Re: this is the time to pray
From: alextangent (alex_mcd_at_btopenworld.com)
Date: 01/27/05
- Next message: Evenbit: "Re: test"
- Previous message: Herbert Kleebauer: "Re: this is the time to pray"
- In reply to: Beth: "Re: this is the time to pray"
- Next in thread: Evenbit: "Re: this is the time to pray"
- Reply: Evenbit: "Re: this is the time to pray"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 27 Jan 2005 08:33:08 -0800
Beth wrote:
> Alex McDonald wrote:
> > I'm fascinated by your analysis (trimmed for space) although I
> > believe it to be flawed for a number of reasons.
>
> Yeah, you would...you always do...I'm tired of even listening to you
now,
> to be honest...
>
> Case in point here; You "believe it to be flawed for a number of
reasons"
> but write an entire post containing NO REASON whatsoever beyond "this
isn't
> the standard argument"...which is, at best, a social "faux pas" or
> something but hardly any kind of "crime", not to be debating by
> reguritating a textbook or two...
>
> Nice FUD...you is the "alpha male" and
everything...great...everybody's
> _still_ not in the slightest bit interested...why do you persist in
this
> continual nonsense?
What nonsense? You post, I ask, you get prickly. You want to write
monologues where no-one pays any attention?
So where did you get it from? Or am I not allowed to ask?
>
> [ You can check up that probability thing, if you like...it's a well
known
> property in statistics...similar, if you like, to how you don't check
for
> equality with floating-point numbers (e.g. "if (a==1.0)") but check
for a
> "range" (e.g. "if (a>0.9 && a<1.1)" or whatever)...except this isn't
to do
> with precision, this time...it's to do with any point conceptually
having a
> probability of zero (that is, probability is "number of events /
number of
> total events"...this is 1 event of interest in a conceptual
"infinity" of
> possibilities..."1/infinity" comes out, in this instance - doing the
> maths - as zero in practice...hence, to counter this, you calculate a
> _range_ - integrate your graph - to get any kind of meaningful
probability
> out of your calculations)...you ask "what if I'm exactly 2m
tall?"...well,
> that's the point...statistics states the probability of being
_EXACTLY_
> (not even a micrometre either direction) 2m tall is zero...find this
> "unintuitive" or something? Well, go complain to statisticians, not
> me...because you'd only be shooting the messenger... ]
I didn't see how continuous probability distributions (people's
heights) made sense in terms of the argument you were making. You said;
[... the universe is NOT analogue, it's discrete or digital ...]
and then you went on to argue for a _continuous_ statistic. Hence the
question; it was meant to point this flaw out; I said
[ ...How does the "point" and statistics/probability fit in the
argument? What if I'm exactly 2m tall?]
It obviously didn't help.
>
> Can I ask what is your main problem here? Because we could have an
entire
> thread - many threads - completely full of people stating "technical
> inaccuracy" or, as we've seen, denying evolution on "distorted
> science"...not a peep...you don't say anything because they are not
listed
> on your "hit list"...
You must have missed them; they're in this thread. Unfortunately,
they're under "alextangent" due to a mixture of using Google and
Outlook from a variety of machines. They are all sig'd with my name. I
disagree with Annie, Randall Hyde and LGC in this thread alone.
> I make a post that states about "Planck length" - a
> fact from physics - and "probability of a point in a continuous
> distribution is zero" - a fact from statistics -
You seem to have got confused here; "probability of a point in a
continuous distribution is zero" (which is true) doesn't seem to square
with the discrete Planck length (which is also true). This is a case
where two rights maybe make a wrong.
> and, despite not really
> having anything to say at all but "that's not a standard way to make
the
> argument", I'm on the "hit list" so you've got to somehow invent an
> "attack"...basically, are you mentally diseased and what on Earth
justified
> my original inclusion on this strange "obsessed hit list" thing
you've got
> going?
I said that the _normal_ argument (not the misquote "that's not a
standard way to make the argument" which makes me sound like the
thought police) was to point out that the sum of this infinite series
has an exact answer. I was interested in your argument, and I wondered
where you got it from. I still think it's wrong. Your analysis of this
at a quantum level does not deal with the frames of reference of the
observer, of the arrow and of the tortoise. Different observers will
not agree about which part of a spacetime displacement (motion of the
arrow or the tortoise or the observer relative to each other) is
spacelike or timelike, and will come up with different answers.
>
> Well, it's a comfort, actually...everyone and their donkey seems
obsessed -
> derangely so - with attacking my every post (while continuously
ignoring
> everyone else's, no matter how absurd the claim or argument)...even
when
> there isn't really anything significant to attack...
>
> I must be doing something right somewhere to gather this constant
"bully"
> treatment from a range of socially inept and highly insecure people
> throughout the newsgroup...you've moved too early, the gambit is
exposed,
> counter-measures are now in force...you've failed...and now we see
the
> wisdom: Here's my other cheek...feel free to strike it too...but you
won't
> get a rise out of me at all...you've failed in your mission...you
can't
> "infect" me with your problems by trying to throw them at me...now
they are
> yours alone...
>
> Beth :)
Oh please, stop acting the paranoid poster.
-- Regards Alex McDonald
- Next message: Evenbit: "Re: test"
- Previous message: Herbert Kleebauer: "Re: this is the time to pray"
- In reply to: Beth: "Re: this is the time to pray"
- Next in thread: Evenbit: "Re: this is the time to pray"
- Reply: Evenbit: "Re: this is the time to pray"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
