Re: The Bet

On Jul 4, 9:10 am, "R. Baldwin" <res0k...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

How does one go about deciding whether the criteria are met?

If the measurements match the stated criteria. Allowing for you to
choose whatever plane of symmetry you want to use doesn't affect the
outcome.

What I am asking you for is the algorithm. You need one. The objects will
come with arbitrary shape. If you have a method, it must have a specific way
of determining the reference plane for measuring deviation from reflexion
symmetry. Allowing the measurer to choose the plane does indeed affect the
outcome. If the reference plane is selected arbitrarily, then you will
likely not measure symmetry even if the object is symmetrical.

That's right - and therefore that would make you loose the even if you
could have won the bet. It isn't my job to help you win. It is your
job to pick the proper plane of symmetry in order to help you meet
criteria. So, from my perspective as the one who has $1,000 on the
line, it doesn't matter what plane you choose. Understand now?

It is fundamental to scientific and engineering measurements that the method
of measurement be exactly defined. "Do it how you want" will not yield
repeatable results. "Select the reference any way you want" will not yield
repeatable results. This is such an important point that documented
standards are used to spell out measurement methods.

Again, I don't need to select the plane of symmetry for you. You can
pick whatever plane you want to win the bet. It won't make any
difference to me. In other words, you can't get better than the best
possible plane there is in the rock. It is up to you to find this
plane and demonstrate that my criteria are met given this plane which
you have found.

Pick anyone you want . . . it doesn't matter.

In that case, most designed objects are likely to be reported as not
designed.

That's true. No set of criteria for detecting artifact is going to
detect all or even most truly artifactual objects. That's one of my
main points in this discussion.

Your initial method was set so tightly it most likely won't detect any,
since highly polished calibration plates would test as not designed. Your
latest version will measure many natural objects as designed,

My $1,000 says you're wrong when it comes to granite.

and most designed objects as not designed.

That's not the purpose of the test. The point of the test is to
demonstrate that the true positive detection rate can be made to be
very high. That's the entire point.


You have just allowed one point per side be measured, on opposite sides
of
an arbitrary plane, with post hoc selection of datums. That significantly
increases the probability that non-designed objects would be reported as
designed.

Did you notice the phrase "all surface points of the irregularities on
one side of your chosen axes much match the opposing surface points?"
Notice that word "all"? What is unclear about that word to you?
That's what it takes for you to win the bet. There can be no set of
opposing surface points that are not symmetrical. That's what it
means. If I find a set that isn't symmetrical, you loose the bet.
Simple.

In your previous post, you wrote "I don't really care how many measurements
you take."

I don't. Because, the less measurements you make, the greater the
odds that you'll loose the bet - i.e., the greater the odds that I'll
find a measurement of opposing irregularities that isn't symmetrical
to the degree of tolerance listed.

"All" does not make for an achievable measurement. Are you going to measure
10 points per inch on each axis? 100? 1000? A million? If you are not
measuring points on a grid, what is the method for selecting the points? Are
you only going to measure at apparent maxima and minima?

I'll measure until I can't find any significant aberrancies that could
falsify your claim to my $1,000 - short of two days of trying . . .
How about that?

Try to be PRECISE.

I am being precise. Try to understand that you are trying to find a
form of rock that you can claim has a certain degree of angular
symmetry, which has been precisely defined, for which I cannot falsify
your claim. If I cannot falsify your claim, you get $1,000. It's
quite simple actually.

If you only measure one set of opposing points and on that basis send
it to me confident that I can't find any other sets of opposing points
that do not match my criteria, you are almost certainly going to loose
the bet. You'd have much better odds of me not finding any non-
symmetrical aberrancies if you measured a great deal more points
before sending me your "winning" rock.

Where did the bet say that you get to measure the rock differently after
your opponent measures the rock?

LOL - Oh come on now! If I am going to pay out $1,000 you don't
expect me to just take your word for your assertion that you have
found a rock that meets my criteria? - do you? Of course I have to
verify that the rock really does meet my criteria before you get my
$1,000. And, I get to keep the rock.

In any case, this is your proposal, not mine. It is up to you to provide
a
clear method.

I did provide a clear method. It is just that you have twisted the
obvious.

No sir, it is obvious that you lack a method. Your posts make it abundantly
clear that you haven't got a clue how to measure objects with any kind of
accuracy.

LOL - whatever. I don't have to be able to measure the rock with the
degree of accuracy I'm proposing. I just have to be able to falsify
your assertion that you've found a rock that does meet my criteria.
If I cannot do this, with technology available to me, you win $1,000.
It really isn't that hard. You're straining yourself here over
nothing . . .

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Bet
    ... choose whatever plane of symmetry you want to use doesn't affect the ... Choose whatever plane of symmetry you want. ... If I come to you with a perfect granite cube matching all the criteria ... granite objects which would - and it is trivially easy to think of ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Bet
    ... choose whatever plane of symmetry you want to use doesn't affect the ... of determining the reference plane for measuring deviation from reflexion ... Object is not designed Test reports not designed ... distance measurements based on this plane of symmetry. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Bet
    ... choose whatever plane of symmetry you want to use doesn't affect the ... meter, some 2 meters, a few 3 meters, and so on. ... I see evidence that a cow has traversed 100 meters that it wasn't ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: No torque on an a-chrial body in Stokes flow?
    ... Consider an otherwise arbitrary body possessing a plane of mirror ... Form a compound object by joining the body to a long thin ... if no body or compound body possessing a symmetry plane ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Trip report - Worlds rocked, Delta sucked.
    ... Got a call first day of vacation, 2:30 am. Server at work ate itself, and ... new flight leaving at 10:30am. ... drove around Little Rock for the day. ... Plane finally gets there, we board, and sit there. ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
Loading