Re: Book-able view of ID as speculative science

Deadrat wrote:
> "topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1135669210.869555.233740@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > Deadrat wrote:
> > > "topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > news:1135628009.238376.55830@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > >
> > > > Deadrat wrote:
> > > > > "topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > > > news:1135477663.314044.220600@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > Deadrat wrote:
> > > > > > > "topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:1135461429.879983.297370@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Deadrat wrote:
> > > > > > > > > "topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > news:1135391546.084147.198500@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > > > > > Deadrat wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > "topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > > > news:1135315824.700137.315910@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > > > > > > > Deadrat wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > > > > > news:1135217628.045108.106780@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > Pi comes from the models we use and *not* direct observeration. The
> > > > > > > > universal constants are only obtained from observations. When one
> > > > > > > > calculates Pi, they do it using math, not drafting tools (although the
> > > > > > > > drafting tools generally confirm it). Changing Pi in our geometry
> > > > > > > > models generally causes internal contradictions.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks for sharing. What does this have to do with my point about the
> > > > > > > underlying probability distribution?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The constants *appear* arbitrary according to researchers.
> > > > >
> > > > > Remember: scientists don't put much stock in appearance.
> > > >
> > > > But it is all we have right now. They agree they may be overspeculating
> > > > with not enough info, but the alternative is to do nothing and not
> > > > think.
> > >
> > > The alternative is not to draw conclusions on zero data.
> >
> > The evidence *is* greater than zero. It may not be strong evidence, but
> > it is greater than zero.
>
> Please provide a single piece of evidence that universal constants may vary
> in other universes.

Please provide a single piece of evidence that they don't. Why do you
always seem to assume your side of the story is the default?

>
> > > > > > Maybe they
> > > > > > are not. Maybe they have as much meaning as Pi. But if go with what we
> > > > > > know now, that means we assume the constants are arbitrary and that
> > > > > > leads to the logical suggestion that there are or were other universes
> > > > > > with different constant values.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why would we assume anything about the constants? And if we did
> > > > > assume something, why should we put any faith in the conclusions?
> > > >
> > > > Faith? It is a nascient science.
> > >
> > > Why do you think it's any kind of science? (Hint: there's no evidence)
> >
> >
> > You are exaggerating yet again. It is NOT zero.
>
> Then you can provide some evidence. What is it?

Contants that don't appear to tie to anything.

>
> > > > > > That may be wrong, but that is where
> > > > > > the evidence that we have here and now leads.
> > > > >
> > > > > What evidence? An appearance? That's not evidence.
> > > >
> > > > Taken what we have now, I have not heard better alternatives.
> > >
> > > I say that there are no other universes and the constants are fixed
> > > because there is no choice for their values. You and I both have
> > > the same amount of evidence. Which is the better scientific alternative?
> >
> > Your conclusion is unlikely.
>
> And on what evidence do you base this conclusion?

I don't see very strong alternatives at the moment. Maybe we don't see
the whole picture, but what we do see points to multiple universes.

>
> > We have no evidence that there is "no choice".
>
> That's true. I didn't say we had to conclude there was no choice.
> I said there's no evidence to conclude that there is.

I disagree.

>
> > That is not part of the givens. True, the givens also
> > don't say there are not other universes, but that is the most
> > logical extension available because extending quantity is not
> > as huge a leap as making up an arbitrary and undefined boundary
> > ("no choice") out of thin air. That is almost like claiming a god.
>
> Appealing to what you think is "logical" is no more effective than
> appealing to what you think is "common sense." To reach a valid
> conclusion in science, you must have evidence of your premises.
> I claim you have exactly none. You may show I'm wrong by producing
> some.

I gave you some. You say it has zero value but I disagree. We can make
educated guesses even though we have limited info.

Limited info is-greater-than no info


>
> <snip>
>
> > Speculation based on limited evidence *is* science.
>
> Of course it is.

Remember that.

>
> > Maybe not the best of science, but still science.
>
> Well, maybe the conclusions aren't the strongest.

Perhaps. They are the "best guesses" we have, and they certainly carry
a high degree of of risk of being wrong.

>
> > If it is not, then where is the threashold? 0.034722983729873 units of evidence? If you
> > claim there is a threashold, then you have to provide a way
> > to measure it, otherwise we simply have an opinion-fest.
>
> To make things easy, I'll say the threshold is zero.

Well, we have better than zero evidence.

>
> > > > Is it better
> > > > to not even speculate? What "principle of science" leads you to
> > > > conclude this? You are only a whiner, not a thinker.
>
> By all means, speculate. Who's stopping you? Simply don't mistake
> your conclusions for anything valid.

Valid speculations.

>
> > > Speculate all you want. It's fun, it's cheap, you can do it at home.
> > > Don't mistake your conclusions for science.
> >
> > Well, until you have a better classification, "speculative science"
> > seems to fit as well as any.
>
> Speculate to your heart's content. Who's stopping you?

You seem irritated by it. You only want to explore safe, well-lit
places. You are a scientific whimp.

> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > > > What is an example of shear coincidence being the more likely scenario
> > > > > > over quantity?
> > > > >
> > > > > Go ask the last powerball winner.
> > > >
> > > > The powerball winner can conclude that either there's only one
> > > > participant who was extremely lucky, or there were multiple
> > > > participants. The second is usually more logical.
> > >
> > > Well, we have to go with a scenario in which the powerball winner
> > > is given a ticket, doesn't know anything about the lottery, and has no
> > > idea whether there are any other players. Now what does he conclude?
> >
> >
> > Like I said, I think quantity over sheer luck is the more likely
> > scenario.
>
> Why should anyone care what you think? You have no evidence.

Do to.

>
> > Not sure the analogy fits our universal constants situation anyhow.
>
> Think of the lottery number as a universal constant. Winning numbers
> give us a universe that can sustain life; losing numbers can't.

Well in that case, then we can tentatively conclude there are other
lottery numbers out there based on anthropic-like thinking.

>
> > > > > > > > For example, you make blunt sweeping
> > > > > > > > statements about why you think my version of ID fails to qualify as
> > > > > > > > 'science',
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Not OK. I have given you very specific criticisms of your version
> > > > > > > of ID. I may be blunt, but you can't deny you've got specifics.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > but fail to plug your rules into things such as MU, SETI,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You don't understand either of these things. "MU" is not science.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That has not been established. It has been treated like science by some
> > > > > > publications and we don't have a clear consensus definition of science
> > > > > > to test that once and for all. If you want to propose one and are
> > > > > > willing to stick to it thru thick and thin, be my guest. Otherwise,
> > > > > > shut up.
> > > > >
> > > > > Some publications? "Astounding Science Fiction"? If your version of
> > > > > "MU" is the above ruminations on universal constants, then "MU" isn't
> > > > > science, and I don't care who's speculating about it, it's not part of
> > > > > scientific research. There isn't a definition of science that will be clear
> > > > > enough for you. The definition is clear enough for scientists to do science
> > > > > and decide your version of ID isn't it. That's as good as it gets.
> > > >
> > > > So you say.
> > >
> > > I do. Now you could point to peer-reviewed publications or interviews
> > > with scientists who say that science isn't clearly defined enough to exclude
> > > ID.
> >
> > Peer review is not a prerequisite for "science".
>
> Oh, but I'm afraid it is. Thems the rules. If you don't like the rules, start your
> own club.

I disagree. Show that a universal requirement for minimal science. If a
guy sets up a radio telescope in his back yard and studies radio
signals he is doing science even though he may never have peer-reviewed
stuff. Almost everybody would agree to this. You are an outlier. Garage
science is still science.


>
> > > > > > > SETI has been explained to you. You just don't want to hear it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, you were wrong about it. If they have a sure-shot test, then bring
> > > > > > it forth for all to read or admit defeat.
> > > > >
> > > > > For sure, they don't collect every signal they can, convert the signals to
> > > > > binary digits, and try to decode messages. That's what you want to do
> > > > > with your DNA patterns. It's been explained to you why that's a non-
> > > > > sensical thing to do.
> > > >
> > > > Wasteful perhaps as far as expenditures, but that is not the same as
> > > > non-sensical. You are essentially arguing that exploration is useless.
> > > > That is a dumb position to defend.
> > >
> > > Exploration is fine. But science requires that you be able to know when
> > > something you find is significant.
> >
> > It does not.
> >
>
> Oh, but I'm afraid it does. Know or at least find out Thems the rules.
> If you don't like the rules, start your own club.


It is not the rules. You are making stuff up. Exploration does NOT
require that you know what you will find up-front. Your position is
fringe and silly.


>
> > > Your "DNA patterns" aren't good enough.
> > > Did you understand the significance of finding Shakespeare in DNA sequences?
> >
> > No, but that is why we explore further.
>
> Before you explore further, you should understand the significance of finding
> Shakespeare in DNA sequences. (Hint: there is no significance)

Not.

>
> > You seem to expect instant gratification for exploration.
>
> No, I expect you to able to show eventual gratification.

Not.

> You need to understand that your search, as stated, will never do that.

Not. Exploration does not have to have pre-planned goals.

>
> > > > > > > > and space exploration to see how flimsy they really are. I have to keep
> > > > > > > > doing the plugging for you. You should test your definition rules
> > > > > > > > first. It would save you some embarassment and reduce the volume of
> > > > > > > > words.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You want to reduce the volume of words? Give us a scientifically valid
> > > > > > > test of your version of ID The fact that you think you have through your
> > > > > > > DNA pattern search is not my embarrassment.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That would make SETI an embarassment also. They have NO up-front test
> > > > > > for intelligence.
> > > > >
> > > > > Good thing they don't claim to, eh?
> > > >
> > > > Does that make them non-science? Make up your mind.
> > >
> > > Of course, not. They're looking for particular signals. That may be a waste of
> > > time, but they'll know if they get a signal.
> > >
> >
> > They will for certain know it is intelligent?
>
> It's hard to believe you still don't get this point. SETI isn't searching
> for signals that are "intelligent." They're searching for signals that match
> a certain electromagnetic signature.

If that alone makes it "science", then it is easy (org-wise) to make a
DNA science lab.

>
> > How? Merely having an
> > "alarm" system is no different than what can be made for DNA searches.
> > "Beep, we may have something interesting" is not the big issue here.
>
> Well, that's what SETI is looking for, a signal that they've defined as
> "interesting." You haven't defined your "interesting" yet.

Is that's really all that it requires to qualify as "science" to you?
If so it would be relatively easy to turn ID into "science" by that
thinking.


>
> > > > > > Bandwidth measurments only narrow down the
> > > > > > candidates, not classify them in fanality.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am going to make you eat, drink, and sleep SETI's position until you
> > > > > > see why your complaints about DNA patterns don't work. So, get used to
> > > > > > it.
> > > > >
> > > > > SETI is looking for interesting signals. They can tell me what signals qualify.
> > > > > If you can do the same for DNA patterns, you're all set. Until then, ....
> > > >
> > > > So if a system is set up to send "interesting" alerts when it finds the
> > > > threashold of digits of Pi, Primes, or framing repetition described in
> > > > the other message, then ID becomes "science"?
> > >
> > > If you can tell me how you're going about looking for "Pi, Primes, or
> > > framing repetition."
> >
> > I already did. I am not going to write program code here. Hire
> > cheap-ass 3rd-world IIT Indians if you want that.
>
> "Cheap-ass 3rd-world IIT Indians" may be the best in the world,
> but even they can't make your "Pi, Primes, framing repetition" meaningful.
> This is your basic misunderstanding.

Huh? Please clarify.

>
> >
> > > Did you understand the significance of finding Shakespeare
> > > in DNA sequences?
> >
> > See above. What if SETI received Shakespeare?
>
> SETI wouldn't know. All they're looking for is particular signatures.

No, but they could potentially find such after studying a candidate
signal.

>
> >
> > >
> > > > > > So tell me in detail why SETI is science and DNA pattern research is
> > > > > > not. Show me the power of your allegedly great brain.
> > > > >
> > > > > Did you understand my last explanation of why an unconstrained search
> > > > > through possible encodings doesn't tell you anything about the patterns
> > > > > you find?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > No. I guess either 1. I am dumb, 2. your are a poor articulator, 3.
> > > > and/or you are wrong.
> > > >
> > > > Based on past experience with you, it is likely 2 and/or 3.
> > >
> > > Well, try again. The answer to the noon-time fire alarm should give
> > > you a clue. Do you understand why that alarm tells you nothing about
> > > a fire?
> >
> > I already answered. They drowned out the "real" signal. The alarms
> > overlap or "saturate" the actual signal so that we cannot tell the
> > alarm from the real signals.
> >
>
> OK, sorry, I misunderstood you the first time. Very good: the alarm goes
> off at noon regardless of whether there's a fire at noon, so you can't
> tell. Now, here's one of Shannon's insights: You can tell that the noon-time
> signal has no information even if you've never been told what a fire alarm is.
> The amount of information in a message is independent of the content
> of the message, i.e., what the message says. Anyone who can calculate can
> say, "I hear this noise every day at noon. I calculate the probability of hearing
> this noise at noon to be 1. The log of 1 is zero. Negating zero is still zero.
> This noise carries no information."
>
> Let's look at the other case. The alarm goes off at 9am. You've been working
> at the building for about 4 years, and you've never heard a 9am alarm. You
> calculate that the chances of hearing an alarm at 9am are no better than 1 in 1000
> (4 years is about 1000 working days.) You calculate the information to be at
> least 3. Your office mate has been working in the building for 40 years. He's
> calculated the information to be at least 4, which is why he's already on the way
> to the fire exit. But even 40-year veterans who don't know what the noise means
> understand that it's significant. They may not run to a fire exit, but that's because
> they don't understand what the message says, not that they don't recognize that
> the message contains information.
>
> Of course, in the real world, there are false alarms, fire drills at 9am, knowledge
> about the likelihood of fires, etc. These things affect the probability calculations.
> But they don't matter for the example.
>
> > How is that relavant to the price of beans?
>
> This is relevant in trying to understand the significance of signals when you don't
> know that the signal says. Like your DNA pattern message. Like all IDists, you
> don't know who the Designer is, don't know how the Designer works, and can't
> figure out what the Designer is trying to say. This is by design, so to speak. How
> then can we tell that some message in DNA is significant? Information theory can
> help.

SETI tends to assume human-like technology. This is not because they
are assuming that all alien civalizations are human-like, but instead
are exploring what they are familiar with. Like I said before, there
may be non-carbon-based life on Mars, but to detect non-carbon life is
far more difficult and expensive because we don't know enough about the
characteristics of non-carbon life. Thus, probes generally search for
just carbon-based life. It is simply a budgeting decision.

For the DNA it takes less resources to find human-like intelligent
patterns, so that is where the effort goes the most. Yes, we may miss
something because of that limiting assumption, but exploration makes no
guarentees.


>
> Deadrat
>

-T-

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Book-able view of ID as speculative science
    ... > The evidence *is* greater than zero. ... It is a nascient science. ... They're looking for particular signals. ... > "alarm" system is no different than what can be made for DNA searches. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Book-able view of ID as speculative science
    ... > Please provide a single piece of evidence that they don't. ... It is NOT zero. ... but what we do see points to multiple universes. ... you conclude is a science fiction story. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Book-able view of ID as speculative science
    ... The evidence *is* greater than zero. ... It is a nascient science. ... They're looking for particular signals. ... "alarm" system is no different than what can be made for DNA searches. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: topmind: ID is potentially testable
    ... The curious signals will ... have explained to you how science works. ... Please tell me why scientists would pick path A over path B to explore ... There *is* enough evidence to form an ID hypoth at this stage. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolution of Personality
    ... individual personality. ... not be zero, but could well be rounded down to zero. ... Unfounded would be forgetting that biology is the only science that can even ... the evidence is where the evidence is. ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading