Discontinuing research about ID

You are herewith added to the same list with "Coyote" and "Dr Adequate" in [Msg=231]. You have ignored three times in a row what I asked for about a discussion in [Msg=231]:Your [Msg=236] contained:
1. sarcasmYour [Msg=241] contained:
1. expletives: bullshit, pissed
2. sarcasm: "that pissed the Captain off gets chastised. That actually makes perfect sense."Your [Msg=246] contained:
1. expletives: shit
2. insults: scared pussy, stupid paperYou can keep discussing with other persons here, but I will never respond to your comments again.If one PhD would offend an other PhD with "scared pussy", then both would never talk with each other again. Discussions can't work like that.

It is:If A then B must be true.
If B (God always appears as P.Ya) is true, then A could be true.If taxes are lowered, I will have more money to spend.
I have more money to spend, therefore the taxes could have been lowered.Yes, it would be normally somehow wishy washy. But in this case alternatives are missing. For example, if your goldfish would be the Queen of England, then your goldfish would neither have the inclination nor the possibility to create a pattern that includes a reference about a triune God. With the argument about the four questions and the low residual uncertainty it would require for example something godlike to create it. You should answer the four questions, if you want to discuss about this part. Something godlike could also be a godlike alien or a natural force or something else. But if a godlike alien creates patterns, then you would not expect it to camouflage it by adding a reference about a triune God. There is also the theory of ID, which actually states that a triune God creates information. You are right that B (God always appears as P.Ya) doesn't proof A (there is a triune God as designer). It was only stated: "if God appears always as P.Ya, then this would strongly indicate the existence of a triune God as the designer of intelligent design."But I agree that any godlike alien or a godlike goldfish could have also created this reference about a triune God. You are right that a residual uncertainty of 1:10^3 is not a proof.For Example:5 Sigma What's That? - Scientific American Blog NetworkHigh-energy physics requires even lower p-values to announce evidence or discoveries. The threshold for evidence of a particle, corresponds to p=0.003, and the standard for discovery is p=0.0000003.A residual uncertainty of 1:10^3 is not a proof, in particle physics it is only called "evidence". There were only a few opportunities to assess B (God always appears as P.Ya), but it happened every time for this few episodes. More opportunities to assess B would be necessary to gather a more accurate result. I will keep that in mind. I apologise.

Yes, it is. I just copied this part from your last post and I didn't changed it then. I wouldn't say a residual uncertainty of 1:10^3 is nothing. Currently you can flip a coin. If heads, then there might be a triune God, if tails, then probably not. There is currently no test to test for a triune God. As shown in appendices D-I, B (God and ... always appears as P.Ya) has a residual uncertainty of 1:10^3. A residual uncertainty of 1:10^3 is a higher certainty than 1:2.You pointed out that it can't be proven that actually a triune God or anything else is responsible for this reference. I mainly agree with this. The paper only showed that P.Go=P.Je=P.Bi=P.Ya(3) has a residual uncertainty of 1:10^3. The actual origin of this was only discussed short. There is not that much evidence to discuss this question. I asked you to answer the four questions about this already twice:

quote:

---

I already answered this in the last comment. A coincidental contribution would preclude any nontrivial pattern with a residual uncertainty of 1:10^7 because of 1.->2.->3.->4.. I suggest you answer first the four questions in Message 239 with for example "Yes, No, No, No" or "Yes, Yes, Yes, No" or 4 times Yes. This will simplify the discussion.

---

quote:

---

You should answer the four questions, if you want to discuss about this part.

---

quote:

---

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 this E1-E15 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 this E1-E15 pattern with a residual uncertainty of 1:10^7 because: 1.->2.->3.->4.

---

I will now repeat it a third time: If you want to discuss about this part, then you should answer the four questions first. This will simplify the discussion.As I also stated often, it is not about the existence of patterns, it's about their certainty. There can be a lot patterns with a residual uncertainty of 1:10 or 1:10^2 as a byproduct. The defining difference about these patterns and the E1-E15 pattern is the residual uncertainty of 1:10^7. Any casual discussion won't help here. You should refer to the questions and/or the mathematics if you want to keep discussing. You still refer to ordinary patterns with residual uncertainties of 1:10 or 1:10^2. I agree with the comments you presented about these patterns until now. You don't have to repeat them.

It was never searched before in all evolution-like processes for a common underling signal. There were 4 different evolution-like processes (series) examined and all exhibited the same pattern. And an emergent property would not have a high residual uncertainty and patterns within the pattern, which have again a high residual uncertainty. It's really not about the existence of patterns, it's about their certainty.

@Cat Sci: Your comment is ignored as outlined in [Msg=251]

Oh, c'mon. If I would be interested in opinions, then I would discuss with people like Cat Sci. You say it is nothing, then you have maybe a reason for this claim? If you have a reason for this claim, then you maybe want to name this reason/reasons? Chance would create P.Go=P.Ya(3) with a probability of 1/13. There are 13 persons possible. Chance would create P.Go=P.Je=P.Bi=P.Ya(3) with a probability of (1/13)^3=1/2197. Do you even want to participate in a scientific discussion about this topic?You did not answered the four questions. I assume you don't want to discuss about this topic? I could describe a lot.1. P.Ya and P.WeC appear simultaneous then P.Ya is positively affected (for example commended)
2. Any person appears then M14 appears then P.Ya and P.Tr appear simultaneous then M13 appears
3. Any person appears then P.LF appear then P.Da appears then P.Ri appears then P.Ya appears then P.Ri appears then P.Ya is positively affected (for example commended)is:P.ap: any person (13 possibilities)1. {*P.Ya, *P.WeC}, P.Ya+
2. *P.ap, M14, {*P.Ya, *P.Tr}, M13
3. *P.ap, *P.LF, *P.Da, *P.Ri, *P.Ya, *P.Ri, P.Ya+doesn't fit with the pattern:1.
E1: {*P.Ya, *P.WeC}??
E3: {*P.Ya, *P.WeC}??
E4: {*P.Ya, *P.WeC}??
E5: {*P.Ya, *P.WeC}, P.Ya+??2.
E1: *P.ap, M14??
E3: *P.ap /E9: M14, {*P.Ya, *P.Tr}, M13??
E4: *P.ap /E5: M14, {*P.Ya, *P.Tr}??
E5: *P.ap, M14, {*P.Ya, *P.Tr}??3.
E1: *P.ap, *P.LF, *P.Da /E2: *P.Ri, *P.Ya, *P.Ri, P.Ya+??
E3: *P.ap /E9: *P.LF /E11: *P.Da, *P.Ri /E12: *P.Ya /E13: *P.Ri, P.Ya+??
E4: *P.ap /E5: *P.LF, *P.Da, *P.Ri, *P.Ya, *P.Ri, P.Ya+??
E5: *P.ap, *P.LF, *P.Da, *P.Ri, *P.Ya, *P.Ri, P.Ya+??You are seemingly new to this discussion. It maybe take you a month to completely understand the pattern. I think RAZD understand it already. You should not getting started with it, if you don't want to invest that much time in it.Edited by Dubreuil, : No reason given.

No reason to be harsh. Scene's:From page 3:"Jean-Luc Picard = P.Pi
William Riker = P.Ri
Geordi La Forge = P.LF
Worf = P.Wo
Deanna Troi = P.Tr
Data = P.Da
Beverly Crusher = P.BeC
Wesley Crusher = P.WeC
Tasha Yar = P.Ya1. P.Ya and P.WeC appear at the beginning simultaneous. Then a conversation:P.WeC: "You did a great job"
P.Ya: "Thanks"is: {*P.Ya, *P.WeC}, P.Ya+2. Any person appears, for example P.Wo, then he walks toward a conduction of gas with a leak. Then the scene changes to an other room. P.Ya and P.Tr are shown in this other room to repair the malfunction too. Then a conversation:P.Ya: "This will take a long time".is: *P.ap, M14, {*P.Ya, *P.Tr}, M133. Any person, for example P.Da, appears. Then P.LF joins. Then a conversation:P.Da: "Hi."Then P.Ri and P.Ya join. First P.Ri joins them, then P.Ya. Then a conversation:P.Ri: "You did a great job"
P.Ya: "Thanks"is: *P.ap, *P.LF, *P.Da, *P.Ri, *P.Ya, *P.Ri, P.Ya+ "Dr Adequate" and "Cat Sci" are not a good reference. If I would still discuss with "Dr Adequate", then he would still insult me. If I would still discuss with "Cat Sci", then we would still throw excrements after each other. The only time RAZD referred to this was: in [Msg=153]. Do you refer to this opinion? Yes. But I don't refer to a pattern with a residual uncertainty of 1:10 or 1:10^2, I refer to patterns with a residual uncertainty of 1:10^3 and 1:10^7. I agree with your statements about these normal patterns until now. To arguing with comments I agree with will not be helpful here. Well, the questions about the possible/non-possible origins is answered with mathematical arguments. We can't discuss about this, if you don't want to discuss about this. I suggest you answer the four questions in [Msg=257]. I already asked you four times for it. I ask you now a fifth time. A discussion means, that you are also able to answer to questions. I wouldn't see a reason to reply again to your comments until you answered this four Yes/No questions. If you don't want to answer questions, then there can't be a well balanced discussion.

Yes, your models cause relatively high error counts. Is there a reason you want to replace the multi(4)-pattern model with a high predictive power and a low residual uncertainty with a new 10E, 11E or 15E model with a lower predictive power and a high residual uncertainty, probably 1:10? Then you would have for P.Wo for example:S1: *, +
S2: *, +, -or P.Pi:S1: *, -
S2: *, +, -That wouldn't be distinct. That's still more than 4 variations. Yes, the overall probability is maybe about 1% for this to happen. It increases the average of possible variations maybe to 4.05 possible variations. An overall average for the possible variations (E10/E11 included) is maybe 4.5 possible variations for every row of appearances. You have to refute 8 variations for every row of appearance with your selfmade pattern.At E3:
There are 2 transitions which trigger E4 only.
There are 14 transitions which trigger E9 only.
There is 1 transition which triggers E4 and E9 both. (Never happened yet)At E9:
There are 7 transitions which trigger E12 only.
There are 6 transitions which trigger E11 only.
There are 2 transitions which trigger E10 only.
There are 0 transition which trigger E10 and E12 both.
There are 0 transition which trigger E11 and E12 both.
There are 3 transition which trigger E11 and E10 both.At E10:
There are 13 transitions which trigger E12 only.
There are 11 transitions which trigger E11 only.
There are 0 transition which trigger E11 and E12 both.There are 55 fixed transitions and only 4 transition which allow an additional subvariation. The average of possible variations is far below 8 as in your theoretical pattern.

Seriously, why do you create your own patterns? Shall I review your selfmade patterns? Yes, your new patterns are not a good match. Do you want to hear more about your revised patterns? Do you refer to the E1-E15 pattern with "uber pattern"? If so, then maybe because of the predictive power? You successfully managed to convert the E1-E15 pattern with 4 variations to other revised patterns with less predictive power. It's like to say: Look at the fossil record. There are simple lifeforms first and then more complex lifeforms. That means, that God created in 6 days first simple lifeforms and then more complex lifeforms. A theory of evolution might have a higher predictive power but we don't care about uber patterns. We will take a pattern with a lower predictive power and believe in creation. We don't care about uber patterns the fossil record might exhibit.I don't see any value in lumping an uber pattern into three 7 sequence patterns with a much less predictive power and a much higher residual uncertainty.

You accidentally added E3 twice. There is no M3, P.Pi- and P.Wo+ at E2. You would have *P.Wo, P.Wo+ and P.Wo- at S2. Yes. Yes, but there is only one variation for every start with E1, E3, E4 and E5. You can see that in the three examples in [Msg=261]. For every start with E1, E3, E4 and E5 there is only one possible variation. An exception is example 3 with E3:Variation 1:
E3: *P.ap /E9: *P.LF /E10: *P.Da /E11: *P.Ri /E12: *P.Ya /E13: *P.Ri, P.Ya+??
Variation 2:
E3: *P.ap /E9: *P.LF /E11: *P.Da, *P.Ri /E12: *P.Ya /E13: *P.Ri, P.Ya+??Additional subvariations are rare and often without effect. There are overall 24 variations. But only 4 actually appear for every quantisation. Sometimes a fifth variation is possible. Your pattern applied on the three examples in [Msg=261]:1. {*P.Ya, *P.WeC}, P.Ya+
2. *P.ap, M14, {*P.Ya, *P.Tr}, M13
3. *P.ap, *P.LF, *P.Da, *P.Ri, *P.Ya, *P.Ri, P.Ya+With: "S1(y/n), S2(y/n), S3, S4(y/n), S5, S6, S7, S8 ... ie 8 variations ..."1.
S2: {*P.Ya, *P.WeC} /S3: P.Ya+2.
S2: *P.ap, M14, {*P.Ya, *P.Tr}, M133.
S2: *P.ap, *P.LF, *P.Da, *P.Ri, *P.Ya, *P.Ri /S3: P.Ya+Your new pattern fits with all three examples. The original E1-E15 pattern fits with no example of them:1.
E1: {*P.Ya, *P.WeC}??
E3: {*P.Ya, *P.WeC}??
E4: {*P.Ya, *P.WeC}??
E5: {*P.Ya, *P.WeC}, P.Ya+??2.
E1: *P.ap, M14??
E3: *P.ap /E9: M14, {*P.Ya, *P.Tr}, M13??
E4: *P.ap /E5: M14, {*P.Ya, *P.Tr}??
E5: *P.ap, M14, {*P.Ya, *P.Tr}??3.
E1: *P.ap, *P.LF, *P.Da /E2: *P.Ri, *P.Ya, *P.Ri, P.Ya+??
E3: *P.ap /E9: *P.LF /E11: *P.Da, *P.Ri /E12: *P.Ya /E13: *P.Ri, P.Ya+??
E4: *P.ap /E5: *P.LF, *P.Da, *P.Ri, *P.Ya, *P.Ri, P.Ya+??
E5: *P.ap, *P.LF, *P.Da, *P.Ri, *P.Ya, *P.Ri, P.Ya+??The pattern you created will probably fit anything. Your pattern is completely different to the E1-E15 pattern.

Until now there is always only P.ap+ OR P.ap- possible at the same event.*P.ap, P.ap+, P.ap- or *P.ap, P.ap+, P.ap- will therefore always cause at least one transition, if it doesn't break the pattern. Why should it be reduced? There are 24 variations in total and about 4 actual possible variations for every row of appearances. To describe all *, + and - in the first minutes of 76 episodes demands some complexity. The expected probability to fit was tested to 0.625 and calculated to <0.711 in [Msg=190]. The residual uncertainty was then calculated to 1:10^7. You can verify the result here: [Msg=171].

To which remark do you refer? I looked through your previous posts and referred to all of them. Is that all right for you? Yes. The pattern was created for the first three seasons of the data source and has no predictive power for this first part of the data source. Yes. Therefore you can't include the first part of the data source into the probability calculation. This wasn't done. Yes, but the involvement of chance precludes a pattern with a residual uncertainty of 1:10^7. Yes, patterns with 1:10 or 1:10^2. The involvement of chance precludes a pattern with a residual uncertainty of 1:10^7. This is a mathematical argument you don't want to talk about. I assume we can't talk about this? Or can we? Yes, the odds would be very low for it to happen by chance. It is likely that you own the car you start in each morning. But your example is not affected by chance.A similar example like the found pattern would be: It takes you every morning 59.9 seconds - 60.1 seconds to get to your car. This example is affected by coincidental contributions. For example wind, passers-by or rain. You can get the normal probability by watching other people getting to their cars. If it takes them 50 seconds - 70 seconds with the same distance, then you are somehow different. If the involvement of chance would preclude a time of 59.9 seconds - 60.1 seconds to get to your car every morning, happened 45 out of 47 times, then you are maybe a godlike being. This would be a similar example.Did I forgot anything?

Yes. Also P.ap+ or P.ap- can occur in one event.*P.ap or P.ap+ or P.ap- or *P.ap & P.ap+ or *P.ap & P.ap- can occur in one event but not *P.ap & P.ap+ & P.ap- or P.ap+ & P.ap- Yes. All with possible repeated appearances. No. There are 24 possible variation in overall, but only 4 have been can be observed when you follow the rules above for one row of appearances. The most transitions are fixed.The row of appearances: *P.Wo, *P.Ya, *P.Tr, *P.LF, M1, *P.Ya, *P.Ri, P.Ya-, *P.LF can only have this variations: E1: *P.Wo /E2: *P.Ya /E3: *P.Tr /E9: *P.LF, M1, *P.Ya, *P.Ri /E12: P.Ya- /E13: *P.LF
E3: *P.Wo, *P.Ya, *P.Tr /E9: *P.LF, M1, *P.Ya, *P.Ri /E12: P.Ya- /E13: *P.LF
E4: *P.Wo /E5: *P.Ya /E6: *P.Tr /E7: *P.LF /E8: M1 /E9: *P.Ya, *P.Ri /E12: P.Ya- /E13: *P.LF
E5: *P.Wo, *P.Ya /E6: *P.Tr /E7: *P.LF /E8: M1 /E9: *P.Ya, *P.Ri /E12: P.Ya- /E13: *P.LFThere is no choice to not skip E4-E8 with the E1 variation. There is no choice to not skip E10-E11 with the E1 variation.
There is no choice to not skip E4-E8 with the E3 variation. There is no choice to not skip E10-E11 with the E3 variation.
There is no choice to not skip E10-E11 with the E4 variation.
There is no choice to not skip E10-E11 with the E5 variation.There are 55 fixed transitions and only 4 transition which allow an additional subvariation. There is mostly no choice beyond the four variations E1, E3, E4 and E5. There are 24 possible variation in overall, but mostly only 4 can be observed for every row of appearances. There are 4 possible variations out off all 24 possible variation. It wasn't made more complex than it needed to be. It is already a "simple" pattern which is distinct. Your pattern fits a lot more. You said: This is only possible, if every quantisation fits with both patterns in the same way. If there is a quantisation that fits with your pattern but doesn't fit with the E1-E15 pattern, then they are different patterns. If there is a quantisation that doesn't fit with your pattern but does fit with the E1-E15 pattern, then they are different patterns. There are three examples in [Msg=271] which fit with your pattern but don't fit with the E1-E15 pattern. Therefore they are different patterns. You have a strange way to "review". You don't refer to the actual pattern, you create your own different patterns. You don't refer to the actual calculations, you want to create your own different calculations. No, your pattern is different. It doesn't fit with the same quantisations: [Msg=271].

Yes. You misunderstood this. All 24 possible variation can be observed, but only 4 can be observed for one row of appearances. There are 4 possible variations for one quantisation. If there are 24 quantisations, then all 24 variations can be possibly observed. For season 3, 4, 5 and 6 there are only appearances and affected persons noted that trigger the next event. *P.Al and *P.Tr were not mentioned therefore. All this rules were created for the first three seasons of the data source and has no predictive power for this first part of the data source. If there are more than 13 persons, then a 14th person can appear as an already present person. For example P.Wo. No. Yes, and it also doesn't fit with thousands of different sequences of diverse things. For two sequences that fit, there is about one sequence that doesn't fit.Edited by Dubreuil, : No reason given.

If you don't want to participate in the discussion, then you don't have to. I assume to keep discussing with you would not a be good idea too. Your comment reveals that you haven't read the paper just as Cat Sci: [Msg=219]. If you don't read the paper, then you can't understand the context. I could post all parts of the paper here, but this would probably comprise about 60 pages. Everyone who became insulting here or stopped discussing didn't read the paper.Edited by Dubreuil, : No reason given.