Posted: Mar 14, 2016 7:02 pm
MrIntelligentDesign wrote:When Einstein had shared his GR or his Special GR, no one had understood him except Max Planck..Calilasseia wrote:MrIntelligentDesign wrote:Calilasseia wrote:MrIntelligentDesign wrote:But I hope that you could reset your intellectual and scientific mind and do what I've done when I discovered the real intelligence.
And how many lifetimes are we going to have to wait for that to happen? Only your crap about paperclips is horseshit.
Oh, and I'll remind everyone here that you failed the same test every other creationist has failed here, namely telling the difference between a rock shaped by natural erosion, and a rock shaped by a prehistoric human as a tool. Though many here will be thinking of the word "tool" in other contexts after reading your output.
I think that when Einstein shares his idea on you today about his new discoveries, you will surely mock him and laugh at him...
Einstein died in 1955. Therefore it's unlikely he'll be sharing anything with us other than his decomposing remains.
As for your pretensions to be another Einstein, I'll refer you to Carl Sagan, who said this:
Carl Sagan wrote:The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
I'll give you three guesses as to which of these individuals you're closer to.
MrIntelligentDesign wrote:OK, maybe my intellectual mind is too high for you to reach.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
Oh please, you're giving me a hernia with all the laughing I'm doing at the spectacle of your lame pretensions. If you think that trying to redefine "intelligence" as taking a ton of paperclips into an office when requested to bring one, is the sign of an "intellectual mind", then my tropical fish are light years ahead of you.
MrIntelligentDesign wrote:I will lower down [sic].
For you to descend discoursively lower than you already have, would constitute a truly special achievement.
MrIntelligentDesign wrote:I will make a simple approach based on your own strengths..
Oh this is going to be good ... looks like I'll need the hernia protection again ...
Oh wait, every peer reviewed scientific paper in existence provides evidence for testable natural processes. Or was this another piece of DATA you were unaware of?
MrIntelligentDesign wrote:If yes, can you put it in a math or in simple formula or anything that is based on math?
Surely it suffices to demonstrate that the requisite entities and phenomena exist? Which those papers do superbly. What part of the words "observational data" do you not understand? Which is how science demonstrates that the requisite entities and phenomena exist.
In case you slept through the requisite classes, mathematics is used to analyse the behaviour of those entities and phenomena, to demonstrate that the requisite relationships postulated to hold do indeed hold. Mathematics isn't used to demonstrate the existence of those entities and phenomena, it's used to demonstrate that specific relationships between those entities hold, and that those relationships describe the behaviour of the requisite phenomena.
That you clearly don't understand this elementary concept, on its own invalidates your turgid drivel. I think we've reached "Game Over" at this stage, even before we look at the rest of your nonsense.
MrIntelligentDesign wrote:You are always quoting Probability or I called it Natural Probability, P (since I discovered the Intelligent Probability, iProb)..
No, you merely blindly asserted that your misunderstanding of actual probability constituted some fantastic new insight. Which it doesn't. Your misunderstanding of actual probability, and how probability actually works, is nothing more than a display of your inability to master elementary concepts.
MrIntelligentDesign wrote:Then, tell me..for us to agree..do you think that Natural Probability, P which has a limit of one (1) is a natural phenomenon or not?
And once again, you demonstrate that you don''t know what you're talking about. Because, as any elementary probability textbook will tell you, an event with a probability of 1 is an event that will almost surely happen. That phrase has a particular meaning in the world of probability mathematics, courtesy of the fact that for a finite set of events, the set of events that will never occur is always an empty set, but the same is not true for infinite sets of events. The classic example consists of throwing a dart randomly at a square board covering the entire rear wall of a room. The probability that the dart will land on the square is 1. But, we can assign probabilities to other events, such as whether or not the dart lands in the upper half of the square or not. The probability of this is ½, because the probability of the dart landing in any given region of the square, is equal to the area of that region divided by the area of the whole square. However, this yields an interesting result when we ask the question, "what is the probability of the dart landing exactly on the diagonal bisector of the square?" Because that diagonal bisector is a line of points, and each point in that line has zero extension in space, the area of the diagonal is zero. Consequently, the probability of the dart landing exactly on that diagonal is zero, even though the diagonal is a non-empty set. It is theoretically possible for the dart to land on that diagonal, but even though the diagonal is a non-empty set, the fact that it has area zero means that the probability of the dart landing on the diagonal is zero. This subtle feature of probability arises because we are dealing with a set of points where the dart could land, and any set of points, even a bounded set of points, is necessarily infinite (and worse still, is uncountably infinite).
If on the other hand, we divide the large square into an N×N grid of smaller squares, and restrict our probability calculations to those squares as the finest unit of granularity, we are now working with a finite set, and the set of smaller squares that will never be landed upon is empty. Which means that the naive association of a probability of zero with impossible events is precisely that - naive. If the set of possible outcomes is finite, then the set of outcomes that are impossible is an empty set in every such case, whereas this is not true for infinite sets, and certainly not true for uncountably infinite sets, which have rules of their own applicable thereto that are different from the rules applicable to countably infinite sets.
Now the fun part is, all of this applies regardless of the nature of the event. This applies whether the event involves testable natural processes, or magic. Probability cannot be used to distinguish between these classes of event: it can only distinguish between events that are stochastic in nature, versus events that are determined by a well-defined process. In the latter case, of a well-defined process that determines outcomes, we have a probability space in which all outcomes will fall within a well-defined region, and for which a functional mapping between the points of that region, and the parameters of the process, exists. At this point, we start to get into the intricacies of such entities as sigma-algebras, and frankly, you're a long way from being able to understand those.
In short, your attempt to use "probability" as a test for whether a process is a testable natural process fails, because that isn't what probability sets out to do. It simply sets out to measure ratios between outcomes and possibilities.
So again, it's "Game Over".
MrIntelligentDesign wrote:Let us agree on something so that your intellectual mind will be opened...
Read the above and weep. I paid attention in class, and as a corollary, learned elementary facts that you manifestly didn't.