blue triangle wrote:I think many of you act stupid, hiding behind a veneer of rationalism that is really a kind of sneering contempt for life, like those teenagers at school who sneered at everything because they weren't part of the cool set. In truth everybody's cool. So relax, bro'.

blue triangle wrote:I took up AlanB's challenge to provide evidence that there is a non-physical mind interacting with the universe. That's my evidence.

Fenrir wrote:Wilson and Sarfatti?

Quoted as authorities?

O-kayyy then. Nuff said really.

UndercoverElephant wrote:There is no foundational dichotomy.

The whole system is a Whole System.





ETA: James Lovelock, Robert Anton Wilson.

Fallible wrote:BM.


Bookmark, not bowel movement.

Although...

blue triangle wrote:And I don't think you're stupid, although I think many of you act stupid, hiding behind a veneer of rationalism that is really a kind of sneering contempt for life, like those teenagers at school who sneered at everything because they weren't part of the cool set. In truth everybody's cool. So relax, bro'.

campermon wrote:

Fallible wrote:BM.


Bookmark, not bowel movement.

Although...

That's too much information...

blue triangle wrote:What I like about it is that they had to invoke a demon to provide the energy. Who'd have thought eh?

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

blue triangle wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

We could try to distract him into arguing whether or not 0.999... is 1.0 or not, but he might not be able to switch tracks very easily.

They are equal.

Do you know how to prove it, or will you just cite the result as 'historically attested'?

I didn't come here to talk maths with you, Cito di Pense. Instead of trying to distract me (and I wont be distracted this time, so give it up) why don't you show me how the appearance of pi and e in scripture could be explained in naturalistic terms. You made a lot of noise pal, so it's time to put up or shut up.

Why don't you stop shifting the burden of proof?

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

blue triangle wrote:

Onyx8 wrote:How do the errors cancel?

One is an underestimate by 0.0012%. The other is an overestimate by 0.0011%. If we sum these then our estimate of pi + e (pie if you like ) is underestimated by 0.0001%. The actual error of the summed numbers from the true sum is about 1 in 820000. That's one thin slice of pie.

Two large errors don't add up to one small error.
Fuck me, I suck at maths and even I know this.

blue triangle wrote:

Thommo wrote:

blue triangle wrote:

Thommo wrote:

It's not, but why let that bother you eh?

pi+e = 5.859874482; pi-approx+e-approx = 5.859867321

Difference = 0.00000716 or about 1 in 140,000

This further convoluted and arbitrary operation doesn't even generate a single extra correct digit.

No, this is wrong. Your pie sum is correct, 5.85986732 . . . but you did the maths wrong. The correct calculation for the errors is

1 - (pie (est)/pie (actual)), giving 0.00000122, or 1 in 820000. There are other ways of doing that calculation, but yours is wrong.
If you want it as a percentage error it's

100 - ((pie (estimate) x 100)/pie (actual), giving 0.000122%, which is what I said, except a little more accurate.

Not only is that not a sum (i.e. expressly different than what you wrote), but you "did the maths wrong" as well.

1 - (pie (est)/pie (actual))=0.0000121 or 1 in 82,360.

Not that the "way" is mine in the first place, you're wrong about that. You wrote "sum" so I calculated the sum. You're now doing a quotient and I've calculated that (not that there's the least reason to do either, I stress). Neither one gives 1 in 820,000.

Thommo, you are out by a factor of 10.

1 - (pie (est)/pie (actual)) = 1 - (5.859867321/5,859874482 = 1 - 0.999998778 = 0.000001222 = 1 in 818304

Please don't argue on this one. At least you're actually engaging though.

Shrunk wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

blue triangle wrote:

Onyx8 wrote:How do the errors cancel?

One is an underestimate by 0.0012%. The other is an overestimate by 0.0011%. If we sum these then our estimate of pi + e (pie if you like ) is underestimated by 0.0001%. The actual error of the summed numbers from the true sum is about 1 in 820000. That's one thin slice of pie.

Two large errors don't add up to one small error.
Fuck me, I suck at maths and even I know this.

And two large errors in opposite directions are not more accurate than having only one error.

Sendraks wrote:

blue triangle wrote:And I don't think you're stupid, although I think many of you act stupid, hiding behind a veneer of rationalism that is really a kind of sneering contempt for life, like those teenagers at school who sneered at everything because they weren't part of the cool set. In truth everybody's cool. So relax, bro'.

So not blindly accepting unevidenced assertions as fact, is now "sneering contempt for life" is it?

blue triangle wrote:

But perhaps more importantly it would be necessary for pi to actually appear in scripture before an explanation of that event is required.

The first four digits of pi and 5 digits of e are there.

No they aren't. I already pointed out what's there and what's not. Your own link makes it clear:

http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/Pi_File.htm

Code: Select all

90 200 1 5   400 1 6   40 10 40 300 5   400 1   40 10 5 30 1   1 200 2   400 10 300 1 200 2

and
http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenki ... uation.htm

Code: Select all

5 50   1 100 600 (fudged)   8 50   70   30 70 3 70 200   20 1 10   70 30 70 3 70 200   8 50   80 100 70 200   300 70 50   9 5 70 50   20 1 10   9 5 70 200   8 50   70   30 70 3 70 200

Thommo wrote:
How is it that you can be so selective in what you respond to whilst completely ignoring fundamental errors I wonder?

GrahamH wrote:

blue triangle wrote:I took up AlanB's challenge to provide evidence that there is a non-physical mind interacting with the universe. That's my evidence.

Even if your borrowed nonsense about Pi and e was evidence of a mind at work (and nobody is buying that one) there is nothing there, whatsoever, to show a "non-physical mind" or interaction of non-physical with physical. If seems your best shot at responding to AlanB's challenge is a non-starter that entirely misses the point.

You must then describe the precise nature of the interface: how it is implemented, what 'connections' are used and the translation 'mechanism' across the interface. Bearing in mind, of course, that one side of the interface must be entirely non-physical such that no physical measuring device can detect its presence and that the other side must exist solely in the physical universe.