Back to Home

General Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | Misc. Topics | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
That Has No Bearing On The Problem.

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Richard D. Stafford, Ph.D. on December 18, 2004 15:34:22 UTC

Please explain to me why you think it makes any difference at all whether "A" is a lie or not. My method produces expectations consistent with what has been given (elements of A)! Either additional information will be consistent with what has already been given or it will not be. If it is, then your expectations are still consistent with what is given; if it is not, the method will produce altered expectations.

Regarding question 14, "if the given 'known information' is a lie, then why will a consistent method produce the same results as a situation in which the 'known information' is not a lie?", think about it a little Harv! There is no reason to believe the method will produce the same results. The expectations consistent with the elements of that "A" which is "a lie" (your presumptive label of some particular "A") have no bearing at all on the expectations consistent with the elements of that other "A" which is directly from "God" (again your presumptive label for some other collection of elements). In both cases, your label is a meaningless appendage as you have no way of determining which label is appropriate; you have only the information to be explained.

With regard to your "garbage in/ garbage out" comment, you seem to be totally missing the point. The information being used in the model is the information available (all of it). If you are not privy to the original input, it has nothing to do with what you are trying to explain and plays no roll at all in any explanation which you might conceive of.

You seem to have a very limited mental view of what is going on here. Let me point out that, after some volume of information has been delivered, your "demon" will begin to have difficulty passing you information totally without content. Notice that, in order to provide you with nothing with which to create any rational expectations, he cannot ever repeat himself. Not only that, he cannot even pass any pieces of information which have any resemblance to anything he has already provided. And that is, "resemble in any way". If you receive any information which resembles anything you have already received (in any way at all), you have something which will skew your expectation to something other than "totally random". Remember, you are explaining the information the demon is sending, not the demon's source (that information is not available).

The more information you have, the more patterns you are apt to discover. A verbal explanation constitutes attaching symbols to repeated chunks of information (names Harv). Then one begins to find repeated similar relationships between these named chunks (and one attaches symbols to these, names for relationships). Verbal explanations are nothing more than such constructs which define your expectations.

I really wish you would think your ideas out a little further. I find these questions somewhat repetitive and very short sighted.


Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2023 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins