Re: Granite, Symmetry, and ID - Summary

On Jul 6, 12:10 am, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.
0catch.com> wrote:
Granite, Symmetry, and ID - Summary

This is to summarize recent discussions I've had regarding my notion
that various forms of symmetry, such as reflective symmetry, can be
used with the material of granite to hypothesize deliberate artifact
with an excellent true positive and low false positive rate.

I initially presented certain parameters that were very narrowly
defined to overwhelmingly exclude any remote possibility of a
potential false positive.

After numerous comments and sometimes heated "suggestions", I'll
summarize a few of the clarifications that seem to have solved at
least a few minor cases of some confusion.

The material in question is still granite. It is not some single
crystal that may be found in granite, but granite.

The unit of measure is still meters, centimeters, millimeters, or
whatever unit of measure, or fraction thereof, seems most appropriate
to the specimen.

If you are defining a methodology, you don't leave it to whoever is
carrying out the test to decide for themselves which dimensions to
measure and what units to use.

This clarifies the fact that your claim to have a methodology is
false.


The quality being measured is still reflective symmetry with regard to
surface irregularities. Spheres, cylinders, spheroid, parabolic, or
rounded off shapes do not qualify as "irregularities". For additional
clarification, though I believe I've made this abundantly clear in the
past, the type of irregularities I'm looking for are those where one
flat surface forms a sharply defined angle with another flat surface.

No, you haven't. You have made it clear that you define the corner of
a cube as a "surface irregularity" (which is about as non-standard a
definition as one can have), but you have also stated that "all
surface irregularities beyond the tolerance threshold are measured."
This includes patterns etched on the surface, saw marks and so on, and
from your statement implies that *any* irregularity deviating more
than 0.001% of the dimension from the reference plane to the surface
of the object is counted as a "surface irregularity".

Are you changing your definition of "surface irregularity", or are we
to consider any deviation of more than 0.001% of the distance from the
reference plane to the surface from any surface to be a "surface
irregularity"?

The angle cannot be "rounded" off to less than the degree of tolerance
described below.

You'd better watch your fingers in that case. You can only study
objects with razor sharp edges.

The basic method of measuring symmetry is still the same, but with a
few more clarifications. The distance of each surface point on one
half of the rock is measured from the center of the stone. This
distance is compared to the surface point exactly opposite as measured
from the center of the rock. For example, if a straight line is drawn
through the center of the rock, the surface points that it passes
through on either side of the rock are "exactly opposite" surface
points. The distance of each surface point is measured from the
center of the stone. This distance is compared to the distance of the
opposing surface point measured in the same way.
Also, the plane of symmetry really doesn't matter as long as it
is passes through the center of the stone. The reflective symmetry
will be the same regardless of the various number of ways this can be
done.

It will?
If I have a rectangular block, and set the reference plane through the
middle of the long axis, it will be reflectively symmetrical about
that plane.

Are you telling us that if you rotate that plane by 30 degrees so that
it runs diagonally through the block it will show reflective symmetry
about the new plane?

Or are you telling us that what we need to do is to find two "surface
irregularities", and rotate the reference plane about the centre
(geometric centre? Centre of gravity? Centre of rotation) until it is
equidistant between them, then measure them? Once we have done that,
can we chose a new pair of "surface irregularities" and rotate the
plane again?

And, the choice of the "center" of the stone also doesn't
matter. Any center that is chosen that actually aids in fulfilling
all the listed criteria is the better choice.

Do you think that you can give three people a granite object, ask them
to measure it in the way you have described, and get the same set of
numbers from all three?


The degree of irregularity is still the same. At least 30% of the
surface points on one half of the rock must vary in distance from the
center of the rock by more than 10% of the average surface point
distance.

Can you give an instance of *any* object, artificial or natural, which
does *not* meet these requirements?


The degree of tolerance previously listed (0.001%) seems to have come
under the most heat. It remains that all of the surface point
distances on one half of the rock must match all of the surface point
distances on the exact opposite side of the rock to within the stated
degree of tolerance as a fraction of the total distance from one
surface point to the opposing surface point. For example, a granite
cube measuring 500 mm on each side could sustain a variation in
surface point distance of one side compared with the other of up to 5
microns and still pass the tolerance test. For even further
clarification, if the distance between the center of the cube and one
surface point were 5 microns smaller or greater than the opposing
distance, this variation would pass the test. In other words, the
variation relative to the total distance cannot be greater than
0.001%.

This is, of course, the criterion under which the reference cubes of
granite fail.
I'm glad that you concede that I am correct in saying that they don't
meet your criteria.

Of course, the main argument hasn't been so much one over how
to measure the degree of tolerance, but that the stated degree of
tolerance is far too restrictive to allow for anything of artifactual
nature or otherwise to pass the test. As I see it, this really isn't
an issue since if this degree of tolerance were ever achieved the
artifactual nature of such a highly symmetrical granite object would
be extremely clear. The reason this conclusion would be so clear is
because there is a clearly established pattern of greater and greater
positive predictive power for finer and finer tolerances well before
the degree of 0.001% tolerance is realized. Therefore, it is quite
reasonable to induce from this pattern that the pattern will only
continue in like manner. Beyond this, there are several examples of
manufactured granite cubes that do indeed fall within this degree of
tolerance - with respect to symmetry and the measurement of tolerance
as described above (see references listed below).

So you can demonstrate that a non-existent object is artificial.
Well done, Sean.
What is the point of such a test by the way?

Even so, because I wish to avoid as much balking over this point
as possible, I'll reduce the degree of tolerance to 0.01% - even
further, but with a corresponding decrease in positive predictive
power.

As the test stands, the "positive predictive power" is zero, as there
are no objects which meet your criteria.
How does one decrease "predictive power" below zero?

Again, the point here is not so much the degree of tolerance,
but the pattern of significantly increasing true positive rate and
decreasing false positive rate (with respect to the hypothesis of
deliberate artifact) that presents itself as the degree of tolerance
is increased.

But your "true positive rate" is zero.
Your "false positive rate" is also zero.

How can one change a ratio of zero to zero?


And, finally, the hypothesis is still the same. Namely, that if the
above parameters are met the prediction of deliberate artifact carries
with it very high positive predictive value (i.e., a very high true
positive rate with a correspondingly low false positive rate) that is
related to the strictness of the various parameters. Beyond this, if
the criteria of this test are not met, the possibility of deliberate
artifact is not addressed. In other words, the test does not address
negative results beyond the statement that "there is no prediction
with regard to negative results at all".

So if I produce a granite object which meets your criteria, your
"hypothesis" is that it is artificial.

How do you test your "hypothesis"?


Some think this last part makes such a test worthless - that if it
is not general enough to encompass all potential artifacts and have a
good true negative rate as well as a true positive rate, why bother.
Those who make such arguments don't seem to understand that having a
test with a true positive rate that is excellent, even with a poor
true negative rate, is much much better than having no test at all.

So what is wrong with the tests archaeologists and others experienced
in making such judgements use every day?
They have the advantage that they can tell if Michaelangelo's "David"
is an artifact - something your test can't.

Why not do some research into how archaeologists make such
determinations?


Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com

References:

"Undersigned is guide to a batch of three students of Mechanical
Engineering for Masters Program I-STAR who have undertaken a project
of assessing geometrical accuracy of 3 D - CMM. During the course of
conducting project we have come across a situation which requires
certain clarifications as under. A mechanical artifact of Granite Cube
of size 500 X 500 x 500 mm (Hollow design having total mass of 140 Kg)
while being checked using First Principal for checking
perpendicularity has shown value within 5 microns for all the faces
where as flatness values for each of the six faces have been observed
within the range of 3 to 4 microns and parallelism of opposite faces
while checking with digital electronic probe ( gauge head ) are within
maximum 5 microns."

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/5439/Methods-for-Inspection-of-Check...

Another 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).

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

Yes, and this does not meet your 0.001% criterion, as I and others
have explained to you.

But please stop evading this question:

You have made a "bet" that a granite cube meeting these criteria
cannot be formed naturally, and that if anyone brings you such an
object you will pay them $1000.

If I bring you a granite cube meeting your criteria, and tell you that
it is naturally formed, what are you going to do?

What test are you going to apply to determine if it is a naturally
formed object or an artifact?

If the test is that of meeting the criteria you have defined, you
can't lose, can you?

This is what is called a "sucker bet".

But by all means prove me wrong, and give a *different* test for
whether or not such a cube is natural or artificial.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Granite, Symmetry, and ID - Summary
    ... that various forms of symmetry, such as reflective symmetry, can be ... with an excellent true positive and low false positive rate. ... The angle cannot be "rounded" off to less than the degree of tolerance ... The distance of each surface point on one ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Granite, Symmetry, and ID - Summary
    ... that various forms of symmetry, such as reflective symmetry, can be ... The material in question is still granite. ... The angle cannot be "rounded" off to less than the degree of tolerance ... The distance of each surface point on one ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Granite, Symmetry, and ID - Summary
    ... that various forms of symmetry, such as reflective symmetry, can be ... crystal that may be found in granite, ... The angle cannot be "rounded" off to less than the degree of tolerance ... The distance of each surface point on one ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Granite, Symmetry, and ID - Summary
    ... Granite, Symmetry, and ID - Summary ... The angle cannot be "rounded" off to less than the degree of tolerance ... The distance of each surface point on one ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Granite, Symmetry, and ID - Summary
    ... that various forms of symmetry, such as reflective symmetry, can be ... crystal that may be found in granite, ... The angle cannot be "rounded" off to less than the degree of tolerance ... The distance of each surface point on one ...
    (talk.origins)