Re: The Bet

On Jul 4, 11:08 am, "R. Baldwin" <res0k...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"Seanpit" <seanpitnos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1183570183.562725.249290@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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?

Yes, I understand. You get to choose an algorithm post hoc that lets you win
the bet.

The algorithm is already in place. I'm just letting you choose the
plane of symmetry. I'm not going to revise what you choose if it
actually works. If you find a plane of symmetry that meets my
criteria, then you win. It isn't going to improve your odds for me to
define this plane before you ahead of time. Your odds of winning will
be maximum for you if you choose the plane of symmetry. This simple
concept should be rather obvious to you.

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.

The best possible plane for what purposes?

For finding the degree of reflective symmetry I've proposed.

"Best" is subjective. If it is
with respect to the bet, there are four cases:
1. Object is designed Test reports designed
2. Object is not designed Test reports designed
3. Object is designed Test reports not designed
4. Object is not designed Test reports not designed

Actually, it goes more like this:

1. Object is designed Test reports "designed"
2. Object is designed Test reports "I don't know"
3. Object is not designed Test reports "designed"
4. Object is not designed Test reports "I don't know"

So if we are going to select a "best possible" plane, that means it is
biased in favor of one of these four outcomes.

Yep, and letting you pick it gives you the best possible odds of
getting the one that gets you the money - i.e., #3.

Suppose you pick a plane
biased in favor of (1) and your opponent picks a plane biased in favor of
(4).

I don't pick the plane! How often do I have to repeat myself here?
You pick the plane and I use the plane you pick!

The test reports differently depending on who selects the reference.
Who wins the bet?

You do - - I use your plane.

Surely, it would be better if there were a neutral way to select the
reference plane in advance of the test, would it not?

Nope. This wouldn't give you the best advantage. I want you to have
every advantage you can possibly get.

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.

No rate can be established on the basis of one measured object.

The pattern of measured objects, from low to higher degrees of
reflective symmetry, is used to determine the extremely rate in this
case - and very low odds of me loosing my $1,000.

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.

Would you please make up your mind?

What do you mean? You pick the plane of symmetry. I use your plane
of symmetry. But, I'm not restricted to using just your surface
distance measurements based on this plane of symmetry.

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?

In other words, two distinct tests with distinct results. The two parties
disagree on test results. Who wins? You by default? That hardly seems
reasonable.

Nope - If you are not convinced that my measurements actually falsify
your claim to winning the bet, a neutral third party can be consulted
to arbitrate. I promise you though, I'll give you every benefit of the
doubt. If I can't clearly defeat your measurements with my own, I'll
concede the loss.

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.

Angular symmetry? Last time it was reflexion symmetry. Why do you keep
changing your criteria? Don't you know what they are?

I misspoke here - typing too fast I guess. I meant to say reflective
symmetry with regard to angular surface irregularities. I had to start
using this "angular" term because Richard and a few others started
getting confused over what I meant by the phrase "surface
irregularities".

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.

Since your criteria are mysterious and selected post hoc, only a fool would
take your bet - and that has nothing to do with whether a workable test for
design actually exists.

My criteria are not mysterious or post-hoc. And, there is no risk to
you. I'm not asking any money from you if you loose the bet. Only I
pay out money if I loose.

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 . . .

You have not stated your criteria with sufficient clarity for anybody
besides you to know what they are.

You're just trying not to understand as best as you can confuse what
is otherwise very simple and downright obvious.

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 ... standards are used to spell out measurement methods. ... possible plane there is in the rock. ...
    (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: Spaceship Question
    ... >>> for which measurements already have been done. ... > The calculations are a prediction of the result of an experiment. ... if the length of the plane is relative velocity dependent then how come ... be relative velocity dependent. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading