Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. I assume that somebody considers that the article on graph theory addresses the only meaning of the word "undirected" that isn't
obvious - which is this technical term in mathematical
theory.
Random and non-random indeed are the same thing;
one when a thing is random, one when a thing isn't random.
Death is the cessation of life, and darkness is a lack of light. The one is explained in terms of the
other.
orig...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 2:02:14 PM UTC+1, backspace wrote:
> > Why doeshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undirectedor [[Undirected]] in
> > the opening paragraph of the ID article redirect to
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_(mathematics) instead of
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness? Undirected is the synonym
> > for [[Randomness]] and random is the semantic opposite of non-
> > random([[Design]]), which is a pattern with a [[Purpose]](http://
> > scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Purpose1).
> Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. I assume that somebody
> considers that the article on graph theory addresses
> the only meaning of the word "undirected" that isn't
> obvious - which is this technical term in mathematical
> theory.
> Random and non-random indeed are the same thing;
> one when a thing is random, one when a thing isn't random.
> Death is the cessation of life, and darkness is a
> lack of light. The one is explained in terms of the
> other.
Please provided references to dictionaries or thesauses suggesting
that "undirected" is the synonym for "randomness" and "random" is the
semantic opposite of "non-random." Note the you use definite articles
above - meaning, your claim isn't merely that "undirected" is /a/
synonym for "randomness", but is /the/ synonym. Please don't use your
trick of quoting only one of several definitions in a given dictionary
item.
On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 3:05:03 PM UTC+1, backspace wrote:
> On Apr 11, 2:57 pm, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
> orig...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 2:02:14 PM UTC+1, backspace wrote:
> > > Why doeshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undirectedor [[Undirected]] in
> > > the opening paragraph of the ID article redirect to
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_(mathematics) instead of
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness? Undirected is the synonym
> > > for [[Randomness]] and random is the semantic opposite of non-
> > > random([[Design]]), which is a pattern with a [[Purpose]](http://
> > > scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Purpose1).
> > Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. I assume that somebody
> > considers that the article on graph theory addresses
> > the only meaning of the word "undirected" that isn't
> > obvious - which is this technical term in mathematical
> > theory.
> > Random and non-random indeed are the same thing;
> > one when a thing is random, one when a thing isn't random.
> > Death is the cessation of life, and darkness is a
> > lack of light. The one is explained in terms of the
> > other.
> Explained as the same or as the contrast?
Obviously the contrast.
There won't be a separate Wikipedia article on
elephantlessness, the condition of being without elephants;
if it is considered worth mentioning at all, it will be included in the article on "Elephant". For instance,
if your method of e.g. farming depends on elephants as
powerful work animals, a lack or a shortage of elephants is a serious problem for you.
"Randomness" is rather more like "darkness", in that usually it describes something missing, namely intention.
But in practice it is often the deliberate withholding of intention: something human-made usually is designed,
but may be not designed. On the other hand, probably there are more different ways for a thing to be non-random
than there are for it ito be random, so it is easier to describe the latter.
> It's not obvious to me that (un)directed is closely related to random
> let alone a synonym.
> For example undirected traffic is not random traffic.
Excellent point, I made an entire write-up about this elsewhere. For
example a selection at random from a pot full of marbles is actually a
directed probability sampling exercise. Thus we must use subscripts
with the terms as pointed at at http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Naming_Conventions.
random1 => devoid of all intent
random2 => probability sampling
The concept the ID article on wikipedia referred to was randomness
with undirected. Devoid of all intent and purpose.
> It's not obvious to me that (un)directed is closely related to random
> let alone a synonym.
> For example undirected traffic is not random traffic.
In Boston it is.
--
Will in New Haven
"In every stretch of road, there are an infinite number of lanes" MIT
infinite lane theory
"So pick one and stay in it" Ed Rauh corrolary
> "Undirected" and "random[ness]" are not synonyms. Where did you get
> the idea that they are?
The following video clips are shown:
Vid1(no purpose): Cat walks on the table and knocks over container
filled with alphabetic letters made out of wood.
Vid2(purpose): Man walks into room picks up container and throws out
the letters on the floor.
A copper ball is placed on the table beside all videos of type Vid1
and a lead ball besides all videos of type Vid2, meaning we
symbolically represent a pattern with a purpose with copper and those
without purpose with a lead ball. This raises the question: What other
possible means could there be as to how these wood letters fell on the
ground? Any other way would only be of two *types* Vid1 or Vid2.
If we were to sit there with a video camera from now to eternity
capturing each event of the container spilling the letters on the
ground of what possible type could they be other than Vid1 or Vid2?
The reasonable answer would be none, based on experience: there are
only two Platonic primary binary contrasts either the letters on the
ground is a pattern with a purpose or a pattern without a purpose.
Earthquake, tornado -> type Vid1
Clock timing device pulling in relay to knock over container -> type
Vid2.
Copper itself, representing only itself is not the contrast to the
lead ball: the only contrast is the contrast in *concepts*. The only
literal meaning that the copper ball and lead ball have are copper and
lead, they only represent themselves. The copper ball does not mean
events of type Vid1, it is only an arbitrary object used to
metaphorically represent events of type Vid1. Meaning is only
something observers of type Vid1 and Vid2 can agree on.
YEC are using volitional type language that was used to represent all
concepts as either type Vid1 or Vid2. Atheists disagrees that type
Vid1 and Vid2 are our only options and are using the same semantic
objects YEC use to represent a world view where Platonic primary
contrasts are not *assumed*. Note that I wrote assume and Dawkins also
wrote that he does not *assume* Platonic opposites, because this is
not a matter of falsifiable scientific testable constructs but about
what unfalsifiable untestable validities we *assume* as logical.
By the precepts of empiricism the claims of logic are not falsifiable
and since our falsifiable theories must assume logical validities , we
have to make clear what we assume, that which we know to be true,
neither refutable nor verifiable for eternity.
There is therefore no such thing as a literal meaning with alphabetic
objects found in a dictionary, all semantic objects are used in either
the majority metaphor or minority metaphor. Dictionaries document the
majority metaphor.
Many dictionaries post Darwin around 1901 started to list a *''third
option''* for the object 'selection'. Before around 1901 its majority
metaphor is to make a decision (type Vid2) and its minority
metaphorical usage is type Vid1 , after this the dictionaries began to
list its ''Biological'' usage.
But from the YEC Platonic primary contrasts there can't be such a
thing as a ''Biological'' meaning, only a type Vid1 and Vid2 meaning,
since this is our only experiential reference frame.
By analogy , if people across the world were to agree on a copper ball
representing patterns without a purpose then it would be documented as
the *majority metaphor* in dictionaries.
Undirected does not mean the concept displayed with Vid1(no purpose):
it is an arbitrary object or symbol we agree on to *symbolically*
represent Vid1 and Vid1 we understand as the contrast to Vid2.
Undirected can merely be some *defined* majority metaphor and we find
these definitions in dictionaries.
The semantic objects you choose to use is whatever you want. In many
cases an object such as 'random' is used in the minority metaphor such
as representing purpose(Vid2) , when a person does Probability
Sampling(selecting).
What type of Vid1(no purpose) or Vid2(purpose) is represented with
''undirected'' in the ID article on Wikipedia? If neither type then
explain what would be the third option and how we would avoid infinite
regress.
A device through which random sized balls are thrown have rings with
round holes ranking from large to small spaced down a tube with an
equal set distance between the rings. It will sort(algorithmic design)
the balls from large to small and is an *object with a purpose*.
> > "Undirected" and "random[ness]" are not synonyms. Where did you get
> > the idea that they are?
> The following video clips are shown:
> Vid1(no purpose): Cat walks on the table and knocks over container
> filled with alphabetic letters made out of wood.
> Vid2(purpose): Man walks into room picks up container and throws out
> the letters on the floor.
> A copper ball is placed on the table beside all videos of type Vid1
> and a lead ball besides all videos of type Vid2, meaning we
> symbolically represent a pattern with a purpose with copper and those
> without purpose with a lead ball. This raises the question: What other
> possible means could there be as to how these wood letters fell on the
> ground? Any other way would only be of two *types* Vid1 or Vid2.
> If we were to sit there with a video camera from now to eternity
> capturing each event of the container spilling the letters on the
> ground of what possible type could they be other than Vid1 or Vid2?
> The reasonable answer would be none, based on experience: there are
> only two Platonic primary binary contrasts either the letters on the
> ground is a pattern with a purpose or a pattern without a purpose.
> Earthquake, tornado -> type Vid1
> Clock timing device pulling in relay to knock over container -> type
> Vid2.
> Copper itself, representing only itself is not the contrast to the
> lead ball: the only contrast is the contrast in *concepts*. The only
> literal meaning that the copper ball and lead ball have are copper and
> lead, they only represent themselves. The copper ball does not mean
> events of type Vid1, it is only an arbitrary object used to
> metaphorically represent events of type Vid1. Meaning is only
> something observers of type Vid1 and Vid2 can agree on.
> YEC are using volitional type language that was used to represent all
> concepts as either type Vid1 or Vid2. Atheists disagrees that type
> Vid1 and Vid2 are our only options and are using the same semantic
> objects YEC use to represent a world view where Platonic primary
> contrasts are not *assumed*. Note that I wrote assume and Dawkins also
> wrote that he does not *assume* Platonic opposites, because this is
> not a matter of falsifiable scientific testable constructs but about
> what unfalsifiable untestable validities we *assume* as logical.
> By the precepts of empiricism the claims of logic are not falsifiable
> and since our falsifiable theories must assume logical validities , we
> have to make clear what we assume, that which we know to be true,
> neither refutable nor verifiable for eternity.
> There is therefore no such thing as a literal meaning with alphabetic
> objects found in a dictionary, all semantic objects are used in either
> the majority metaphor or minority metaphor. Dictionaries document the
> majority metaphor.
> Many dictionaries post Darwin around 1901 started to list a *''third
> option''* for the object 'selection'. Before around 1901 its majority
> metaphor is to make a decision (type Vid2) and its minority
> metaphorical usage is type Vid1 , after this the dictionaries began to
> list its ''Biological'' usage.
> But from the YEC Platonic primary contrasts there can't be such a
> thing as a ''Biological'' meaning, only a type Vid1 and Vid2 meaning,
> since this is our only experiential reference frame.
> By analogy , if people across the world were to agree on a copper ball
> representing patterns without a purpose then it would be documented as
> the *majority metaphor* in dictionaries.
> Undirected does not mean the concept displayed with Vid1(no purpose):
> it is an arbitrary object or symbol we agree on to *symbolically*
> represent Vid1 and Vid1 we understand as the contrast to Vid2.
> Undirected can merely be some *defined* majority metaphor and we find
> these definitions in dictionaries.
> The semantic objects you choose to use is whatever you want. In many
> cases an object such as 'random' is used in the minority metaphor such
> as representing purpose(Vid2) , when a person does Probability
> Sampling(selecting).
> What type of Vid1(no purpose) or Vid2(purpose) is represented with
> ''undirected'' in the ID article on Wikipedia? If neither type then
> explain what would be the third option and how we would avoid infinite
> regress.
> A device through which random sized balls are thrown have rings with
> round holes ranking from large to small spaced down a tube with an
> equal set distance between the rings. It will sort(algorithmic design)
> the balls from large to small and is an *object with a purpose*.
In other words instead of informing me as to the "meaning" of
random,undirected,non-random etc. designate the type of video(vid1)
or Vid2 you would upload to Youtube to represent what is meant with
'undirected' in the ID wikipedia page. One would especially be
interested in Video type 3 , the video demonstrating the third
alternative to a pattern with a purpose and pattern with a purpose,
this is the type of video John Wilkins, Dawkins, Burkhard actually
mean with the objects random,non-random. If only they would upload it.
Why don't you stop annoying the adults, get off your dead
ass, read the articles and find out the answers to your
inane questions for yourself? You've ceased to be amusing.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
>> It's not obvious to me that (un)directed is closely related to random
>> let alone a synonym.
>> For example undirected traffic is not random traffic.
>Excellent point
Yes, his point that your statement was blatantly false (like
most of your statements) was indeed excellent. Why don't you
crawl away and consider that for a few eons?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
