Re: about the recent spate of postings of bpuharic
- From: hersheyh <hersheyhv@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 06:39:18 -0800 (PST)
On Feb 28, 1:19 pm, "nando_rontel...@xxxxxxxxx"
Sorry I thought you were sane
I am not the one who is out of touch with empirical reality.
and accepted the evidence of alternate
states of matter.
Why should I accept empty words? You need to clarify what *you* mean
by "alternate states of matter" before I can either accept or reject
it. Repeating empty mantras like "freedom" or "alternate states of
matter" without explaining what you mean by those terms is using words
as talismans (or is the plural talismen?), a way to avoid probing
deeper. I have gone ahead and used "alternate position" for your "the
moon has freedom in its orbit" because *position* is an empirical
state that can actually be determined. If the 'state of matter' you
were thinking of in your so-called mind was something else, please
state what that something else was. Is the 'alternate state of
matter' you were thinking of a change in atomic number (ala alchemy or
radiation chemistry)? A change in structure (ala keto and enol
forms)? Ordinary chemical change? Acceleration? Electron spin? Can
you be a little bit more specific than the empty phrase 'alternate
state of matter'? I do agree that you seem to be in an 'alternate
state of mind'. There are psychotropic drugs that will do that. And
others that will prevent it. You should stop taking the former or
start taking the latter.
For some bizarre reason you argue tooth and nail
against freedom being real, like if the fact were admitted then your
whole world would collapse.
I am neither arguing for or against "freedom being real". I am,
rather, asking *you* to explain what *you* mean wrt "freedom" as
applied to inanimate features like the moon's orbit. It obviously
means *something* to you, yet you are completely inarticulate in
explaining what it means. The best I get is that you somehow link it
to the number of significant figures in a measurement, how that is
applied in simplified mathematical models, and with a touch of
mumblings about quantum states.
I am actually taking you seriously by asking you to explain what you
mean. All I get in response is repeats of your mantras, not
explanation of and support for your positions. You don't even give me
the courtesy of explicitly addressing the specific points I make. All
you do is say that I am rejecting "freedom" by making *any* specific
comment or asking *any* question to try to get you to clarify what you
mean. I *cannot* read your mind (thank god for small favors).
Repeating mantras using words as talismen is not communication. It is
the real bullshit that pretends it is an answer.
On 28 feb, 17:31, hersheyh <hershe...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 27, 7:50 pm, "nando_rontel...@xxxxxxxxx"
You keep on writing bullshit omitting any freedom, which is
Demanding that you clarify what the f**k you mean by 'freedom' is not
just excusable, it is necessary for sane argumentation.
You accepted the fact of alternate states now work with
I did not accept "the fact of alternate *states*". I discussed the
possibility of alternate *position* because of quantum effects and
*specifically* said that, for objects the size of the moon, these
quantum effects are so insignificant as to be well within the
measurement precision and would have no effect on accuracy.
The variation in the orbit is measurable, so you can let the digit
be chosen according to the variation.
Did you even read about the difference between precision and accuracy
and what accounts for the two?
You can calculate which digit or
digits must be chosen, which will reflect the observed variation in
The measured variation is a function of the imperfection of
observation, not a function of intentional ambiguity on the part of
the observed object.
To be exacting, not only must the digit be chosen, it must also be
chosen in a comparitive way.
The choice of significant figures is limited by the sensitivity of the
measurement mechanism and/or by the need for significant figures in
the result. If I only need a result to within 1 meter, there is no
reason to measure to the millimeter. But such measurement variation
does not mean that the object varies.
It is shown that molecules up to 20 atoms
large can be in an undecided state, and perhaps larger.
Moons are a tad larger than 20 atoms. And exactly what do you mean by
"undecided state" in this context? I certainly agree that there are
transient states between and differences between, say, the enol and
keto structures. And that molecules can switch between those states.
But what does that have to do with the orbit of the moon?
So it is
mistaken to think that if matter can be in alternative states, that
then it is in either state, it can also be undecided. So if we measure
the variation in the orbit, and count the atoms involved, then we can
arrive at a percentage to what effect the state of the moon is
Again, what do you mean by *state*. I used the word *position* for
the orbit of the moon. And I certainly agree that it may be
technically true that, because of quantum effects, it may be possible
to calculate a probability that *all* the atoms of a moon will move
simultaneously and in the same direction by x distance that is
actually outside a range that defines current measurement error. But
that probability is so small that it can be ignored as irrelevant. It
won't happen in the life of the universe.
Next we might differentiate between matter on the
surface, and matter deep within the moon which is more likely to be in
a decided state.
Why would that be the case? Do you think that the surface of the
earth could "choose" to leap upward 1 meter? What exactly are you
So it is too simple to think that all these decisions
would cancel each other out on average etc. etc. etc.
Why? What evidence do you have to support the idea that such a
simultaneous co-ordinated and directional quantum coherence can lead
to the moon moving a distance that would be detectable above
measurement error (except as a purely mathematical probability that
can never happen in reality)?
On Feb 28, 1:13 am, hersheyh <hershe...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 27, 5:40 pm, "nando_rontel...@xxxxxxxxx"
The creationism is in how to apply F=MA in the model. When you enter
the values into the model then that is making a decison.
No. It is replacing actual numbers for two of the three factors
represented by letter symbols. Typically it is not random numbers
plucked out one's head that are added but measured values obtained by
Now do you
let all the next values follow from this initial value, or do you let
the model put in new values itself all the time?
This makes no sense. If you put in two values, the third is
A model on a computer
might for instance be limited by the number of possible digits behind
Or it may be limited by the precision of the measurement, which is
more likely. Science isn't about generating numbers of infinite
precision. And there are standard ways of dealing with significant
figures in a measurement or value.
Now what model would more accurately reflect the way things
are, a model in which the value behind the comma is automatically cut
of, so below 5 automatically goes to zero, and above 5 automatically
adds 1, or a model in which the last value is chosen between 1 and 0
by the model itself?
The model never chooses anything. The calculated value's precision is
limited by the number of significant figures in the measured values.
It's accuracy is determined by the validity of the assumptions in the
model. Accuracy is not the same as precision. What you seem to be
saying is that for the *measured* values, how do we treat the last
significant figure, where the measurement accuracy is lowest. Should
we estimate that last significant figure as our best estimate of where
it lies between 0 and 9, or should we round up or down based on our
estimate of whether it is above or below the half-way point? But all
that does is change the number of significant figures by one place.
But the "model" doesn't make that decision; the intelligent measuring
I say it is the last, and that very probably models already work this
way. Because the arbitrariness of the initial value far behind the
comma will be skewed in a particluar direction, while a chosen value
would have less skewing. So the model that is based on freedom would
be more similar compairing runs, while a model based on initial values
forcing would be more eratic comparing runs.
The decison to use rounding up or down (by the measurer, not the
model) reduces the the number of significant figures by one place.
That is the only effect.
[snip]- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
- Re: about the recent spate of postings of bpuharic
- From: Burkhard
- Re: about the recent spate of postings of bpuharic
- Prev by Date: Re: Desertphile.org
- Next by Date: Re: scientists propose creation theory
- Previous by thread: Re: about the recent spate of postings of bpuharic
- Next by thread: Re: about the recent spate of postings of bpuharic