "end transitions" with appearances. Only appearances:* and affected person:+/- were quantised. It would be an other pattern, if they are added.
RAZD writes:
Pedantic hair splitting -- you know who is identified by "he" or "she" as plainly as if they were named because you assign +/- to them.
The paper defined that an appearance is if a person is named, becomes visible or starts to speak. That are three possible appearances and "being identified" is not part of the possible appearances. "he", "she" or "I" are not appearances with this rules.
RAZD writes:
Now I note that you previously said that P.(A)+ and P.(A)- were not elements, but you are treating them as elements now. Can you clarify this?
*P.(A), P.(A)+, P.(A)- are different independent elements. They appear independent in the pattern. Sometimes solely as "+", "-", "*", sometimes together as "*, -", "*, +" at E1-E15.
RAZD writes:
No, I would get (system A with 52 independent elements):
E1: *P.Da‘ /E2: *P.Da- /E3: *P.Da‘ /E9: *P.WeC‘ /E11: *P.Da‘ /E12: *P.Da- /E13: *P.Da‘
Is *P.Da- = {*P.Da, P.Da-}?
If so, then P.Da can't appear at E2. *P.Da is not part of E2 and E12.
P.Da: "I feel very sick"
Then P.Da walks offscreen and onscreen again
P.Da: "I still feel very sick"
Then P.Da walks offscreen and onscreen again
P.Da: "I still feel very sick"
Then P.Da walks offscreen and onscreen again
P.Da: "I still feel very sick"
Then P.Da walks offscreen and onscreen again
P.Da: "I still feel very sick"
is: *P.Da, P.Da-, *P.Da, P.Da-, *P.Da, P.Da-, *P.Da, P.Da-, *P.Da, P.Da-
There is no P.Da‘ defined. And in this situation it would never happen.
RAZD writes:
Curiously I see them as being the same pattern. Perhaps there is something missing that is not in your verbal descriptions of how the pattern works, or is applied.
They are quantised differently. You count "he" or "she" as appearance and added end transitions. The transitions themselves are also not correctly applied yet.
Cat Sci writes:
It doesn't tell where it come from, but it tells where it doesn't come from.
No, it really doesn't.
That it could not have come about by chance was shown with the 1:10^7 probability.
You said that number was the odds of the pattern existing. The odds of something existing tells us nothing about how it came about.
I said this number is the odds of the pattern existing out of chance. 1:10^7 is a very low probability, therefore it's very unlikely that chance created the pattern.
Cat Sci writes:
The four questions show that any naturally imprinted pattern would be corrupted to a residual uncertainty below 1:10^2 through the involvement of chance.
Not really. A coincidental contribution changing the rows of appearances so that the pattern doesn't fit as well doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the pattern occurs naturally.
It does. The pattern fits 45 out of 47 times. If chance would have been involved in the usual way, then the pattern would not fit that well and it would have only fit for example 35 out of 47 times. This is a residual uncertainty of 1:10.
Cat Sci writes:
You can put me down for 4 yes's. I've already accepted that the pattern did not come about by chance.
The fourth question maybe was not exactly formulated. I will specify the question to:
4. Do you agree that if the pattern doesn't fit that often, then any pattern will have only a low residual uncertainty like 1:10^2?
The fourth question referred to any possible pattern. The involvement of chance would normally preclude any pattern with a residual residual uncertainty of 1:10^7 because of chance. The revised questions:
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 any 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 any pattern with a residual uncertainty of 1:10^7 because: 1.->2.->3.->4.
Do you still agree with all four question? If so, how could a pattern with a high residual uncertainty occur, although chance was involved?
The paper suggests a pattern or a bias in chance itself.
Cat Sci writes:
Yes, it is only an indication for Intelligent Design.
I don't think you'll find anyone to disagree with the fact that Star Trek episodes were designed by intelligent people.
Yes, and they all had preferences which can be retrieved as patterns with a certainty of 10% or 90% or even 99%. It's not about the existence of patterns, it's about their certainty.
Cat Sci writes:
The fact that if you deviate from the pattern then your pattern doesn't fit anymore doesn't tell us anything about how the patterns emerged.
The paper doesn't say anything how the pattern exactly emerged, there are only indications for the origin named.
First: The similarity with the claims of ID about evolution and evolution-like processes.
Second: The calculated residual uncertainty of 1:10^3 about a triune God
Cat Sci writes:
Intelligent Design claims there is a intelligent cause in evolution and this pattern shows a signal in evolution-like processes.
No offense, but the real actual Intelligent Design movement is just a bunch of unscientific malarkey to disguise creationism.
I agree. The story about the dispute with the ID proponents: Petition Petition for academic freedom
Cat Sci writes:
That sounds like the thing that you are making the pattern for has an effect on the pattern itself. When its random you get randomness and when its not you don't.
So, if your making your pattern on a TV show that already follows patterns, then you're just going to get a more complicated pattern.
The random data source was not really "random". The starting time was randomised. The random data source was also a quantisation like the actual data source only with randomised starting times. Already present patterns would affect both data sources in the same way and there would be no difference in randomness about this already present patterns.
Cat Sci writes:
How much stuff did you leave out, for instance? You're M# observations are just arbitrary.
I added recurring appearances that are not persons as M's. There are possibly more M's that also fit with pattern but wasn't added yet. On page 15 a possible M15 is mentioned that could appear at E16. In five episodes followed right after E15 speechlessness as a possible M15. It didn't appeared at E1-E15 for the whole data source. I assume that there are not only 15 events. There are possibly a lot more events like 20, 30 or more. The residual uncertainty would drastically increase then. But 1:10^7 is also a good residual uncertainty which is accepted as a declaration of a discovery in science.

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-20-2015 2:53 PM Dubreuil has not replied
 Message 203 by RAZD, posted 04-20-2015 4:59 PM Dubreuil has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 200 of 393 (756462)
04-20-2015 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Dubreuil
04-20-2015 2:27 PM


It does. The pattern fits 45 out of 47 times.
But you kept revising the pattern until you got something that fit.
You kept all the positives and disregarded all the negatives. And you're not looking at everything, you're only looking at things that you selected to look at.
The fact that the pattern fits is a result of the way in which you created the pattern.
If chance would have been involved in the usual way,
What is the usual way that chance is involved in making episodes for a TV series?
The fourth question maybe was not exactly formulated. I will specify the question to:
4. Do you agree that if the pattern doesn't fit that often, then any pattern will have only a low residual uncertainty like 1:10^2?
Any pattern? No. The patter: "Scene opens and later scene closes" would fit every single time.
Yes, and they all had preferences which can be retrieved as patterns with a certainty of 10% or 90% or even 99%. It's not about the existence of patterns, it's about their certainty.
But they have restraints. As I said before, they're not going to do this:
quote:
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.
The paper doesn't say anything how the pattern exactly emerged, there are only indications for the origin named.
First: The similarity with the claims of ID about evolution and evolution-like processes.
Yeah, well ID's claims about evolution are bullshit.
The random data source was not really "random". The starting time was randomised.
I know. The opening scenes are constrained even further than the rest of the episode. And a random start could start you in the middle of an ongoing scene, so of course it would not have the same pattern as starting at the very beginning of a scene, and especially starting at the very beginning of the opening scene.
I added recurring appearances that are not persons as M's. There are possibly more M's that also fit with pattern but wasn't added yet.
And there are also M's that would totally destroy the pattern. But you don't include those.
But 1:10^7 is also a good residual uncertainty which is accepted as a declaration of a discovery in science.
It doesn't matter how low your uncertainty is if you just looking at something that you created yourself.
I'm still convinced that all this pattern stuff is just an artifact of your method. That you are really really convinced that you did in fact find the pattern does not mean that it is not an artifact of your method.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Dubreuil, posted 04-20-2015 2:27 PM Dubreuil has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Coyote, posted 04-20-2015 3:40 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(5)
Message 201 of 393 (756463)
04-20-2015 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by New Cat's Eye
04-20-2015 2:53 PM


You kept all the positives and disregarded all the negatives.
Hey! That's just how evolution works, too!

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-20-2015 2:53 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-20-2015 4:16 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 202 of 393 (756464)
04-20-2015 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by Coyote
04-20-2015 3:40 PM


You kept all the positives and disregarded all the negatives.
Hey! That's just how evolution works, too!
So I guess we could say their pattern for finding Intelligent Design
( _)
( _)>⌐■-■
(⌐■_■)
Had actually evolved!
YEEAHHH!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Coyote, posted 04-20-2015 3:40 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 203 of 393 (756465)
04-20-2015 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Dubreuil
04-20-2015 2:27 PM


RAZD writes:
it seems to me that I can make B15 be P.Da and then E is unique from A-C:
What you replied here has more to do with transitions than with the discussion on hypothetical patterns ... this is about transitions yes?
No. I will explain it again:
An element that is present at E1 and present at E2 will not cause a transition.
An element that is present at E1 and not present at E2 will not cause a transition.
An element that is not present at E1 and present at E2 will cause a transition.
An element that is not present at E1 and not present at E2 will break the pattern.
This is effectively a change to what is acceptable to be part of E2 ... you are now saying that anything left over from E1 can be in E2 even when it is not listed as a part of E2.
Can these E1 hangabouts remain through E3? all the way to E15?
This is detailed explained on page 6:
E11:
P.Da appears. *P.Da is not part of E9, but part of E11, therefore E11 is triggered.
E12:
The crew is mentioned. The crew in ST:TNG consist of 1000 persons. *P.Al is not part of E11, but part of E12, therefore E12 is triggered
E13:
The first officer is named. *P.Ri is not part of E12, but part of E13, therefore E13 is triggered.
E14:
P.Pi appears. *P.Pi is not part of E13, but part of E14, therefore E14 is triggered.
E15:
Commander William Riker is commended to be a highly experienced man. P.Ri+ is not part of E14, but part of E15, therefore E15 is triggered
So each event starts when the first member of E(n+1) that is not a member of E(n) is observed regardless of who is hanging around that is not a member of E(n+1) but can be a member of E(1) to E(n)?
That makes the possibilities even more open than before when you have infinite possibilities due to multiple ad nauseum appearances, while maintaining a finite list of pattern breaking possibilities. In essence you have n/∞ → 0 probability of not fitting the "pattern" ...
RAZD writes:
There is no pattern here that I can see: what should I be seeing that I am missing?
You use a random data source. For the random data test it was not possible to create a distinct pattern that fits with the random data.
No, I used selected elements from your "pattern" description in Message 166 "Elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances" ...
Here it is again (with brown color removed):
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.Al 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.Pi
Event #6 M1 P.Ri P.Al M6
Event #7 P.BW P.Tr P.WeC P.Da
Event #8 M4 P.Wo P.BW P.Ri
Event #9 P.Ri P.BeC P.En P.Ya M2
Event #10 P.WSA P.Pi P.Da
Event #11 P.WeC P.LF M7
Event #12 P.Tr P.Ya P.BeC P.BW M10
Event #13 M5 M6 M1 M7 P.LF
Event #14 M2 M3 M13 P.BeC P.Pi
Event #15 M14 P.Da M12 P.En M4
Are these elements or are they not part of the groupings you have for the different events that are allowed to occur "either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances" ?
RAZD writes:
When you assemble mirrors and bits of colored plastic in a kaleidoscope you can create the appearance of colored patterns, where any one would be highly unlikely to occur, but the pattern is an artifact caused by the mirrors, not the colored plastic bits.
It's not an unlikely pattern that occurred once. It is an unlikely pattern with a high complexity, but it didn't occurred only once, it occurred 45 out of 47 times. It's like you use your kaleidoscope and 45 out of 47 times the same unlikely pattern occurs. And a kaleidoscope is not an evolution-like process.
That depends on how the "pattern" is defined. If I define the "pattern" as a symmetrical arrangement of colored elements then anything the kaleidoscope shows will fit that definition of the "pattern" ...
... and in a similar vein if I now define my hypothetical "pattern" to be composed of the following groups, where the elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances:
  1. P.Al, P.BW, P.Da, P.LF, P.Tr
  2. P.BeC, M5, P.LF, P.Al, P.Ya
  3. P.En, P.Pi, P.Ri, P.Tr, P.Wo
  4. P.Wo, P.Al, M4, M10, ‘
  5. P.Da, P.En, P.Wo, P.Pi, ‘
  6. M1, P.Ri, P.Al, M6, ‘
  7. P.BW, P.Tr, P.WeC, P.Da, ‘
  8. M4, P.Wo, P.BW, P.Ri, ‘
  9. P.Ri, P.BeC, P.En, P.Ya, M2
  10. P.WSA, ‘, P.Pi, ‘, P.Da
  11. P.WeC, P.LF, ‘, ‘, M7
  12. P.Tr, P.Ya, P.BeC, P.BW, M10
  13. M5, M6, M1, M7, P.LF
  14. M2, M3, M13, P.BeC, P.Pi
  15. M14, P.Da, M12, P.En, M4
Now suddenly, where I had 5 episodes that did not show a discernible "pattern" there is a completely perfect fit for each of these hypothetical episodes to the "pattern"
The different kaleidoscope patterns have been fit into a pattern defined to accommodate them.
In fact the "pattern" can fit (1x5!)+ (5x4!)+ (10x3!)+ (10x2!)+ (5x1!) = 325 potential different and unique arrangements of these elements for each event level, or 15 x 325 = 4875 hypothetical episodes from a pattern based on 5 episodes
If I start with one bead in the kaleidoscope I will get the same simple pattern, but as I add beads it becomes more complex, ... if I have one bead of each color -- red, green, blue, yellow, black and white beads, and I define the "pattern" to include at least one appearance of each of these colors then no matter how you twist and turn the kaleidoscope you will get a result that amazingly matches the pattern!
om mani padmi om
The pattern was created for the first 76 episode. It was revised until it did fit with the first 76 episode. ...
Just as my hypothetical "pattern" was based on 5 hypothetical episodes but allows 4875 different hypothetical episodes to fit.
The question that you haven't answered yet is why I should make a pattern this way.
Arguing that I am doing things differently does not refute my approach if you have no reason to take your approach over mine.
RAZD writes:
So I get your 6 "begin" transitions but it seems you missed the 14 "end" transitions -- elements that must exit before Event #2 can begin (and before any of the "begin" transitions occur).
There are no "end transitions" with appearances. Only appearances:* and affected person:+/- were quantised. It would be an other pattern, if they are added.
So the definition in Message 166 "Elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances" is not complete, each event can also include elements from the previous event.
Using my 5 hypothetical events again I now get
  1. P.Al, P.BW, P.Da, P.LF, P.Tr (5 elements)
  2. P.BeC, M5, P.LF, P.Al, P.Ya, + P.BW, P.Da, P.Tr (8 elements: P.AI, P.LF each listed once)
  3. P.En, P.Pi, P.Ri, P.Tr, P.Wo + P.BeC, M5, P.LF, P.Ya, P.Al, P.BW, P.Da (12 elements: P.Tr listed once)
  4. P.Wo, P.Al, M4, M10, ‘ + P.En, P.Pi, P.Ri, P.Tr, P.Wo, P.BeC, M5, P.LF, P.Ya, P.BW, P.Da (16 elements: P.Wo, P.Al listed once)
  5. P.Da, P.En, P.Wo, P.Pi, ‘ + P.Al, M4, M10, P.Ri, P.Tr, P.Wo, P.BeC, M5, P.LF, P.Ya, P.BW (16 elements: P.Wo, ‘, P.En, P.Pi, P.Da listed once)
  6. M1, P.Ri, P.Al, M6, ‘ + P.Da, P.En, P.Wo, P.Pi, M4, M10, P.Tr, P.Wo, P.BeC, M5, P.LF, P.Ya, P..BW (18 elements: P.Ri, P.Al, ‘ listed once)
  7. P.BW, P.Tr, P.WeC, P.Da, ‘ + M1, P.Ri, P.Al, M6, P.Da, P.En, P.Wo, P.Pi, M4, M10, P.Tr, P.Wo, P.BeC, M5, P.LF, P.Ya (21 elements: ‘, P..BW listed once)
  8. M4, P.Wo, P.BW, P.Ri, ‘ + P.Tr, P.WeC, P.Da, ‘, M1, P.Al, M6, P.Da, P.En, P.Pi, M10, P.Tr, P.Wo, P.BeC, M5, P.LF, P.Ya (22 elements: P.BW, M4, P.Wo, P.Ri listed once)
  9. P.Ri, P.BeC, P.En, P.Ya, M2 + M4, P.Wo, P.BW, ‘, P.Tr, P.WeC, P.Da, M1, P.Al, M6, P.Da, P.Pi, M10, P.Tr, P.Wo, M5, P.LF (22 elements: P.Ri, P.BeC, P.En, ‘, P.Ya listed once)
  10. P.WSA, ‘, P.Pi, P.Da + P.Ri, P.BeC, P.En, P.Ya, M2, M4, P.Wo, P.BW, P.Tr, P.WeC, M1, P.Al, M6, P.Da, M10, P.Tr, P.Wo, M5, P.LF (23 elements: ‘, P.Pi, P.Da listed once)
  11. P.WeC, P.LF, ‘, M7 + P.WSA, P.Pi, P.Da, P.Ri, P.BeC, P.En, P.Ya, M2, M4, P.Wo, P.BW, P.Tr, M1, P.Al, M6, P.Da, M10, P.Tr, P.Wo, M5 (24 elements: P.WeC, P.LF, ‘ listed once)
  12. P.Tr, P.Ya, P.BeC, P.BW, M10 + P.WeC, P.LF, ‘, M7, P.WSA, P.Pi, P.Da, P.Ri, P.En, M2, M4, P.Wo, M1, P.Al, M6, P.Da, P.Tr, P.Wo, M5 (24 elements: P.Tr, P.Ya, P.BeC, P.BW, M10 listed once)
  13. M5, M6, M1, M7, P.LF + P.Tr, P.Ya, P.BeC, P.BW, M10, P.WeC, ‘, P.WSA, P.Pi, P.Da, P.Ri, P.En, M2, M4, P.Wo, P.Al, P.Da, P.Tr, P.Wo (24 elements: M5, M6, M1, M7, P.LF listed once)
  14. M2, M3, M13, P.BeC, P.Pi + M5, M6, M1, M7, P.LF, P.Tr, P.Ya, P.BW, M10, P.WeC, ‘, P.WSA, P.Da, P.Ri, P.En, M4, P.Wo, P.Al, P.Da, P.Tr, P.Wo (26 elements: M2, P.BeC, P.Pi listed once)
  15. M14, P.Da, M12, P.En, M4 + M2, M3, M13, P.BeC, P.Pi, M5, M6, M1, M7, P.LF, P.Tr, P.Ya, P.BW, M10, P.WeC, ‘, P.WSA, P.R, P.Wo, P.Al, P.Da, P.Tr, P.Wo (28 elements: P.Da, P.Eni, M4 listed once)
Curiously I note 2 things: first that the "allowed" list rapidly approaches the full cast, making invalid appearances in later events more and more unlikely, and second that the number of possible hypothetical episodes that would now fit this "pattern" explodes.
I added recurring appearances that are not persons as M's. There are possibly more M's that also fit with pattern but wasn't added yet. On page 15 a possible M15 is mentioned that could appear at E16. In five episodes followed right after E15 speechlessness as a possible M15. It didn't appeared at E1-E15 for the whole data source. I assume that there are not only 15 events. There are possibly a lot more events like 20, 30 or more. The residual uncertainty would drastically increase then. But 1:10^7 is also a good residual uncertainty which is accepted as a declaration of a discovery in science.
So I take hypothetical episode (A) and apply it to episode (B), but it doesn't fit, so I add episode (B) elements to episode (A) elements to make a revised pattern AB and test it on episode (C), but it doesn't fit, so I add episode (C) elements to episodes (A) & (B) elements to make a revised pattern ABC and test it on episode (D), but it doesn't fit, so I add episode (D) elements to episodes (A), (B) & (C) elements to make a revised pattern ABCD and test it on episode (E), but it doesn't fit, so I add episode (E) elements to episodes (A), (B), (C) & (D) elements to make a revised pattern ABCDE ... and each time I increase the pattern elements the number of possible hypothetical episodes that would fit the pattern explodes.
This is making a pattern definition so broad that more and more episodes would fit.
This invalidates any probability calculations you make because you keep expanding the set of possibilities.
... The transitions themselves are also not correctly applied yet.
Then it looks like you've got some explaining to do, Lucy ... and I suggest you go back to the "pattern" description in Message 166 and add these transitions (and who\what can stay from the previous event/s and who\what would be an invalidating elements) between each event:

  • Event #1: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, P.Al-, P.BW+, P.Tr+, P.WeC-.
    • possible transition/s:
    • what element/s can stay:
    • what element/s canNOT stay:
    • what element/s would invalidate the pattern
  • Event #2: Elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.Al, P.BeC, P.LF, P.Ri, P.WeC, P.Ya, M4, M5, P.BW-, P.Da-.
    • possible transition/s:
    • what element/s can stay:
    • what element/s canNOT stay:
    • what element/s would invalidate the pattern
  • Event #3: 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, P.BW+, P.Pi-, P.Wo+.
    • possible transition/s:
    • what element/s can stay:
    • what element/s canNOT stay:
    • what element/s would invalidate the pattern
    • OPTIONAL:
    • Event #4: Elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.Al, P.Wo, M4, M10, P.Al-.
      • possible transition/s:
      • what element/s can stay:
      • what element/s canNOT stay:
      • what element/s would invalidate the pattern
    • Event #5: 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, M14, P.BW-, P.Pi+, P.Wo-.
      • possible transition/s:
      • what element/s can stay:
      • what element/s canNOT stay:
      • what element/s would invalidate the pattern
    • Event #6: Elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.Al, P.Tr, P.Wo, M1, M6, P.Pi-, P.Ri-.
      • possible transition/s:
      • what element/s can stay:
      • what element/s canNOT stay:
      • what element/s would invalidate the pattern
      then
    • Event #7: 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, P.BW-, P.Pi+, P.Wo-.
      • possible transition/s:
      • what element/s can stay:
      • what element/s canNOT stay:
      • what element/s would invalidate the pattern
    • Event #8: Elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.BW, P.Da, P.LF, P.Pi, P.Ri, P.Tr, P.Wo, M1, M4, M5, M6, M10, M13, P.Al-, P.BW+, P.En-, P.LF-, P.Pi-, P.Ri-, P.Tr+, P.WeC-, P.Wo+.
    • possible transition/s:
    • what element/s can stay:
    • what element/s canNOT stay:
    • what element/s would invalidate the pattern
  • Event #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.Ri, P.Tr, P.WeC, P.Ya, M1, M2, M4, M7, M11, M14, P.Al+, P.BW-, P.Da-, P.Pi+, P.Tr-, P.Wo-, P.Ya+.
    • possible transition/s:
    • what element/s can stay:
    • what element/s canNOT stay:
    • what element/s would invalidate the pattern
  • OPTIONAL: Event #10: 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, P.LF+, P.Wo+.
    • possible transition/s:
    • what element/s can stay:
    • what element/s canNOT stay:
    • what element/s would invalidate the pattern
  • OPTIONAL: Event #11: Elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.Da, P.LF, P.Ri, P.WeC, P.Wo, P.WSA, M1, M6, M7, P.Da+, P.En-, P.Pi-, P.Ri+, P.WeC-, P.Wo-.
    • possible transition/s:
    • what element/s can stay:
    • what element/s canNOT stay:
    • what element/s would invalidate the pattern
  • Event #12: Elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.Al. P.BeC, P.BW, P.En, P.Pi, P.Tr, P.Ya, M2, M10, M12, P.Al-, P.Da-, P.En+, P.LF-, P.Pi+, P.Ya-.
    • possible transition/s:
    • what element/s can stay:
    • what element/s canNOT stay:
    • what element/s would invalidate the pattern
  • Event #13: Elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.Da, P.LF, P.Ri, P.WeC, P.Wo, P.WSA, M1, M5, M6, M7, P.BW-, P.Da+, P.En-, P.Pi-, P.Ri+, P.Tr-, P.WeC-, P.Wo-.
    • possible transition/s:
    • what element/s can stay:
    • what element/s canNOT stay:
    • what element/s would invalidate the pattern
  • Event #14: 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, P.Al-, P.BeC-, P.BW+, P.Da-, P.Pi+, P.Ri-, P.WeC+, P.Wo+, P.Ya-.
    • possible transition/s:
    • what element/s can stay:
    • what element/s canNOT stay:
    • what element/s would invalidate the pattern
  • Event #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.WSA, P.Ya, M4, M12, M14, P.Al+, P.BW-, P.Da+, P.En+, P.LF+, P.Pi-, P.Ri+, P.Tr-, P.WeC-, P.Wo-, P.Ya+.
    • possible transition/s:
    • what element/s can stay:
    • what element/s canNOT stay:
    • what element/s would invalidate the pattern
As before 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.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : clrty
Edited by RAZD, : mre
Edited by RAZD, : anmo
Edited by RAZD, : added

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 199 by Dubreuil, posted 04-20-2015 2:27 PM Dubreuil has not replied

  
Dubreuil
Member (Idle past 3041 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 04-02-2015


Message 204 of 393 (756466)
04-20-2015 6:44 PM


Cat Sci writes:
But you kept revising the pattern until you got something that fit.
You kept all the positives and disregarded all the negatives.
But only for the first 76 episodes. As stated on page 6: "The pattern was created to fit with season 1, 3 and 4 at the actual start of the episode (00:00). Afterwards it was tested on season 5 and 6 and a random data source". You will find the origin of the pattern in table 5 on page 8. You will see there that this was done only for the first part of the data source. For the second part, season 5 and 6, all positives and negatives are listed in table 5. Three elements didn't fit with the pattern created form the first part of the data source and they are listed in table 5.
Cat Sci writes:
And you're not looking at everything, you're only looking at things that you selected to look at.
It was looked at the complete data source. Only season 2 was skipped because of an other main cast. Season 7 was not looked at, because a residual uncertainty of 1:10^7 was already reached. But if it reassures you, the pattern was also tested for season 7 some time ago and it did fit again 22 out of 23 times.
Cat Sci writes:
What is the usual way that chance is involved in making episodes for a TV series?
The usual way is the normal way if there is no bias or cause or pattern in chance itself.
Cat Sci writes:
Any pattern? No. The patter: "Scene opens and later scene closes" would fit every single time.
Then I will specify again: Any nontrivial pattern. There are a lot patterns like this:
There is always a person appearing
There is always someone affected
There is always someone talking
A nontrivial pattern is a pattern far beyond this.
Cat Sci writes:
But they have restraints. As I said before, they're not going to do this:
quote:
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.
Yes, but the pattern quantises rows of appearances. I doubt there is a restraint which always defines the row of appearances. And there were 4 different series with different restraints examined, but the same pattern was found.
Cat Sci writes:
Yeah, well ID's claims about evolution are bullshit.
I think I just found out why you are not open-minded about this paper.
Cat Sci writes:
The opening scenes are constrained even further than the rest of the episode. And a random start could start you in the middle of an ongoing scene, so of course it would not have the same pattern as starting at the very beginning of a scene, and especially starting at the very beginning of the opening scene.
The opening scenes have less constraints than the rest of the episode. You will find 18 examples (3x01-4x23) in [Msg=120]. The random start never starts in the middle of an ongoing scene. From page 6: "For the random data source it was assumed for the first season, that all episodes start at an other time (03:00-07:00) right after the opening credits.". You could read a few pages of the paper, maybe you will like it.
Cat Sci writes:
It doesn't matter how low your uncertainty is if you just looking at something that you created yourself.
Table 5 on page 8 will show you that this was only done for the first part of the data source, not for the second part. The residual uncertainty was calculated for the second part of the data source, not for the first part.
Cat Sci writes:
And there are also M's that would totally destroy the pattern. But you don't include those.
Can you name an example or is that just your opinion?
If there would be an M that would totally destroy the pattern, then just a "*" has to be added for every event and it could appear everywhere. The pattern would then lose distinctness and would have a lower residual uncertainty. The residual uncertainty is a measure for the quality of a pattern. If you want to keep arguing against it, then you should start to get familiar with the mathematics about it. Science is refuted with science, not with opinions.
RAZD writes:
you are now saying that anything left over from E1 can be in E2 even when it is not listed as a part of E2.
The pattern is used on the quantisations, not on the original visual information.
For Example:
P.Wo, P.Ya, P.WeC walk onscreen
P.Da walks onscreen
P.Pi, P.Ri, P.WeC have a conversation
Is: *P.Wo, *P.Ya, *P.WeC, *P.Da, *P.Wo, *P.Ya, *P.WeC, *P.Wo, *P.Ya, *P.WeC, *P.Wo, *P.Ya, *P.WeC, *P.Wo, *P.Ya, *P.WeC
A possible fit is:
E1: *P.Wo /E2: *P.Ya, *P.WeC /E3: *P.Da, *P.Wo, *P.Ya /E9: *P.WeC /E11: *P.Wo /E12: *P.Ya /E13: *P.WeC, *P.Wo /E14: *P.Ya, *P.WeC, *P.Wo, *P.Ya, *P.WeC
P.Da remains visible in the original visual information, but in the quantisation he doesn't appear again. The pattern is used on the quantisations, not on the original visual information.
RAZD writes:
That makes the possibilities even more open than before when you have infinite possibilities due to multiple ad nauseum appearances, while maintaining a finite list of pattern breaking possibilities. In essence you have n/∞ → 0 probability of not fitting the "pattern" ...
There are infinite possibilities to fit and not fit with the pattern. For Example:
E1: *P.LF, *P.Tr, M10??
E1: *P.LF, *P.Tr, *P.LF, *P.Tr, M10??
E1: *P.LF, *P.Tr, *P.LF, *P.Tr, *P.LF, *P.Tr, M10??
E1: *P.LF, *P.Tr, *P.LF, *P.Tr, *P.LF, *P.Tr, *P.LF, *P.Tr, M10??
and so on. *P.LF is part of E1 and E2, *P.Tr is part of E1. Both appearances will never cause a transition at E1.
If there would be a 0 probability of not fitting the pattern, then the pattern would have always fit in the random data test, wouldn't it?
RAZD writes:
No, I used selected elements from your "pattern" description in Message 166 "Elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances" ...
I meant you didn't retrieved your quantisations from an actual audible and visual data source. If you want to reproduce the work, then you must retrieve your quantisations from an evolution-like process. Arbitrary arranged appearances could contain any arbitrary pattern.
RAZD writes:
That depends on how the "pattern" is defined. If I define the "pattern" as a symmetrical arrangement of colored elements then anything the kaleidoscope shows will fit that definition of the "pattern" ...
This pattern will have a probability of 1 to fit. But the E1-E15 pattern has only a probability of 0.625 to fit. The 0.625 probability resulted from an experimental test and a theoretical calculation in [Msg=190] resulted in a probability of p<0.711. To create a comparable pattern, you would have to define a pattern that also fits only about every second time.
RAZD writes:
Now suddenly, where I had 5 episodes that did not show a discernible "pattern" there is a completely perfect fit for each of these hypothetical episodes to the "pattern"
You would have to test the pattern created from the first 5 episodes on further 5 or 50 episodes. A pattern has no predictive power for a data source it was created. This wasn't done for the E1-E15 pattern as shown in table 5 on page 8.
RAZD writes:
The question that you haven't answered yet is why I should make a pattern this way.
You can also try other ways if you want to create a pattern yourself.
RAZD writes:
add these transitions (and who\what can stay from the previous event/s and who\what would be an invalidating elements) between each event:
A possible transition is every element that is not part of the current event but part of a next event.
An element that is part of the current event will not cause a transition.
An element that is not part of the current event or a next event will invalidate the pattern.
There is nothing like "can stay" or "can not stay". The pattern is not used on the original visual information, it is used on the quantisations.
For E1:
transitions to E2: *P.BeC, *P.Ri, *P.Ya, M4, P.BW-, P.Da-
invalidating: *P.En, M3, M10, M11, M12, M14, P.Al+, P.BeC+, P.BeC-, P.Da+, P.En+, P.En-, P.LF+, P.LF-. P.Pi+, P.Pi-, P.Ri+, P.Ri-, P.Tr-, P.WeC+, P.Wo+, P.Wo-, P.WSA+, P.WSA-, P.Ya+, P.Ya-
For E2:
transitions to E3: *P.BW, *P.Da, *P.En, *P.Pi, *P.Tr, *P.Wo, *P.WSA, M1, M3, M6, P.BW+, P.Pi-, P.Wo+
invalidating: M2, M7, M10, M11, M12, M13, M14, P.Al+, P.Al-, P.BeC+, P.BeC-, P.Da+, P.En+, P.En-, P.LF+, P.LF-. P.Pi+, P.Ri+, P.Ri-, P.Tr+, P.Tr-, P.WeC+, P.WeC-, P.Wo-, P.WSA+, P.WSA-, P.Ya+, P.Ya-
The other transitions and invalidations can be found with the already explained rules too.

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by RAZD, posted 04-20-2015 9:13 PM Dubreuil has not replied
 Message 207 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-20-2015 10:46 PM Dubreuil has not replied
 Message 227 by RAZD, posted 04-22-2015 9:45 AM Dubreuil has not replied
 Message 228 by RAZD, posted 04-22-2015 2:41 PM Dubreuil has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 205 of 393 (756468)
04-20-2015 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Dubreuil
04-07-2015 6:57 PM


Just to be clear ...
... That's what the ID proponents claim, that the origin and evolution of life needs an additional information creating process because they can't believe it happened naturally. I wasn't concerned long enough with the origin and evolution of life to be able to tell if this claims have any substance.
They don't, (a) because "information" is either something that evolves naturally or it is unimportant to evolution (based on empirical evidence), and (b) their assembly model is overly simplistic and ignores how molecules and life forms behave.
You should also not attempt to discuss evolution if you do not know how it works.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : clrty

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 120 by Dubreuil, posted 04-07-2015 6:57 PM Dubreuil has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 206 of 393 (756469)
04-20-2015 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by Dubreuil
04-20-2015 6:44 PM


more to come
But only for the first 76 episodes. As stated on page 6: "The pattern was created to fit with season 1, 3 and 4 at the actual start of the episode (00:00). Afterwards it was tested on season 5 and 6 and a random data source". You will find the origin of the pattern in table 5 on page 8. You will see there that this was done only for the first part of the data source. For the second part, season 5 and 6, all positives and negatives are listed in table 5. Three elements didn't fit with the pattern created form the first part of the data source and they are listed in table 5.
It was looked at the complete data source. Only season 2 was skipped because of an other main cast. Season 7 was not looked at, because a residual uncertainty of 1:10^7 was already reached. But if it reassures you, the pattern was also tested for season 7 some time ago and it did fit again 22 out of 23 times.
Curiously that is about what I would expect from the way your pattern is constructed.
The opening scenes have less constraints than the rest of the episode. ...
Opening scenes will always set up a conflict and never resolve one -- because that is how you tell stories.
The pattern is used on the quantisations, not on the original visual information.
For Example:
P.Wo, P.Ya, P.WeC walk onscreen
P.Da walks onscreen
P.Pi, P.Ri, P.WeC have a conversation
Is: *P.Wo, *P.Ya, *P.WeC, *P.Da, *P.Wo, *P.Ya, *P.WeC, *P.Wo, *P.Ya, *P.WeC, *P.Wo, *P.Ya, *P.WeC, *P.Wo, *P.Ya, *P.WeC
A possible fit is:
E1: *P.Wo /E2: *P.Ya, *P.WeC /E3: *P.Da, *P.Wo, *P.Ya /E9: *P.WeC /E11: *P.Wo /E12: *P.Ya /E13: *P.WeC, *P.Wo /E14: *P.Ya, *P.WeC, *P.Wo, *P.Ya, *P.WeC
P.Da remains visible in the original visual information, but in the quantisation he doesn't appear again. The pattern is used on the quantisations, not on the original visual information.
So in one episode he stays and in another he doesn't and you think these are the same.
Then I will specify again: Any nontrivial pattern. There are a lot patterns like this:
There is always a person appearing
There is always someone affected
There is always someone talking
A nontrivial pattern is a pattern far beyond this.
Or the trivial data, if quantised, would be pattern breaking. It seems to me that between this and not counting exits, you are missing a lot of what was going on, with the result that the pattern is trivial.
There are infinite possibilities to fit and not fit with the pattern. For Example:
No, there are a finite number of ways to break the pattern.
Think of it this way:
  • starting with the finite number of patterns that is based on single appearances of an element, and
  • we would have a finite number of fits and a finite number of fails
  • to the ones that fit we add elements one at a time with one trial for each different element
  • again there is a finite number of fits and fails for each round
  • the proportion of fits to fails would be the same for each round
  • therefore you would have a limit condition that would approach that proportion
A possible transition is every element that is not part of the current event but part of a next event.
An element that is part of the current event will not cause a transition.
An element that is not part of the current event or a next event will invalidate the pattern.
There is nothing like "can stay" or "can not stay". The pattern is not used on the original visual information, it is used on the quantisations.
For E1:
transitions to E2: *P.BeC, *P.Ri, *P.Ya, M4, P.BW-, P.Da-
invalidating: *P.En, M3, M10, M11, M12, M14, P.Al+, P.BeC+, P.BeC-, P.Da+, P.En+, P.En-, P.LF+, P.LF-. P.Pi+, P.Pi-, P.Ri+, P.Ri-, P.Tr-, P.WeC+, P.Wo+, P.Wo-, P.WSA+, P.WSA-, P.Ya+, P.Ya-
For E2:
transitions to E3: *P.BW, *P.Da, *P.En, *P.Pi, *P.Tr, *P.Wo, *P.WSA, M1, M3, M6, P.BW+, P.Pi-, P.Wo+
invalidating: M2, M7, M10, M11, M12, M13, M14, P.Al+, P.Al-, P.BeC+, P.BeC-, P.Da+, P.En+, P.En-, P.LF+, P.LF-. P.Pi+, P.Ri+, P.Ri-, P.Tr+, P.Tr-, P.WeC+, P.WeC-, P.Wo-, P.WSA+, P.WSA-, P.Ya+, P.Ya-
The other transitions and invalidations can be found with the already explained rules too.
Because only *one* invalidating element needs to occur only *once* there are a finite number of deal breakers: repeated or multiple breakers will not make the episode more or less broken.
E1 has 26 deal breakers and E2 has 28
E1 and E2 have infinite possibilities due to repetitions and multiple interactions being allowed
The probability of bad fit on E1 is 26/∞ &riarr; 0
The probability of bad fit on E2 is 28/∞ &riarr; 0
With 52 elements (counting +/- and adding 1 for "something else") you have 26/52 = 0.50 for E1 and 28/52 = 0.54 for E2 probability to fail.
IFF your "pattern" is for single independent (stand alone) elements. If your fail elements depend on the existence of a previous element then the likelihood of them occurring is reduced by the probability of the previous element occurring.
ie -- you can't have a P.(A)+ or a P.(A)- unless it is preceded by a *P.(A): that's two possible fail elements dependent on one predecessor.
Looking at your list for E1:
Message 166: Event #1: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, P.Al-, P.BW+, P.Tr+, P.WeC-.
Message 204: transitions to E2: *P.BeC, *P.Ri, *P.Ya, M4, P.BW-, P.Da-
invalidating: *P.En, M3, M10, M11, M12, M14, P.Al+, P.BeC+, P.BeC-, P.Da+, P.En+, P.En-, P.LF+, P.LF-. P.Pi+, P.Pi-, P.Ri+, P.Ri-, P.Tr-, P.WeC+, P.Wo+, P.Wo-, P.WSA+, P.WSA-, P.Ya+, P.Ya-
P.Ya+ and P.Ya- cannot occur because *P.Ya does not exist in E1 and the appearance of P.Ya means you are in E2. Likewise P.BeC+ and P.BeC- cannot occur without *P.BeC causing a transition to E2, *P.En is not listed in E1 or E2 or in your invalidating list, so P.En+ and P.En- also cannot occur without *P.En (which presumably would be an invalidating element), and similarly P.Ri+ and P.Ri- need to be preceded by *P.Ri (which presumably would be an invalidating element), and so we see that the actual possible invalidation elements are reduced to 20 elements.
I meant you didn't retrieved your quantisations from an actual audible and visual data source. If you want to reproduce the work, then you must retrieve your quantisations from an evolution-like process. Arbitrary arranged appearances could contain any arbitrary pattern.
They are take from your quantisations from actual audible and visual data.
And you still haven't said why your elements are grouped the way they are when there is no discernible common thread within each group.
This pattern will have a probability of 1 to fit. But the E1-E15 pattern has only a probability of 0.625 to fit. The 0.625 probability resulted from an experimental test and a theoretical calculation in Message 190 resulted in a probability of p<0.711. To create a comparable pattern, you would have to define a pattern that also fits only about every second time.
Your assumptions are incorrect, but I'm not about to discuss that yet -- I need to know why your groups are selected the way they are.
My simplistic example with 5 different episodes show how a pattern derived from force fitting it to the 5 hypothetical episodes makes it vastly more applicable than when derived from a smaller number of episodes. You used 76 episodes ...
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : rethought fit vs fail
Edited by RAZD, : clrty
Edited by RAZD, : fail reduction
Edited by RAZD, : engls

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 204 by Dubreuil, posted 04-20-2015 6:44 PM Dubreuil has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 207 of 393 (756471)
04-20-2015 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by Dubreuil
04-20-2015 6:44 PM


Cat Sci writes:
But you kept revising the pattern until you got something that fit.
You kept all the positives and disregarded all the negatives.
But only for the first 76 episodes.
Even worse. Your criteria for your pattern is a hodgepodge of arbitrary observations for a portion of the episodes in the series.
It matches all the other episodes because you defined it into place by basing the criteria on the observations that you made.
Its no wonder that you can find patterns in that abstraction, and calculating the odds of them occurring is a worthless endeavor.
To try to pass that off as some kind of scientific argument for ID is either incredibly ignorant, or deviously dishonest.
Cat Sci writes:
And you're not looking at everything, you're only looking at things that you selected to look at.
It was looked at the complete data source.
No, I mean that your M#'s are just based on what you noticed and selected for or against based on whether it could fit a pattern or not. You don't have M#'s for things you didn't notice and you don't include M#'s that don't fit the pattern you are creating.
You're diluting the criteria for your pattern into one that can fit a lot of possibilities.
And then you're figuring out that if you start the pattern at the start of the opening scene, the pattern fits with incredible accuracy.
The opening scene is like a summation of the episode, or even a mini-episode, in its form. This is no surprise.
Cat Sci writes:
What is the usual way that chance is involved in making episodes for a TV series?
The usual way is the normal way if there is no bias or cause or pattern in chance itself.
Pssh. You can't use the definition of the word to define the word you're using.
The usual way is the normal is the regular way... I'm asking you what way that is.
You said:
quote:
If chance would have been involved in the usual way, then the pattern would not fit that well and it would have only fit for example 35 out of 47 times.
The context was this:
Cat Sci writes:
The four questions show that any naturally imprinted pattern would be corrupted to a residual uncertainty below 1:10^2 through the involvement of chance.
Not really. A coincidental contribution changing the rows of appearances so that the pattern doesn't fit as well doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the pattern occurs naturally.
It does. The pattern fits 45 out of 47 times. If chance would have been involved in the usual way, then the pattern would not fit that well and it would have only fit for example 35 out of 47 times. This is a residual uncertainty of 1:10.
So, what is the usual way that chance is involved in making episodes for a TV series?
All you did was try to dodge this question by baffling me with bullshit.
That is the crux of your whole paper.
Then I will specify again: Any nontrivial pattern.
So then, it is up to you what counts as trivial or not?
Yes, but the pattern quantises rows of appearances. I doubt there is a restraint which always defines the row of appearances.
Is incredulity your only argument? Because that's a logical fallacy...
And there were 4 different series with different restraints examined, but the same pattern was found.
Obviously you have a great talent for creating patterns, that are based on TV series, that can fit other TV series.
I mean, look at that residual uncertainty!
I think I just found out why you are not open-minded about this paper.
Then you don't know me at all. That your paper is about ID has no impact on how I look at it.
Its that you can't see that your method is the reason for you madness that keeps me interested.
You posted some other rebuttals that are just more nonsense for me to correct, and this is getting laborsome. So I'm just going to answer your question:
Cat Sci writes:
And there are also M's that would totally destroy the pattern. But you don't include those.
Can you name an example or is that just your opinion?
It would be anything that qualifies as an M#, that is not included in your patter.
So, here's your M#s:
quote:
Short form Additionally observation
M1 open door, colour black/red
M2 weapon, What's that?
M3 humour, laughing
M4 fire
M5 water
M6 theft, try to get information (example: sensors)
M7 drink
M10 past
M11 unbelievable attainment
M12 temporary interruption
M13 long time
M14 short time, in a hurry, smoke, gas
If instead you used:
M1 closed window, color pink/green
M2 musical instrument, "How many?"
M3 sadness, crying
and so on
Obviously, you wouldn't have found a pattern, right?
What you did was find a pattern that you could fit into existence, that also fit with the pattern of other episodes, and then you calculated the odds of that pattern fitting. It came out incredibly low because of the way you defined it into existence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Dubreuil, posted 04-20-2015 6:44 PM Dubreuil has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by NoNukes, posted 04-21-2015 10:59 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 218 by RAZD, posted 04-21-2015 1:50 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 208 of 393 (756485)
04-21-2015 9:58 AM



Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Admin, posted 04-21-2015 10:20 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 209 of 393 (756489)
04-21-2015 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by Dr Adequate
04-21-2015 9:58 AM


I'm going to allow posts like this until Dubreuil responds to my request in Message 186 that he be very clear about what portions of his paper we should be ignoring.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-21-2015 9:58 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-21-2015 11:17 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 210 of 393 (756492)
04-21-2015 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by New Cat's Eye
04-20-2015 10:46 PM


To try to pass that off as some kind of scientific argument for ID is either incredibly ignorant, or deviously dishonest.
Hmmm
quote:
devious
showing a skillful use of underhanded tactics to achieve goals.
I would not call a paper that has only fooled one poster 'devious'. But I cannot overlook the powerful alliteration thing you've got going. Might I suggest 'devilishly' in place of 'devious'?
Edited by NoNukes, : Add word to definition.

Je Suis Charlie
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-20-2015 10:46 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024