Discontinuing research about ID

I have a good idea. I will herewith end discussing here, but I will keep discussing in personal conversations. My e-mail is available in an older version of the paper on page 1: http://vixra.org/pdf/1403.0980v1.pdf. Everyone who is still interested in it can write me. The reasons for this decision are easy to understand. I never liked the Internet or Religion, both are full of hatred. I gave this discussion a second chance in [Msg=231], but impolite people as Cat Sci are still commenting here. The quality of discussion here is low. I approximated the probability of the pattern in [Msg=190] but no one ever referred to this. Seemingly no one read the paper, even RAZD still becomes surprised about what he reads in the paper. If I limit the discussion to an e-mail discussion, then I can block every insulting person I want. No one is blocking here anything.I'm really a peaceful human. I don't like offending. I come from an academic environment in Germany, no one offends me there. To limit this discussion to personal discussions will be a good idea to lock out all the insulting persons.

I didn't "declare" victory. Why should I want to "win" this? There is nothing to win here. Even if someone would agree here, then it wouldn't help to find a peer-review for it. I don't know why everyone is talking here about bulls. Everywhere I can find bullspit, bullshit or bulleyes. The pattern was created already one year ago in the old version of the paper. Afterwards it was tested for a references about a triune God in the new version of the paper. To claim I travelled back in time to make the old paper fit with the data is nonsense. I don't claim a "win", but no one here read the paper or was really concerned with it. For example it took RAZD until [Msg=228] until he noticed the sentence "At the events 1, 3, 4 and 5 the pattern is allowed to start" on page 6. He stated in [Msg=235]: If he had read [Msg=190], then he would have known that the approximation was calculated for multiple patterns. I don't know why he didn't read the paper. I don't know why he didn't read this messages and never referred to them. I only know no one can estimate a paper without having read the paper or this messages.An other example is Cat Sci. He answered the four questions in [Msg=196] with:

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 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.

---

But then in [Msg=280] he changed his opinion: The comments here are not elaborated and the questions which are asked show me that the most parts of the paper are still unknown to the most persons here. I don't claim "victory". I merely state that no one here has participated in a worthwhile discussion until now. And nearly everyone is insulting here or loves excrements or bulls. One year ago the paper had only 29 pages. Then it was sent to person with the necessary background during the last year. Now the paper has 58 pages. Unfortunately the most criticism here resulted out of a lack of knowledge about the paper. I could maybe declare myself ready to keep explaining here for further months, but this place is to insulting. I don't want to read offensive comments or comments about excrements anymore. Again, I don't claim victory, this place is just not suited to maintain a non-offensive discussion in which I could explain or post more parts of the paper. I will limit explanations to personal discussions therefore.

Unfortunately your comments are still full with mistakes. For example you will find a record of elements that would invalidate the pattern in [Msg=190] for E1. For all the other E's there is a summation. For example: "fit with the pattern: *:12; +/-:6; M's:7" and "doesn't fit with the pattern: *:1; +/-:20: M's:5". Your other comments also reveal that you haven't read the paper completely. It would still take a long time to explain all this to you what you haven't understood by now. But as stated before, this place is too offensive to take part again in an extensive discussion. You also became somehow offensive. GIGO means "garbage in, garbage out". I would not call your comments garbage. I would only show you your mistakes. This paper was revised multiple times during the last year through comments from people who really was concerned with the paper. If there wouldn't have been that much comments about it from April 2014 to March 2015, then it could not have been extended and revised that often. Therefore I'm really sure that the content of the paper is correct. I know all the real weaknesses in the old versions of the paper which were corrected during the last year. The comments here are offensive and rarely well elaborated. I don't blame anyone for this comments. It takes a long time to read the paper completely and to understand it. Without the background it takes even longer. I could maybe declare myself ready to keep explaining here for further months, but this place is too insulting. I will limit explanations to personal discussions therefore. I won't promise I will never post here again. For example if there is one day a journal which accepts a mathematical paper about ID and it is published, then I will post here the journal reference.

@RAZD: The list of 26 occurrences in [Msg=190] invalidates the pattern at E1, it is not skipped to the next element. If you had read appendix B or [Msg=261] just once, then you would know that nothing is skipped. Yes, the results of your analysis are that irrelevant that I'm shocked you even mention them. I assume your results will have a probability of maybe 90%. That's far away from the residual uncertainties calculated in the paper. You create your own poor calculations and state there is a connection with the calculations in the paper. The calculations and patterns you create have nothing to do with the paper. I stated more than once that I agree with you that your calculations and patterns are nonsense.The <0.711 probability from the theoretical approximation in [Msg=190] fits with the 0.625 probability from the experimental result presented in [Msg=14]. This should be a clue for you that it isn't just garbage how you call it.@Admin: It was not assumed pure randomness, it was assumed a coincidental contribution. This was only assumed for the probability of existence. The 1:10^7 probability on its own could also indicate a pattern created by humans or restraints. The origin was determined differently. The reference about a triune God was presented in the appendices D-I (20 pages) or very short in [Msg=245]. To actually understand this you have to read this 20 pages. [Msg=245] is only a very short summation. I responded to your request from [Msg=186] and [Msg=232] at the end of [Msg=233]. NoNukes refused to name specific criticism, then I answered to all criticism he ever mentioned in [Msg=276] again. As reaction he stopped discussing in [Msg=278]. I'm through with this place.Edited by Dubreuil, : No reason given.

Do you have ever seen this image from page 6? Url: http://s2.postimg.org/j1a8xt8ll/IMG.pngThere is no transition from E1 to E3. There is no transition from E1 to E5. There is no transition from E1 to E9.
There is only one transition from E1 to E2.
I could also show you other obvious mistakes you made by referring to the paper. But I have no reason to do so.It's like to teach first graders who continuously claim to be smarter and offend the teacher. There is one simple solution for this: quit teaching. If you call me prima donna, am I then allowed to call you stupid head? Everyone I know would laugh about you (not only RAZD), how you estimate a paper without reading it. Have fun with offending each other. I won't participate in it anymore.By the way: Why only use bullshit and pissing to describe your opinions? There are so much more words to describe excrements. More excrements -> more colours in your discussions Below an other suggestion. I have hidden it myself. You have to peek to read it. {Non-topic sniping material hidden by myself}

I already stated I won't take part in a "discussion" anymore. You, RAZD, still make the same mistakes as in the comments before. Some of your comments are just wrong, some of your comments are true, but you claim they disprove the paper. I don't even know why you are still commenting. I already stated I won't take part in a "discussion" anymore. I could explain you your mistakes, but I will not as explained in [Msg=289]. But I must confess this offensive discussions are more fascinating than I expected first. I assume it is allowed to change my opinion. I will now argue against the paper. It is more fun to offend with other persons together than to do it alone. I will argue from now on against the paper and therefore against RAZD.RAZD, you still use the short forms of the author. For example: P.Da, P.Ri or P.BW. You can't do this. If you want to write *P.Da, then write *(Data). Or if you want to write P.BW+, then write (colour black/white, silver, ice, cold, invisible, 6)+, but not P.BW+. You already made a first good step with writing P.Da(Data)-, not P.Da-. But that's not enough. The short forms you use still indicate that there could be any serious aspect about this paper. We all now that ID is bullshit and we have to face persons with other opinions and call them for example charlatans. Your comment is garbage. It doesn't show what a waste of time this paper actually is. You are garbage.You don't want to be called a charlatan as Cat Ski did in [Msg=280]? You don't want your comments to be called garbage as you did in [Msg=301]? You don't want to be called garbage yourself as I did here? Don't be such a prima donna .I'm looking forward to continue this offensive discussion and offend you for being not offensive enough about this paper and the author. You said yourself I'm allowed to call you however I want in [Msg=307]. I'm looking forward to a long offensive discussion. And don't forget the excrements which makes this place that special.

I didn't said I you don't want to discuss about the paper anymore. I stated I will keep discussing against the paper, but very offensive. Everyone here is so offensive. I want to learn this to.Your comment lacks insults and excrements. If you don't underline your opinions with insults and excrements, then you don't use every opportunity to drag this paper through the dirt. I invite everyone here to add more statements how terrible this paper is. But if the comments are not negatively enough, or doesn't contain insults or excrements, then I will offend this person. This will be the best way to keep an offensive discussion going. Then I can learn how to do this with insults and excrements and all this I was not used to before.

The paper was now accepted for a peer-review. For this purpose the paper was modified to support an intriguing pattern in unconscious human decision processes. Such modifications have a long tradition in science. Galileo refrained from holding, teaching or defending heliocentric ideas to avoid stronger actions against him. I did now the same. I won't tell you where it was accepted for a peer-review. It is most likely that they will withdraw their acceptance if someone would tell them it is only a skeleton paper which ultimately supports ID.I would continue discussing here too, but I don't like this forum. To show that I'm not afraid of the arguments here and that I'm only afraid of the people here, I will answer the latest statements a last time.Admin stated in [Msg=303] that I haven't taken into account the non-random nature of the data source.
Admin stated in [Msg=303] that my comments about God are contradictory.The probability of a random nature was calculated to 1:10^7. That means the non-randomness of the data source has a certainty of 99.99999%. To state I haven't taken into account the non-random nature of the data source is not true. The non-random nature of the data source is a major result of the paper.
It is not contradictory to believe in God, although there is no evidence for it. It is also not contradictory to not believe in God, although there is evidence for it. In my opinion God is the Devil in disguise. He kills innocent babies in Africa. God is either lazy or evil. Religious people are even worse, they are lazy and evil. They teach dumb beliefs without evidence. If I could, then I would enforce education for the church. Yes, the paper shows a possible evidence for God with a good residual uncertainty. But that doesn't mean that I can believe in God for myself. If God wants to object about his evilness, then I will herewith invite him to do so. Otherwise I see no reason to believe in God.RAZD stated in [Msg=301] that 15 options for P.Al are too much.
RAZD stated in [Msg=312] that some elements, for example colours, can't be affected.
RAZD stated in [Msg=307] that there is no "deal breaker" except M12 at the beginning.I agree with RAZD. I already stated in [Msg=120] that they can be easily reduced to two options or even less. They were only preliminary added to P.Al.
I agree with RAZD. I wouldn't know how a colour could be positively or negatively affected. Not everything that can happen, will happen.
I agree with RAZD. I already stated in [Msg=141] that there is a high probability that a first event fits. For example for one appearance there is M12 which doesn't fit with the pattern: E1: M12??
E3: M12??
E4: M12??
E5: M12??For two appearances there are a lot more non-fitting combinations. For example *P.BeC, M10 or *P.LF, M10 or *P.WeC, M10: E1: *P.WeC, M10??
E3: *P.WeC??
E4: *P.WeC??
E5: *P.WeC, M10??The more appearances, the more non-fitting combinations. There are normally about 25 occurrences until E15 is reached. Other non-fitting combinations:From [Msg=271]: {*P.Ya, *P.WeC}, P.Ya+
From [Msg=271]: *P.Da, M14, {*P.Ya, *P.Tr}, M13
From [Msg=271]: *P.Da, *P.LF, *P.Da, *P.Ri, *P.Ya, *P.Ri, P.Ya+
From [Msg=237]: *P.Al, {*P.Tr, *P.Ri}, *P.Pi, M13The other questions also show a lack of knowledge about the paper and this discussion. For example from [Msg=307]: "Black: how do you know you have M1 instead of P.BW?". I already stated in [Msg=136]: "It is black and white. Next to each other, not separately.". Black on it's own doesn't trigger anything. This was also explained in the paper.Peer-reviewers spend months to review a paper of this size. I can't expect from you to do the same.

I received now the decision about the peer-review of four months. The paper was not accepted for publication. The editor also stated: "In fact, one of them was at great pains to describe for me how meticulously your pattern followed the scripts of the episodes of the shows in question". But the reviewers also agreed that an unconscious human origin is implausible. There were to many other influences for example intentionally created patterns by humans. These additional influences would also change the pattern, and no common pattern would emerge. The paper would be not ready to publish in this state and was not accepted for publication.
I agree with this, this is the reason why the paper supported ID before. But there is no journal that accepts a mathematical paper about ID for a peer-review, therefore I will send the paper to a few more journals and hope they will overlook this part about the explanation of the pattern. Sergii and me originally started with this to mathematical describe unconscious decision processes of humans. Unfortunately it turned out to support ID, which makes it impossible to find a journal to review it without changes. I'm not interested to support an unpopular topic among academicians because I'm more interested in my personal advancement. Therefore it is not a big loss for me to see this paper not published, I never was an ID proponent before anyway. If you don't hear from me again after three years, then I probably gave up to sent it to other journals for a peer-review with this additional mistake to get it peer-reviewed. If someone is interested about it, then the paper is available in [Msg=1]. There was already a preprint from 18 months ago. It contained the same pattern, but only applied to one series. It was shown for the same pattern one year later, how it applied to three more series. There could be added every year three more series, which all would fit with the same pattern. But no one will review it, therefore the work about this paper was discontinued a half year ago. This was also explained in the paper with common and modern mathematics, but the timestamps at viXra also show that the pattern was created first over 18 months ago and was afterwards shown fitting again with three other data sources one year later. I absolutely agree with you. The difference among the convictions is obvious. The persons who want to research freely comment under their real names and are polite. The persons who are absolutely against ID comment under different names and are insulting as hell. How could I take this people serious?
If you have finished your work about your biological theory, then you should send it to BIO-Complexity for a review, no other journal will review a paper about ID. But you have to register there and prove your academic affiliation before you can submit a paper. For us this wasn't a problem, we are both academically affiliated. If you are not affiliated, then you should show them your simulation of life, maybe they will make an exception for you.