That's what I thought. Some of us have extensive industry experience -- enough to know you're barking in the wind here.
If you claim that there were mistakes about the quantisations, then you should name them. If anyone else, who has enough industry experience, claims that there were mistakes about the quantisations, then he or she should name them. If anyone claims that there are mistakes about the mathematics, then it should be named. That's how discussions work. Not: "You are dumb, I'm omniscient".
Theodoric writes:
Please define what you mean by the word quantised.
Quantization - Wikipedia Every appearance is added to a row of appearances according to the rules you find in Message 28. For example an episode like 4x08 is not longer composed out of visual and audible information, it is reduced to row of appearances:
*P.Al, *P.Pi, *P.Al, *P.BW, *P.Al ...
Like this it can be compared with every other row easily. In the paper in Appendix A you can find this row of appearances for every episode.
RAZD writes:
How about 3 invisible pigs?
I forgot to comment this part. It was not looked after pigs. There were three persons: Jesus, God and the Bible. They all appeared as P.Ya. This resulted in a residual uncertainty of 1:10^3: Message 39.
Cat Sci writes:
It eliminates a the possibility of a pattern with a residual uncertainty of 1:10^7. Do you agree there is an coincidental contribution? If so, then there should be a few episodes that doesn't fit with the pattern out of chance. That hasn't happened. A pattern with a residual uncertainty of 1:10^2 could be created by rules or chance or both, but not a pattern with 1:10^7.
Hurray! You've finally proven that TV shows are not actually made like this:
You are really no one you can discuss with. I asked you a direct question three times in a row: Message 90, Message 95, Message 111. And you refused to answer this questions three times in a row: Message 91, Message 96, Message 124. I suggest you stop commenting here if sarcasm is the only language you know.
Regardless, a short comment about this point for everyone who is interested in it (not you): There are random effects and random preferences by the hundred persons that were involved in it. This effects changes the appearances randomly. Even if only every fifth time a change occurs, then the pattern would still fit not more then 35 times and the residual uncertainty would be 1:10. I suggest you don't comment anymore unless you have acquired the necessary knowledge of math to understand the argumentation. You have to understand that you can not reject the mathematical part of the paper with your scorn and derision. It takes an thorough review and enough time to estimate a scientific paper. For the other persons the paper was sent to before, it took about a month to review the paper and write a comment. Don't assume you are able to reach a final opinion about this within a few days. Even if you have all the necessary knowledge of math it takes more than just a few days to estimate a science paper of this size.
Your mistakes have been named multiple times and you simply ignore them.
For instance, you claim that the involvement of chance precludes other natural explanations. You've been called on the illogical nature of this claim multiple times. Humans creations include patterns, conscious and subconscious. TV shows are no different. It's logical to conclude that the constraints of TV shows would force even more patterns into the mix.
I have not ignored them. You have ignored my answers. I already have refuted all the arguments you named. You have not yet answered to this counterarguments.
conscious human behaviour is not a cause: Message 64 unconscious human behaviour is not a cause: Message 64 the constraints that were named until now are not a cause: Message 78
ThinAirDesigns writes:
For instance, you claim that the involvement of chance precludes other natural explanations. You've been called on the illogical nature of this claim multiple times.
It was claimed but not reasoned. I will make it easy for you to give reasons for that claim.
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?
It was claimed that the involvement of chance precludes a pattern with a residual uncertainty with 1:10^7 because: 1.->2.->3.->4.
Answer this four questions and you actually made a first step to justify your claim.
ThinAirDesigns writes:
There's a reason that no one will publish your "research" -- it's flawed from the start.
Not even in your opinion that makes sense. You stated that the pattern exists (because of constraints). From Message 111: "Even in this case the results would be remarkable. That there is one significant pattern in every told story hasn't been shown before. That this pattern also holds a reference about a triune God is also remarkable. This wasn't criticised yet.". You say the pattern is there, therefore I proved an actually existing pattern and it is not flawed from the start. You can't say that what I have proved is right and therefore it's flawed.
Cat Sci writes:
You need to be able to understand how to communicate well enough to explain you paper in English.
I asked you to explain yourself in plain English without reference to your own paper and you were unable to.
This stuff about it being to complicated to discuss is bullshit.
We've had plain English discussion here about things that are way more complicated than the stuff in your paper, like the Big Bang and 4D cosmology and quantum mechanics and genetics and micro/macro-evolution.
Hiding behind a smokescreen of "you're just not smart enough to understand what I'm saying" is only going to cause more people to reject your work.
If you really want to discuss what's in your paper, then talk English. Forget the quantizations and mathematical stuff and use words.
You probably refer to: From Message 82: "Well I asked you to explain it in plain English without reference to your paper and you were unable to do that. So apparently even you do not understand the sciences in this paper."
I explained it with equations in Message 14. I don't say it is to complicated to explain it in plain English, but it would take an enormous amount of time. I first had to teach you basic probability calculation, the explanation in Message 14 was seemingly to complicated for you, and then more modern mathematical stuff. The intraclass correlation test was first introduced only 40 years ago and is more complicated. I'm not used to teach to persons that have no mathematical background and I wouldn't look forward to it. At the beginning it was said: "Amusingly there are many people here with PhD's in the appropriate fields" and "You'll find there are people here prepared to listen, understand, and critique.". I don't want to spent the rest of my life with explaining mathematics to laymen. I prefer to wait until one of the persons with a mathematical background show up and want to give a critique. That was the only reason I agreed with a "review" at all. Scientific laymen are really unable to review a science paper, they don't understand the content. Maybe you can find someone else to explain you the mathematics, but I really don't have the vast amount of time that would be necessary to teach you the maths background. This is a restricting factor and anyone who doesn't have at least a slight knowledge about the mathematical background can not take part in the discussion. I don't have the time to explain maths to everyone. If there is no one left here to discuss with because of this, then it can't be changed. But I still will answer easy questions of understandability, like in Message 122 from Theodoric. They can be answered quick.
Let me try and set out the problems in your work as I see them.
Thanks for giving an actually reasoned comment, Dr Adequate. You maybe know that you also should take part in a discussion if you started to comment about it at all. For example "ThinAirDesigns" and "Cat Sci" didn't answered the questions I directly asked them. Regarding to your comment there will be a few question at the end I directly ask to you (marked by a "?"). If you are not answering to the clarification about your comment, then there can be no discussion about this topic. The fact that you made a reasoned comment about it at all, makes me optimistic that you will want to do so.
Dr Adequate writes:
Statistical methods are good for sorting out signal from noise, causation from randomness. But you are for some reason trying to do something else: to sort out a signal from a signal, and an intelligent cause from an intelligent cause.
I agree partly. The data source actually contains signals that were created by human intentions. But there were different data sources examined. From [Msg=78]: "The genre, setting and charakteres are different for all 4 examined series. The episodes would be differently constrained and different patterns would emerge. The editors, directors, and producers were different for all 4 examined series. The episodes would be differently constrained and different patterns would emerge.". They were all created differently, a signal created by human intention or other constraints would not have a significant importance on a comprehensive data source like that. At List of Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes - Wikipedia you see that nearly every episode was written by someone else and the actual signal would be every time an other one. Not only the episodes differ highly at the beginning ([Msg=120]), they were also written by different people (USA, England, Japan, India) in different times (1980-2015). What was done, is to compare a lot of independent signals for a common pattern with that all this signals can be described with.
Dr Adequate writes:
Why not work with a sequence that is in fact randomly generated? Try tossing a coin a hundred times, but first pray to your "triune god" that it should always come up heads. When you can get that to work, let's talk.
I actually referred to this in the paper. From page 2: "Bit strings are not suited to examine them for preferences and avoidance because they consist of only two digits. ". But the example you name is similar to what was done. In [Msg=14] I referred to this example with 100 coin tosses. I will come back to that below.
Dr Adequate writes:
Calculating the odds of you finding the patterns you did in fact find is the wrong calculation. What you need to do is to calculate the chances of getting any pattern that you'd have found equally impressive.
It was a proof of existence, not a proof of impressiveness. For the Higgs boson the physicist didn't calculated the probability of finding a particle they would have found equally impressive: Higgs boson: scientists 99.999% sure 'God Particle' has been found . They calculated the residual uncertainty about it, not its impressiveness. The made calculation were solely a proof of existence with a similar residual uncertainty.
Dr Adequate writes:
By analogy, suppose a guy prays for a miracle and then draws four cards from a deck, and they come out as a 5, 6, 7, 8, in that order. "A miracle!", he cries, "what are the odds of that!" And he calculates the odds and they are indeed quite long. But he'd also have been equally impressed if it had been 2, 3, 4, 5, or 2, 4, 6, 8, or all the kings, or all the 7s, or his birthdate, and so on. What he should be calculating are the odds of him getting anything that would make him shout "A miracle!" These odds against this are much shorter.
I totally agree with you. The pattern was created to fit with season 1,3,4 and has no statistical significance for this part of the data source. That the pattern was solely created out of this part of the data source is proved in table 5 on page 8 in the paper. If anyone insists, then I can post an image of it here. It is a giant table with a lot of numbers. If the pattern would have been created for the whole data source, then it would have no statistical significance. But it was solely created for the the first part of it and then tested on all other parts of the whole data source. To come back to this example:
Dr Adequate writes:
Try tossing a coin a hundred times, but first pray to your "triune god" that it should always come up heads. When you can get that to work, let's talk.
The pattern was tested 47 times for a data source it was not created for. It did fit 45 times and didn't fit 2 times. That's not like a 100 times fit out of 100 times but it is close. That the probability for the pattern to be caused through chance is 0.625, was shown in a test with a random starting time. For a coin toss it would be 0.5. You will find it also explained like this in [Msg=14].
Dr Adequate writes:
You got to decide yourself what would fall into what category. There's no reason a priori why we should class Romulans with the color silver, or that lack of knowledge should be classed with the number 4. You didn't decide on this classification scheme before you'd ever watched Star Trek, did you?
As stated before, it was made like this to make it fit with the first part of the data source and has no statistical significance for this part. You can examine the fifth table on your own. All parts of the pattern were created out of the first part.
Dr Adequate writes:
In every one I could identify something black. Do you have a rigid objective criterion for when this counts as P.BW?
It is black and white. Next to each other, not separately. For example a black gadget with white stripes or a white gadget with black stripes would be a criterion like this.
Dr Adequate writes:
This is a problem. Given the latitude to create arbitrary classes ad hoc and to decide for myself what falls into those classes, I could prove any number of things similar or indeed identical according to my classification scheme.
I agree. Maybe there actually could be an arbitrary pattern created for every possible data source. But the pattern was only created for one part of the data source as shown in the big fifth table on page 8.
Dr Adequate writes:
Finally, as I have pointed out, this isn't remotely evidence for a triune god, because we have no prior expectation that this is the sort of thing he'd do.
You maybe mistake mathematical arguments with theological arguments. Please answer the following questions to enable me to comprehend your argumentation.
You said: "Try tossing a coin a hundred times, but first pray to your "triune god" that it should always come up heads. When you can get that to work, let's talk.". If this would happen, would it be an evidence? We have no prior expectation that this is the sort of thing he'd do.
If someone prays to a "triune god" to be able to walk again and it works, would that be an evidence? We have no prior expectation that this is the sort of thing he'd do.
If someone prays to a "triune god" to get his limbs back he lost in a war before and it works, would that be an evidence? We have no prior expectation that this is the sort of thing he'd do.
If every Christian is healed from every sickness he has, would that be an evidence? We have no prior expectation that this is the sort of thing he'd do.
You also could be mistaken about what the things are he'd do. I doubt that you can have knowledge about everything God would do, if you assume God exists.
Thus far to what you wrote until now. You seemingly didn't read the paper, but if you participate in an extended discussion you might also understand it without reading it.
ThinAirDesigns writes:
Math requires good inputs and without them all is lost
I agree. Because of that the whole data source was quantised with the rules you find in [Msg=28].
ThinAirDesigns writes:
You admittedly have no experience in the TV broadcast business and thus have no clue how patterns arise in that industry.
It doesn't matter whether I know how patterns arise or not, if I know that they have arose. The pattern has a residual uncertainty of 1:10^7. That means that the existence of the found pattern is ten million times likelier than its non-existence. You have agreed before about the patterns existence, or has that changed now?
ThinAirDesigns writes:
Natural forces don't just take a hiatus when chance is also involved. Chance and natural forces are simply two inputs into a given outcome.
You didn't answered the four questions I asked you. It is claimed that the involvement of chance precludes a pattern with a residual uncertainty of 1:10^7 because: 1.->2.->3.->4.. Chance and natural forces are two inputs into a given outcome, but the involvement of chance precludes a pattern with a residual uncertainty of 1:10^7. If you disagree, then you should be able to answer on of this questions with No:
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 you can't do that, then the involvement of chance precludes a pattern with a residual uncertainty of 1:10^7 because: 1.->2.->3.->4.. If you disagree, then refer to the arguments that are discussed, don't just ignore them as the other arguments before: [Msg=128].
{} means that both persons appear at the same moment together.
The pattern can start often at E1, but doesn't fit later. The pattern has to fit with all events up to E15 to completely fit. First *P.Al appears and then P.Tr and P.Ri at the same time. P.Tr can appear at E1 and P.Ri can appear at E2, but they can't appear together. From the possible starts E1, E3, E4 and E5 is only E3 possible because both persons can appear there together (table 4: E3 on page 5). *P.Pi is allowed at E3, therefore E3 remains the current event. M13 is not allowed at E3. The next possible events after E3 are E4 or E9 (Figure 1 on page 6) but M13 can't appear there too. Therefore the whole pattern doesn't fit. Only if all events up to E15 fit, then the whole pattern does fit.
Nonsense -- because you DO claim to know how they arose. You have been saying it's proof of a triune god since you arrived here.
What you have said above simply blows your entire paper out of the water. If you're here to merely demonstrate that patterns exist, then big woopy doo, but contrary to your above statement it DOES matter how they arose if you're actually attempting to prove the point of your paper.
For the "proof of a triune god", how you call it, it doesn't matter how they arose. Even it they arose through industry norms and human involvement, how you claim, then it would be remarkable that industry norms are outlined in a way, that they proof a triune God, how you call it. Similar for all other human involvement. The residual uncertainty of 1:10^3 about this was shown in the paper.
ThinAirDesigns writes:
You didn't answered the four questions I asked you. It is claimed that the involvement of chance precludes a pattern with a residual uncertainty of 1:10^7 because: 1.->2.->3.->4.. Chance and natural forces are two inputs into a given outcome, but the involvement of chance precludes a pattern with a residual uncertainty of 1:10^7. If you disagree, then you should be able to answer on of this questions with No:
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 you can't do that, then the involvement of chance precludes a pattern with a residual uncertainty of 1:10^7 because: 1.->2.->3.->4.. If you disagree, then refer to the arguments that are discussed, don't just ignore them as the other arguments before:
No.
I'll decide how much time I spend on your nonsense, and as long as you are spewing fundamental nonsense, it won't be much.
No to what? You already agreed to question 1. in Message 133, that chance is involved. This is the second time you didn't answered to this questions.
I will not longer bother with your opinion. You are not even able to answer simple question. You also keep to repeat your claims without referring to the counterarguments that were already made about the constraints and one common pattern: Message 128.
Dr Adequate writes:
I shall focus on the way you award + and - to each person.
How + and - are awarded to each person was shown on page 6 in a first example and later in Appendix A with further examples. The paper was written to be understood by a reviewer, who actually spent some time with it and has also examined some examples from Appendix A. You seemingly haven't done that, but I will explain it to you.
Dr Adequate writes:
Jesus leaves the house of Jarius. Now, it's sad when you say goodbye to a friend. So this is arguably P.Je-, but you didn't class it as such.
It is not mentioned that anyone is sad. It is not mentioned that they are good friends. It is not mentioned that they are sad about saying goodbye.
Dr Adequate writes:
Now, Jarius had as his houseguest the most amazing person who ever lived. who was God incarnate, and now he's leaving him behind, never to return. Isn't that P.Ja-? But you don't class it as such.
It is not mentioned that anyone is sad. It is not mentioned that he leaves to never return.
Dr Adequate writes:
Then he meets the two blind men. You class this as P.B1-, PB2-, although the text doesn't say that they were suddenly struck blind at this point. They were not "negatively affected", they already had their handicap.
Arguably you could have classed this as P.B1+, P.B2+. These blind men have met Jesus. What could be more amazing? They are positively affected. But you write it down as - because they've been blind for a long time, rather than writing + because they've met God incarnate and the one person who can heal them.
P.B1-, PB2- is not about them being blind only. It's about them being blind and walking helpless on the street. They are affected negatively by their helplessness through their blindness in this situation.
It is not mentioned that they are amazed.
Dr Adequate writes:
Then the first blind man glorifies Jesus, calling him "Son of David" and you don't class it as P.Je+, even though you're going to class it as P.Je+ a few sentences later.
"Son of David" is just another name he is called. You are called "Dr Adequate", but no one glorifies you with that.
Dr Adequate writes:
Then the first blind man says "Oh! our saviour, I am able to see you." And according to your classification, this is not P.Je+. Jesus has successfully healed the blind man, and is praised for it as "our saviour", and yet that's not a + for Jesus, according to you.
It's also only an other name as "lord" later.
Dr Adequate writes:
Then the second blind man exclaims "What a miracle? I am able to see." Stilll not P.Je+.
He is astonished. Confusion doesn't justify P.Je+.
Dr Adequate writes:
Then Jesus says "Do not tell this to any one what I had done." Doesn't that count as P.B1-, or P.B2-, or most especially P.Al-?
It is not mentioned that anyone is sorrowful about this.
Dr Adequate writes:
Then Jesus leaves. He does so, presumably, because he wants to, and yet you classify this as P.Je-. Why?
It's not about leaving. You should had read the appending text to understand this. It's about intentionally ignoring what he has asked them for.
Dr Adequate writes:
And consequently, the blind men are deprived of his company, their savior, God incarnate, and yet you don't class this as P.B1- and P.B2-.
They are ambivalent about the person Jesus. They intentionally ignored what Jesus asked them for. It is not mentioned that they are sad about this. They stand unconcerned in front of a crowd shortly after.
Dr Adequate writes:
Then the first blind man remarks that "Jesus cured us from blindness." You have decided that this should be P.Je+, but the point at which the first blind man said "Oh! our saviour, I am able to see you." is not P.Je+. Apparently when the blind man looks back at his cure, when Jesus is no longer there, that's P.Je+, but when he acknowledges his cure when Jesus is there, that's not P.Je+. Surely if anything it should be the other way round.
You have mistaken this. "cured us from blindness. [P.B1+, P.B2+, *P.Je]" doesn't contain P.Je+.
Dr Adequate writes:
Then blind man #2 remarks that "He is my lord, I glorified him [P.Je+] he is the one who gave me vision by grace." So this counts as P.Je+ because blind man #2 is reminiscing abut how he glorified Jesus in the past, but it didn't could as P.Je+ when blind man #2 actually glorified him by saying "What a miracle? I am able to see."
One time he commended Jesus in front of a crowd and one time he didn't commended anything.
Dr Adequate writes:
And also, it doesn't count as P.B2+ when he reminisces about Jesus healing him. P.Je+, yes. P.B2+, no. When he says (looking back) "I glorified him", that's P.Je+. But when he says (looking back) Jesus "gave me vision by grace" that's not P.B2+. Why not?
The row of appearances was only examined until ", I glorified him [P.Je+]". There are no more comments because E15 was already passed at this point.
Dr Adequate writes:
But perhaps your pattern is very narrowly defined. But in that case, we would suspect that you have made your decisions in order to fit the pattern. As I have shown, many of your assignments of + and - could plausibly be made very differently. It's not cut and dried like deciding whether a coin came down heads or tails. You get to decide in a fairly arbitrary way whether each instance should be classified as +, -, or neutral. Given this freedom of decision, you can make the decisions which fit your pattern. In that case it is not strange or at all impressive that you can find your pattern.
+ and - are not that important. With the random data source the pattern did fit with 15 episodes and didn't fit with 9 episodes. For the 9 episodes that didn't fit were + and - only 4 times of importance (1x04, 1x05, 1x21, 1x23) at all. And it is not arbitrary to decide for + or - anyway, as shown.
Dr Adequate writes:
So you are still in the position of trying to separate a signal from a signal, and trying to distinguish intelligent design from intelligent design.
Why don't you look at a source that we would truly expect to be random? Take your classes of P.Ya and M10 and P.BW and so forth, write them on bits of paper, put them into a bowl, draw them randomly out of the bowl, and see if you get the same results. A fortiori, if God can deprive the scriptwriters of Star Trek of their free will in order to create statistical anomalies, he could do the same for you.
That's easy to tell: ID claims (title of the paper: "About testing Intelligent Design at the present time ...") that living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Evolution takes a long time to proceed, therefore it can't be tested. But there are evolution-like processes it can be tested on. There were different constraints in evolution and every animal wanted to survive. For the current data source there are also different constraints and everyone wanted his or her script to survive. If a common signal can be retrieved that underlies all other signals and that would be normally corrupted by chance, then it is possible that it also underlies evolution, if it already underlies evolution-like processes. Or do you have a better idea how to test ID at the present time?
Dr Adequate writes:
I don't think you understand science at all
I don't think you read the paper. If you had read the paper, then I wouldn't have to correct the most parts of your comments. You should read the paper first before you make unreasond comments.
Dr Adequate writes:
But the pattern was created so broadly as to fit the data source it was created for. Once you have created something so broad and loose that it will fit seasons 1, 3 and 4, I would not be at all surprised if it fit season 5 as well. By analogy, if you can find something that is true of three randomly selected men, let's call them Tom, Dick, and Harry, then I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was also true of George.
You would know that this isn't true, if you had read Message 14 or Message 120 or page 6 in the paper. From Message 120: "To exclude that the pattern is not only that random that it would fit always, it is tested on a random data source.". With randomised starting times the pattern did fit with 15 episodes and didn't fit with 9 episode. Therefore the probability for the pattern to be caused through random data is 0.625. The probability for the pattern to be caused at (00:00) is 0.95. This repeated itself 45 out of 47 times and resulted in the residual uncertainty about the pattern of 1:10^7.
Dr Adequate writes:
If someone prays to a "triune god" to be able to walk again and it works, would that be an evidence? We have no prior expectation that this is the sort of thing he'd do.
If someone prays to a "triune god" to get his limbs back he lost in a war before and it works, would that be an evidence? We have no prior expectation that this is the sort of thing he'd do.
If every Christian is healed from every sickness he has, would that be an evidence? We have no prior expectation that this is the sort of thing he'd do.
We would indeed expect God to perform healing miracles, since that is exactly what he is reputed to do. According to the Bible, God does indeed perform miraculous healing as a result of prayers issued by the faithful. I do expect that if Jesus was God, then his statement "Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven" would be true. I do not expect that if there was a god, he'd spend his time fiddling with Star Trek scripts when no-one even petitioned him to do so.
First you actually have not answered the questions. I didn't asked about two or more persons praying, I asked about one person praying. You can also say: "Because God hasn't done that recently, it's obvious that this is not the sort of thing he'd do.". What's about other miracles like: Marian apparition - Wikipedia. Do you declare everyone who believes in a God contrary to your imagination as dumb? I disagree with your opinion, but it is only an theological argument anyway. According to the Bible God created the world in 6 days and there was no one who expected from him to do so.
. A summary until now: I will now stop commenting for a few days. Then everyone who is interested in the paper or this discussion has the opportunity to read it. Until know it was only discussed about 3 pages of the "Proving the pattern" section of the paper. With the ongoing discussion the other 5 pages of this section have to be discussed then too. The reference about a triune God was mentioned a few times by me: Message 39, Message 90, Message 111 but until now "Dr Adequate" was the only one who disagreed, because he literally can't image that it would be something God would do, to create a reference with a residual uncertainty of 1:10^3. The arguments until now mostly lacked knowledge about the paper. I will comment again next week and hopefully there will be other persons here who became familiar with the paper or this discussion and participate then in the discussion.
Wow. Really? We are now discussing only about theological arguments? No one else who wants to disagree with any part of the paper? I expected that because all other person (partly acquaintances, partly a few id proponents) who have looked at the paper also wasn't able to refute the paper. But I didn't expected that to happen that fast here. Well, if someone still have question, then I still will answer them.
Dr Adequate writes:
This is, of course, not true. It is wildly and bizarrely untrue.
I never said that I couldn't imagine God doing such a thing. I said that I have no expectation that God would do such a thing.
If you find that you need to defend your opinions with flat and egregious falsehoods, then this is kind of a hint that your opinions are not all that good.
Well, you didn't answered the questions. I asked you about one person, but you only responded about two or more persons. You might apologise that I wasn't able to understand you correctly. If you would answer the questions I asked you, then I could more easily understand your theological argument.
Dr Adequate writes:
I may come back to your other shifty equivocations later. Right now I am frankly too annoyed by your flagrant dishonesty to keep my temper.
That's kind of ironic. You already sound like an young earth creationist who wants to refute evolution because there might be shifty equivocations in it. I would like to hear what you claim to have found. But you should be aware that the pattern has a residual uncertainty of 1:10^7. If you actually are able to name a few shifty equivocations, then there would be still a high residual uncertainty with for example 1:10^5. However, I would like to hear what you claim to have found. I really don't need discussions about this paper, it's content was already verified, but not yet in a peer-review. I won't try to force anyone to join this discussion, if there are no more comments about it, then it's alright for me too.
You said it was written to be reviewed, but you have to give a person a good enough reason to even start getting into the details so they know they aren't wasting their time. You don't seem to be willing to do that.
Reviewers receive their papers from journals. It's their job to review papers. No one here is, as far as I know, used to review papers. That's why I was sceptical about reviewing a paper here. That's just not going to work.
Cat Sci writes:
Can you explain what the pattern is and why it is meaningful in plain English, without reference to your paper, and without pointing to the quantizations?
Just write it out like a conversation, as if you were having one with some random person on the street.
I already had a conversation about this with RAZD. He had the maths knowledge to understand the answers and ask questions. Unfortunately I haven't enough time to explain it to someone completely new in maths and information science in "plain English". A book about mathematics or information science could comprise 10,000 pages in plain English and 100 pages with equations and quantisations. At least some prior knowledge is necessary to talk in an efficient way. That's sad, but can't be changed because of limited time resources.
So am I correct now, to think that everything listed in each column can occur either together or in any series composed of just those elements in the columns?
Yes.
RAZD writes:
ie -- that you do not have sub-events within these "events" yes?
How do you define a "sub-event"?
RAZD writes:
{} means that both persons appear at the same moment together.
I fail to see the need for this distinction when the "event" includes a mix of appearance order and sequences that can all occur up to the moment that the next event begins.
If two persons appear at the same time, then both of them could appear first or second. For example: *P.Al, *P.Tr, *P.Ri or *P.Al, *P.Ri, *P.Tr. This would be arbitrary: E1: *P.Al, *P.Tr /E2: *P.Ri or E1: *P.Al /E2: *P.Ri /E3: *P.Tr. With {} the pattern remains definite.
... that those are two groups that "appear at the same moment together"? or are you mixing up your symbolism to cause confusion? (cause I guarantee that you have caused confusion).
I referred to your symbolism from [Msg=130]. It is not the same as the {} used before. These are all elements that can't occur at E1.
Is there a reason for that you coloured "*P.Ri" red?
Cat Sci writes:
Bullshit. You've posted 37 messages in the last 9 days.
I had some spare time last week. That has changed now.
NoNukes writes:
That ease suggests that your excuses that your math is too far above the rabble to even be explained to them in lay terms is incorrect.
I explained the maths in [Msg=14]. I'm not used to teaching maths. Maybe it can be explained better. A website that also explains the probability mass function: http://www.itl.nist.gov/...handbook/eda/section3/eda366i.htm. There could be other websites around.
Dr Adequate writes:
I cannot find anything in this gibberish that is either a justification of your dishonesty or an apology for it. Indeed, in so far as this incoherent trash has any meaning at all, it almost seems like you're doubling down --- and, indeed, inventing newer and stupider lies.
And then you wonder why you can't get published. It's because your ideas are shit and you are dishonest filth.
I wonder why I ever had the idea to post here. If you would spend less time with offending other people, then I actually could imagine to discuss with you. But you don't want that. I wonder, can I ask someone to banish you for calling me "dishonest filth"?
Am I correct in thinking that none of these "events" can be omitted or put in a different order without breaking the "pattern"?
The events 10 and 11 don't have to appear. E4-E8 can be absent together. These words are the first words under the table. And they can't be put in a different order.
RAZD writes:
Is there a reason for that you coloured "*P.Ri" red?
Yes, you said that P.Ri could not be in event #1 and then listed him as being in event #1. Again I think you are being inconsistent and that is causing confusion and giving the impression that you don't really know what you are talking about. Please simplify and clarify as much as possible..
I listed it as not being part of E1. From Message 141: "There are 32 elements that can't occur at E1. These are: {*P.BeC, *P.En, *P.Ri, ...".
RAZD writes:
Any sub-part of the listed "events" that would fit, from each single person being a different sub-event, for instance.
Only 15 parts of the pattern were introduced, not more.
RAZD writes:
That is confusing, you should use something else, like |P.Ri, P.Tr| to denote simultaneous appearances ... if that is actually necessary given that either can appear before the other in the same event.
It becomes important for, for example 5 persons that appear simultaneous. They appear simultaneous, therefore there are denoted to appear simultaneous.
RAZD writes:
If I am not correct on the "pattern" as I have listed it then please correct it.
It is mainly correct. There are a few mistakes. For example:
P.Al, not P.A1 M14 is listed at E5, not M10 There is no P.En listed at E11 and E13 There is no P.BW listed at E13
Only optional events 10 and/or 11 and/or group {4,5,6,7,8} can be omitted, the order of events cannot be changed.
Is this correct?
Nearly. I checked it completely and the remaining mistakes are:
It is P.Al, not P.AI. There is no *P.BW listed at E2 There is no *P.Da listed at E2 There is no *P.Pi listed at E6 There is no *P.Ri listed at E6 There is no *P.Al listed at E8 There is no *P.En listed at E8 There is no *P.WeC listed at E8 There is no *P.Pi listed at E11 There is no *P.Da listed at E12 There is no *P.LF listed at E12 There is M12 listed at E12 There is no *P.Pi listed at E13 There is no *P.Tr listed at E13 There is no *P.Wo listed at E15
And you forgot + and -. Everything else is correct.
Tempe 12ft Chicken writes:
So, if we are looking for an unconscious pattern within the structure of ST:TNG, as you are, we would also need verification that this same unconscious pattern is apparent in, if not all, many other television shows. Not only that, but we would also have to ensure that this pattern is not a residual effect of industry standards and protocols. Have you compared your pattern to other show types to see if the pattern holds true? What about the Simpsons? There is a consistent pattern within that franchise of always including an opening segment that, while leading into the major storyline, has very little to do with the major plot points that will occur within the rest of the story. Or does it require the same hour long format? if so, how about we look for the same pattern within something like Stargate SG-1? If this is an unconscious pattern in human thought, than the concordance should not be present in only ST:TNG, but should make similar appearances in multiple shows, since all shows were, ya know, created by humans who would share this unconscious pattern.
4 different series were examined in the paper. The industry standards and protocols were different for all series, but the same pattern was found in them. The opening segment is skipped, it is always the same.
Tempe 12ft Chicken writes:
You include that items should be black with a white object next to it as one of your criterion for the pattern in ST:TNG, how do you determine when this pattern occurs in the Biblical text when you compare that to this pattern? The Bible is specifically a book of words, with different interpretations of it coming out all the time. What you may see as black and white objects, another may see as something completely different. How did you determine which version of the Bible and which interpretations of the text were your sources? If they were simply your viewing of the text, how did you control for your personal bias when analyzing the situations?
The pattern would probably not fit with a book. It requires audible and visual information that are quantised to test whether it fits. The colours black and white are mostly well defined. I doubt anyone would confuse white with blue or black with red.
Tempe 12ft Chicken writes:
Also, in your section analyzing Biblical text, you seem to be cherry picking only the areas that agree with your predetermined pattern, why?
Where have I analysed Biblical texts?
Tempe 12ft Chicken writes:
Combine that with the obviously missing season 2 of ST:TNG (Why remove it because the cast changed, your claim has nothing to do with specific cast members, but with the storytelling of humans. The individual playing the part is not the key to your pattern)
On page 43 is shown that 2x05 also fits with the pattern. The other episodes could also fit, but it wasn't tested yet. Season 7 is also missing.
Tempe 12ft Chicken writes:
Nowhere in your paper did I once see a disproving of Zeus, Thor, FSM, Satan, nor any of the other myriad of Gods that humanity has created over time. How did you make the leap from the pattern to the specific Judeo-Christian God? Is it because of your comparison with the Bible? If so, how does this prove Triune God more so than consistent means of storytelling in human history? After all, both the Bible and ST:TNG are examples of storytelling by humans, how does their similarity relate not only to a Deity, but specifically to the Christian god?
The reference resulted from a test about the persons God, Jesus and Bible: [Msg=39]. You are right that it is only about a triune deity as in the bible, not the Judeo-Christian God. You are also right that Zeus, Thor, FSM, Satan weren't disproved. They also could possibly exist, but there is yet no evidence that would support these claims.
Tempe 12ft Chicken writes:
What is your criteria for determining which objects have an intelligent cause and which do not, since you only mention that certain features are best explained this way?
I explained it with a few questions in [Msg=136]:
1. Do you agree there is an coincidental contribution? 2. Do you agree that a coincidental contribution will change the row of appearances? 3. Do you agree that a change in the row of appearances will cause the pattern to not fit sometimes? 4. Do you agree that if the pattern doesn't fit that often, then the pattern will have only a low residual uncertainty like 1:10^2?
If all this questions are answered with Yes, then the involvement of chance precludes a pattern with a residual uncertainty of 1:10^7 because: 1.->2.->3.->4. This would indicate an intelligent cause in chance. But this includes mathematics, therefore we can keep this in suspense until other questions are solved.
Yes, nearly. There is no *P.WeC listed at E8. *P.LF, *P.Pi, *P.Ri, *P.Tr is listed at E8. There is no *P.Wo listed at E9. M12 is listed at E12. When I look at page 5 of the paper, then there is a "*" at M12/E12.
I added + and -:
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.
The big table on page 5 represents this content easier. But this fieldset of words is in English words what the pattern is.
RAZD writes:
It seems to me on a first level evaluation, that these are in reality 5 completely different patterns and that not one of them fits the other "sample episodes" even though they all "comply" with your "pattern"
Assuming the appearances you represent in your table for episode A-E are the only appearances, then only the episodes A-C fully fit with the pattern:
*P.BeC doesn't trigger E15 at E14. Only an appearance that appears at E15 and doesn't appear at E14, triggers E15. For Example: M14, M4, M12 and *P.En.
RAZD writes:
IF, as you allow, elements can repeat within an "event" then the number of possible permutations\variations explodes exponentially, for instance in event #4 you have 4 elements and if each one repeats within the event we now have 8 elements and 109,600 possible permutations instead ...
The number of possible variations is actually infinite. For Example:
That means that your probability calculation must be flawed: you have to know the possibilities before you can derive the probabilities, and your result is either a mistake or an artifact of an incomplete analysis.
The probabilities were derived experimental, not mathematical. At (00:00) the pattern did fit for 45 episodes and didn't fit for 2 episodes. At (03:00-07:00) the pattern did fit for 15 episodes and didn't fit for 9 episodes. This resulted in a 0.95 probability for (00:00) and a 0.63 probability for (03:00-07:00). These probabilities were derived experimental and weren't the result of a probability calculation. The 1:10^7 probability was derived mathematical, but not the 0.63 and 0.95 probability.
RAZD writes:
What can I do to make these all fit a single pattern without arbitrarily grouping elements? What is your method for doing this? What are the reasons for your groupings?
They actually can only be grouped arbitrarily with only 5 episodes. The E1-E15 pattern was created for 76 episodes. 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. Large gaps were removed and the patterns within the pattern had to be removed too. The pattern also didn't fit anymore with previous episode, for example 4x08 as shown at the end. To make the pattern fit again with 4x08, M3 must be added to E12 and M14 to E13. This would again remove large gaps and would make the pattern even more random. The elements therefore have to be grouped in a way to create a pattern of the most possible distinctness. For adding random information to the pattern (page 11-13) it was not possible to create a distinct pattern for it. The pattern needs a distinct predictive ability and should not fit with random data as often as possible, although it always fits at (00:00).
So can I assume that you consider P.WeC- ≠ P.WeC ≠ P.WeC+ ... ie - that these are actually different elements? Can only people be +/- not M's?
Yes, it is actually P.WeC- ≠ *P.WeC ≠ P.WeC+. An appearance is denoted as *P.WeC. Only people can be +/-. That fire, water or the past is positively or negatively affected wasn't observed yet.
RAZD writes:
This means that probability cannot properly be calculated.
... The 1:10^7 probability was derived mathematical, ...
Just because you can plunk values into a function does not mean that you are using the function properly. We can come back to this later if you want. For what it's worth I don't think anyone here thinks this calculation is a valid result.
I insist we come back to this later.
RAZD writes:
Of these elements P.Al, P.LF, M5, are in event #1 and thus their repetition would not initiate event #2, ... nor would their continued presence invalidate event #2 ...
True.
RAZD writes:
... so event #2 would have to be initiated by the observation "either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances" of P.BeC, P.Ri, P.WeC (≠P.WeC-), P.Ya, M4, P.BW- (≠P.BW), P.Da- (≠P.Da), ...
True, except *P.WeC. *P.WeC is part of E1 and E2.
RAZD writes:
... and of these, three elements are obvious transitions: P.WeC- → P.WeC, P.BW → P.BW-, and P.Da → P.Da-, ... these would be single occurrences but any 1, 2, or 3 of these could occur?
For example P.Da starts to speak and complains about nausea. Or P.Da appears and is shot to death. Both would be: *P.Da, P.Da-. Only the first reappearance counts as *P.Da. From [Msg=28]: "A person counts as appeared if this person is clearly visible, is named or if the person starts to speak. If a person gets interrupted while speaking through someone else and then starts to speak again it counts as an-other appearance. Equally if a person walks away and becomes visible again after this disappearance. Otherwise a person that started speaking once or appeared once would never appear again and no consistent pattern could be created."
RAZD writes:
... and finally, elements that have to cease being present\observed for Event #2 to start (if they were involved in Event #1) are: P.Pi, P.Tr, P.Wo, P.WSA, M1, M2, M6, M7, M13, P.Al-, P.BW+, P.Tr+.
If *P.Pi, *P.Tr, *P.Wo, *P.WSA, M1, M6 or P.BW+ occurs (incomplete list), then E3 is triggered. If M2, M7, M13, P.Al- or P.Tr+ occurs (incomplete list), then it breaks the pattern.
RAZD writes:
Can there be a period of overlap\transition between events when elements unique to the two events appear together?
No. If P.Ri and P.Tr appear together at E1, then it breaks the pattern:
E1: *P.Al, {*P.Tr, *P.Ri??} or
E1: *P.Al, |*P.Tr, *P.Ri??|
dependent on the notation for a simultaneous appearance.
RAZD writes:
So there would appear to be a clear signal possible for when one event ends and the next begins, that would include:
disappearance of any elements that are not observed in the next event,
appearance of any of the elements of the next event that are not observed in the previous event, and
appearance of any element not in either event.
The first two are needed for the transition from one event to the next, the third means the pattern is broken.
Because it only takes one observation\appearance of any invalid element (type 3), it would seem to me possible to compile a list of these invalidating elements, and that they would make a finite list.
All true. The list of occurrences that breaks the pattern at E1 is: *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-.
The list is longer for simultaneous appearances. For example other appearances that break the pattern at E1:
@Dr Adequate: The only thing you did here was to present your sarcasm and to offend me. I suggest you keep your mouth shut and stop spamming.
@Larni: A pattern with a residual uncertainty of 1:10 or 1:10^2 is not a pattern.
@RAZD: You said you don't believe the 1:10^7 probability was properly calculated. What's about the 0.383 and 1:10^25 probability in [Msg=14]. Do you believe these probabilities were properly calculated?
If you have never heard of the probability mass function before, then here are some links that explain the mathematics:
I doubt that your math is wrong. I think it is wrongly applied.
So we can't speak math to sort that out.
The probability mass function is a common mathematical function. You can find simple explanations about it everywhere in the Internet. Three links were already presented in [Msg=171].
Cat Sci writes:
That's why I need you to describe, in plain English, what the pattern is and then we can talk about how your calculation applies to that scenario.
RAZD already explained it in plain English. From [Msg=165]:
RAZD writes:
correctly spelled out in simple english ... that wasn't too bad, was it?
He already explained it in plain English and I agree with him that it is understandable. You can find the explanation in english words in [Msg=164] or [Msg=166].
Cat Sci writes:
and the pattern is what, exactly? How different characters enter the episode and how they're affected and also what colors appear in the scene
Yes, mainly. It's about 13 persons and M1 to M14. M1 is for example an open door as explained in the paper. If an open door and an other person appear together, then it is only allowed sometimes. For example in 1x01 there is a simultaneous appearance of an open door (M1) and P.Pi at E14. This simultaneous appearance is only allowed at E1, E2, E3, E7, E8, E9, E13 and E14. At E4, E5, E6, E10, E11 and E12 it breaks the pattern.
Cat Sci writes:
If you plot those out as quantized events then you start to notice some pattern, right? So then you apply a bunch of math to those numbers and:
quote:The residual uncertainty was calculated to 1 : 10^7 and a high correlation ratio for the data basis related to the found pattern was proved through an intra class correlation test.
Isn't that the odds of getting the pattern?
It is not the odds of getting the pattern, it is the odds of its existence. The "bunch of math" was applied this way: First the pattern was created for the first 76 episodes. It was assumed that there is a recurring pattern at the beginning of every episode. To test this assumption, the pattern was tested on a data source with random starting times (03:00-07:00). The pattern did fit with with 15 episodes and didn't fit with 9 episode.Therefore the probability for the pattern to be caused through random data is 0.625. If there is no recurring pattern at the beginning of every episode, then the probability for a fit should also be about 0.625. If there is a recurring pattern at the beginning of every episode, then the probability for a fit should also be a lot higher. The probability for a fit a the beginning was actually 0.95. This shows that the beginning of every episode is not random, it nearly always fit with the distinct pattern. But it also could be just a random fluctuation, that the pattern fit 15 out of 24 times for the random data source and 45 out of 47 times at the actual beginning. This was calculated with the probability mass function. You are maybe not able to comprehend all mathematical calculations in detail, but you probably can agree that it is very unlikely that this large difference (15/24,45/47) is only coincidental. The actual probability for a coincidental occurrence was calculated to 1:10^7 with the probability mass function.
Cat Sci writes:
Basically, why should I read your paper?
You don't have to read the paper if you don't want to.
Dr Adequate writes:
I also presented you with an unanswerable critique of your massive and ridiculous failure. Perhaps you missed it, it was mixed in with the sarcasm.
I also think that you are dishonest filth. You are dishonest, because you call this discussion ridiculous, although there are still serious discussions about it. You are filth, because you keep spamming sarcasm instead of participating in a scientific discussion. Therefore you are dishonest filth.
@Admin: Until now I limited my insults to words "Dr Adequate" already used to offend me. But I want to use other words to offend him, if he maintains his offensive behaviour. Is there somewhere a guide that explains to me how to properly offend other offensive persons here? I'm not used to do this yet, but I want to learn it.
I do think Dr Adequate was raising appropriate questions, such as why we should expect God to reveal himself through the episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation rather than through healing miracles. You first claimed in Message 136 that God isn't expected to perform healing miracles, which I think most people would consider a rather bizarre claim, and then in Message 141 and Message 143 you broadly mischaracterized Dr Adequate's points, even comparing him to a young earth creationist. Ever since then Dr Adequate has waxed remarkably sarcastic, but I interpreted it as attempts to influence you to finally address his points.
I think it would be fair to ask Dr Adequate to again characterize the arguments he felt were left unanswered. I'll be here to insure that discussion remains civil.
I'm not a theologist. Ask theological questions to a theologist. I don't know what God prefers to do, if he exists. And I can't give evidences for anything God would hypothetical prefer to do. But I agree that God must be a bizarre being if he exists. How stated before, he leaves innocent babies in Africa to die. This is not a forum about religion, it's about science (EvC Forum ⇒ Science Forums ⇒ Intelligent Design). And I see no reason to engage in this absolutely bizarre religious discussions which completely lack evidences.
™ Version 4.2
(1)