What is the evidence for “purposeful intervention”?

FMM: Purposeful intervention is pretty much the opposite of random mutation.

FMM notes in the same comment:

 If there in nothing about an idea that distinguishes it from it’s alternative it seems to be superfluous.

So the idea is “non designed mutations” and the alternative is “purposeful intervention”.

Give that, and given FMM has not discarded the idea of purposeful intervention there must be something that distinguishes it from non designed mutations.

What is that distinguishing factor? What is the actual evidence for “purposeful intervention” regarding mutations?

And, more broadly, what is the evidence for “purposeful intervention” in any area of biology? Apart from, of course, wishful thinking.

603 thoughts on “What is the evidence for “purposeful intervention”?

  1. PopoHummel:

    Imho he’s trying to say that a pattern is “intentional”, if it DIDN’T originate from a random source or an algorithm.

    He doesn’t know how it originated. He’s trying to infer that from the pattern itself.

    As he says:

    My hypothesis is that people are hardwired to infer intent when presented with patterns that are non-random and non-algorithmic. It’s been my experience that I tend to infer intent when presented with patterns like that.

    He’s claiming that “non-random and non-algorithmic” are properties of the patterns themselves, but that’s obviously wrong, since every pattern can be produced randomly and algorithmically.

  2. Even worse, those hard wired humans will tend to see patterns in even the most nearly random data.

  3. PopoHummel: But people have no clue whether a pattern is non-algorithmic.

    We have no clue whether we are a brain in a vat or whether any other minds exists at all. That does not prevent us from inferring that other minds and the outside world exist.

    People can know that the best algorithm we have is not able to produce the pattern in question.

    This is not logical proof that the pattern is non-algorithmic but it is evidence that any algorithm that could account for it is at least more obscure than the best algorithm we can conceive of to produce it.

    I believe humans are hardwired to infer intent when presented with nonrandom patterns like that.

    PopoHummel: Aha, the less algorithms you are aware of the more design you see. And you don’t know of any non-algorithmic source that can explain the pattern.

    Yes That is how I think it works.

    Small children infer intent in almost all nonrandom patterns. As we get older and learn more algorithms we don’t infer direct intent as often,

    PopoHummel: So what use is the non-algorithmic property in “design”?

    It’s very useful for us to infer intent when there is no plausible algorithmic origin for a phenomena. It helps to locate wildlife in the bushes for instance.

    If tendency wasn’t useful it would never have been hardwired into us.

    PopoHummel: Hm… Are you defining non-algorithmic as “I can’t think of any algorithm” ?

    No I’m defining tentatively non-algorithmic as I don’t think it’s plausible that an algorithm produced it.

    peace

  4. OMagain: Now, if so,given that particular AI’s output are simply chess moves are you interested in that AI’s output?

    unquestionably. Yes I’m especially interested in programs that do specific tasks like chess moves.

    That is exactly what I want to look at.

    I think that even the best of these AI programs stick out like sore thumbs when compared what persons put out.

    check it out

    https://www.quora.com/Why-is-playing-chess-against-a-person-and-computer-different

    and
    http://www.evolvingai.org/fooling

    That doesn’t mean that AIs are worse at things like playing chess or image recognition than humans are it only means they are Algorithmic and we are not.

    peace

  5. PopoHummel: 2. Every pattern is random, in that it can be produced by a random source (as long as the distribution doesn’t prohibit it).

    3. Every pattern can be produced by an algorithm.

    4. Therefore, no patterns qualify as “nonrandom non-algorithmic.”

    NO again that is incorrect.

    Just because it is logically possible that any pattern is “random or algorithmic” does not mean that it plausible that every pattern is in fact “random or algorithmic”.

    There is no way to rule out the possibility that what you think are fellow human beings are in fact just philosophical zombies.

    That does not mean that we can’t be justified in inferring that other people exist.

    You could not function in the world if you were consistent in applying the sort of hyper-skepticism you are advocating here.

    peace

  6. petrushka: Even worse, those hard wired humans will tend to see patterns in even the most nearly random data.

    Humans are scary good at seeing patterns. What I find interesting is that we can possibly even distinguish between “most nearly random” and actually random.

    peace

  7. fifth, to PopoHummel:

    People can know that the best algorithm we have is not able to produce the pattern in question.

    No. For any specific pattern, it is trivial to come up with an algorithm that will produce that pattern.

    This is not logical proof that the pattern is non-algorithmic but it is evidence that any algorithm that could account for it is at least more obscure than the best algorithm we can conceive of to produce it.

    That’s an amusing attempt at a goalpost shift. You’re trying to shift from

    “the pattern is non-algorithmic”

    …to…

    “the pattern is algorithmic, but it’s produced by an algorithm that is more obscure than the best algorithm we can conceive of to produce it”.

    But the latter doesn’t even make sense. If we can come up with a “best” algorithm to produce the pattern, who cares if there’s also a “more obscure” pattern that also produces it? We’ve already got a “better” one.

    If you’re finally going to abandon the “non-algorithmic” criterion — and that’s long overdue — then you’ll need to replace it with something that actually makes sense.

  8. You also need to abandon the “non-random” criterion, because as I keep explaining to you, any pattern that isn’t forbidden by the distribution can be produced by a random source.

  9. If you are interested in the differences between Chess AIs and human players I recommend this movie.

    https://www.netflix.com/title/80118004

    it’s not explicitly about the topic but it is an undercurrent theme.

    then there is this

    quote:

    Murray Campbell of IBM was part of the Deep Blue project. As he says, chess computers do play differently. They make moves that sometimes make no sense to their human opponents.

    and

    “Computers don’t have any sense of aesthetics or patterns that are standard the way people learn how to play chess,” Campbell says. “They play what they think is the objectively best move in any position, even if it looks absurd, and they can play any move no matter how ugly it is.”

    and

    “And if you see a game in which one of the players is doing a lot of retreating mysteriously and so on, and the game goes on forever and ever, that’s a computer,” he says.

    end quote:

    from here

    https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/10/24/499162905/20-years-later-humans-still-no-match-for-computers-on-the-chessboard
    peace

  10. keiths:

    No, it’s correct, and the logic is obvious and straightforward:

    1. You say

    I seek to define intentional as nonrandom non-algorithmic.

    2. Every pattern is random, in that it can be produced by a random source (as long as the distribution doesn’t prohibit it).

    3. Every pattern can be produced by an algorithm.

    4. Therefore, no patterns qualify as “nonrandom non-algorithmic.”

    5. Therefore, if you actually followed your own criteria, you would never infer intent.

    Your criteria are badly broken. Why won’t you fix them, as an intelligent person would?

    fifth:

    NO again that is incorrect.

    Just because it is logically possible that any pattern is “random or algorithmic” does not mean that it plausible that every pattern is in fact “random or algorithmic”.

    It isn’t just “logically possible” that every specific pattern is both random and algorithmic. It’s known.

    Read it again:

    2. Every pattern is random, in that it can be produced by a random source (as long as the distribution doesn’t prohibit it).

    3. Every pattern can be produced by an algorithm.

    Your criteria are completely broken. If you actually followed them, you would never infer intent.

  11. fifth:

    NO again that is incorrect.

    You’re doing it again. You’re attributing quotes to me that aren’t mine. Is everything ok with your brain?

  12. keiths wrote:

    ——————

    fifth:

    NO again that is incorrect.

    Just because it is logically possible that any pattern is “random or algorithmic” does not mean that it plausible that every pattern is in fact “random or algorithmic”.

    It isn’t just “logically possible” that every specific pattern is both random and algorithmic. It’s known.

    Read it again:

    2. Every pattern is random, in that it can be produced by a random source (as long as the distribution doesn’t prohibit it).

    3. Every pattern can be produced by an algorithm.

    Your criteria are completely broken. If you actually followed them, you would never infer intent.

  13. keiths wrote:

    ——————

    fifth, to PopoHummel:

    People can know that the best algorithm we have is not able to produce the pattern in question.

    No. For any specific pattern, it is trivial to come up with an algorithm that will produce that pattern.

    This is not logical proof that the pattern is non-algorithmic but it is evidence that any algorithm that could account for it is at least more obscure than the best algorithm we can conceive of to produce it.

    That’s an amusing attempt at a goalpost shift. You’re trying to shift from

    “the pattern is non-algorithmic”

    …to…

    “the pattern is algorithmic, but it’s produced by an algorithm that is more obscure than the best algorithm we can conceive of to produce it”.

    But the latter doesn’t even make sense. If we can come up with a “best” algorithm to produce the pattern, who cares if there’s also a “more obscure” pattern that also produces it? We’ve already got a “better” one.

    If you’re finally going to abandon the “non-algorithmic” criterion — and that’s long overdue — then you’ll need to replace it with something that actually makes sense.

  14. fifth:

    This is not logical proof that the pattern is non-algorithmic but it is evidence that any algorithm that could account for it is at least more obscure than the best algorithm we can conceive of to produce it.

    If you can conceive of an algorithm that can produce the pattern, then why do you think that the pattern is non-algorithmic? Because the algorithm you can conceive of is not “plausible” to you?

  15. fifth (attn keiths):

    No I’m defining tentatively non-algorithmic as I don’t think it’s plausible that an algorithm produced it.

    Just to be sure I understand you:

    Non-algorithmic DOESN’T mean there aren’t any algorithms that can produce the pattern (or a random source),
    but that the pattern WASN’t produced by any PLAUSIBLE algorithmic source. Right?

  16. PopoHummel: Non-algorithmic DOESN’T mean there aren’t any algorithms that can produce the pattern (or a random source),
    but that the pattern WASN’t produced by any PLAUSIBLE algorithmic source. Right?

    There are some patterns that can’t even in principle be produced by an algorithm Pi or Euler’s Number for example.

    So when I say a number is Non-algorithmic I’m saying it either is a number like that or I think it’s very likely that it is.

    The mathematical term is transcendental

    Do you understand?

  17. fifth, to PopoHummel:

    There are some patterns that can’t even in principle be produced by an algorithm Pi or Euler’s Number for example.

    So when I say a number is Non-algorithmic I’m saying it either is a number like that or I think it’s very likely that it is.

    The mathematical term is transcendental

    Do you understand?

    And with that, you’ve just torpedoed your entire thesis on how humans infer intent.

    See if you can figure out why. I’ll elaborate later.

  18. fifthmonarchyman: There are some patterns that can’t even in principle be produced by an algorithm Pi or Euler’s Number for example.

    So when I say a number is Non-algorithmic I’m saying it either is a number like that or I think it’s very likely that it is.

    The mathematical term is transcendental

    Do you understand?

    Do you understand that Pi and Euler’s number are not patterns produced according to intent?*

    Glen Davidson

    *And skip any nonsense about the intent to discover their approximations, which is no more relevant to your claims than plate tectonics is to the patterns of volcanoes.

  19. keiths wrote:

    ———————-

    fifth, to PopoHummel:

    There are some patterns that can’t even in principle be produced by an algorithm Pi or Euler’s Number for example.

    So when I say a number is Non-algorithmic I’m saying it either is a number like that or I think it’s very likely that it is.

    The mathematical term is transcendental

    Do you understand?

    And with that, you’ve just torpedoed your entire thesis on how humans infer intent.

    See if you can figure out why. I’ll elaborate later.

  20. fifthmonarchyman: There are some patterns that can’t even in principle be produced by an algorithm Pi or Euler’s Number for example.

    Show me the pattern for pi or e, then we can try to make up an algorithm that produces the pattern.

    And am I getting this right? You’re saying we tend to infer intent when we see a pattern for pi, but we don’t tend to infer intent when we see a pattern for G ??? This sounds weird.

  21. I’m still curious:

    fifth:

    This is not logical proof that the pattern is non-algorithmic but it is evidence that any algorithm that could account for it is at least more obscure than the best algorithm we can conceive of to produce it.

    If you can conceive of an algorithm that can produce the pattern, then why do you think that the pattern is non-algorithmic? Because the algorithm you can conceive of is not “plausible” to you?

  22. PopoHummel,

    The simple answer is that fifth is tripping over himself.

    He’s trying to use “non-algorithmic” to refer to algorithmic patterns, and he’s struggling (and failing) to come up with a rational justification for doing so.

  23. fifth, to PopoHummel:

    There are some patterns that can’t even in principle be produced by an algorithm Pi or Euler’s Number for example.

    So when I say a number is Non-algorithmic I’m saying it either is a number like that or I think it’s very likely that it is.

    The mathematical term is transcendental

    Do you understand?

    keiths:

    And with that, you’ve just torpedoed your entire thesis on how humans infer intent.

    See if you can figure out why. I’ll elaborate later.

    Not only has fifth torpedoed his thesis, he’s done so from at least four directions.

    1. He’s referring to the decimal expansions of pi and e, which can be produced by algorithms. The idea that they are non-algorithmic is completely bogus.

    2. The values of pi and e are not determined by intent. We discover them.

    3. In a previous attempt at goalpost shifting, fifth tried the following:

    fifth:

    π is a good example, there is no way to produce it comprehensively in the physical universe with an algorithm. The best we can do is approximate it

    keiths:

    Another goalpost shift. You started out talking about nonalgorithmic patterns. Now you’re talking about algorithmic patterns, but adding a requirement that they “produce the pattern comprehensively in the physical universe”.

    But if you’re going to shift the goalposts for the algorithm, you need to shift them for the human. Can the human produce the digits of pi, comprehensively, “in the physical universe”? No, of course not.

    Your criterion fails to distinguish a human from the algorithm.

    4. Fifth made the following dumb statement:

    So when I say a number is Non-algorithmic I’m saying it either is a number like that [pi or e] or I think it’s very likely that it is.

    The mathematical term is transcendental

    He’s already told us that finite approximations of transcendental numbers don’t qualify. Therefore, he has inadvertently ruled out all finite patterns! None of them qualify, according to this goalpost-shifted version of “non-algorithmic”. Oops.

    The whole thing is a trainwreck, and he just paints himself further into the corner with every goalpost shift.

    And of course Jesus won’t lend fifth a hand, or reveal what he needs to know.

  24. GlenDavidson: Do you understand that Pi and Euler’s number are not patterns produced according to intent?*

    No, I think they are intentional patterns. Remember I think everything is intentional.

    How would you ever demonstrate that they weren’t intentional?

    peace

  25. PopoHummel: Show me the pattern for pi or e, then we can try to make up an algorithm that produces the pattern.

    You “see” the pattern for pi everytime you contemplate a circle. You see the pattern for e every time you contemplate the standard normal distribution.

    You will never make up an algorithm that produces those patterns comprehensively all you will ever be able to do is approximate them.

    PopoHummel: You’re saying we tend to infer intent when we see a pattern for pi, but we don’t tend to infer intent when we see a pattern for G ??? This sounds weird.

    yep.

    We don’t generally infer intention when we see an apple fall to the earth but we would if we found a perfect circle.

    PopoHummel: If you can conceive of an algorithm that can produce the pattern, then why do you think that the pattern is non-algorithmic? Because the algorithm you can conceive of is not “plausible” to you?

    That would be the long and short of it.

    I’m not saying that would I infer intent if I could conceive of an algorithm that could possibly produce a pattern I was evaluating.

    I’m only saying that bare logical possibility is not plausibility. Most folks have no problem distinguishing those two concepts.

    peace

  26. GlenDavidson: How would you illegitimately burden-shift?

    It’s not a burden shift you claimed that Pi and Euler’s number are not patterns produced according to intent.

    I asked for evidence to support that claim.

    I will be waiting

    peace

  27. fifthmonarchyman: It’s not a burden shift you claimed that Pi and Euler’s number are not patterns produced according to intent.

    I asked for evidence to support that claim.

    I will be waiting

    peace

    Oh shut up, you disingenuous buffoon.

    Under normal and decent epistemology any honest person would admit that they are not produced by intent, due to the fact that they’re really not patterns by any honest (vs. your version) judgment.

    The burden shift comes when people like you who make entirely baseless claims of “intent” that aren’t visible or discernable in any honest way demand that we show within your mendacious system that Pi wasn’t produced by intent. You don’t get to make the rules that support your disingenuous burden shift, you endlessly equivocating being.

    So either begin to deal with words as they’re written in context, or learn to shut up with whatever small amount of decency you can muster. Your equivocations are disgusting, no matter than they’re part and parcel of your appalling belief system.

    Glen Davidson

  28. GlenDavidson: Under normal and decent epistemology any honest person would admit that they are not produced by intent

    Are you calling me and every one who believes like me a liar? Isn’t that against the rules?

    GlenDavidson: The burden shift comes when people like you who make entirely baseless claims of “intent” that aren’t visible or discernable

    I never claimed that Pi and e were intentional. I said they seemed intentional to me.

    Do you see the difference??

    GlenDavidson: So either begin to deal with words as they’re written in context

    here is what you said in context

    quote:
    Do you understand that Pi and Euler’s number are not patterns produced according to intent?*

    end quote

    you then added this footnote
    quote:
    *And skip any nonsense about the intent to discover their approximations, which is no more relevant to your claims than plate tectonics is to the patterns of volcanoes.
    end quote:

    Sure sounds like you are making a claim to me!!!

    You clearly said Pi and Euler’s number are not patterns produced according to intent.

    Are you now denying that is what you said???

    peace

  29. fifthmonarchyman: Are you calling me and every one who believes like me a liar?

    What I’m saying is that you hardly know what truth is.

    I never claimed that Pi and e were intentional. I said they seemed intentional to me.

    Do you see the difference??

    No, I don’t care about your weaseling.

    here is what you said in context

    quote:
    Do you understand that Pi and Euler’s number are not patterns produced according to intent?*

    end quote

    you then added this footnote
    quote:
    *And skip any nonsense about the intent to discover their approximations, which is no more relevant to your claims than plate tectonics is to the patterns of volcanoes.
    end quote:

    Sure sounds like you are making a claim to me!!!

    Yes, are trying to sound viciously stupid? Yes, I made a claim, but not one in your hideously ignorant anti-intellectual world. I made a claim of the sort that naturally recognizes that the idiot claiming that Pi is intentional, or seems intentional, has the burden of proof, while you treat the matter equivocally in order to try to shift the burden of proof.

    The important fact is that I don’t subscribe to your ignorant worldview, and you have no right to pretend that I do.

    You clearly said Pi and Euler’s number are not patterns produced according to intent.

    Are you now denying that is what you said???

    No, you ignorant buffoon, I clearly did not. I explained that I don’t accept your mindless presuppositional world, rather that I was speaking to conclusions based on a reasonable epistemology that has nothing to do with your pathetic beliefs and equivocations.

    And you didn’t understand at all. That’s the problem, you don’t even get what’s problematic with your mindless presuppositions. Why can’t you even begin to see your colossal failure even to register what subject is being discussed by those who know hugely more than you do?

    peace

    If you could ever get to understanding, there might be peace, rather than your empty BS, like “peace.”

    Glen Davidson

  30. fifth, to PopoHummel:

    You “see” the pattern for pi everytime you contemplate a circle.

    No, you don’t. Remember, the pattern in question is the decimal expansion of pi.

    If we could see the pattern every time we contemplate a circle, then any of us could sit down and write digit after digit of the expansion on paper, without doing any calculations. Clearly, we can’t do that.

    It’s obvious, fifth, yet you didn’t see it. This stuff is way too hard for you.

  31. PopoHummel:

    If you can conceive of an algorithm that can produce the pattern, then why do you think that the pattern is non-algorithmic? Because the algorithm you can conceive of is not “plausible” to you?

    fifth:

    That would be the long and short of it.

    I’m not saying that would I infer intent if I could conceive of an algorithm that could possibly produce a pattern I was evaluating.

    I’m only saying that bare logical possibility is not plausibility. Most folks have no problem distinguishing those two concepts.

    All of the patterns you evaluate are finite, and all of them can be produced by algorithms. Therefore, if you were faithfully honoring your criterion, you would never infer intent. Your “non-algorithmic” criterion is totally broken, and so is your “non-random” one.

    I am now explaining this to you for the umpteenth time, yet instead of correcting your criteria, you cling to them. You’re a believer, not a thinker.

  32. fifth:

    You “see” the pattern for pi everytime you contemplate a circle. You see the pattern for e every time you contemplate the standard normal distribution.

    You will never make up an algorithm that produces those patterns comprehensively all you will ever be able to do is approximate them.

    What I “see” is a numerical approximation: 3.14 — that’s the only digits I remember.

    So again: Show me the pattern for pi or e, which you have a in mind, then we can try to make up an algorithm that produces the pattern.

    yep.

    We don’t generally infer intention when we see an apple fall to the earth but we would if we found a perfect circle.

    I’ve seen an apple fall to the earth. But how would you differentiate a perfect circle from a non-perfect circle?

  33. Since fifth has put keiths on his ignore list, I’m reposting some of keiths’ posts, so that fifth can see them.

    keiths wrote:

    ——————————

    fifth, to PopoHummel:

    There are some patterns that can’t even in principle be produced by an algorithm Pi or Euler’s Number for example.

    So when I say a number is Non-algorithmic I’m saying it either is a number like that or I think it’s very likely that it is.

    The mathematical term is transcendental

    Do you understand?

    keiths:

    And with that, you’ve just torpedoed your entire thesis on how humans infer intent.

    See if you can figure out why. I’ll elaborate later.

    Not only has fifth torpedoed his thesis, he’s done so from at least four directions.

    1. He’s referring to the decimal expansions of pi and e, which can be produced by algorithms. The idea that they are non-algorithmic is completely bogus.

    2. The values of pi and e are not determined by intent. We discover them.

    3. In a previous attempt at goalpost shifting, fifth tried the following:

    fifth:

    π is a good example, there is no way to produce it comprehensively in the physical universe with an algorithm. The best we can do is approximate it

    keiths:

    Another goalpost shift. You started out talking about nonalgorithmic patterns. Now you’re talking about algorithmic patterns, but adding a requirement that they “produce the pattern comprehensively in the physical universe”.

    But if you’re going to shift the goalposts for the algorithm, you need to shift them for the human. Can the human produce the digits of pi, comprehensively, “in the physical universe”? No, of course not.

    Your criterion fails to distinguish a human from the algorithm.

    4. Fifth made the following dumb statement:

    So when I say a number is Non-algorithmic I’m saying it either is a number like that [pi or e] or I think it’s very likely that it is.

    The mathematical term is transcendental

    He’s already told us that finite approximations of transcendental numbers don’t qualify. Therefore, he has inadvertently ruled out all finite patterns! None of them qualify, according to this goalpost-shifted version of “non-algorithmic”. Oops.

    The whole thing is a trainwreck, and he just paints himself further into the corner with every goalpost shift.

    And of course Jesus won’t lend fifth a hand, or reveal what he needs to know.

  34. fifth:

    You “see” the pattern for pi everytime you contemplate a circle.

    keiths:

    No, you don’t. Remember, the pattern in question is the decimal expansion of pi.

    If we could see the pattern every time we contemplate a circle, then any of us could sit down and write digit after digit of the expansion on paper, without doing any calculations. Clearly, we can’t do that.

    It’s obvious, fifth, yet you didn’t see it. This stuff is way too hard for you.

  35. PopoHummel: No, you don’t. Remember, the pattern in question is the decimal expansion of pi.

    No, the pattern you see is Pi all of it not an approximation of Pi but Pi.

    PopoHummel: If we could see the pattern every time we contemplate a circle, then any of us could sit down and write digit after digit of the expansion on paper, without doing any calculations. Clearly, we can’t do that.

    When we do the calculations and write down individual digits we are simply making explicit what we already know.

    I know that pi is the the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter. Just as I know that 1/2 is the ratio of 1 to 2. I don’t need to do any calculations at all but I can if I want to make what I know explicit for some reason.

    PopoHummel: It’s obvious, fifth, yet you didn’t see it. This stuff is way too hard for you.

    It’s not hard at all the math works like this

    (4/1) – (4/3) + (4/5) – (4/7) + (4/9) – (4/11) + (4/13) – (4/15) …

    Keep going till you have all the digits you need for a given task.

    peace

  36. PopoHummel: I’ve seen an apple fall to the earth. But how would you differentiate a perfect circle from a non-perfect circle?

    compare one to the other the one with deviations from pi is not perfect.

    PopoHummel: What I “see” is a numerical approximation: 3.14 — that’s the only digits I remember.

    That’s because you are looking at an approximation produced by an algorithm and not pi.

    peace

  37. PopoHummel: Therefore, he has inadvertently ruled out all finite patterns! None of them qualify

    That is exactly correct and it’s not inadvertent it’s intentional. 😉

    I hold that persons are potentially immortal therefore the patterns we produce can in principle go on forever unlike anything in our universe.

    It’s a philosophical position and it has little to do with my idea but it’s what I believe.

    peace

  38. fifthmonarchyman: If Pi is not a pattern why do we try our best to imitate it when we make approximations of the perfect circle?

    Because you’re not supposed to be equivocating like you do there. “Pattern detection” does not refer to patterns used to make things (if you’re dumb enough to think that an ideal is actually a pattern), except perhaps in your bolloxed world.

    You seem to lack the most basic distinctions that normal people use.

    Glen Davidson

  39. fifthmonarchyman: It’s not hard at all the math works like this

    Funny you should say that:

    The Babylonians estimated pi to be about 25/8 (3.125), while the Egyptians estimated it to be about 256/81 (roughly 3.16). The Ancient Greek mathematician Archimedes of Syracuse (287-212 BC) is largely considered to be the first to calculate an accurate estimation of the value of pi.

    https://www.pcworld.com/article/191389/a-brief-history-of-pi.html

    Care to remind us all what the bibble says about pi?

    Then he made the sea of cast metal. It was round, ten cubits from brim to brim, and five cubits high, and a line of thirty cubits measured its circumference.

    And sure, I’ve read the 100’s of words the apologists spew to show why that’s not to be taken at face value (no surprise there).
    https://answersingenesis.org/contradictions-in-the-bible/as-easy-as-pi/

    In conclusion, the accusation that the Bible has made a mathematical mistake is totally without merit. The biblical answer is spot on, given the information presented and the precision of the numbers in question.

    What say you FMM? Was the biblical answer spot on, given it’s not hard at all to get a much better answer as you yourself show?

  40. GlenDavidson: “Pattern detection” does not refer to patterns used to make things

    I’m not doing “pattern detection”.

    I’m trying to make our innate tendency to infer intention when we observe certain patterns more systematic.

    GlenDavidson: You seem to lack the most basic distinctions that normal people use.

    I don’t think so. I think you just assume that people think like you and we don’t. I also think you project your presumptions about the world onto other folks.

    That is why it’s important to define our terms and take our time and clarity what we mean.

    peace

  41. OMagain: Care to remind us all what the bibble says about pi?

    The Bible does not directly talk about Pi or G or E or I.
    It’s not a textbook after all.

    OMagain: What say you FMM? Was the biblical answer spot on, given it’s not hard at all to get a much better answer as you yourself show?

    The Bible was not recording the sequence of Pi exactly because such a thing is impossible it’s an approximation. That is exactly the point I’m arguing.

    Why are you so obsessed with the Bible and what does it have to do with what we are discussing ?

    peace

  42. fifthmonarchyman:

    GlenDavidson: You seem to lack the most basic distinctions that normal people use.

    I don’t think so. I think you just assume that people think like you and we don’t.

    Why do you write such parrot-like nonsense? Clearly I don’t assume that you think like I do, as you write like an ignorant fundamentalist who can’t distinguish between different meanings for different words. You have much to learn, but no desire to do so.

    I also think you project your presumptions about the world onto other folks.

    So you “think” really mindlessly. But I knew that already.

    That is why it’s important to define our terms and take our time and clarity what we mean.

    You need very basic education in understanding words in context. But that won’t happen, because your inability to understand nuance and difference is part of the ignorant worldview that you hold dear.

    Glen Davidson

  43. fifth:

    You “see” the pattern for pi everytime you contemplate a circle.

    keiths:

    No, you don’t. Remember, the pattern in question is the decimal expansion of pi.

    If we could see the pattern every time we contemplate a circle, then any of us could sit down and write digit after digit of the expansion on paper, without doing any calculations. Clearly, we can’t do that.

    fifth:

    When we do the calculations and write down individual digits we are simply making explicit what we already know.

    No. If we knew all the digits, we wouldn’t have to calculate them. This is obvious.

    fifth:

    I know that pi is the the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter. Just as I know that 1/2 is the ratio of 1 to 2. I don’t need to do any calculations at all but I can if I want to make what I know explicit for some reason.

    Knowing that pi = C/D is not the same as knowing all of the digits in the infinite decimal expansion of pi. Again, this is obvious.

    Your desperation has now reached the point where you are trying to redefine “knowing” as “not knowing”.

    keiths:

    It’s obvious, fifth, yet you didn’t see it. This stuff is way too hard for you.

    fifth:

    It’s not hard at all the math works like this

    (4/1) – (4/3) + (4/5) – (4/7) + (4/9) – (4/11) + (4/13) – (4/15) …

    Keep going till you have all the digits you need for a given task.

    You’ve told us that the approximation doesn’t count, and that only the infinite expansion does. Oops.

    You’re way out of your depth, fifth.

  44. keiths:

    He’s [fifth has] already told us that finite approximations of transcendental numbers don’t qualify. Therefore, he has inadvertently ruled out all finite patterns! None of them qualify, according to this goalpost-shifted version of “non-algorithmic”. Oops.

    fifth:

    That is exactly correct and it’s not inadvertent it’s intentional. 😉

    It’s obviously unintentional, because it blows your thesis out of the water.

    fifth:

    I hold that persons are potentially immortal therefore the patterns we produce can in principle go on forever unlike anything in our universe.

    Even if that were true, it wouldn’t help you. You thesis is about how people infer intent in this life from finite patterns in a finite universe.

    You’ve scuttled your own criterion.

    Excellent work.

  45. fifth:

    I hold that persons are potentially immortal therefore the patterns we produce can in principle go on forever unlike anything in our universe.

    How can an immortal person produce an infinite pattern?

    Again: It would help if you could show us the pattern for Pi, so we can try to make up an algorithm.

    When we do the calculations and write down individual digits we are simply making explicit what we already know.

    What do you mean by “making explicit”? Calculating?

    I know that pi is the the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter. Just as I know that 1/2 is the ratio of 1 to 2. I don’t need to do any calculations at all but I can if I want to make what I know explicit for some reason.

    An algorithm can tell you that pi is the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter and then it can make it explicit to you so you have all the digits you need for a given task.

  46. Since fifth has put keiths on his ignore list, I’m reposting some of keiths’ posts, so that fifth can see them.

    keiths wrote:

    ——————————

    fifth:

    You “see” the pattern for pi everytime you contemplate a circle.

    keiths:

    No, you don’t. Remember, the pattern in question is the decimal expansion of pi.

    If we could see the pattern every time we contemplate a circle, then any of us could sit down and write digit after digit of the expansion on paper, without doing any calculations. Clearly, we can’t do that.

    fifth:

    When we do the calculations and write down individual digits we are simply making explicit what we already know.

    No. If we knew all the digits, we wouldn’t have to calculate them. This is obvious.

    fifth:

    I know that pi is the the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter. Just as I know that 1/2 is the ratio of 1 to 2. I don’t need to do any calculations at all but I can if I want to make what I know explicit for some reason.

    Knowing that pi = C/D is not the same as knowing all of the digits in the infinite decimal expansion of pi. Again, this is obvious.

    Your desperation has now reached the point where you are trying to redefine “knowing” as “not knowing”.

    fifth:

    It’s not hard at all the math works like this

    (4/1) – (4/3) + (4/5) – (4/7) + (4/9) – (4/11) + (4/13) – (4/15) …

    Keep going till you have all the digits you need for a given task.

    You’ve told us that the approximation doesn’t count, and that only the infinite expansion does. Oops.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.