Re: The Bet

On Jul 4, 2:37 pm, "R. Baldwin" <res0k...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I used both, in fact. Both matter.

I don't see where you used both? The larger the object, the greater
the absolute value with the same percentage tolerance. An object the
size of the Great Pyramid could be built, with modern technology, to
within my percentage threshold. This is not beyond modern human
potential.

I gave you both the tolerance of the 12x12x3 inch plate in both microinches
and ppm with respect to thickness. That is both absolute value and
percentage value.

To which of your four tolerance thresholds do you refer? 0.00001%, 0.001%,
0.1%, or 1%? All four have appeared in your posts within this thread.

Each with significantly increasing positive predictive value I might
add . . .

I would like to doublecheck the validity
of your assertion about modern
technology, but I need to know
what you are asserting first.

A fair example of modern technology when it comes to the material of
granite is the Microplan Group (see link). They manufacture, among
other things, granite testing devices, to include cubes, machined to
within tolerances of 1-3 micrometers depending on size (i.e., a um =
1/1000 of a millimeter or 0.001% of 10 cm = 0.000001 m).

Certainly, no non-deliberate process comes even close to the degree of
symmetry of some of the objects they manufacture - to include highly
symmetrical granite cubes and the like.

http://www.microplan-group.com/pagine/prodotti_gb/cu_gb.htm

Notice the percent mark after the number . . . Larger rocks can be
machined as precisely with regard to a *percentage* tolerance.

I did notice the percent marker. That was the whole point. You were arguing
that the percentage tolerance improves with increased size. Then you argued
that the precision is only equally precise for larger rocks if you use
percent measurement, not absolute measurement. These are mutually
contradictory arguments.

I don't see how. As the rock in question gets larger the same percent
tolerance allows for a greater absolute variation.

That's not the point of the test. It isn't a test to detect all or
even the majority or even a significant minority of designed objects.
That's NOT the point. The point is that a test can be set up that
carries with it very high positive predictive value. This sort of
test is quite valuable even if it may have extremely now negative
predictive value.

High positive predictive value of what?

What do you think? Of deliberate artifact - -

It is a property of a trivial percentage of designed objects,

That, if found would be detected, with very high positive predictive
value as "designed".

and a trivial percentage of non-designed objects.

Not remotely close to that of those that are designed which meet
criteria. That's where the high positive predictive value of the test
comes from.

You haven't demonstrated any predictive value for the test. It isn't
sufficiently well defined for that purpose, and you keep changing your mind
about its parameters. It appears that you've got no data, only your own
personal subjective notions.

I only changed the absolute parameters at your request - because the
0.001% tolerance seemed too much for you. You claimed it was beyond
even human technology. Even though that assertion is clearly mistaken,
I went along with you just for illustration purposes and lessened the
positive predictive value of the test - just for you. The greater the
tolerance requirements, the greater the positive predictive value of
the test . . .

Furthermore, objects are
subject to wear during their life, and even if designed objects began
with
reflexion symmetry, they are not likely to retain it when in an
evnironment
where design is a question. Old bricks from a castle wall will fail any
reflexion symmetry test based on a tolerance selected to screen out
non-designed objects. So will stone tools

Exactly right - - That means that it will be harder and harder to
detect design as a system that was designed experiences wear and tear
or a radiosignal experiences intrusion or mutations of its original
artifactual signal. This is only to be expected. It follows the law
of informational entropy (starting to sound familiar to you?).

That is not what informational entropy means. The informational entropy of
an information source is a measure on the ensemble of messages it can
produce. It is not a measure of the extent to which has been modified by
noise. An information source and a noise source each have informational
entropy. They may be combined by superposition. You may estimate the net
information entropy of the superimposed signals by analyzing a sample
signal.

That's exactly what we are doing. Over time, the information from the
highly entropic source (the noise source) gets mixed with the
information from the low entropic source or object. Over time, the
information from the low entropic source is erased and sampling
matches to a greater and greater extent the informational entropy from
the highly entropic source - i.e., the "noise".

So, just what the heck do you THINK you implied?

Obviously, I implied that I had observed a pattern of what non-
deliberate processes were capable of achieving with the material of
granite - a pattern that clearly petered out well before the threshold
of 0.001% tolerance with respect to reflective angular symmetry is
reached.

This was not an obvious implication. You claimed to have a method, you
claimed the method used a threshold of 0.001% tolerance, and you claimed to
have used your method thousands of times. It looks like you used an
overreaching exaggeration about what you have done, or what your purported
method is capable of, and now are obfuscating instead of retracting
something that was clearly untrue.

Only someone who is looking to misinterpret what I said would do so as
readily as you and Richard have done. You are looking for a way to
misinterpret what I actually said. I have observed a very clear
pattern of decreasing symmetry produced by natural non-deliberate
forces, with regard to surface irregularities, in the material of
granite, as tolerances increase. There simply is no doubt about this
observation. It is so obvious that it almost doesn't need any argument
in its support. You yourself, if you are really honest about it, know
that this pattern is clear. You also know that this pattern stalls
out well before tolerances of 0.001% are reached - for natural
processes. And, you have to know that this degree of tolerance is
only within reach of human-level intelligences. The methodology
involved in coming to this conclusion simply isn't rocket science no
matter how desperately you and those like Richard try to obfuscate the
simplicity of this otherwise obvious conclusion.

< snip >

For example, if after watching a few thousand cows jump, and I don't
see any jumping beyond 10 meters or so, with a significant decline in
jumping ability approaching this threshold, it is very reasonable to
induce that no cow, even ones that I've never met, will ever be able
to jump 100 meters.

Let's stick to one subject, shall we? You claim to have a method for
deciding whether granite objects are designed or not. How far cows jump is
neither here nor there.

It's the same basic methodology in each case - - Don't you see that?

< snip >

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: New version of John Hayes tester
    ... >>> with FSENSITIVITY you can do either relative ... >> When a nearness comparison is made, ftester does both absolute nearness ... > a valid nearness test is not possible. ... magnitude as the tolerance, eps. ...
    (comp.lang.forth)
  • The Tolerance of Intolerance
    ... The Tolerance of Intolerance ... The practice of the atheists/evolutionists is to demand tolerance for ... their views to the absolute intolerance of anything of the Christian. ...
    (alt.religion.christian)
  • Re: revised quadratic.fs
    ... version performs slightly poorer with respect to absolute error of the ... The tolerance is the distance from zero in the complex plane, ... it represents an absolute error rather than a relative error. ...
    (comp.lang.forth)
  • Re: New version of John Hayes tester
    ... with FSENSITIVITY you can do either relative ... When a nearness comparison is made, ftester does both absolute nearness ... we perform the following relative nearness tests: ... Using an absolute nearness test, with a matching tolerance, also fails. ...
    (comp.lang.forth)
  • Re: [patch] Change softlockup trigger limit using a kernel parameter
    ... +This value can be used to lower the softlockup tolerance ... The default threshold is 10s. ... i think the valid threshold should be between 1 and 60 seconds i ... the tolerance threshold from 10s is to catch bugs early in lab environments, ...
    (Linux-Kernel)