Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Discontinuing research about ID
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 301 of 393 (757074)
05-02-2015 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 299 by Dubreuil
05-02-2015 1:15 PM


Re: cleanup of loose ends
Sorry I don't buy it. You are hiding behind being offended to keep from dealing with the issues raised. Such a prima donna .
GIGO really means that you get out the quality of information that you put in.
For example you will find a record of elements that would invalidate the pattern in Message 190 for E1. ...
Except that it doesn't necessarily invalidate the pattern, it just means you can skip to the next element. You have so many loopholes built into the grouping of multiple items in each element and into the grouping of elements into events and in the grouping events into subpatterns.
When you look at the breakdown of what subpatterns were found you see very little actual correlation - the results are all over the map, favoring the shortest versions heavily.
You are inconsistent in what you assign to people and what you assign to marks, but this isn't readily apparent until you spell it all out. Your groupings defy logic: how can a color represent a person? How can a color be affected? P.Wo can be hostile aliens and Klingons but Romulans (hostile aliens) are P.BW??? When your groupings are ambiguous and illogical and obscure, then it makes the results ambiguous and illogical and they obscure what actually occurred.
So yes your "pattern" is garbage -- because you can't tell what is matched to an element from one event to the next.
Nor is your "data" really the actual data, the actual items that were (supposedly) noted, rather they are the element packages they are massaged into, combined in a way that obscures the actual items data so that it is impossible to tell if the second or third or whatever reference to an "element" refers to the same element item. It is also incomplete because you only recorded what you want to use (or want others to use). That is shoddy, misleading, mistaken and incomplete record keeping, and it obscures the actual action: it is not an honest representation of the actual item by item data.
So yes your "data" is garbage -- it is unusable to check your work (see below).
... 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. ...
I'll bet that my comments apply to the original paper just as strongly.
Curiously I started to try to replicate your pattern construction.
The start is relatively easy: group all the elements (assuming the elements are rational grouping of items, which they aren't) that appear first in the episodes for event 1 and I got:
*P.Al(32),*P.BeC(1),*P.BW(2),P.BW-(1),*P.Da(1),*P.Pi(26),*P.Ri(3),*P.Tr(1),P.Tr+(1),*P.Wo(4),*P.Ya(1),M1(1),M10(2)
It does not surprise me that the most frequent beginning element is *P.Al (42%) -- because it is so loosely defined that any one of 15 different items (>5 people, green, big, wide, a lot, lack of knowledge, do nothing, holiday, very old, starships, standby, science, stone, death, or #4) are grouped ad hoc into this "element" without rationale or reason, with no visible purpose ... other than to get (force?) a positive result out of a random mix of items, including (as it does) many things to be expected in an opening scene: >5 people, big, starships, etc) ....
It also does not surprise me in the slightest that *P.Pi(26) is the next most frequent beginning element (34%) seeing as he is the commander.
Likewise I would expect A crew-member in an opening scene (*P.BeC(1), *P.Da(1), *P.Ri(3), *P.Tr(1), *P.Wo(4 ... if actually Worf ...)) (10 more beginning elements, 13%)
So that is 89% of the episodes with completely predictable results -- without expecting a pattern.
Note that P.BW-(1), and P.Tr+(1) are errors because your rule is that you can't affect a person before they appear, you cannot have P.ap(+/-) before *P.ap ... and these are the very first elements in your data list.
When I looked at the second elements recorded I found:
*P.Al(8),P.Al+(1),P.Al-(3),*P.BeC(4),P.BW-(1),*P.Da(1),*P.LF(6),*P.Pi(8),P.Pi+(1),*P.Ri(4),P.Tr-(1),*P.WeC(4),P.Wo-(2),*P.Ya(1),M1(3),M6(4),M7(2)
And combining these to find the first two element I get:
*P.Al(40),P.Al+(1),P.Al-(3),*P.BeC(5),*P.BW(2),P.BW-(2),*P.Da(2),*P.LF(6),*P.Pi(34),P.Pi+(1),*P.Ri(7),*P.Tr(1),P.Tr+(1),P.Tr-(1),*P.WeC(4),*P.Wo(4),P.Wo-(2),*P.Ya(2),M1(4),M6(4),M7 (2),M10(2)
*P.Al(40) and *P.Pi(34) now account for 74 of the 76 episode opening scenes. Shocking ...
But there is a very distinct and disturbing problem at this point, caused by the way the (lack of) data is recorded -- the "data" only lists one ( →1← ) element for the episode events after the first season: the second "element" is not recorded for any "event" -- so this is not, cannot be, an accurate, correct, actual representation of what was on the screen for the opening scene, no matter how you massage the data.
This makes it completely and irrevocably impossible to even begin to attempt to reconstruct anything remotely resembling a pattern from this poor excuse for data.
... 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. ...
That nobody else noted the errors and omissions and obscuration of the data does not make the paper a good paper, it just means they did not find the errors and omissions and obscuration of the data, even though these problems make this paper virtually useless.
... 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. ...
Curiously I don't think anything left in the paper that I haven't covered nor anything you can say based on it will be able to rescue this paper from the problems in it.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : clrty
Edited by RAZD, : ..

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by Dubreuil, posted 05-02-2015 1:15 PM Dubreuil has not replied

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


Message 302 of 393 (757077)
05-02-2015 4:29 PM


@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.
RAZD writes:
*P.Al(40) and *P.Pi(34) now account for 74 of 76 episodes. Shocking ...
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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by Admin, posted 05-02-2015 5:58 PM Dubreuil has not replied
 Message 304 by RAZD, posted 05-02-2015 9:22 PM Dubreuil has replied

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


Message 303 of 393 (757082)
05-02-2015 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 302 by Dubreuil
05-02-2015 4:29 PM


Dubreuil writes:
t was not assumed pure randomness, it was assumed a coincidental contribution.
I know you've got your own way of describing it, but the bottom line is that you haven't taken into account the non-random nature of your data source.
The 1:10^7 probability on its own could also indicate a pattern created by humans or restraints.
There's no point in continually referencing a probability figure that has convinced no one it isn't bogus.
The reference about a triune God was presented in the appendices D-I (20 pages) or very short in Message 245. To actually understand this you have to read this 20 pages. Message 245 is only a very short summation.
I shall not attempt to resolve your bizarrely contradictory comments about God. You've both argued for God Message 245 and disavowed God Message 177.
I responded to your request from Message 186 and Message 232 at the end of Message 233.
There are no replies to either Message 186 or Message 232. If you're going to tuck responses to multiple messages into a single message then your responses are going to be missed. I would have cautioned you about this myself except that others have cautioned you about this already, to no avail. You seem determined to reject all advice and feedback.
NoNukes refused to name specific criticism, then I answered to all criticism he ever mentioned in Message 276 again. As reaction he stopped discussing in Message 278.
NoNukes was very specific in his criticism (as were others) but you never seemed to get the point.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by Dubreuil, posted 05-02-2015 4:29 PM Dubreuil has not replied

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


Message 304 of 393 (757088)
05-02-2015 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 302 by Dubreuil
05-02-2015 4:29 PM


@RAZD: The list of 26 occurrences in Message 190 invalidates the pattern at E1, it is not skipped to the next element. ...
You mean these?
For E1 there are 25 occurrences that fit with the pattern (P.Al, P.BW, P.Da, P.LF, P.Pi, P.Tr, P.WeC, P.Wo, P.WSA, M1, M2, M5, M6, M7, M13, P.Al-, P.BW+, P.Tr+, P.WeC-, P.BeC, P.Ri, P.Ya, M4, P.BW-, P.Da-) and 26 occurrences that break the pattern (*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-).
And here you make several errors.
First P.BeC, P.Ri, P.Ya, M4 are not elements of E1.
Second P.Al-, P.BW+, P.Tr+, P.WeC-, P.BW-, P.Da-, 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- cannot occur in E1 by your own rules.
Let me correct you:
For E1 there are 25 15 occurrences that fit with the pattern (P.Al, P.BW, P.Da, P.LF, P.Pi, P.Tr, P.WeC, P.Wo, P.WSA, M1, M2, M5, M6, M7, M13, P.Al-, P.BW+, P.Tr+, P.WeC-, P.BeC, P.Ri, P.Ya, M4, P.BW-, P.Da-) and 26 10 occurrences that break the pattern end E1 (*P.En, M3, M10, M11, M12, M14, P.BeC, P.Ri, P.Ya, M4, 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-).
Third most of these purported deal breakers don't necessarily cause a break:
  • *P.Bec, *P.Ri, *P.Ya or M4 send you to E2 ... a normal transition ...
  • *P.En(energy, lovely, or young woman) sends you to E3 ... or to E5 (and P.Al or P.Wo can be reassigned from E1 to E4) or to E9 (and P.Al, P.BW, P.Pi. P.Tr or P.Wo can be reassigned from E1 to E3): normal transitions ...
  • M10(past) sends you to E4, (and P.Al, P.BW, P.Pi. P.Tr or P.Wo can be reassigned from E1 to E3): a normal transition ...
  • M11(unbelievable attainment) sends you to E9, (and P.Al, P.BW, P.Pi. P.Tr or P.Wo can be reassigned from E1 to E3): a normal transition ...
  • M12(temporary interruption) sends you to E12, an actual break in the pattern.
  • M14(short time, in a hurry, smoke, gas) sends you to E5 (and P.Al or P.Wo can be reassigned from E1 to E4): a normal transition ...
The only one that actually causes an unquestionable break is M12. One (rare?) element (It only appears 4 times in the whole (documented) data set). Possibly to make events 12 to 15 get counted when they otherwise would fail, ... in four episodes.
Do you begin to see how your loading of multiple different items into element groupings contributes to fitting them into your purported pattern? When the number of actual items included in P.Al (15), P.BW (8), P.Wo (3) easily account for the majority of possible items?
Do you begin to see how your use of obscure or rare items for some elements (eg M12) contributes to fitting them into your purported pattern? When the other items fail to provide a fit?
Do you begin to see how your hop skipping pattern contributes to fitting the elements into one of the event subpatterns?
Do you begin to see how these three different ways of muddling the information contribute to an appearance of a pattern when the reality is something quite different?
... If you had read appendix B or Message 261 just once, then you would know that nothing is skipped.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
You mean the part where you add more into the elements?
RAZD writes:
*P.Al(40) and *P.Pi(34) now account for 74 of 76 episodes. Shocking ...
Yes, the results of your analysis are that irrelevant that I'm shocked you even mention them.
au contraire it is very relevant to the fact that your purported pattern is a bogus fabrication.
And yet that is the only analysis your pathetic data record allows anyone to do. And that makes it is pointless to pursue any further attempt to replicate your results in any way.
For all I know you made it up.
Just as P.Al is made up from 15 disparate and quite unrelated items, any one of which "triggers" an appearance in order - apparently - to force an "appearance" into some kind of structure you have invented.
Do we know which item was used to "document" the first appearance of P.Al? Nope. Do we know which item was used to "document" the second appearance? Nope. Is there any reason to expect one to relate to the other? None at all. This holds for the majority of the elements and it holds for ALL of the events, if not the majority of the sequences ...
We see *P.Al documented ... what variation of the 15 possible items is involved?
We see *P.Al documented ... which of the pattern variations applies ... only 4 "events" don't contain P.Al in one form or another.
Similar for *P.BW with 8 possible items involved and only 4 "events" don't contain P.BW in one form or another.
That kind of multiple overlap produces a lot of elasticity in making data (the real data of items) stretch to fit into a manufactured pattern.
Then there are the items that make no sense. Colors are not people, but you use them to "document" people ... and then you use colors to "document" your "marks" ... which can't be affected +/- like people ... so some colors can be affected and others can't ... for no discernible reason. It is all ad hoc and arbitrary and inconsistent.
Here's a challenge: instead of having multiple personality people and marks have one item definition for each one -- you go back through your real data (the item by item documentation for the full length of each opening episode that is not in the paper) and then tell me what pattern you have. Start with episode 1x01. Then compare it to episode 1x02 ... let me know what you find.
The <0.711 probability ...
Not one person here believes that your calculation is valid, and what you have presented does not give anyone reason to believe it. For instance it appears that you calculated it based on the occurrence of your 15 events and 24 variations, when it should be based on the individual items ... which I know you did not do because you don't provide the data on them, you ignore the real data once you've fabricated your "elements" and "events" ... it's necessarily a bogus calculation.
The more I try to follow your perambulations the more I see how bogus it really is.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : clrty
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by Dubreuil, posted 05-02-2015 4:29 PM Dubreuil has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by Dubreuil, posted 05-03-2015 12:13 PM RAZD has replied

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


Message 305 of 393 (757107)
05-03-2015 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 304 by RAZD
05-02-2015 9:22 PM


Do you have ever seen this image from page 6?
Url: http://s2.postimg.org/j1a8xt8ll/IMG.png
There 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.
RAZD writes:
Such a prima donna .
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}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by RAZD, posted 05-02-2015 9:22 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by Admin, posted 05-03-2015 12:46 PM Dubreuil has not replied
 Message 307 by RAZD, posted 05-03-2015 8:09 PM Dubreuil has not replied

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


Message 306 of 393 (757110)
05-03-2015 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 305 by Dubreuil
05-03-2015 12:13 PM


Moderator Facilitation
Dubreuil writes:
Do you have ever seen this image from page 6?
Url:
There 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.
RAZD will have to confirm, but I think you may again be misinterpreting what he is saying. He isn't saying that your paper contains transitions from E1 to E3, or from E1 to E5, or from E1 to E9. He's saying that your paper fails to consider the evidence for such transitions.
I'd like to propose that you back up to the beginning of RAZD's Message 304 and take it one little step at a time:
RAZD writes:
Debreuil writes:
For E1 there are 25 occurrences that fit with the pattern (P.Al, P.BW, P.Da, P.LF, P.Pi, P.Tr, P.WeC, P.Wo, P.WSA, M1, M2, M5, M6, M7, M13, P.Al-, P.BW+, P.Tr+, P.WeC-, P.BeC, P.Ri, P.Ya, M4, P.BW-, P.Da-) and 26 occurrences that break the pattern (*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-).
And here you make several errors.
First P.BeC, P.Ri, P.Ya, M4 are not elements of E1.
If RAZD is incorrect about this, it would be very helpful if his error could be explained.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by Dubreuil, posted 05-03-2015 12:13 PM Dubreuil has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by RAZD, posted 05-03-2015 9:52 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 307 of 393 (757134)
05-03-2015 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 305 by Dubreuil
05-03-2015 12:13 PM


Do you have ever seen this image from page 6?
Yes, it fails to show that you can (and most often you actually DO) skip to E3 (or E4 or E5) ... so it is not a complete or honest representation of your overall pattern.
There is no transition from E1 to E3. There is no transition from E1 to E5. There is no transition from E1 to E9.
Yes, but you just move your data from E1 to E3 (not a transition AND not a deal breaker because you can skip E1 and E2) and then you have a valid transition from E3 to E9 ...
Or you move it to start at E4 (which is also allowed by your "pattern") and then you have a transition from E4 to E5 ...
Now I shouldn't have to explain this to you -- your "pattern" allows this, I suggest you LOOK at your paper. Critically. The way you should have before you presented to the world.
Same for the other dealbreakers you listed.
That you apparently haven't looked into all the ramifications of your system does not give you any special standing to say I haven't. It just shows a level of sloppy work and carelessness in reviewing your own work and asking yourself why do you do the things you do: why do you lump colors with people? Why do you lump 15 different and unrelated things in one "person" when few of them are actually aspects of people. Just for starters.
Every one of those supposed deal breakers except M12 can be rerouted to another pattern that starts in a different place -- and that is what I showed.
I suggest you READ what I said not just dismiss it as wrong because you want it to be. To properly refute what I said you need to SHOW that it is wrong. Sadly 90+% of your posting is bitching about others rather than dealing with the criticism -- that is what defines prima dona behavior.
If you can't be ruthless with reviewing your own work then don't be surprised when others are -- that is how peer review works. Can you answer these questions? (you should have the answers in the paper):
  1. Why is E1 composed of
    1. P.Al
      ... and why is P.Al composed of:
      1. >5 people,
        • alien people?
        • federation people?
        • robots?
        • how do you define "people" if you include things like "stone" under P.Al and when some colors are "people" and other colors are "marks" -- what's your criteria?
      2. green,
        • how can "green" be a person?
      3. big,
        • how can "big" be a person?
      4. wide,
        • how can "wide" be a person?
      5. a lot,
        • a lot of what? space? planets? stars? grains of sand?
        • how can "a lot" be a person?
      6. lack of knowledge,
        • how can "lack of knowledge" be - affected? can you lack less than 0 knowledge on a subject?
        • how can "lack of knowledge" be a person?
      7. do nothing,
        • how can "do nothing" be - affected? can you do less than nothing?
        • how can "do nothing" be a person?
      8. holiday,
        • how can "holiday" be a person?
      9. very old,
        • how old is "very old"?
        • if "very old" gets older is that a + or a -?
        • "very old" what ... a stone? a holiday? a science? etc
      10. starships,
        • how many?
        • alien or federation?
        • inside or outside? (virtually every scene show the inside of a starship eh?)
      11. standby,
        • stand by what? your man? your job?
        • do you mean "wait"?
        • how can "standby" be a person?
      12. science,
        • how can "science" be a person?
      13. stone,
        • how can "stone" be +/- affected?
        • how can "stone" be a person?
      14. death,
        • how can "death" be - affected?
        • is "death" considered an actual person as in Discworld?
        or
      15. #4
        • how can "4" be a person?
      16. how would we know?
    2. P.BW
      ... and why is P.BW composed of:
      • Romulans
        • 1 to 5? more? if more that 5 why not P.Ai?
      • black,
        • how can "black" be a person?
      • white,
        • how can "white" be a person?
      • silver,
        • how can "silver" be a person?
      • ice,
        • how can "ice" be a person?
      • cold,
        • how can "cold" be a person?
      • invisible,
        • how can "invisible" be a person?
        or
      • #6
        • how can "6" be a person?
      • how would we know?
    3. P.Da(Data),
    4. P.LF(Geordi La Forge),
    5. P.Pi(Jean-Luc Picard),
    6. P.Tr(Deanna Troi),
    7. P.WeC(Wesley Crusher),
    8. P.Wo
      ... and why is P.Wo composed of:
      • Lt Worf,
      • hostile aliens
        • 1 to 5?
        • if >5 why not P.Al?
        • if you have 4 and 2 more arrive is that P.Wo+? or does it change from P.Wo to P.Al?
        or
      • Klingons
        • 1 to 5?
        • if >5 why not P.Al?
        • if you have 4 and 2 more arrive is that P.Wo+? or does it change from P.Wo to P.Al?
      • how would we know?
    9. P.WSA(woman without special abilities),
      • do you document women WITH special abilities?,
      • do you document men WITHOUT special abilities?
      • do you document men WITH special abilities?
      • can this be a member of the crew - then why not use P.En?
      • a member of the federation?
      • an alien?
    10. M1
      ... and why is M1 composed of:
      • open door,
      • black
        • how do you know you have M1 instead of P.BW?
        or
      • red
      • how would we know?
    11. M2
      ... and why is M2 composed of:
      • weapon,
        or
      • "What's that?" (indeed, what is that?)
      • how would we know?
    12. M5(water),
    13. M6
      ... and why is M6 composed of:
      • theft,
        or
      • trying to get information eg: sensors
      • how would we know?
    14. M7(drink),
    15. M13(long time),
    16. P.Al-
      ... which aspect is negatively affected:
      • >5 people,
      • green,
      • big,
      • wide,
      • a lot,
      • lack of knowledge (how?),
      • do nothing,
      • holiday,
      • very old,
      • starships,
      • standby,
      • science,
      • stone,
      • death,
        or
      • #4
      • How would we know?
    17. P.BW
      ... which aspect is positively affected:
      • Romulans(1 to 5?),
      • black,
      • white,
      • silver,
      • ice,
      • cold,
      • invisible,
        or
      • #6
      • How would we know?
    18. P.Tr+,
    19. P.WeC-
    20. and WHY are there (total 15+8+1+1+1+1+1+3+1+3+2+1+2+1+1+15+8+1+1=67) different and unrelated ways to "score" E1 if there is really a pattern?
  2. Why is E2 composed of
    1. P.Al again?
      ... (with same questions as above)
    2. P.BeC(Beverly Crusher),
    3. P.LF(Geordi La Forge),
    4. P.Ri(William Riker),
    5. P.WeC(Wesley Crusher), again?
    6. P.Ya
      ... and why is P.Ya composed of:
      • Tasha Yar,
      • yellow,
        • how can "yellow" be a person?
      • earth,
        • how can "earth" be a person?
        or
      • #3
        • how can "3" be a person?
      • how would we know?
    7. M4(fire),
    8. M5(water),
    9. P.BW-
      ... which aspect is negatively affected:
      • Romulans(1 to 5?),
      • black,
      • white,
      • silver,
      • ice,
      • cold,
      • invisible,
        or
      • #6
        and more importantly ...
      • Is it the same sub-element as listed for P.BW+ above?
      • If not why?
      • How would we know?
    10. P.Da(Data)-
    11. and WHY are there (total 15+1+1+1+1+4+1+1+8+1=34 options) different and unrelated ways to "score" E2 if there is really a pattern?
  3. Why is E3 composed of
    1. P.Al again?
      ... (with same questions as above)
      • How do I know if the "Pattern" is starting at E1 or E3? (or E4?)
    2. P.BW again?
      ... (with same questions as above)
      • How do I know if the "Pattern" is starting at E1 or E3? (or E5?)
    3. P.Da(Data) again?
      • How do I know if the "Pattern" is starting at E1 or E3? (or E5?)
    4. P.En
      ... and why is P.En composed of:
      • energy,
      • lovely,
        or
      • young woman
      • why not young man?
      • how would we know?
    5. P.Pi(Jean-Luc Picard) again?
      • How do I know if the "Pattern" is starting at E1 or E3? (or E5)
    6. P.Ri(William Riker) again?
      • How do I know if the "Pattern" is E2 or E3? (or E5)
    7. P.Tr(Deanna Troi) again?
      • How do I know if the "Pattern" is starting at E1 or E3?
    8. P.Wo(Lt Worf) again?
      ... (with same questions as above)
      • How do I know if the "Pattern" is starting at E1 or E3? (or E4? or E5?)
    9. P.WSA(woman without special abilities) again?
      ... (with same questions as above)
      • How do I know if the "Pattern" is starting at E1 or E3?
    10. P.Ya(Tasha Yar) again?
      • How do I know if the "Pattern" is E2 or E3? (or E9?)
    11. M1 again?
      ... (with same questions as above)
      • How do I know if the "Pattern" is starting at E1 or E3? (oe E9?)
    12. M3
      ... and why is M3 composed of:
      • humour,
        or
      • laughing
    13. M5(water),
    14. M6 again?
      ... (with same questions as above)
      • How do I know if the "Pattern" is starting at E1 or E3?
    15. P.BW+
      ... which aspect is positively affected:
      • Romulans(1 to 5?),
      • black,
      • white,
      • silver,
      • ice,
      • cold,
      • invisible,
        or
      • #6
        and more importantly ...
      • Is it the same sub-element as listed for P.Bw- in E1 or P.BW+ in E2 above?
      • If not why?
      • How would we know?
    16. P.Pi-
    17. P.Wo+
      ... which aspect is positively affected:
      • Lt Worf,
      • hostile aliens,
        • 1 to 5?
        • if >5 why not P.Al+?
        or
      • Klingons
        • 1 to 5?
        • if >5 why not P.Al+?
    18. and WHY are there (total 15+8+1+3+1+1+1+3+1+4+3+2+1+2+8+1+3=58 options) different and unrelated ways to "score" E3 if there is really a pattern?
Obviously I could continue for the full 15 "events" but you should get the idea. If you spend some time thinking about this you might see why your paper is full of holes.
Why are fire and water "marks" but stone and earth are "people"?
Why are green, black, white, silver, yellow "people" but black(?), and red are "marks"?
Arbitrary and inconsistent classifications are not the way science is done.
If you call me prima donna, am I then allowed to call you stupid head?
You can call me what you like, it won't change the FACT that almost all of what you said about deal breakers for E1 was false, nor will it change the FACT that I showed where and why it was false.
You can call me what you want, but that won't change the FACT that your purported "data" is completely useless for replicating your work, and does not present the actual data but an unexplained filtered grouping of the data, as I have shown and documented.
You can call me anything you please, but that won't change the FACT that your classifications are arbitrary, filled with apparently random choices. and inconsistent from one element to the next, from "people" to "marks" and from one event to the next. Science is based on consistency and logic, not on random whim.
And you can call me whatever will make you feel better, but it won't change the FACT that the real data is not reported, that the real data is obscured by several layers of hand waving that only serves one purpose: to create the appearance of a pattern when there is none.
Now you have an opportunity to prove me wrong: you can provide us with the real data, the actual items you tagged, the individual people, the individual colors, all of it as single data items and not lumps that you have conjured\developed (those "lumps are part of your pattern, NOT data: you have not reported any real data).
Curiously I won't hold my breath, I expect you'll be too busy being outraged and throwing another temper tantrum.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by Dubreuil, posted 05-03-2015 12:13 PM Dubreuil has not replied

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


Message 308 of 393 (757144)
05-03-2015 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 306 by Admin
05-03-2015 12:46 PM


Re: Moderator Facilitation
RAZD will have to confirm, but I think you may again be misinterpreting what he is saying. He isn't saying that your paper contains transitions from E1 to E3, or from E1 to E5, or from E1 to E9. He's saying that your paper fails to consider the evidence for such transitions.
Actually what I said was:
Third most of these purported deal breakers don't necessarily cause a break:
  • *P.Bec, *P.Ri, *P.Ya or M4 send you to E2 ... a normal transition ...
  • *P.En(energy, lovely, or young woman) sends you to E3 ... or to E5 (and P.Al or P.Wo can be reassigned from E1 to E4) or to E9 (and P.Al, P.BW, P.Pi. P.Tr or P.Wo can be reassigned from E1 to E3): normal transitions ...
  • M10(past) sends you to E4, (and P.Al, P.BW, P.Pi. P.Tr or P.Wo can be reassigned from E1 to E3): a normal transition ...
  • M11(unbelievable attainment) sends you to E9, (and P.Al, P.BW, P.Pi. P.Tr or P.Wo can be reassigned from E1 to E3): a normal transition ...
  • M12(temporary interruption) sends you to E12, an actual break in the pattern.
  • M14(short time, in a hurry, smoke, gas) sends you to E5 (and P.Al or P.Wo can be reassigned from E1 to E4): a normal transition ...
The only one that actually causes an unquestionable break is M12. One (rare?) element (It only appears 4 times in the whole (documented) data set). Possibly to make events 12 to 15 get counted when they otherwise would fail, ... in four episodes.
When you compare the elements in E1 to those in E3, E4 and E5 you see that most of them overlap one or the other
So instead of "breaking" the "pattern" at E1 it moves the start from E1 to E3, E4 or E5 and then these purported deal breakers become normal transitions to another event in the multitude of variations of the pattern.
If you look through Appendix A you will see that only 11 of the 76 episodes are documented starting at E1 ... <15% of the 76 episodes documented. AND none of those 11 episodes used the E4-E8 option. Then 34 episodes start at E3 ... (45%, total <60% of the episodes), followed by 15 episodes starting at E4 and 16 starting at E5. Starting at E1 is the exception, not the rule.
What you really have are 5 different starting sequences:
  1. E1,E2,E3,,,,,,E9 ... (11 times)
  2. ,,E3,E4,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9 ... (4 times)
  3. ,,E3,,,,,,E9 ... (30 times)
  4. ,,,E4,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9 ... (15 times)
  5. ,,,,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9 ... (16 times)
Leaving the rest of the variation to whether or not E10 and/or E11 are included.
Most of the episodes involve massive skipping of (4 or more of) the purported 15 "events" with the most common "pattern" recorded being case 15: ,,E3,,,,,,E9,,E11,E12,E13,E14,E15 which is only 7 events long, and it occurs 23 times (30%). Next most common are case 19: ,,,E4,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,,E11,E12,E13,E14,E15, which is 11 events long and occurs 12 times and case 23: ,,,,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,,E11,E12,E13,E14,E15, which is 10 events long and occurs 12 times as well. These three cases account for 58 of 76 episodes (76%).
More damaging imho is the fact that there are 24 possible variations in the pattern as described, but only 14 are actually observed, the rest are produced by the rule that have been made to cram the 76 episodes into the pattern, which means that 42% of the "pattern" is not required to explain the data.
That's sloppy.
The "pattern" has been made so open and adaptable that it is difficult to find a real deal breaker instead of shifting to another variation.
When you look at the distribution of pattern variation length in number of elements you find
event
length
number of
variations
number of
episodes
15 1 0
14 2 0
13 2 0
12 3 3
11 4 14
10 4 18
9 3 8
8 2 3
7 2 25
6 1 5
sum 24 76
Only 3 episodes out of 76 are longer than 11 events of the purported 15 event string (4%) and they are all 12 events long. The overall average length is only 8.8 events, showing a heavy bias to the shorter variations being counted.
This is a very bad match between the model and the data - even massaged as heavily as this data is.
In other words 96% of the episodes documented skipped 4 or more events. Skipping 4 or more events is the rule, not the exception.
That's poor form, and it points to another reason the probability calculation is erroneous -- it assumes a greater degree of complexity than actually exists in the data as presented.
Furthermore he stopped counting when he got to E15, no matter how much of the episode opening scene was left.
This sad fact is also obscured by the lackadaisical way the purported data is recorded. The appendix only records elements rather than the items in the element definitions (most with multiple variations which thus are not recorded), and only the first season data records more than one element for what are listed as the assigned events, so you have no idea who or what else is in those events.
That's unexcusable.
As a result I have no doubt that the way his purported probability is calculated from the data recorded while ignoring the actual data and using packages of data as single element and events, is false.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : sum
Edited by RAZD, : .
Edited by RAZD, : AND 5 starts

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by Admin, posted 05-03-2015 12:46 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by Dubreuil, posted 05-04-2015 12:19 PM RAZD has replied

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


Message 309 of 393 (757166)
05-04-2015 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 308 by RAZD
05-03-2015 9:52 PM


Re: Moderator Facilitation
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by RAZD, posted 05-03-2015 9:52 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 310 by NoNukes, posted 05-04-2015 12:58 PM Dubreuil has replied
 Message 312 by RAZD, posted 05-04-2015 2:48 PM Dubreuil has not replied
 Message 313 by Admin, posted 05-04-2015 3:26 PM Dubreuil has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 310 of 393 (757170)
05-04-2015 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 309 by Dubreuil
05-04-2015 12:19 PM


Re: Moderator Facilitation
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.
Your mistakes and errors in logic won't go away just because you do Dr. Asserting the Consequent. If you don't want to discuss your paper here anymore, you are just going to have to put up with a bit of discussion going on without you. I wouldn't worry about it. Normally such discussions die off fairly quickly. Now that the discussion is around the 300 message point, if you keep quite for awhile admin is likely to put the thread in summary mode prior to closing it out.
It doesn't show what a waste of time this paper actually is.
Fortunately the paper speaks for itself on that topic. But wasting time is often exactly what we do here.
You are garbage.
Perhaps it is for the better that the pretense of civility is gone. Your paper would be an insult and a waste of time for any peer reviewer. If somebody I know offline found out that I'd spent time debating about whether God intervenes in the scripting of Star Trek episodes I'd be embarrassed.
In any event, thanks for providing a topic that both I and the Discovery Institute likely agree on whole heartedly.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by Dubreuil, posted 05-04-2015 12:19 PM Dubreuil has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 311 by Dubreuil, posted 05-04-2015 1:26 PM NoNukes has replied

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


Message 311 of 393 (757176)
05-04-2015 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 310 by NoNukes
05-04-2015 12:58 PM


Re: Moderator Facilitation
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 310 by NoNukes, posted 05-04-2015 12:58 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by NoNukes, posted 05-04-2015 7:56 PM Dubreuil has not replied

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


Message 312 of 393 (757198)
05-04-2015 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 309 by Dubreuil
05-04-2015 12:19 PM


Self review ... better late than never ...
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 Message 289. ...
Predicted behavior.
... Some of your comments are just wrong, ...
A comment curiously devoid of factual substantiation, and therefore worthless whining.
... 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.
You appear to confuse my discussion with support of the paper ... once again you seem to have trouble with basic logic.
You can -- of course -- argue against the paper, in fact I strongly recommend it, as this is what you should have done before attempting to publish it. You can even develop your own arguments, which may or may not parallel mine.
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+. ...
What a good idea: why don't you go back and do that for the whole paper ... but you should fully implement it: if you want to write P.BW+, then write ("P.BW" = {Romulans or colour black or color white or color silver or ice or cold or invisible or the number 6} only 1 needed at a time)+ ...
Of course you still have the problem with how + can apply to some of those items and the problem of how you would know that whichever item is +'d is the same one that was *'d ... so there would still be that ambiguity in the data.
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 Message 307. I'm looking forward to a long offensive discussion. And don't forget the excrements which makes this place that special.
Go for it. That still will not address the criticisms nor rescue the paper from the systemic problems that are pervasive throughout, from the "abstract" to the last appendix.
Looking forward to your next criticism of the paper, and the insightful suggestions you can make to improve it further... especially as you have so much experience with it.
Why don't you start with this:
If "A" represents the data from 76 episodes ...
... and"B" represents the pattern with all (24 of) it's variations ... the model developed to explain the data ...
... by what stretch of logic and imagination can you call this anything more than a rough approximation? Wouldn't you agree that the probability of any new episode fitting within B is much greater than the probability of it fitting within A?
Or, by what rational or logic should B⊄A be included with B⊂A in the pattern\model used to explain A?
Isn't that like painting a target around A on the side of a barn and then saying that anything that hits the barn is a bull's eye?
And, by what rational or logic should 15 items be lumped into one element ("P.Al" = {>5 people, or green, or big, or wide, or "a lot," or "lack of knowledge," or "do nothing," or holiday, or very old, or starships, or standby, or science, or stone, or death, or #4} only 1 needed at a time) if it isn't done to hide the fact that 15 different episodes each had a different one of these distinct items, and the lumping is used to disguise the fact that they are different items being recorded? Why not list them separately unless the intent is to deceive?
Enjoy
ps - fill in whatever snark you like _____________________
such fun
Edited by RAZD, : .
Edited by RAZD, : ..
Edited by RAZD, : ...
Edited by RAZD, : ....
Edited by RAZD, : /

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by Dubreuil, posted 05-04-2015 12:19 PM Dubreuil has not replied

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


Message 313 of 393 (757207)
05-04-2015 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 309 by Dubreuil
05-04-2015 12:19 PM


Debreuil Suspended 24 Hours
Hi Dubreuil,
You're both posting more messages and insisting you won't discuss here anymore. Posting while not discussing is especially frowned upon here. Your recent messages have been full of personal criticisms and short on substance, and you continue to exhibit evidence of a language issue, for example by repeating your mistake of misinterpreting GIGO as a personal insult equating you and/or your ideas to garbage.
I'm going to make it easy for you to not discuss here for the next 24 hours by suspending you. If you return tomorrow then I'll be expecting greater attention to the substance of the criticisms being directed at your paper.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by Dubreuil, posted 05-04-2015 12:19 PM Dubreuil has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 314 of 393 (757211)
05-04-2015 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 311 by Dubreuil
05-04-2015 1:26 PM


Re: Moderator Facilitation
didn't said I you don't want to discuss about the paper anymore
uh, what?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by Dubreuil, posted 05-04-2015 1:26 PM Dubreuil has not replied

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


Message 315 of 393 (757463)
05-09-2015 11:10 AM


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, M13
The 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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 316 by NoNukes, posted 05-09-2015 5:29 PM Dubreuil has not replied
 Message 317 by Admin, posted 05-10-2015 7:25 AM Dubreuil has not replied
 Message 318 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-13-2015 7:58 PM Dubreuil has not replied
 Message 319 by RAZD, posted 05-14-2015 1:02 PM Dubreuil has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024