Granite, Symmetry, and ID - Summary
Seanpit
This is to summarize recent discussions I've had regarding my notion
that various forms of symmetry, such as reflective symmetry, can be
used with the material of granite to hypothesize deliberate artifact
with an excellent true positive and low false positive rate.
I initially presented certain parameters that were very narrowly
defined to overwhelmingly exclude any remote possibility of a
potential false positive.
After numerous comments and sometimes heated "suggestions", I'll
summarize a few of the clarifications that seem to have solved at
least a few minor cases of some confusion.
The material in question is still granite. It is not some single
crystal that may be found in granite, but granite.
The unit of measure is still meters, centimeters, millimeters, or
whatever unit of measure, or fraction thereof, seems most appropriate
to the specimen.
The quality being measured is still reflective symmetry with regard to
surface irregularities. Spheres, cylinders, spheroid, parabolic, or
rounded off shapes do not qualify as "irregularities". For additional
clarification, though I believe I've made this abundantly clear in the
past, the type of irregularities I'm looking for are those where one
flat surface forms a sharply defined angle with another flat surface.
The angle cannot be "rounded" off to less than the degree of tolerance
described below.
The basic method of measuring symmetry is still the same, but with a
few more clarifications. The distance of each surface point on one
half of the rock is measured from the center of the stone. This
distance is compared to the surface point exactly opposite as measured
from the center of the rock. For example, if a straight line is drawn
through the center of the rock, the surface points that it passes
through on either side of the rock are "exactly opposite" surface
points. The distance of each surface point is measured from the
center of the stone. This distance is compared to the distance of the
opposing surface point measured in the same way.
Also, the plane of symmetry really doesn't matter as long as it
is passes through the center of the stone. The reflective symmetry
will be the same regardless of the various number of ways this can be
done. And, the choice of the "center" of the stone also doesn't
matter. Any center that is chosen that actually aids in fulfilling
all the listed criteria is the better choice.
The degree of irregularity is still the same. At least 30% of the
surface points on one half of the rock must vary in distance from the
center of the rock by more than 10% of the average surface point
distance.
The degree of tolerance previously listed (0.001%) seems to have come
under the most heat. It remains that all of the surface point
distances on one half of the rock must match all of the surface point
distances on the exact opposite side of the rock to within the stated
degree of tolerance as a fraction of the total distance from one
surface point to the opposing surface point. For example, a granite
cube measuring 500 mm on each side could sustain a variation in
surface point distance of one side compared with the other of up to 5
microns and still pass the tolerance test. For even further
clarification, if the distance between the center of the cube and one
surface point were 5 microns smaller or greater than the opposing
distance, this variation would pass the test. In other words, the
variation relative to the total distance cannot be greater than
0.001%.
Of course, the main argument hasn't been so much one over how
to measure the degree of tolerance, but that the stated degree of
tolerance is far too restrictive to allow for anything of artifactual
nature or otherwise to pass the test. As I see it, this really isn't
an issue since if this degree of tolerance were ever achieved the
artifactual nature of such a highly symmetrical granite object would
be extremely clear. The reason this conclusion would be so clear is
because there is a clearly established pattern of greater and greater
positive predictive power for finer and finer tolerances well before
the degree of 0.001% tolerance is realized. Therefore, it is quite
reasonable to induce from this pattern that the pattern will only
continue in like manner. Beyond this, there are several examples of
manufactured granite cubes that do indeed fall within this degree of
tolerance - with respect to symmetry and the measurement of tolerance
as described above (see references listed below).
Even so, because I wish to avoid as much balking over this point
as possible, I'll reduce the degree of tolerance to 0.01% - even
further, but with a corresponding decrease in positive predictive
power. Again, the point here is not so much the degree of tolerance,
but the pattern of significantly increasing true positive rate and
decreasing false positive rate (with respect to the hypothesis of
deliberate artifact) that presents itself as the degree of tolerance
is increased.
And, finally, the hypothesis is still the same. Namely, that if the
above parameters are met the prediction of deliberate artifact carries
with it very high positive predictive value (i.e., a very high true
positive rate with a correspondingly low false positive rate) that is
related to the strictness of the various parameters. Beyond this, if
the criteria of this test are not met, the possibility of deliberate
artifact is not addressed. In other words, the test does not address
negative results beyond the statement that "there is no prediction
with regard to negative results at all".
Some think this last part makes such a test worthless - that if it
is not general enough to encompass all potential artifacts and have a
good true negative rate as well as a true positive rate, why bother.
Those who make such arguments don't seem to understand that having a
test with a true positive rate that is excellent, even with a poor
true negative rate, is much much better than having no test at all.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
References:
"Undersigned is guide to a batch of three students of Mechanical
Engineering for Masters Program I-STAR who have undertaken a project
of assessing geometrical accuracy of 3 D - CMM. During the course of
conducting project we have come across a situation which requires
certain clarifications as under. A mechanical artifact of Granite Cube
of size 500 X 500 x 500 mm (Hollow design having total mass of 140 Kg)
while being checked using First Principal for checking
perpendicularity has shown value within 5 microns for all the faces
where as flatness values for each of the six faces have been observed
within the range of 3 to 4 microns and parallelism of opposite faces
while checking with digital electronic probe ( gauge head ) are within
maximum 5 microns."
http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/5439/Methods-for-Inspection-of-Checking-Reference-Granite-Cube
Another fair example of modern technology when it comes to the
material of granite is the Microplan Group (see link). They
manufacture, among other things, granite testing devices, to include
cubes, machined to within tolerances of 1-3 micrometers depending on
size (i.e., a um = 1/1000 of a millimeter or 0.001% of 10 cm =
0.000001 m).
Nic
wrote:
It's not as hard as this, even. The plane of symmetry passes though
the centre by definition! Simply, is there a plane about which the
two halves are similar by reflection (to a certain tolerance)?
And if so, are there reflected irregularities exceeding that
tolerance?
Yes, if you define deliberate artifact that way. That is a very weak
definition. Complex systems are likely to produce highly symmetrical
side effects even when they go wrong.
> http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/5439/Methods-for-Inspection-of-Check...
Stuart
wrote:
> Granite, Symmetry, and ID - Summary
>
> This is to summarize recent discussions I've had regarding my notion
> that various forms of symmetry, such as reflective symmetry, can be
> used with the material of granite
How about plagioclase feldspar twins?
man-made or natural?
Stuart
rupert....@gmail.com
> On 6 Jul, 00:10, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.0catch.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Granite, Symmetry, and ID - Summary
>
that do not show the shape of the granite. That leaves 9 images on the
front page, none of them symmetrical within your tolerances. 3 of them
were clearly artifacts (and the quarry is arguably an artifact, but I
gave it to you). That's a False Negative rate of 33%, hardly "low".
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:KHAn81O-WrYFiM:http://www.beg.utexas.edu/mainweb/publications/graphics/granite-400.jpg
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:YIC4gDZu0ig_RM:http://z.about.com/d/geology/1/0/b/L/granite.jpg
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:haQdxFrClptXOM:http://library.thinkquest.org/05aug/00461/images/granite.jpg
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:bCf-bZJDuz-4NM:http://www.lewis-clark.org/media/NewImages/VIEWS/geol_granite-gray-hyndman.jpg
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:cdM2ropvcuK88M:http://www.cliffshade.com/colorado/images/pikes_pk_granite.jpg
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:hHMhGoiA2Zf3fM:http://geology.com/articles/granite-quarry.gif
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:AXhHijbIQycwHM:http://mayhem-chaos.net/photoblog/images/granite_slabs.jpg
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:2uJWFqf7sUqZRM:http://img.alibaba.com/photo/50250224/Granite_Paver__Stone_Covering_.jpg
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:D_NFBKcj6sUEEM:http://img.alibaba.com/photo/10953980/Granite__Golden_Flower__Green_Galaxy__Green_Rose__Green_Turf.jpg
shel...@msn.com
wrote:
Could this be a big hole in a cube? The surface points would be
nonexistent, or 0, of course. But 100% of the surface points would
vary 100% from the average surface point distance of the rest of the
object.
> http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/5439/Methods-for-Inspection-of-Check...
shel...@msn.com
<rupert.morr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 6, 11:46 am, Nic <harrisonda...@hotmail.com> wrote:> On 6 Jul, 00:10, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.0catch.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Granite, Symmetry, and ID - Summary
>
> I did a Google image search for granite. I ignored all the pictures
> that do not show the shape of the granite. That leaves 9 images on the
> front page, none of them symmetrical within your tolerances. 3 of them
> were clearly artifacts (and the quarry is arguably an artifact, but I
> gave it to you). That's a False Negative rate of 33%, hardly "low".
Where do these morons come from?? Sean has argued many times that
false negatives will be high in any determination of design. He didn't
use the phrase in this thread, but has elseswhere:
"Even though the false negative rate is also very high, this doesn't
remove the value of having a test with a very good true positive and
very low false positive rate. It is basically a test with very high
specificity and very low sensitivity. Such a test, though limited, is
still quite valuable."
>
> http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:KHAn81O-WrYFiM:http://www.beg.ute...http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:YIC4gDZu0ig_RM:http://z.about.com...http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:haQdxFrClptXOM:http://library.thi...http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:bCf-bZJDuz-4NM:http://www.lewis-c...http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:cdM2ropvcuK88M:http://www.cliffsh...http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:hHMhGoiA2Zf3fM:http://geology.com...http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:AXhHijbIQycwHM:http://mayhem-chao...http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:2uJWFqf7sUqZRM:http://img.alibaba...http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:D_NFBKcj6sUEEM:http://img.alibaba...
rupert....@gmail.com
> On Jul 5, 5:33 pm, "rupert.morr...@gmail.com"
>
> <rupert.morr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 6, 11:46 am, Nic <harrisonda...@hotmail.com> wrote:> On 6 Jul, 00:10, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.0catch.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > Granite, Symmetry, and ID - Summary
>
> > I did a Google image search for granite. I ignored all the pictures
> > that do not show the shape of the granite. That leaves 9 images on the
> > front page, none of them symmetrical within your tolerances. 3 of them
> > were clearly artifacts (and the quarry is arguably an artifact, but I
> > gave it to you). That's a False Negative rate of 33%, hardly "low".
>
> Where do these morons come from??
Can't tell you. This moron comes from New Zealand.
> Sean has argued many times that
> false negatives will be high in any determination of design. He didn't
> use the phrase in this thread, but has elseswhere:
>
> "Even though the false negative rate is also very high, this doesn't
> remove the value of having a test with a very good true positive and
> very low false positive rate. It is basically a test with very high
> specificity and very low sensitivity. Such a test, though limited, is
> still quite valuable."
Yes, I just misread it. I disagree with the argument, but I can't deny
that he is aware of the high false negative rate and appears not to
care.
>
>
>
> >http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:KHAn81O-WrYFiM:http://www.beg.ute......
shel...@msn.com
Seanpit
Do you have a reference, picture, or any other information?
> Stuart
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
> > The degree of irregularity is still the same. At least 30% of the
> > surface points on one half of the rock must vary in distance from the
> > center of the rock by more than 10% of the average surface point
> > distance.
>
> Could this be a big hole in a cube? The surface points would be
> nonexistent, or 0, of course. But 100% of the surface points would
> vary 100% from the average surface point distance of the rest of the
> object.
I'm not sure I am visualizing what you are asking here correctly?
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
shel...@msn.com
wrote:
source. Does a hole satisfy the irregularity requirement?
Seanpit
Sure it does. But the hole does have a surface and the surface points
of this hole do not all vary by 100% from the non-hole surface points
as measured from the center of the cube - at least not as I visualize
it.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
shel...@msn.com
surface, say 10cm.
>From the center of the surface of the object (center of the hole) to
the plane of the surface (or measurement next to the hole), is 0.
I'd *characterize* that as 100% deviation.
R. Baldwin
news:1183677003.4...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> Granite, Symmetry, and ID - Summary
>
> This is to summarize recent discussions I've had regarding my notion
> that various forms of symmetry, such as reflective symmetry, can be
> used with the material of granite to hypothesize deliberate artifact
> with an excellent true positive and low false positive rate.
>
> I initially presented certain parameters that were very narrowly
> defined to overwhelmingly exclude any remote possibility of a
> potential false positive.
>
> After numerous comments and sometimes heated "suggestions", I'll
> summarize a few of the clarifications that seem to have solved at
> least a few minor cases of some confusion.
>
> The material in question is still granite. It is not some single
> crystal that may be found in granite, but granite.
>
> The unit of measure is still meters, centimeters, millimeters, or
> whatever unit of measure, or fraction thereof, seems most appropriate
> to the specimen.
>
> The quality being measured is still reflective symmetry with regard to
> surface irregularities. Spheres, cylinders, spheroid, parabolic, or
> rounded off shapes do not qualify as "irregularities". For additional
> clarification, though I believe I've made this abundantly clear in the
> past, the type of irregularities I'm looking for are those where one
> flat surface forms a sharply defined angle with another flat surface.
> The angle cannot be "rounded" off to less than the degree of tolerance
> described below.
This new rounding requirement eliminates practically all designed objects
that lack a blade, and blades will generally not meet the 30%/10%
requirement below (depending on what you mean by it, since it is not
entirely clear). Standard engineering practice is to round corners on
objects to a radius sufficient to prevent injury. How would you like to
lacerate your hand by rubbing it against your granite countertop? Finely
polished laboratory grade granite plates have nice rounded or beveled and
rounded corners so the inspectors don't hurt their hands.
>
> The basic method of measuring symmetry is still the same, but with a
> few more clarifications. The distance of each surface point on one
> half of the rock is measured from the center of the stone. This
> distance is compared to the surface point exactly opposite as measured
> from the center of the rock. For example, if a straight line is drawn
> through the center of the rock, the surface points that it passes
> through on either side of the rock are "exactly opposite" surface
> points. The distance of each surface point is measured from the
> center of the stone. This distance is compared to the distance of the
> opposing surface point measured in the same way.
> Also, the plane of symmetry really doesn't matter as long as it
> is passes through the center of the stone. The reflective symmetry
> will be the same regardless of the various number of ways this can be
> done. And, the choice of the "center" of the stone also doesn't
> matter. Any center that is chosen that actually aids in fulfilling
> all the listed criteria is the better choice.
>
> The degree of irregularity is still the same. At least 30% of the
> surface points on one half of the rock must vary in distance from the
> center of the rock by more than 10% of the average surface point
> distance.
I strongly suggest this should be "vary in distance from a datum plane
through the geometric center of the rock." I suspect that is what you mean.
If each point is measured from the 3D geometric center, then points
equidistant from a datum plane on a perfectly flat surface are highly likely
meet the 30%/10% requirement - and I get the impression that is not what you
want.
>
> The degree of tolerance previously listed (0.001%) seems to have come
> under the most heat. It remains that all of the surface point
> distances on one half of the rock must match all of the surface point
> distances on the exact opposite side of the rock to within the stated
> degree of tolerance as a fraction of the total distance from one
> surface point to the opposing surface point. For example, a granite
> cube measuring 500 mm on each side could sustain a variation in
> surface point distance of one side compared with the other of up to 5
> microns and still pass the tolerance test. For even further
> clarification, if the distance between the center of the cube and one
> surface point were 5 microns smaller or greater than the opposing
> distance, this variation would pass the test. In other words, the
> variation relative to the total distance cannot be greater than
> 0.001%.
I think this has gotten less clear than your original post. Initially, it
appeared that the point on each side would be measured with respect to a
datum plane. You weren't specific about that, but if "center of the object"
were generously construed as a datum plane through the geometric center of
the object, it would work. Now they are measured with respect to each other,
and both vary with respect to a datum plane. That is bad measurement
practice, and it is difficult to accuratly describe what the tolerance
means.
That depends. If the test is much worse than subjective human sorting (and
this test is far worse), it is pretty much worthless.
>
> Sean Pitman
> www.DetectingDesign.com
>
>
> References:
>
> "Undersigned is guide to a batch of three students of Mechanical
> Engineering for Masters Program I-STAR who have undertaken a project
> of assessing geometrical accuracy of 3 D - CMM. During the course of
> conducting project we have come across a situation which requires
> certain clarifications as under. A mechanical artifact of Granite Cube
> of size 500 X 500 x 500 mm (Hollow design having total mass of 140 Kg)
> while being checked using First Principal for checking
> perpendicularity has shown value within 5 microns for all the faces
> where as flatness values for each of the six faces have been observed
> within the range of 3 to 4 microns and parallelism of opposite faces
> while checking with digital electronic probe ( gauge head ) are within
> maximum 5 microns."
>
> http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/5439/Methods-for-Inspection-of-Checking-Reference-Granite-Cube
In other words, a net tolerance on the order of 13 microns with respect to a
datum plane, or 52 ppm (0.0052%) with respect to a datum through the center,
26 ppm (0.0026%) with respect to the average thickness. It fails your test.
>
> Another fair example of modern technology when it comes to the
> material of granite is the Microplan Group (see link). They
> manufacture, among other things, granite testing devices, to include
> cubes, machined to within tolerances of 1-3 micrometers depending on
> size (i.e., a um = 1/1000 of a millimeter or 0.001% of 10 cm =
> 0.000001 m).
>
> http://www.microplan-group.com/pagine/prodotti_gb/cu_gb.htm
>
So would anybody else producing laboratory grade plates. Big deal. These are
usually about 7-8 cm thick. I know. I've used them. 1-3 microns would be 13
to 43 ppm (0.0013% to 0.0043%) of such a thickness, and that does not
include flatness (hint: the objects warp).
Inez
wrote:
<Snippers>
This all sounds very odd to me, or at least like it's missing an
important step.
I say that any object weighing 287.86242635624263731121312121 ounces
and which is colored light pink is designed. If you cannot show me a
natural object that falsifies my hypothesis I will claim victory and
do a little dance.
What are the odds of an object weighing exactly the number that I just
made up, and being exactly the color I just specified simply by
chance? The odds weren't good to begin with, but once I actually
typed in random numbers, the odds that an object would MATCH those
numbers just seems too incredible to believe unless SOMEONE or
SOMETHING planned it that way.
R. Baldwin
news:1183694276.7...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...[big snip]
>
> This all sounds very odd to me, or at least like it's missing an
> important step.
>
> I say that any object weighing 287.86242635624263731121312121 ounces
> and which is colored light pink is designed. If you cannot show me a
> natural object that falsifies my hypothesis I will claim victory and
> do a little dance.
You win. I want to see this dance.
Tom McDonald
To make the specification more, well, specific, how about we
designate the color as Red: 255 Green: 182 Blue: 193
R: 255 G: 182 B: 194 thou shalt not count.
R: 257 G: 184 B: 195 is right out.
> If you cannot show me a
> natural object that falsifies my hypothesis I will claim victory and
> do a little dance.
>
> What are the odds of an object weighing exactly the number that I just
> made up, and being exactly the color I just specified simply by
> chance? The odds weren't good to begin with, but once I actually
> typed in random numbers, the odds that an object would MATCH those
> numbers just seems too incredible to believe unless SOMEONE or
> SOMETHING planned it that way.
Hmm. Could that SOMEONE be Invisible, R: 255 G: 105 B: 180, and
one corn light?
richardal...@googlemail.com
0catch.com> wrote:
> Granite, Symmetry, and ID - Summary
>
> This is to summarize recent discussions I've had regarding my notion
> that various forms of symmetry, such as reflective symmetry, can be
> used with the material of granite to hypothesize deliberate artifact
> with an excellent true positive and low false positive rate.
>
> I initially presented certain parameters that were very narrowly
> defined to overwhelmingly exclude any remote possibility of a
> potential false positive.
>
> After numerous comments and sometimes heated "suggestions", I'll
> summarize a few of the clarifications that seem to have solved at
> least a few minor cases of some confusion.
>
> The material in question is still granite. It is not some single
> crystal that may be found in granite, but granite.
>
> The unit of measure is still meters, centimeters, millimeters, or
> whatever unit of measure, or fraction thereof, seems most appropriate
> to the specimen.
If you are defining a methodology, you don't leave it to whoever is
carrying out the test to decide for themselves which dimensions to
measure and what units to use.
This clarifies the fact that your claim to have a methodology is
false.
>
> The quality being measured is still reflective symmetry with regard to
> surface irregularities. Spheres, cylinders, spheroid, parabolic, or
> rounded off shapes do not qualify as "irregularities". For additional
> clarification, though I believe I've made this abundantly clear in the
> past, the type of irregularities I'm looking for are those where one
> flat surface forms a sharply defined angle with another flat surface.
No, you haven't. You have made it clear that you define the corner of
a cube as a "surface irregularity" (which is about as non-standard a
definition as one can have), but you have also stated that "all
surface irregularities beyond the tolerance threshold are measured."
This includes patterns etched on the surface, saw marks and so on, and
from your statement implies that *any* irregularity deviating more
than 0.001% of the dimension from the reference plane to the surface
of the object is counted as a "surface irregularity".
Are you changing your definition of "surface irregularity", or are we
to consider any deviation of more than 0.001% of the distance from the
reference plane to the surface from any surface to be a "surface
irregularity"?
> The angle cannot be "rounded" off to less than the degree of tolerance
> described below.
You'd better watch your fingers in that case. You can only study
objects with razor sharp edges.
> The basic method of measuring symmetry is still the same, but with a
> few more clarifications. The distance of each surface point on one
> half of the rock is measured from the center of the stone. This
> distance is compared to the surface point exactly opposite as measured
> from the center of the rock. For example, if a straight line is drawn
> through the center of the rock, the surface points that it passes
> through on either side of the rock are "exactly opposite" surface
> points. The distance of each surface point is measured from the
> center of the stone. This distance is compared to the distance of the
> opposing surface point measured in the same way.
> Also, the plane of symmetry really doesn't matter as long as it
> is passes through the center of the stone. The reflective symmetry
> will be the same regardless of the various number of ways this can be
> done.
It will?
If I have a rectangular block, and set the reference plane through the
middle of the long axis, it will be reflectively symmetrical about
that plane.
Are you telling us that if you rotate that plane by 30 degrees so that
it runs diagonally through the block it will show reflective symmetry
about the new plane?
Or are you telling us that what we need to do is to find two "surface
irregularities", and rotate the reference plane about the centre
(geometric centre? Centre of gravity? Centre of rotation) until it is
equidistant between them, then measure them? Once we have done that,
can we chose a new pair of "surface irregularities" and rotate the
plane again?
> And, the choice of the "center" of the stone also doesn't
> matter. Any center that is chosen that actually aids in fulfilling
> all the listed criteria is the better choice.
Do you think that you can give three people a granite object, ask them
to measure it in the way you have described, and get the same set of
numbers from all three?
>
> The degree of irregularity is still the same. At least 30% of the
> surface points on one half of the rock must vary in distance from the
> center of the rock by more than 10% of the average surface point
> distance.
Can you give an instance of *any* object, artificial or natural, which
does *not* meet these requirements?
>
> The degree of tolerance previously listed (0.001%) seems to have come
> under the most heat. It remains that all of the surface point
> distances on one half of the rock must match all of the surface point
> distances on the exact opposite side of the rock to within the stated
> degree of tolerance as a fraction of the total distance from one
> surface point to the opposing surface point. For example, a granite
> cube measuring 500 mm on each side could sustain a variation in
> surface point distance of one side compared with the other of up to 5
> microns and still pass the tolerance test. For even further
> clarification, if the distance between the center of the cube and one
> surface point were 5 microns smaller or greater than the opposing
> distance, this variation would pass the test. In other words, the
> variation relative to the total distance cannot be greater than
> 0.001%.
This is, of course, the criterion under which the reference cubes of
granite fail.
I'm glad that you concede that I am correct in saying that they don't
meet your criteria.
> Of course, the main argument hasn't been so much one over how
> to measure the degree of tolerance, but that the stated degree of
> tolerance is far too restrictive to allow for anything of artifactual
> nature or otherwise to pass the test. As I see it, this really isn't
> an issue since if this degree of tolerance were ever achieved the
> artifactual nature of such a highly symmetrical granite object would
> be extremely clear. The reason this conclusion would be so clear is
> because there is a clearly established pattern of greater and greater
> positive predictive power for finer and finer tolerances well before
> the degree of 0.001% tolerance is realized. Therefore, it is quite
> reasonable to induce from this pattern that the pattern will only
> continue in like manner. Beyond this, there are several examples of
> manufactured granite cubes that do indeed fall within this degree of
> tolerance - with respect to symmetry and the measurement of tolerance
> as described above (see references listed below).
So you can demonstrate that a non-existent object is artificial.
Well done, Sean.
What is the point of such a test by the way?
> Even so, because I wish to avoid as much balking over this point
> as possible, I'll reduce the degree of tolerance to 0.01% - even
> further, but with a corresponding decrease in positive predictive
> power.
As the test stands, the "positive predictive power" is zero, as there
are no objects which meet your criteria.
How does one decrease "predictive power" below zero?
> Again, the point here is not so much the degree of tolerance,
> but the pattern of significantly increasing true positive rate and
> decreasing false positive rate (with respect to the hypothesis of
> deliberate artifact) that presents itself as the degree of tolerance
> is increased.
But your "true positive rate" is zero.
Your "false positive rate" is also zero.
How can one change a ratio of zero to zero?
>
> And, finally, the hypothesis is still the same. Namely, that if the
> above parameters are met the prediction of deliberate artifact carries
> with it very high positive predictive value (i.e., a very high true
> positive rate with a correspondingly low false positive rate) that is
> related to the strictness of the various parameters. Beyond this, if
> the criteria of this test are not met, the possibility of deliberate
> artifact is not addressed. In other words, the test does not address
> negative results beyond the statement that "there is no prediction
> with regard to negative results at all".
So if I produce a granite object which meets your criteria, your
"hypothesis" is that it is artificial.
How do you test your "hypothesis"?
> Some think this last part makes such a test worthless - that if it
> is not general enough to encompass all potential artifacts and have a
> good true negative rate as well as a true positive rate, why bother.
> Those who make such arguments don't seem to understand that having a
> test with a true positive rate that is excellent, even with a poor
> true negative rate, is much much better than having no test at all.
So what is wrong with the tests archaeologists and others experienced
in making such judgements use every day?
They have the advantage that they can tell if Michaelangelo's "David"
is an artifact - something your test can't.
Why not do some research into how archaeologists make such
determinations?
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
>
> References:
>
> "Undersigned is guide to a batch of three students of Mechanical
> Engineering for Masters Program I-STAR who have undertaken a project
> of assessing geometrical accuracy of 3 D - CMM. During the course of
> conducting project we have come across a situation which requires
> certain clarifications as under. A mechanical artifact of Granite Cube
> of size 500 X 500 x 500 mm (Hollow design having total mass of 140 Kg)
> while being checked using First Principal for checking
> perpendicularity has shown value within 5 microns for all the faces
> where as flatness values for each of the six faces have been observed
> within the range of 3 to 4 microns and parallelism of opposite faces
> while checking with digital electronic probe ( gauge head ) are within
> maximum 5 microns."
>
> http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/5439/Methods-for-Inspection-of-Check...
>
> Another fair example of modern technology when it comes to the
> material of granite is the Microplan Group (see link). They
> manufacture, among other things, granite testing devices, to include
> cubes, machined to within tolerances of 1-3 micrometers depending on
> size (i.e., a um = 1/1000 of a millimeter or 0.001% of 10 cm =
> 0.000001 m).
>
> http://www.microplan-group.com/pagine/prodotti_gb/cu_gb.htm
Yes, and this does not meet your 0.001% criterion, as I and others
have explained to you.
But please stop evading this question:
You have made a "bet" that a granite cube meeting these criteria
cannot be formed naturally, and that if anyone brings you such an
object you will pay them $1000.
If I bring you a granite cube meeting your criteria, and tell you that
it is naturally formed, what are you going to do?
What test are you going to apply to determine if it is a naturally
formed object or an artifact?
If the test is that of meeting the criteria you have defined, you
can't lose, can you?
This is what is called a "sucker bet".
But by all means prove me wrong, and give a *different* test for
whether or not such a cube is natural or artificial.
richardal...@googlemail.com
That "important step" being a methodology, a data set, a statistical
analysis and a presentation of the results of that analysis.
>
> I say that any object weighing 287.86242635624263731121312121 ounces
> and which is colored light pink is designed. If you cannot show me a
> natural object that falsifies my hypothesis I will claim victory and
> do a little dance.
>
> What are the odds of an object weighing exactly the number that I just
> made up, and being exactly the color I just specified simply by
> chance? The odds weren't good to begin with, but once I actually
> typed in random numbers, the odds that an object would MATCH those
> numbers just seems too incredible to believe unless SOMEONE or
> SOMETHING planned it that way.
Yep. Sean's method is an excellent way of deciding if non-existent
objects are artifacts. It's 100% accurate when it comes to non-
existent objects.
RF
Rolf
"Seanpit" <seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote in message
news:1183677003.4...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> Granite, Symmetry, and ID - Summary
[snip]
>
> The material in question is still granite. It is not some single
> crystal that may be found in granite, but granite.
>
Granite, but, being no geologist or physicist, it nevertheless seems to me
that simply specifying granite is not sufficient? May not granite come in
very many different internal geometrical shapes or configurations? With
impurities? To what level of exact fit to a predefined form of granite
should the specimen be specified? Taking two 'identical' - identical WRT to
Sean's specs, wouldn't there still be a question about the particular
internal structure and composition of the granite?
If the granite would show signs of being of a composition consistent with
what we know about (naturally formed) granite on this planet, wouldn't that
also make it most likely that allright, somebody have had some fun shaping
this piece of granite? Conversely, if the composition of the specimen was
incompatible with any natural processes, we would have to conclude that the
specimen was manufactured, and we would have to begin speculating about by
whom, when and where? But again, IMHO, chances of ever finding anything like
that are as close to zero as you may get.
I do not find this exercise particularly interesting or meaningful. I
suggest that we never will find an object satisfying the criteria for being
'designed', (wouldn't 'manufactured' be a more appropriate term?) as opposed
to 'natural'. I think it would be a waste of time attempting to do a search
for such objects. What are the chances we might find a non-naturally shaped
piece of granite on this planet? How and where would we search for it?
> The unit of measure is still meters, centimeters, millimeters, or
> whatever unit of measure, or fraction thereof, seems most appropriate
> to the specimen.
>
= the specimen may be whatever size the specimen is.
= size is irrelevant.
Or, is there something I fail to understand?
I definitely fail to understand that this exercise is of any value
whatsoever WRT finding out whether the FSM is responsible for evolution or
not.
Isn't that what we are trying to find out?
[snip]
Are my comments relevant, or entirely off target?
Rolf
Chris Thompson
@news.supernews.com:
Is there a pole involved?
Chris
Inez
I was thinking more basic than that. It seems to me that he's lacking
or not specified the logic that underlies his hypothesis.
Nature is as capable of producing an object with reflexive symmetry as
it is producing an object of any other shape. If you describe ANY
shape to the micron it's unlikely that you'll ever find something
lying on the beach that exactly fits that description. But why would
such an unlikely object be necessarily desgined? As nearly as I can
tell it's because Sean knows that humans are the sort of creature that
polishes granite and makes regular shapes out of it for various
reasons. Therefore, a polished and regular granite shape is more
likely to be designed intelligently (by humans).
So I agree that his test is functional, but only because we have a
basic understanding of humans as intelligent designers.
>
> > I say that any object weighing 287.86242635624263731121312121 ounces
> > and which is colored light pink is designed. If you cannot show me a
> > natural object that falsifies my hypothesis I will claim victory and
> > do a little dance.
>
> > What are the odds of an object weighing exactly the number that I just
> > made up, and being exactly the color I just specified simply by
> > chance? The odds weren't good to begin with, but once I actually
> > typed in random numbers, the odds that an object would MATCH those
> > numbers just seems too incredible to believe unless SOMEONE or
> > SOMETHING planned it that way.
>
> Yep. Sean's method is an excellent way of deciding if non-existent
> objects are artifacts. It's 100% accurate when it comes to non-
> existent objects.
>
> RF- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Seanpit
Deviation is a measure of the change in distance as measured from the
center of the cube.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Inez
> "R. Baldwin" <res0k...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote in news:138rgcjr48lcf11
> @news.supernews.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Inez" <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:1183694276.7...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Jul 5, 4:10 pm, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.0catch.com>
> >> wrote:
> > [big snip]
>
> >> This all sounds very odd to me, or at least like it's missing an
> >> important step.
>
> >> I say that any object weighing 287.86242635624263731121312121 ounces
> >> and which is colored light pink is designed. If you cannot show me a
> >> natural object that falsifies my hypothesis I will claim victory and
> >> do a little dance.
>
> > You win. I want to see this dance.
>
> Is there a pole involved?
>
Seanpit
> "Seanpit" <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote in message
This point could be modified somewhat, but even without modification
the point of this rule is rather obvious.
The distances to be measured are from a center point, not a plane.
This is why it doesn't matter what "plane" of symmetry you decide to
use as long as it passes through this central point. Also, this is why
a "cube" shape does indeed fulfill the 30%/10% requirement.
> > The degree of tolerance previously listed (0.001%) seems to have come
> > under the most heat. It remains that all of the surface point
> > distances on one half of the rock must match all of the surface point
> > distances on the exact opposite side of the rock to within the stated
> > degree of tolerance as a fraction of the total distance from one
> > surface point to the opposing surface point. For example, a granite
> > cube measuring 500 mm on each side could sustain a variation in
> > surface point distance of one side compared with the other of up to 5
> > microns and still pass the tolerance test. For even further
> > clarification, if the distance between the center of the cube and one
> > surface point were 5 microns smaller or greater than the opposing
> > distance, this variation would pass the test. In other words, the
> > variation relative to the total distance cannot be greater than
> > 0.001%.
>
> I think this has gotten less clear than your original post. Initially, it
> appeared that the point on each side would be measured with respect to a
> datum plane.
I specifically said that each side would be measured with respect to a
central point - not a plane.
> You weren't specific about that, but if "center of the object"
> were generously construed as a datum plane through the geometric center of
> the object, it would work. Now they are measured with respect to each other,
> and both vary with respect to a datum plane. That is bad measurement
> practice, and it is difficult to accuratly describe what the tolerance
> means.
The have always been measured with respect to a central point and
compared with each other, with the overall variance being less than
0.001%.
Not when it comes to positive predictive value - which is the whole
point here. If you find a particular type and degree of symmetry in
the material of granite is the degree of symmetry somehow related to
predicting deliberate artifact? The answer is clearly yes.
> > Sean Pitman
> >www.DetectingDesign.com
>
> > References:
>
> > "Undersigned is guide to a batch of three students of Mechanical
> > Engineering for Masters Program I-STAR who have undertaken a project
> > of assessing geometrical accuracy of 3 D - CMM. During the course of
> > conducting project we have come across a situation which requires
> > certain clarifications as under. A mechanical artifact of Granite Cube
> > of size 500 X 500 x 500 mm (Hollow design having total mass of 140 Kg)
> > while being checked using First Principal for checking
> > perpendicularity has shown value within 5 microns for all the faces
> > where as flatness values for each of the six faces have been observed
> > within the range of 3 to 4 microns and parallelism of opposite faces
> > while checking with digital electronic probe ( gauge head ) are within
> > maximum 5 microns."
>
> >http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/5439/Methods-for-Inspection-of-Check...
>
> In other words, a net tolerance on the order of 13 microns with respect to a
> datum plane, or 52 ppm (0.0052%) with respect to a datum through the center,
> 26 ppm (0.0026%) with respect to the average thickness. It fails your test.
The parallel tolerance includes the tolerance for flatness for each
opposing surface. That is why the parallel tolerance is greater than
the flatness tolerance. If the net tolerance were actually 13 microns
as you suggest, the parallel could not be known to be within just 5
microns. Also, as long as the surfaces are parallel to within 5
microns, you cannot add in the perpendicularity measurement, because
that would not have an effect on overall symmetry.
Beyond this, the measurements are well within the stated reduction in
tolerance listed above of 0.01%.
> > Another fair example of modern technology when it comes to the
> > material of granite is the Microplan Group (see link). They
> > manufacture, among other things, granite testing devices, to include
> > cubes, machined to within tolerances of 1-3 micrometers depending on
> > size (i.e., a um = 1/1000 of a millimeter or 0.001% of 10 cm =
> > 0.000001 m).
>
> >http://www.microplan-group.com/pagine/prodotti_gb/cu_gb.htm
>
> So would anybody else producing laboratory grade plates. Big deal. These are
> usually about 7-8 cm thick. I know. I've used them. 1-3 microns would be 13
> to 43 ppm (0.0013% to 0.0043%) of such a thickness, and that does not
> include flatness (hint: the objects warp).
A 200mm cube doesn't warp appreciably in a set environment. And
again, regardless, such a cube falls well within the new 0.01%
tolerance requirement - reduced because of your complaining even
though the reduction doesn't alter the point of this test in the
least.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
mev...@gcfn.org
>
> Only a Sith would think in absolutes.
Or a vodka distiller.
Mark Evans
Don Cates
<seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> posted:
But it's curved and you've ruled out curved surfaces. Right?
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" - PN)
Vend
Well put.
richardal...@googlemail.com
wrote:
> On Jul 5, 8:54 pm, "R. Baldwin" <res0k...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Seanpit" <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote in message
> > that lack a blade, and blades will generally not meet the 30%/10%
> > requirement below (depending on what you mean by it, since it is not
> > entirely clear). Standard engineering practice is to round corners on
> > objects to a radius sufficient to prevent injury. How would you like to
> > lacerate your hand by rubbing it against your granite countertop? Finely
> > polished laboratory grade granite plates have nice rounded or beveled and
> > rounded corners so the inspectors don't hurt their hands.
>
> This point could be modified somewhat, but even without modification
> the point of this rule is rather obvious.
>
As I understand it, the point of this rule is to exclude from
consideration naturally formed objects which might meet your criteria.
If this is not the point of the rule, perhaps you could enlighten us
as to what the point actually is.
>
> > I strongly suggest this should be "vary in distance from a datum plane
> > through the geometric center of the rock." I suspect that is what you mean.
> > If each point is measured from the 3D geometric center, then points
> > equidistant from a datum plane on a perfectly flat surface are highly likely
> > meet the 30%/10% requirement - and I get the impression that is not what you
> > want.
>
> The distances to be measured are from a center point, not a plane.
> This is why it doesn't matter what "plane" of symmetry you decide to
> use as long as it passes through this central point. Also, this is why
> a "cube" shape does indeed fulfill the 30%/10% requirement.
You are measuring "reflective symmetry", yet you want to measure
distances from a *point* in three-dimensional objects?
Could you please explain how this can be done? In the conventional use
of the term "reflectional symmetry", one can only have reflectional
symmetry about a point if it is on a one-dimensional line. In a two-
dimensional figure reflective symmetry is relative to a line, and in a
three-dimensional object it is relative to a plane. I presume that in
a tesseract it's relative to a cube, but let's not go there for now.
Could you confirm that you are using the term "reflective symmetry" in
a non-conventional way, and explain what you mean by it? Or perhaps
you'd like to reconsider that requirement that one measure reflective
symmetry in a three-dimensional object with reference to a point.
>
> > I think this has gotten less clear than your original post. Initially, it
> > appeared that the point on each side would be measured with respect to a
> > datum plane.
>
> I specifically said that each side would be measured with respect to a
> central point - not a plane.
> > You weren't specific about that, but if "center of the object"
> > were generously construed as a datum plane through the geometric center of
> > the object, it would work. Now they are measured with respect to each other,
> > and both vary with respect to a datum plane. That is bad measurement
> > practice, and it is difficult to accuratly describe what the tolerance
> > means.
>
> The have always been measured with respect to a central point and
> compared with each other, with the overall variance being less than
> 0.001%.
So perhaps you can explain what you mean by "reflective symmetry" in
that case. It certainly isn't the meaning accepted by most people.
>
>
>
> > That depends. If the test is much worse than subjective human sorting (and
> > this test is far worse), it is pretty much worthless.
>
> Not when it comes to positive predictive value - which is the whole
> point here. If you find a particular type and degree of symmetry in
> the material of granite is the degree of symmetry somehow related to
> predicting deliberate artifact? The answer is clearly yes.
So if I bring you a granite cube meeting your specifications, tell you
that it is made by natural processes and demand the $1000 you offered
as a bet, what are you going to do?
Are you going to tell me that because the cube meets your
specifications, it can't be natural, and that therefore I cannot
collect my $1000?
If so, that looks like a "sucker bet" to me.
If this isn't a sucker bet, perhaps you could explain to us the
conditions under which someone could claim the $1000 you are
apparently offering. As it is, it looks like a rather bogus bet,
doesn't it?
RF
>
> > > Sean Pitman
> > >www.DetectingDesign.com
>
> > > References:
>
> > > "Undersigned is guide to a batch of three students of Mechanical
> > > Engineering for Masters Program I-STAR who have undertaken a project
> > > of assessing geometrical accuracy of 3 D - CMM. During the course of
> > > conducting project we have come across a situation which requires
> > > certain clarifications as under. A mechanical artifact of Granite Cube
> > > of size 500 X 500 x 500 mm (Hollow design having total mass of 140 Kg)
> > > while being checked using First Principal for checking
> > > perpendicularity has shown value within 5 microns for all the faces
> > > where as flatness values for each of the six faces have been observed
> > > within the range of 3 to 4 microns and parallelism of opposite faces
> > > while checking with digital
>
> ...
>
> read more »
Seanpit
> This all sounds very odd to me, or at least like it's missing an
> important step.
>
> I say that any object weighing 287.86242635624263731121312121 ounces
> and which is colored light pink is designed. If you cannot show me a
> natural object that falsifies my hypothesis I will claim victory and
> do a little dance.
>
> What are the odds of an object weighing exactly the number that I just
> made up, and being exactly the color I just specified simply by
> chance? The odds weren't good to begin with, but once I actually
> typed in random numbers, the odds that an object would MATCH those
> numbers just seems too incredible to believe unless SOMEONE or
> SOMETHING planned it that way.
This is a pretty reasonable question actually.
Consider that a pattern of what natural forces tend to do with the
material in question needs to be discovered. This pattern can then be
used to extrapolate to a point beyond which natural forces are very
unlikely to go while at the same time being within the realm of at
least a human-level of creativity and technology. Both of these
features must be determined before ID can be adequately proposed.
For your illustration, then, say you have a bunch of rocks made up of
a particular type of material, like granite. You think they were
obviously produced by non-deliberate natural forces. Is there any
pattern that you can find regarding the weight of your rocks? Sure,
fewer and fewer of them can be found to weigh closer and closer to
287.86 . . . ounces. But, this isn't the type of pattern I'm talking
about. Do any of them weigh more or less than this number? Sure they
do. So, it is hard to extrapolate any sort of "limit" to the weight
of rocks produced by non-deliberate forces of nature. In other words,
it is just as likely that natural forces will produce a rock of your
specifications as it is for a rock of any other weight specification
around this range to be produced.
You see, no particular type of pattern is produced here that can be
used to predict the future - to predict this weight as a "limit" to
the abilities of natural forces vs. any other weight in this range.
There is no detectable bias with regard to the most likely weight of a
granite rock that will be produced or any limit within this range that
will be significantly more favored.
To use another illustration of yours, this is like picking a
particularly unlikely hand of cards (52 in a deck) - like a set of 7
specific cards. Although very unlikely to be dealt this specific
hand, if this hand does happen to be dealt, it doesn't given one any
pattern that can be used to predict the future. However, if the same
hand were dealt over and over again, like 2, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100 . . .
times in a row, a pattern starts to emerge that can be used to predict
the future with greater and greater predictive value each time the
prediction succeeds. And, as this prediction succeeds, the odds that
the hand is really being dealt in a non-biased random way drop quite
dramatically each time.
Now, there are many forces of nature that are quite biased in one form
or another (i.e., they are not entirely random). However, many times
these non-random biased features are limited in a very predictable way
depending upon the material in question. And, that brings us back to
one of my favorite materials to use as an example - granite.
All known natural forces, as they interact with the material of
granite, have an interesting limitation when it comes to certain
features, like certain types of symmetry. A very predictable pattern
of symmetry is produced in granite by natural forces. Pretty
symmetrical granite forms can be produced by nature, but the most
symmetrical of these are spherical or rounded or parabolic in shape.
However, when one starts to consider symmetry with regard to non-
rounded sharply defined surface irregularities, an interesting pattern
starts to materialize. Nature has a more and more difficult time
producing greater and greater degrees of symmetry when it comes to
surface irregularities. It just doesn't seem to be able to copy such
irregularities from one side onto the other side very well - to
produce this type of repetitive "pattern" given the material of
granite. There is a clear "stalling out" effect that is directly
related to increasing degrees of symmetry beyond which nature has a
much harder time compared with the range that can be achieve using
human-level intelligence and technological know-how.
It isn't therefore a matter of if humans are *likely* to do it this
way or that way. Rather, it is more of if humans *can* do it this way
or that way compared to natural processes? And, even if neither is
known to be able to achieve a particular feature, which one comes
closer in what they are known to be able (not likely, but able - as in
capable range) to achieve?
The force that comes the closest to the pattern in question via
extrapolation of the known range of patterns each type of force
produces is the most likely force responsible.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 20:39:43 -0700, Seanpit
The edges of the hole can be very sharply defined as they cut down
from the surface of the cube face.
> Don Cates
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
R. Baldwin
The point isn't obvious, actually.
How do you propose to modify the rule?
You can't measure reflexive symmetry with respect to a point. It requires a
datum plane.
>
>> > The degree of tolerance previously listed (0.001%) seems to have come
>> > under the most heat. It remains that all of the surface point
>> > distances on one half of the rock must match all of the surface point
>> > distances on the exact opposite side of the rock to within the stated
>> > degree of tolerance as a fraction of the total distance from one
>> > surface point to the opposing surface point. For example, a granite
>> > cube measuring 500 mm on each side could sustain a variation in
>> > surface point distance of one side compared with the other of up to 5
>> > microns and still pass the tolerance test. For even further
>> > clarification, if the distance between the center of the cube and one
>> > surface point were 5 microns smaller or greater than the opposing
>> > distance, this variation would pass the test. In other words, the
>> > variation relative to the total distance cannot be greater than
>> > 0.001%.
>>
>> I think this has gotten less clear than your original post. Initially, it
>> appeared that the point on each side would be measured with respect to a
>> datum plane.
>
> I specifically said that each side would be measured with respect to a
> central point - not a plane.
In which case you have a different problem. Measurement instruments are not
available to make measurements in this fashion. You'll need to invent a new
instrument and get it calibrated with traceability to NIST standards.
>
>> You weren't specific about that, but if "center of the object"
>> were generously construed as a datum plane through the geometric center
>> of
>> the object, it would work. Now they are measured with respect to each
>> other,
>> and both vary with respect to a datum plane. That is bad measurement
>> practice, and it is difficult to accuratly describe what the tolerance
>> means.
>
> The have always been measured with respect to a central point and
> compared with each other, with the overall variance being less than
> 0.001%.
You've made measurements to 0.001%? I do not believe you.
That answer is not clearly yes, because you are not yet clear about the
particular type and degree of symmetry.
It is clear you don't have experience with instrumented dimensional
measurement. If you have a datum plane through each of two surfaces, there
will be a minimum and a maximum across the projection of one surface onto
the other, due to error from parallel. If the parallelism of two surfaces
are within 5 microns, then the difference between the maximum and minimum on
these data planes over the projected area is 5 microns. You can measure the
parallelism of surfaces with a surface gage. If the surfaces are slightly
rounded (not perfectly flat), you can select a tangent plane as a reference
for the surface gage.
Flatness is the maximum deviation of a surface from a flat plane; i.e., one
from datum plane. The flatness of two surfaces is irrespective of how
parallel they are, and both surfaces deviate independantly from flat. For
machining operations, it usually has to do with the effect of getting a
slightly rounded surface - you deviate more from flat away from the center
of the surface and toward the edges. It is usuall specified in TIR and there
are a variety of measurement methods. You could also get sinusoids across
the surface.
Flatness and parallelism are independent and their tolerances do stack. They
are also independant of roughness, which will usually be described as a root
mean square dimension.
> Beyond this, the measurements are well within the stated reduction in
> tolerance listed above of 0.01%.
>
>> > Another fair example of modern technology when it comes to the
>> > material of granite is the Microplan Group (see link). They
>> > manufacture, among other things, granite testing devices, to include
>> > cubes, machined to within tolerances of 1-3 micrometers depending on
>> > size (i.e., a um = 1/1000 of a millimeter or 0.001% of 10 cm =
>> > 0.000001 m).
>>
>> >http://www.microplan-group.com/pagine/prodotti_gb/cu_gb.htm
>>
>> So would anybody else producing laboratory grade plates. Big deal. These
>> are
>> usually about 7-8 cm thick. I know. I've used them. 1-3 microns would be
>> 13
>> to 43 ppm (0.0013% to 0.0043%) of such a thickness, and that does not
>> include flatness (hint: the objects warp).
>
> A 200mm cube doesn't warp appreciably in a set environment. And
> again, regardless, such a cube falls well within the new 0.01%
> tolerance requirement - reduced because of your complaining even
> though the reduction doesn't alter the point of this test in the
> least.
>
No, you would not get appreciable warp in a 200 mm cube from its
environment. You would get flatness deviation from machining, and possibly a
warp, depending on how hot it got during the machining.
shel...@msn.com
wrote:
> On Jul 5, 8:47 pm, sheldo...@msn.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 5, 8:39 pm, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.0catch.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 5, 8:19 pm, sheldo...@msn.com wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 5, 8:11 pm, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.0catch.com>
> > > > wrote:> On Jul 5, 5:47 pm, sheldo...@msn.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > > The degree of irregularity is still the same. At least 30% of the
> > > > > > > surface points on one half of the rock must vary in distance from the
> > > > > > > distance.
>
> > > > > > Could this be a big hole in acube? The surface points would be
> > > > > > nonexistent, or 0, of course. But100% of the surface points would
> > > > > > vary100% from the average surface point distance of the rest of the
> > > > > > object.
>
> > > > > I'm not sure I am visualizing what you are asking here correctly?
>
> > > > source. Does a hole satisfy the irregularity requirement?
>
> > > Sure it does. But the hole does have a surface and the surface points
> > > as measured from thecenterof thecube- at least not as I visualize
> > > it.
>
> > >From thecenterto the surface of the object (not the hole) to the
> > surface, say 10cm.
> > >From thecenterof the surface of the object (centerof the hole) to
>
> > the plane of the surface (or measurement next to the hole), is 0.
> > I'd *characterize* that as100% deviation.
>
>
shel...@msn.com
> "Seanpit" <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote in message
>
> > The distances to be measured are from a center point, not a plane.
> > This is why it doesn't matter what "plane" of symmetry you decide to
> > use as long as it passes through this central point. Also, this is why
> > a "cube" shape does indeed fulfill the 30%/10% requirement.
>
> You can't measure reflexive symmetry with respect to a point. It requires a
> datum plane.
>
Well I've never claimed to be a whiz in math or trig, but it appears
to me that you could map the entire object and every point within and
on the object from a reference point, including plotting any plane of
reference you wished.
Seanpit
> On Jul 6, 4:01 pm, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.0catch.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 5, 8:54 pm, "R. Baldwin" <res0k...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
>
> > > "Seanpit" <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote in message
> > > This new rounding requirement eliminates practically all designed objects
> > > that lack a blade, and blades will generally not meet the 30%/10%
> > > requirement below (depending on what you mean by it, since it is not
> > > entirely clear). Standard engineering practice is to round corners on
> > > objects to a radius sufficient to prevent injury. How would you like to
> > > lacerate your hand by rubbing it against your granite countertop? Finely
> > > polished laboratory grade granite plates have nice rounded or beveled and
> > > rounded corners so the inspectors don't hurt their hands.
>
> > This point could be modified somewhat, but even without modification
> > the point of this rule is rather obvious.
>
> As I understand it, the point of this rule is to exclude from
> consideration naturally formed objects which might meet your criteria.
> If this is not the point of the rule, perhaps you could enlighten us
> as to what the point actually is.
Obviously the goal of the test is to distinguish the potential range
of non-artifact from the potential range of deliberate artifact.
> > > I strongly suggest this should be "vary in distance from a datum plane
> > > through the geometric center of the rock." I suspect that is what you mean.
> > > If each point is measured from the 3D geometric center, then points
> > > equidistant from a datum plane on a perfectly flat surface are highly likely
> > > meet the 30%/10% requirement - and I get the impression that is not what you
> > > want.
>
> > The distances to be measured are from a center point, not a plane.
> > This is why it doesn't matter what "plane" of symmetry you decide to
> > use as long as it passes through this central point. Also, this is why
> > a "cube" shape does indeed fulfill the 30%/10% requirement.
>
> You are measuring "reflective symmetry", yet you want to measure
> distances from a *point* in three-dimensional objects?
>
> Could you please explain how this can be done? In the conventional use
> of the term "reflectional symmetry", one can only have reflectional
> symmetry about a point if it is on a one-dimensional line. In a two-
> dimensional figure reflective symmetry is relative to a line, and in a
> three-dimensional object it is relative to a plane. I presume that in
> a tesseract it's relative to a cube, but let's not go there for now.
>
> Could you confirm that you are using the term "reflective symmetry" in
> a non-conventional way, and explain what you mean by it? Or perhaps
> you'd like to reconsider that requirement that one measure reflective
> symmetry in a three-dimensional object with reference to a point.
My method allows for the measure of certain types of reflective
symmetry in that all forms that show symmetry using my method have
reflective, or at least inversely reflective, symmetry - i.e., n-fold
rotational symmetry where n=2, 4, 6, 8, 10, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotational_symmetry
http://www.mathsisfun.com/geometry/symmetry-rotational.html
< snip repetitive >
> > > That depends. If the test is much worse than subjective human sorting (and
> > > this test is far worse), it is pretty much worthless.
>
> > Not when it comes to positive predictive value - which is the whole
> > point here. If you find a particular type and degree of symmetry in
> > the material of granite is the degree of symmetry somehow related to
> > predicting deliberate artifact? The answer is clearly yes.
>
> So if I bring you a granite cube meeting your specifications, tell you
> that it is made by natural processes and demand the $1000 you offered
> as a bet, what are you going to do?
>
> Are you going to tell me that because the cube meets your
> specifications, it can't be natural, and that therefore I cannot
> collect my $1000?
>
> If so, that looks like a "sucker bet" to me.
>
> If this isn't a sucker bet, perhaps you could explain to us the
> conditions under which someone could claim the $1000 you are
> apparently offering. As it is, it looks like a rather bogus bet,
> doesn't it?
You have to show evidence of it actually being made by an accepted non-
deliberate force of nature that is directed in an apparently non-
deliberate way (i.e., weather systems driving wind, rain, lightening,
heat, cold, sandstorms, etc). Your evidence has to be repeatably
demonstrable and accepted by a disinterested 3rd party agreeable to
both interested parties.
> RF
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
> > > the plane of the surface (or measurement next to the hole), is 0.
> > > I'd *characterize* that as100% deviation.
>
> > Deviation is a measure of the change in
> > distance as measured from thecenter of the cube.
>
> Which is where I placed the hole to run through.
That doesn't matter. The center is still the center even if it is
hollow . .
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
> >> This new rounding requirement eliminates practically all designed objects
> >> that lack a blade, and blades will generally not meet the 30%/10%
> >> requirement below (depending on what you mean by it, since it is not
> >> entirely clear). Standard engineering practice is to round corners on
> >> objects to a radius sufficient to prevent injury. How would you like to
> >> lacerate your hand by rubbing it against your granite countertop? Finely
> >> polished laboratory grade granite plates have nice rounded or beveled and
> >> rounded corners so the inspectors don't hurt their hands.
>
> > This point could be modified somewhat, but even without modification
> > the point of this rule is rather obvious.
>
> The point isn't obvious, actually.
>
> How do you propose to modify the rule?
Allow for rounding of edges by no more than is needed to avoid cutting
one's self ; )
> > The distances to be measured are from a center point, not a plane.
> > This is why it doesn't matter what "plane" of symmetry you decide to
> > use as long as it passes through this central point. Also, this is why
> > a "cube" shape does indeed fulfill the 30%/10% requirement.
>
> You can't measure reflexive symmetry with respect to a point. It requires a
> datum plane.
If all opposing lines are reflectively symmetrical about a single
point, the overall symmetry of the object will be reflectively
symmetrical as well - or at least inversely reflective - i.e., it will
have n-fold rotational symmetry where n=2, 4, 6, 8, 10, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotational_symmetry
http://www.mathsisfun.com/geometry/symmetry-rotational.html
> > I specifically said that each side would be measured with respect to a
> > central point - not a plane.
>
> In which case you have a different problem. Measurement instruments are not
> available to make measurements in this fashion. You'll need to invent a new
> instrument and get it calibrated with traceability to NIST standards.
I don't think so because the examples that do fit NIST standards will
also fit the standards of my test - at least to within my new
tolerance level of 0.01%. It's simple geometry.
> > They have always been measured with respect to a central point and
> > compared with each other, with the overall variance being less than
> > 0.001%.
>
> You've made measurements to 0.001%? I do not believe you.
That's not what I said. I said that my test has always required the
degree of tolerance to be measured in this manner.
> >> That depends. If the test is much worse than subjective human sorting
> >> (and
> >> this test is far worse), it is pretty much worthless.
>
> > Not when it comes to positive predictive value - which is the whole
> > point here. If you find a particular type and degree of symmetry in
> > the material of granite is the degree of symmetry somehow related to
> > predicting deliberate artifact? The answer is clearly yes.
>
> That answer is not clearly yes, because you are not yet clear about the
> particular type and degree of symmetry.
I just think you are trying to be confused at this point . . .
> >> In other words, a net tolerance on the order of 13 microns with respect
> >> to a
> >> datum plane, or 52 ppm (0.0052%) with respect to a datum through the
> >> center,
> >> 26 ppm (0.0026%) with respect to the average thickness. It fails your
> >> test.
>
> > The parallel tolerance includes the tolerance for flatness for each
> > opposing surface. That is why the parallel tolerance is greater than
> > the flatness tolerance. If the net tolerance were actually 13 microns
> > as you suggest, the parallel could not be known to be within just 5
> > microns. Also, as long as the surfaces are parallel to within 5
> > microns, you cannot add in the perpendicularity measurement, because
> > that would not have an effect on overall symmetry.
>
> It is clear you don't have experience with instrumented dimensional
> measurement. If you have a datum plane through each of two surfaces, there
> will be a minimum and a maximum across the projection of one surface onto
> the other, due to error from parallel. If the parallelism of two surfaces
> are within 5 microns, then the difference between the maximum and minimum on
> these data planes over the projected area is 5 microns. You can measure the
> parallelism of surfaces with a surface gage. If the surfaces are slightly
> rounded (not perfectly flat), you can select a tangent plane as a reference
> for the surface gage.
I don't get it. If the surfaces are rounded, then they aren't really
parallel over their entire surface. One could find opposing
"tangents" that would produce a parallel projection on opposing
surfaces of a sphere. Do you have a relevant quote from a reference
for this?
> Flatness is the maximum deviation of a surface from a flat plane; i.e., one
> from datum plane. The flatness of two surfaces is irrespective of how
> parallel they are, and both surfaces deviate independantly from flat. For
> machining operations, it usually has to do with the effect of getting a
> slightly rounded surface - you deviate more from flat away from the center
> of the surface and toward the edges. It is usuall specified in TIR and there
> are a variety of measurement methods. You could also get sinusoids across
> the surface.
>
> Flatness and parallelism are independent and their tolerances do stack. They
> are also independant of roughness, which will usually be described as a root
> mean square dimension.
Do you have a relevant quote from a reference for the notion that
these tolerances must stack and cannot be absorbed? Just for personal
interest? After all, this is a mute point now that my reduced
tolerance of 0.01% falls well within even these "stacked" tolerances
of what is being produced by modern human technology.
> > A 200mm cube doesn't warp appreciably in a set environment. And
> > again, regardless, such a cube falls well within the new 0.01%
> > tolerance requirement - reduced because of your complaining even
> > though the reduction doesn't alter the point of this test in the
> > least.
>
> No, you would not get appreciable warp in a 200 mm cube from its
> environment. You would get flatness deviation from machining, and possibly a
> warp, depending on how hot it got during the machining.
We are talking about measurements of tolerances in a set environment
after the machining is finished. A significantly warped cube would
not have such narrow post-machined tolerances.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
R. Baldwin
In other words, you've just discoved that your method does not measure
reflection symmetry after all?
Perhaps you ought to go review the facts about geometry and measurement,
then come back and post your method later, when you can clearly articulate
what it is, using correct terminology and standard measurement techniques.
[snip rest]
R. Baldwin
> On Jul 6, 7:00 pm, "R. Baldwin" <res0k...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
>
>> >> This new rounding requirement eliminates practically all designed
>> >> objects
>> >> that lack a blade, and blades will generally not meet the 30%/10%
>> >> requirement below (depending on what you mean by it, since it is not
>> >> entirely clear). Standard engineering practice is to round corners on
>> >> objects to a radius sufficient to prevent injury. How would you like
>> >> to
>> >> lacerate your hand by rubbing it against your granite countertop?
>> >> Finely
>> >> polished laboratory grade granite plates have nice rounded or beveled
>> >> and
>> >> rounded corners so the inspectors don't hurt their hands.
>>
>> > This point could be modified somewhat, but even without modification
>> > the point of this rule is rather obvious.
>>
>> The point isn't obvious, actually.
>>
>> How do you propose to modify the rule?
>
> Allow for rounding of edges by no more than is needed to avoid cutting
> one's self ; )
Where I work, that is usually 20 to 30 mils (20,000 to 30,000 microinch).
For countertops there is usually also a bevel of 50 to 200 mils.
>
>> > The distances to be measured are from a center point, not a plane.
>> > This is why it doesn't matter what "plane" of symmetry you decide to
>> > use as long as it passes through this central point. Also, this is why
>> > a "cube" shape does indeed fulfill the 30%/10% requirement.
>>
>> You can't measure reflexive symmetry with respect to a point. It requires
>> a
>> datum plane.
>
> If all opposing lines are reflectively symmetrical about a single
> point, the overall symmetry of the object will be reflectively
> symmetrical as well - or at least inversely reflective - i.e., it will
> have n-fold rotational symmetry where n=2, 4, 6, 8, 10, etc.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotational_symmetry
> http://www.mathsisfun.com/geometry/symmetry-rotational.html
>
So you weren't measuring reflection symmetry after all. You were using your
own made up language? Is it any wonder you are having so much trouble
getting people to understand your method?
>> > I specifically said that each side would be measured with respect to a
>> > central point - not a plane.
>>
>> In which case you have a different problem. Measurement instruments are
>> not
>> available to make measurements in this fashion. You'll need to invent a
>> new
>> instrument and get it calibrated with traceability to NIST standards.
>
> I don't think so because the examples that do fit NIST standards will
> also fit the standards of my test - at least to within my new
> tolerance level of 0.01%. It's simple geometry.
Examples don't "fit NIST standards." That phrase means nothing. Instruments
are calibrated with traceability to NIST standards. That means there is a
chain, through each successive calibration instrument, back to the standards
at NIST. Instruments of new design require the validation of new calibration
methods, which must be traced back to NIST.
Your method may seem to involve simple geometry, but it is not a simple
measurement. For objects with flat surfaces, it involves picking opposing
surface points using finer and finer angular adjustments the further you get
off the perpendicular through your origin. Available instruments aren't
designed to work that way. Flat objects are measured against calibrated
surface planes.
>
>> > They have always been measured with respect to a central point and
>> > compared with each other, with the overall variance being less than
>> > 0.001%.
>>
>> You've made measurements to 0.001%? I do not believe you.
>
> That's not what I said. I said that my test has always required the
> degree of tolerance to be measured in this manner.
You used the words "they have always been measured." That implies
measurements have been made. Perhaps you might rephrase?
>
>
>> >> That depends. If the test is much worse than subjective human sorting
>> >> (and
>> >> this test is far worse), it is pretty much worthless.
>>
>> > Not when it comes to positive predictive value - which is the whole
>> > point here. If you find a particular type and degree of symmetry in
>> > the material of granite is the degree of symmetry somehow related to
>> > predicting deliberate artifact? The answer is clearly yes.
>>
>> That answer is not clearly yes, because you are not yet clear about the
>> particular type and degree of symmetry.
>
> I just think you are trying to be confused at this point . . .
When you can't even use correct terminology for the kind of symmetry you are
investigating, and make glaring mistakes about measurement methods and
tolerance?
No, they are not parallel over their entire surface. Real world objects
designed with parallel surfaces are never parallel over their entire
surface.
I don't have a quote on using tangents. It is a practical approach that
would work in most machining environments where you have broad, nearly flat
surfaces to work with. Products vary enough that companies usually develop
their own standard measurement methods suitable for the objects in question.
I have found the NIST method for checking flatness and parallelism in gage
blocks, however.
http://emtoolbox.nist.gov/Publications/NBSIR73-239.pdf
The mechanical method for checking parallelism begins on page 4, and uses
figures 6-8. It uses two points on each of two axes to describe parallelism.
You will need to become a bit more familiar with metrology, though, I think.
>
>> Flatness is the maximum deviation of a surface from a flat plane; i.e.,
>> one
>> from datum plane. The flatness of two surfaces is irrespective of how
>> parallel they are, and both surfaces deviate independantly from flat. For
>> machining operations, it usually has to do with the effect of getting a
>> slightly rounded surface - you deviate more from flat away from the
>> center
>> of the surface and toward the edges. It is usuall specified in TIR and
>> there
>> are a variety of measurement methods. You could also get sinusoids across
>> the surface.
>>
>> Flatness and parallelism are independent and their tolerances do stack.
>> They
>> are also independant of roughness, which will usually be described as a
>> root
>> mean square dimension.
>
> Do you have a relevant quote from a reference for the notion that
> these tolerances must stack and cannot be absorbed? Just for personal
> interest? After all, this is a mute point now that my reduced
> tolerance of 0.01% falls well within even these "stacked" tolerances
> of what is being produced by modern human technology.
I can't find a quote. This is from personal work experience.
Perhaps this example will help you understand:
A tetrahedron is a 4-sided polyhedron. If it is a perfect tetrahedron, all
four of its sides are flat. None of them are parallel.
Now take a perfect disk cut from a perfect flat sheet. Mill the outer 1/5 of
the two flat surfaces to a curve. The two sides are parallel (as we describe
parallel in dimensioning and tolerancing), but they are not flat. Do the
same thing with a sheet that varies uniformly in thickness across its width.
Now the two sides are neither parallel nor flat, and the tolerance is even
wider.
If you really want to know more, you can buy books about metrology, and
about dimensioning and tolerancing. See NIST and ISO for metrology. See ASME
for dimensioning and tolerancing. There are comparable organizations around
the world.
>
>> > A 200mm cube doesn't warp appreciably in a set environment. And
>> > again, regardless, such a cube falls well within the new 0.01%
>> > tolerance requirement - reduced because of your complaining even
>> > though the reduction doesn't alter the point of this test in the
>> > least.
>>
>> No, you would not get appreciable warp in a 200 mm cube from its
>> environment. You would get flatness deviation from machining, and
>> possibly a
>> warp, depending on how hot it got during the machining.
>
> We are talking about measurements of tolerances in a set environment
> after the machining is finished. A significantly warped cube would
> not have such narrow post-machined tolerances.
>
That depends on which tolerances you are referring to, and how warped it is.
Seanpit
> > My method allows for the measure of certain types of reflective
> > symmetry in that all forms that show symmetry using my method have
> > reflective, or at least inversely reflective, symmetry - i.e., n-fold
> > rotational symmetry where n=2, 4, 6, 8, 10, etc.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotational_symmetry
> >http://www.mathsisfun.com/geometry/symmetry-rotational.html
>
> In other words, you've just discoved that your method does not measure
> reflection symmetry after all?
>
> Perhaps you ought to go review the facts about geometry and measurement,
> then come back and post your method later, when you can clearly articulate
> what it is, using correct terminology and standard measurement techniques.
This is what I've been describing all along . . . reflectively
symmetrical lines that go through a central point. I think that has
been clearly stated several times. I didn't use the term "rotational
symmetry" because in previous exchanges with Richard he didn't seem to
understand the concept of rotational symmetry. Regardless, the
description of the type of symmetry being measured was clearly
described for anyone not looking for any excuse to misunderstand.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
> > The unit of measure is still meters, centimeters, millimeters, or
> > whatever unit of measure, or fraction thereof, seems most appropriate
> > to the specimen.
>
> If you are defining a methodology, you don't leave it to whoever is
> carrying out the test to decide for themselves which dimensions to
> measure and what units to use.
>
> This clarifies the fact that your claim to have a methodology is
> false.
The units of measure chosen do not affect the result (inches, meters,
etc). The % tolerance is still the same regardless of units. Also,
I've already defined how each surface point is measured from the
center of the stone and compared to the distance to the exact opposite
surface point (drawn with a straight line though the center and both
surface points).
> > The quality being measured is still reflective symmetry with regard to
> > surface irregularities. Spheres, cylinders, spheroid, parabolic, or
> > rounded off shapes do not qualify as "irregularities". For additional
> > clarification, though I believe I've made this abundantly clear in the
> > past, the type of irregularities I'm looking for are those where one
> > flat surface forms a sharply defined angle with another flat surface.
>
> No, you haven't. You have made it clear that you define the corner of
> a cube as a "surface irregularity" (which is about as non-standard a
> definition as one can have), but you have also stated that "all
> surface irregularities beyond the tolerance threshold are measured."
> This includes patterns etched on the surface, saw marks and so on, and
> from your statement implies that *any* irregularity deviating more
> than 0.001% of the dimension from the reference plane to the surface
> of the object is counted as a "surface irregularity".
Such etchings and marks are made up of flat surfaces that do in fact
form sharp angles (like ~90 deg) with the flat surface of the cube
demarcated by a distinct line of transition.
> Are you changing your definition of "surface irregularity", or are we
> to consider any deviation of more than 0.001% of the distance from the
> reference plane to the surface from any surface to be a "surface
> irregularity"?
The only thing I've changed here is the degree of tolerance from
0.001% to 0.01%. I'm just making it clear here that the
"irregularities" cannot merge into each other in a gradual or
"rounded"-off manner. They must be defined by a sharp line of
demarcation.
> > The angle cannot be "rounded" off to less than the degree of tolerance
> > described below.
>
> You'd better watch your fingers in that case. You can only study
> objects with razor sharp edges.
That would be ideal - but I'll allow for a modification to the
tolerance level of edges and corners so as to prevent unnecessary
lacerations ; )
The plane isn't rotated. There really is no need for a "plane" since,
regardless of the plane that is drawn, all surface irregularities will
be rotationally symmetrical to the opposing irregularities. I know we
had trouble the concept of rotational symmetry before, so I avoided
using that term here. But, that is really what is being measured by
my proposed method.
> > And, the choice of the "center" of the stone also doesn't
> > matter. Any center that is chosen that actually aids in fulfilling
> > all the listed criteria is the better choice.
>
> Do you think that you can give three people a granite object, ask them
> to measure it in the way you have described, and get the same set of
> numbers from all three?
Yep - - if they have the same type of technology.
> > The degree of irregularity is still the same. At least 30% of the
> > surface points on one half of the rock must vary in distance from the
> > center of the rock by more than 10% of the average surface point
> > distance.
>
> Can you give an instance of *any* object, artificial or natural, which
> does *not* meet these requirements?
A sphere . . . to name one.
> > The degree of tolerance previously listed (0.001%) seems to have come
> > under the most heat. It remains that all of the surface point
> > distances on one half of the rock must match all of the surface point
> > distances on the exact opposite side of the rock to within the stated
> > degree of tolerance as a fraction of the total distance from one
> > surface point to the opposing surface point. For example, a granite
> > cube measuring 500 mm on each side could sustain a variation in
> > surface point distance of one side compared with the other of up to 5
> > microns and still pass the tolerance test. For even further
> > clarification, if the distance between the center of the cube and one
> > surface point were 5 microns smaller or greater than the opposing
> > distance, this variation would pass the test. In other words, the
> > variation relative to the total distance cannot be greater than
> > 0.001%.
>
> This is, of course, the criterion under which the reference cubes of
> granite fail.
> I'm glad that you concede that I am correct in saying that they don't
> meet your criteria.
I haven't conceded this point.
There are plenty of objects that meet the 0.01% criteria. Beyond
that, one cannot say that a test that has yet to produce a positive
result has a positive predictive power of "zero". And, before any
positive test result is produced, one can be very confident in the
degree of positive predictive value that can be expected from the test
- based on inductive inference from an established pattern of tests
with varying degrees of lower positive predictive value.
> > Again, the point here is not so much the degree of tolerance,
> > but the pattern of significantly increasing true positive rate and
> > decreasing false positive rate (with respect to the hypothesis of
> > deliberate artifact) that presents itself as the degree of tolerance
> > is increased.
>
> But your "true positive rate" is zero.
> Your "false positive rate" is also zero.
>
> How can one change a ratio of zero to zero?
Did you not notice the phrase "as the degree of tolerance is
increased"? Start with a much lower tolerance level that allows both
artifacts and non-artifacts to pass the test. Then, increase the
tolerance levels incrementally and note what happens to the pattern of
positive predictive value of the test in relationship to changes in
the tolerance levels.
> > And, finally, the hypothesis is still the same. Namely, that if the
> > above parameters are met the prediction of deliberate artifact carries
> > with it very high positive predictive value (i.e., a very high true
> > positive rate with a correspondingly low false positive rate) that is
> > related to the strictness of the various parameters. Beyond this, if
> > the criteria of this test are not met, the possibility of deliberate
> > artifact is not addressed. In other words, the test does not address
> > negative results beyond the statement that "there is no prediction
> > with regard to negative results at all".
>
> So if I produce a granite object which meets your criteria, your
> "hypothesis" is that it is artificial.
>
> How do you test your "hypothesis"?
Set up a study where stones that are independently judged to be either
artifactual or non-artifactual (by studying their actual formation
when exposed to deliberate and non-deliberate forces) are submitted to
the test. See if the positive results given by the test can ever be
shown to be false.
> > Some think this last part makes such a test worthless - that if it
> > is not general enough to encompass all potential artifacts and have a
> > good true negative rate as well as a true positive rate, why bother.
> > Those who make such arguments don't seem to understand that having a
> > test with a true positive rate that is excellent, even with a poor
> > true negative rate, is much much better than having no test at all.
>
> So what is wrong with the tests archaeologists and others experienced
> in making such judgements use every day?
You yourself know that archaeologists cannot determine the artifactual
nature of an object unless they have at least some idea as to the
likely limits of the abilities of non-deliberate natural forces to
"manufacture" the same thing. You've admitted as much yourself in
previous posts last year. You argue that all you have to do is look
for evidence of "manufacture". But, once you find this evidence, how
do you know that this or that "manufactured" feature was the unlikely
product of some non-deliberate force of nature? What statistical
value do you give to your evidence for deliberate vs. non-deliberate
manufacture? You have to have some basis, some knowledge as to the
likely limits or threshold of what non-deliberate processes can
achieve with regard to these "manufactured" features you are looking
for - do you not?
> They have the advantage that they can tell if Michaelangelo's "David"
> is an artifact - something your test can't.
These "methods" you speak of are nothing more than a variation of what
I'm doing. Please do detail how your method is fundamentally
different from mine - in your identification of Michelangelo's "David"
as a clear "artifact" vs. the product of natural forces. Do you look
for chisel marks? etc? Whatever you look for to get some sign of
"manufacture", the same type of individual or even collective features
could be produced by non-deliberate forces of nature. It is
possible. It just isn't likely. It is far more likely that the
forces involved were therefore driven by deliberate design. That's
the fundamental basis behind all methods of detecting artifact.
Knowledge of the potential of human creativity simply isn't enough to
rule out the possibility of non-deliberate natural manufacture to a
significant degree of confidence.
> Why not do some research into how archaeologists make such
> determinations?
Why don't you explain your "methodology" to me and exactly how it is
so fundamentally different from mine?
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
> > If all opposing lines are reflectively symmetrical about a single
> > point, the overall symmetry of the object will be reflectively
> > symmetrical as well - or at least inversely reflective - i.e., it will
> > have n-fold rotational symmetry where n=2, 4, 6, 8, 10, etc.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotational_symmetry
> >http://www.mathsisfun.com/geometry/symmetry-rotational.html
>
> So you weren't measuring reflection symmetry after all. You were using your
> own made up language? Is it any wonder you are having so much trouble
> getting people to understand your method?
The description of how to make the measurements should have been clear
enough for you.
I tried many many times to get Richard to understand the concept of
rotational symmetry a while back and it never seemed to get through.
That is why I decided this time to just talk about the method used in
enough detail so as to describe rotational symmetry without having to
get hung up on trying to explain it again.
> >> > I specifically said that each side would be measured with respect to a
> >> > central point - not a plane.
>
> >> In which case you have a different problem. Measurement instruments are
> >> not
> >> available to make measurements in this fashion. You'll need to invent a
> >> new
> >> instrument and get it calibrated with traceability to NIST standards.
>
> > I don't think so because the examples that do fit NIST standards will
> > also fit the standards of my test - at least to within my new
> > tolerance level of 0.01%. It's simple geometry.
>
> Examples don't "fit NIST standards." That phrase means nothing. Instruments
> are calibrated with traceability to NIST standards. That means there is a
> chain, through each successive calibration instrument, back to the standards
> at NIST. Instruments of new design require the validation of new calibration
> methods, which must be traced back to NIST.
>
> Your method may seem to involve simple geometry, but it is not a simple
> measurement. For objects with flat surfaces, it involves picking opposing
> surface points using finer and finer angular adjustments the further you get
> off the perpendicular through your origin. Available instruments aren't
> designed to work that way. Flat objects are measured against calibrated
> surface planes.
The measurements used in the references I've given for reference
granite cubes and the like, to the listed degrees of tolerance, would
in fact match my own described measurements without them having to be
directly measured. This is just a matter of simple geometry.
> >> > They have always been measured with respect to a central point and
> >> > compared with each other, with the overall variance being less than
> >> > 0.001%.
>
> >> You've made measurements to 0.001%? I do not believe you.
>
> > That's not what I said. I said that my test has always required the
> > degree of tolerance to be measured in this manner.
>
> You used the words "they have always been measured." That implies
> measurements have been made. Perhaps you might rephrase?
Oh please . . . This passage should be quite clear in context.
< snip >
> > I don't get it. If the surfaces are rounded, then they aren't really
> > parallel over their entire surface. One could find opposing
> > "tangents" that would produce a parallel projection on opposing
> > surfaces of a sphere. Do you have a relevant quote from a reference
> > for this?
>
> No, they are not parallel over their entire surface. Real world objects
> designed with parallel surfaces are never parallel over their entire
> surface.
>
> I don't have a quote on using tangents. It is a practical approach that
> would work in most machining environments where you have broad, nearly flat
> surfaces to work with. Products vary enough that companies usually develop
> their own standard measurement methods suitable for the objects in question.
>
> I have found the NIST method for checking flatness and parallelism in gage
> blocks, however.http://emtoolbox.nist.gov/Publications/NBSIR73-239.pdf
> The mechanical method for checking parallelism begins on page 4, and uses
> figures 6-8. It uses two points on each of two axes to describe parallelism.
> You will need to become a bit more familiar with metrology, though, I think.
As far as I've been able to tell from reading this reference and
others, like the one listed below, the measurement of parallelism
seems like it is in fact related to the flatness of the parallel
surfaces being measured. If the surfaces are not flat, and you happen
to measure an elevated point on one of them, that will through off the
parallelism measurement. For example, the references listed below
describes measuring parallelism using a laser that is referenced to 3
points on one surface before measuring the parallel surface, at
different points, for variance. If either surface isn't "flat" the
variance in flatness could throw off the measure of parallelism - or
at least that is how it seems to me so far.
"Measuring Parallelism
To measure parallelism of 2 surfaces using our continuously
rotating lasers, the laser plane has to be bucked in to 3 reference
points on the first surface (see Measuring Flatness above). After
that, a target is placed on the second surface on one reference point,
adjusted so it detects the laser plane and zeroed. It can then be
moved to other points on the surface and any deviation from the
reference point is a measure of the parallelism of the first surface
to the second. At least 3 points should be measured. However, the best
way to determine parallelism is to measure both surfaces with the
laser plane and enter the data into our Plane5 software."
http://www.hamarlaser.com/howitworks/general_alignment.htm
> > Do you have a relevant quote from a reference for the notion that
> > these tolerances must stack and cannot be absorbed? Just for personal
> > interest? After all, this is a mute point now that my reduced
> > tolerance of 0.01% falls well within even these "stacked" tolerances
> > of what is being produced by modern human technology.
>
> I can't find a quote. This is from personal work experience.
>
> Perhaps this example will help you understand:
>
> A tetrahedron is a 4-sided polyhedron. If it is a perfect tetrahedron, all
> four of its sides are flat. None of them are parallel.
Yeah . . .
> Now take a perfect disk cut from a perfect flat sheet. Mill the outer 1/5 of
> the two flat surfaces to a curve. The two sides are parallel (as we describe
> parallel in dimensioning and tolerancing), but they are not flat.
But, they are only parallel at each point if each point is the same
distance to the opposing surface point. That doesn't seem to be the
same thing as measuring the degree of parallelism between two "flat"
surfaces.
> Do the
> same thing with a sheet that varies uniformly in thickness across its width.
> Now the two sides are neither parallel nor flat, and the tolerance is even
> wider.
I just don't get your point here? Parallelism still seems related to
flatness for a granite cube. If the "flat" surfaces have random
irregularities then wouldn't measuring the degree of parallelism vary
depending upon which points were compared between one surface and the
opposing parallel surface?
> If you really want to know more, you can buy books about metrology, and
> about dimensioning and tolerancing. See NIST and ISO for metrology. See ASME
> for dimensioning and tolerancing. There are comparable organizations around
> the world.
Until then, let me know if you come across a quote dealing with this
concept of additive tolerances. It just doesn't seem to make sense to
me.
> >> > A 200mm cube doesn't warp appreciably in a set environment. And
> >> > again, regardless, such a cube falls well within the new 0.01%
> >> > tolerance requirement - reduced because of your complaining even
> >> > though the reduction doesn't alter the point of this test in the
> >> > least.
>
> >> No, you would not get appreciable warp in a 200 mm cube from its
> >> environment. You would get flatness deviation from machining, and
> >> possibly a
> >> warp, depending on how hot it got during the machining.
>
> > We are talking about measurements of tolerances in a set environment
> > after the machining is finished. A significantly warped cube would
> > not have such narrow post-machined tolerances.
>
> That depends on which tolerances you are referring to, and how warped it is.
Like the new tolerance of 0.01% . . . warping beyond which would be
"significant".
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
R. Baldwin
No, it wasn't clear, because that is not what reflection symmetry means.
Seanpit
wrote:
> No, it wasn't clear, because that is not what reflection symmetry means.- Hide quoted text -
Whatever . . .
R. Baldwin
> On Jul 6, 9:12 pm, "R. Baldwin" <res0k...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
>
>> > If all opposing lines are reflectively symmetrical about a single
>> > point, the overall symmetry of the object will be reflectively
>> > symmetrical as well - or at least inversely reflective - i.e., it will
>> > have n-fold rotational symmetry where n=2, 4, 6, 8, 10, etc.
>>
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotational_symmetry
>> >http://www.mathsisfun.com/geometry/symmetry-rotational.html
>>
>> So you weren't measuring reflection symmetry after all. You were using
>> your
>> own made up language? Is it any wonder you are having so much trouble
>> getting people to understand your method?
>
> The description of how to make the measurements should have been clear
> enough for you.
>
> I tried many many times to get Richard to understand the concept of
> rotational symmetry a while back and it never seemed to get through.
> That is why I decided this time to just talk about the method used in
> enough detail so as to describe rotational symmetry without having to
> get hung up on trying to explain it again.
I'm sorry, but this just seems disingenuous. You repeatedly referred to
"reflexive symmetry." Then you brought up "angular symmetry" and then
dropped it when it was pointed out that they are not the same thing.
When and where did you try to get Richard Forrest to understand the concept
of rotational symmetry before using the term reflection symmetry?
You can determine tight tolerances without direct measurements? How? Actual
objects don't quite conform themselves to pure geometry.
>
>> >> > They have always been measured with respect to a central point and
>> >> > compared with each other, with the overall variance being less than
>> >> > 0.001%.
>>
>> >> You've made measurements to 0.001%? I do not believe you.
>>
>> > That's not what I said. I said that my test has always required the
>> > degree of tolerance to be measured in this manner.
>>
>> You used the words "they have always been measured." That implies
>> measurements have been made. Perhaps you might rephrase?
>
> Oh please . . . This passage should be quite clear in context.
No, the passage is not quite clear. You have made implications about having
made measurements enough times that you will be pressed on it.
Yes, a badly chosen point can throw off a parallelism measurement.
>
> "Measuring Parallelism
>
> To measure parallelism of 2 surfaces using our continuously
> rotating lasers, the laser plane has to be bucked in to 3 reference
> points on the first surface (see Measuring Flatness above). After
> that, a target is placed on the second surface on one reference point,
> adjusted so it detects the laser plane and zeroed. It can then be
> moved to other points on the surface and any deviation from the
> reference point is a measure of the parallelism of the first surface
> to the second. At least 3 points should be measured. However, the best
> way to determine parallelism is to measure both surfaces with the
> laser plane and enter the data into our Plane5 software."
>
> http://www.hamarlaser.com/howitworks/general_alignment.htm
You may have misinterpreted what this means. If you measure three points on
a surface, you can define a reference plane through the three points (as
long as they are not on a single axis, which would be clear to anyone
attempting this method). The first three reference points define a datum
plane. You then find an equivalent plane for the other surface. If you take
more than three points, dollars to donuts that Plane5 software is doing a
best fit regression to decide where the other plane is.
It is basically telling you by how much of an angle the two surfaces are off
parallel, on two axes.
You might note that the same cite has a different method for measuring
flatness, a couple of paragraphs up.
>
>> > Do you have a relevant quote from a reference for the notion that
>> > these tolerances must stack and cannot be absorbed? Just for personal
>> > interest? After all, this is a mute point now that my reduced
>> > tolerance of 0.01% falls well within even these "stacked" tolerances
>> > of what is being produced by modern human technology.
>>
>> I can't find a quote. This is from personal work experience.
>>
>> Perhaps this example will help you understand:
>>
>> A tetrahedron is a 4-sided polyhedron. If it is a perfect tetrahedron,
>> all
>> four of its sides are flat. None of them are parallel.
>
> Yeah . . .
>
>> Now take a perfect disk cut from a perfect flat sheet. Mill the outer 1/5
>> of
>> the two flat surfaces to a curve. The two sides are parallel (as we
>> describe
>> parallel in dimensioning and tolerancing), but they are not flat.
>
> But, they are only parallel at each point if each point is the same
> distance to the opposing surface point. That doesn't seem to be the
> same thing as measuring the degree of parallelism between two "flat"
> surfaces.
No, that isn't right. Think of a perfectly flat, smooth surface. Now let it
be slightly, roughened, and slightly rounded. Not quite flat. You can still
define a datum plane that passes through the average of all the surface
points, right? This is a virtual, perfect geometric plane. It doesn't really
exist. All of the true points on this surface slightly deviate from this
plane.
Now do the same thing for an opposing surface. Neither of the two surfaces
are perfectly flat, but we have two perfectly flat planes.
The two surfaces are called parallel if the two datum planes are parallel -
even though the actual tangent, at a microscopic level, might differ widely
from parallel on two given opposing points. It is the parallelism of these
two datum planes we are trying to measure.
Flatness is something else entirely. It is a measure of the range of
deviation from flat on a single surface.
>
>> Do the
>> same thing with a sheet that varies uniformly in thickness across its
>> width.
>> Now the two sides are neither parallel nor flat, and the tolerance is
>> even
>> wider.
>
> I just don't get your point here? Parallelism still seems related to
> flatness for a granite cube. If the "flat" surfaces have random
> irregularities then wouldn't measuring the degree of parallelism vary
> depending upon which points were compared between one surface and the
> opposing parallel surface?
Possibly. If the irregularities are large with respect to the area of the
surface, then it is quite likely. It could become quite difficult to define
parallel under such circumstances. That usually isn't the situation,
however.
Are you applying 0.01% to all tolerances? In design, we tolerance dimension,
angle, radius, hole concentricity, parallelism, perpendicularity, flatness,
and roughness, for example.
richardal...@googlemail.com
wrote:
> On Jul 6, 12:41 pm, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 6, 4:01 pm, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.0catch.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 5, 8:54 pm, "R. Baldwin" <res0k...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
>
> > > > "Seanpit" <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote in message
> > > > This new rounding requirement eliminates practically all designed objects
> > > > that lack a blade, and blades will generally not meet the 30%/10%
> > > > requirement below (depending on what you mean by it, since it is not
> > > > entirely clear). Standard engineering practice is to round corners on
> > > > objects to a radius sufficient to prevent injury. How would you like to
> > > > lacerate your hand by rubbing it against your granite countertop? Finely
> > > > polished laboratory grade granite plates have nice rounded or beveled and
> > > > rounded corners so the inspectors don't hurt their hands.
>
> > > This point could be modified somewhat, but even without modification
> > > the point of this rule is rather obvious.
>
> > As I understand it, the point of this rule is to exclude from
> > consideration naturally formed objects which might meet your criteria.
> > If this is not the point of the rule, perhaps you could enlighten us
> > as to what the point actually is.
>
> Obviously the goal of the test is to distinguish the potential range
> of non-artifact from the potential range of deliberate artifact.
So why do you need to exclude curved surfaces?
I thought that you had a statistical method which could do so.
So why have you been talking about "reflective symmetry" when you mean
"rotational symmetry"? They are geometrically quite different
concepts?
And what the hell is "inversely reflective symmetry"?
The term doesn't make any sense.
>
> < snip repetitive >
>
>
>
> > > > That depends. If the test is much worse than subjective human sorting (and
> > > > this test is far worse), it is pretty much worthless.
>
> > > Not when it comes to positive predictive value - which is the whole
> > > point here. If you find a particular type and degree of symmetry in
> > > the material of granite is the degree of symmetry somehow related to
> > > predicting deliberate artifact? The answer is clearly yes.
>
> > So if I bring you a granite cube meeting your specifications, tell you
> > that it is made by natural processes and demand the $1000 you offered
> > as a bet, what are you going to do?
>
> > Are you going to tell me that because the cube meets your
> > specifications, it can't be natural, and that therefore I cannot
> > collect my $1000?
>
> > If so, that looks like a "sucker bet" to me.
>
> > If this isn't a sucker bet, perhaps you could explain to us the
> > conditions under which someone could claim the $1000 you are
> > apparently offering. As it is, it looks like a rather bogus bet,
> > doesn't it?
>
> You have to show evidence of it actually being made by an accepted non-
> deliberate force of nature that is directed in an apparently non-
> deliberate way (i.e., weather systems driving wind, rain, lightening,
> heat, cold, sandstorms, etc).
You mean we look for evidence of *how* it was made.
I thought that your test could determine that *without* knowledge of
*how* it was made?
Or does the *how* it was made only apply to natural objects, and not
artifacts?
> Your evidence has to be repeatably
> demonstrable and accepted by a disinterested 3rd party agreeable to
> both interested parties.
So how do you determine if it is made by a "non-deliberate" force?
You claim that your test can show that it is made by a "deliberate"
force, so presumably if it passes your test you will conclude that is
it the product of "deliberate" force.
How can I falsify that?
If the natural process produces millions of objects and the one
matching your specification is a one in a million chance, how can that
be repeated over a limited time period? We may have to wait a million
years for it to be repeated, or it may be the outcome of an event,
such a very slow cooling of large granite masses which takes place
deep underground and takes a million years.
It's still a sucker bet. Have you been taking lessons from Kent
Hovind?
And bearing in mind that you cannot even produce an artifact which
meets your criteria, what on earth is the point of your test?
RF
>
> > RF
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
richardal...@googlemail.com
wrote:
> On Jul 6, 9:12 pm, "R. Baldwin" <res0k...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
>
> > > If all opposing lines are reflectively symmetrical about a single
> > > point, the overall symmetry of the object will be reflectively
> > > symmetrical as well - or at least inversely reflective - i.e., it will
> > > have n-fold rotational symmetry where n=2, 4, 6, 8, 10, etc.
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotational_symmetry
> > >http://www.mathsisfun.com/geometry/symmetry-rotational.html
>
> > So you weren't measuring reflection symmetry after all. You were using your
> > own made up language? Is it any wonder you are having so much trouble
> > getting people to understand your method?
>
> The description of how to make the measurements should have been clear
> enough for you.
>
> I tried many many times to get Richard to understand the concept of
> rotational symmetry a while back and it never seemed to get through.
Perhaps that's because you used the term "reflective symmetry", which
means something completely different!
And by the way, let's just remind the lurkers that *you* introduced
the term "reflective symmetry" when I pointed out that your
statistical method could not tell us if Michaelangelo's David was an
artifact. By all means show that I'm wrong, but as far as I can recall
you hadn't mentioned reflective symmetry at all before then, and were
claiming that your method could distinguish between objects made by
"deliberate" and "non-deliberate" forces on the basis of a statistical
analysis of shape alone, with no reference to symmetry.
By the way, I know perfectly well what "rotational symmetry" means,
and you can't measure rotational symmetry by reference to the distance
from a point. You have to measure it by reference to angles.
> That is why I decided this time to just talk about the method used in
> enough detail so as to describe rotational symmetry without having to
> get hung up on trying to explain it again.
Why have you changed your parameters again?
You were talking about "reflective symmetry".
Now you are talking about "rotational symmetry", though your criteria
for measurement make no sense if you are using the conventional
meaning of the term.
>
> > Examples don't "fit NIST standards." That phrase means nothing. Instruments
> > are calibrated with traceability to NIST standards. That means there is a
> > chain, through each successive calibration instrument, back to the standards
> > at NIST. Instruments of new design require the validation of new calibration
> > methods, which must be traced back to NIST.
>
> > Your method may seem to involve simple geometry, but it is not a simple
> > measurement. For objects with flat surfaces, it involves picking opposing
> > surface points using finer and finer angular adjustments the further you get
> > off the perpendicular through your origin. Available instruments aren't
> > designed to work that way. Flat objects are measured against calibrated
> > surface planes.
>
> The measurements used in the references I've given for reference
> granite cubes and the like, to the listed degrees of tolerance, would
> in fact match my own described measurements without them having to be
> directly measured. This is just a matter of simple geometry.
None of them measure "rotational symmetry".
And none of them meet your specification for "reflective symmetry".
> >
> > You used the words "they have always been measured." That implies
> > measurements have been made. Perhaps you might rephrase?
>
> Oh please . . . This passage should be quite clear in context.
The passage implied that you or someone else had made such
measurements.
"Have always been" cannot be interpreted any other way.
So perhaps you *should* rephrase - or are you still claiming to have
carried through a methodology which you can't even define clearly, and
which you keep changing as it's defects are identified?
> < snip >
>
>
>
> > > I don't get it. If the surfaces are rounded, then they aren't really
> > > parallel over their entire surface. One could find opposing
> > > "tangents" that would produce a parallel projection on opposing
> > > surfaces of a sphere. Do you have a relevant quote from a reference
> > > for this?
>
> > No, they are not parallel over their entire surface. Real world objects
> > designed with parallel surfaces are never parallel over their entire
> > surface.
>
> > I don't have a quote on using tangents. It is a practical approach that
> > would work in most machining environments where you have broad, nearly flat
> > surfaces to work with. Products vary enough that companies usually develop
> > their own standard measurement methods suitable for the objects in question.
>
> > I have found the NIST method for checking flatness and parallelism in gage
> > blocks, however.http://emtoolbox.nist.gov/Publications/NBSIR73-239.pdf
> > The mechanical method for checking parallelism begins on page 4, and uses
> > figures 6-8. It uses two points on each of two axes to describe parallelism.
> > You will need to become a bit more familiar with metrology, though, I think.
>
> As far as I've been able to tell from reading this reference and
> others, like the one listed below, the measurement of parallelism
> seems like it is in fact related to the flatness of the parallel
> surfaces being measured.
Well, you're wrong. It isn't.
> If the surfaces are not flat, and you happen
> to measure an elevated point on one of them, that will through off the
> parallelism measurement. For example, the references listed below
> describes measuring parallelism using a laser that is referenced to 3
> points on one surface before measuring the parallel surface, at
> different points, for variance. If either surface isn't "flat" the
> variance in flatness could throw off the measure of parallelism - or
> at least that is how it seems to me so far.
>
> "Measuring Parallelism
>
> To measure parallelism of 2 surfaces using our continuously
> rotating lasers, the laser plane has to be bucked in to 3 reference
> points on the first surface (see Measuring Flatness above). After
> that, a target is placed on the second surface on one reference point,
> adjusted so it detects the laser plane and zeroed. It can then be
> moved to other points on the surface and any deviation from the
> reference point is a measure of the parallelism of the first surface
> to the second. At least 3 points should be measured. However, the best
> way to determine parallelism is to measure both surfaces with the
> laser plane and enter the data into our Plane5 software."
>
> http://www.hamarlaser.com/howitworks/general_alignment.htm
>
Yep. You're wrong. Thanks for confirming it.
You won't learn anything using your method of making things up as you
go along, and then asking people to provide quotations which show that
you are wrong, Sean.
You need to sit down and learn the basics of a subject.
>
>
> > > We are talking about measurements of tolerances in a set environment
> > > after the machining is finished. A significantly warped cube would
> > > not have such narrow post-machined tolerances.
>
> > That depends on which tolerances you are referring to, and how warped it is.
>
> Like the new tolerance of 0.01% . . . warping beyond which would be
> "significant".
So if your tolerances were obtained by a statistical analysis, why are
you able to change them in this arbitrary manner when it becomes clear
that they make nonsense of your claims?
RF
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
David Wilson
in talk.origins Seanpit <seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote:
> On Jul 6, 7:00 pm, "R. Baldwin" <res0k...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
>
.... [snip] ....
> > > The distances to be measured are from a center point, not a plane.
> > > This is why it doesn't matter what "plane" of symmetry you decide to
> > > use as long as it passes through this central point. Also, this is why
> > > a "cube" shape does indeed fulfill the 30%/10% requirement.
> >
> > You can't measure reflexive symmetry with respect to a point. It requires a
> > datum plane.
>
> If all opposing lines are reflectively symmetrical about a single
> point, ....
I can't find anywhere in either of your references where any sort of symmetry
is described in terms of "opposing lines" being "relectively symmetrical about
a single point", so it's not quite clear to me what you mean by this. What you
appear to be describing is what the second of your references calls "point
symmetry", also commonly referred to as "central symmetry". Your second
reference describes this informally as looking the same "from any two opposite
directions". Is this what you mean? If so, then your following claim:
> ...
> the overall symmetry of the object will be reflectively
> symmetrical as well - or at least inversely reflective - i.e., it will
> have n-fold rotational symmetry where n=2, 4, 6, 8, 10, etc.
>
is not supported by either of your references, and is in fact false. It is
easy to construct 3-dimensional, centrally symmetrical bodies which have
no other rotational or reflectional symmetries than the identity transformation
(which leaves the body precisely where it is), and the transformation which
reflects all its points in its centre of symmetry. An example is the
(irregular) octahedron whose vertices have cartesian coordinates (0,0,1),
(0,0,-1), (0,2,2), (0,-2,-2), (3,3,0) and (-3,-3,0) with respect to some
suitably chosen set of axes. The center of symmetry here is the origin,
(0,0,0), of the coordinate system.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotational_symmetry
> http://www.mathsisfun.com/geometry/symmetry-rotational.html
... [snip rest] .....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Wilson
SPAMMERS_fingers@WILL_BE_fwi_PROSECUTED_.net.au
(Remove underlines and upper case letters to obtain my email address.
Don Cates
<seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> posted:
>On Jul 6, 12:41 pm, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
[snip]
>>
>> You are measuring "reflective symmetry", yet you want to measure
>> distances from a *point* in three-dimensional objects?
>>
>> Could you please explain how this can be done? In the conventional use
>> of the term "reflectional symmetry", one can only have reflectional
>> symmetry about a point if it is on a one-dimensional line. In a two-
>> dimensional figure reflective symmetry is relative to a line, and in a
>> three-dimensional object it is relative to a plane. I presume that in
>> a tesseract it's relative to a cube, but let's not go there for now.
>>
>> Could you confirm that you are using the term "reflective symmetry" in
>> a non-conventional way, and explain what you mean by it? Or perhaps
>> you'd like to reconsider that requirement that one measure reflective
>> symmetry in a three-dimensional object with reference to a point.
>
>My method allows for the measure of certain types of reflective
>symmetry in that all forms that show symmetry using my method have
>reflective, or at least inversely reflective, symmetry - i.e., n-fold
>rotational symmetry where n=2, 4, 6, 8, 10, etc.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotational_symmetry
>http://www.mathsisfun.com/geometry/symmetry-rotational.html
>
>< snip repetitive >
>
[snip]
>>
>> So if I bring you a granite cube meeting your specifications, tell you
>> that it is made by natural processes and demand the $1000 you offered
>> as a bet, what are you going to do?
>>
>> Are you going to tell me that because the cube meets your
>> specifications, it can't be natural, and that therefore I cannot
>> collect my $1000?
>>
>> If so, that looks like a "sucker bet" to me.
>>
>> If this isn't a sucker bet, perhaps you could explain to us the
>> conditions under which someone could claim the $1000 you are
>> apparently offering. As it is, it looks like a rather bogus bet,
>> doesn't it?
>
>You have to show evidence of it actually being made by an accepted non-
>deliberate force of nature that is directed in an apparently non-
>deliberate way (i.e., weather systems driving wind, rain, lightening,
>heat, cold, sandstorms, etc). Your evidence has to be repeatably
>demonstrable and accepted by a disinterested 3rd party agreeable to
>both interested parties.
>
This is rediculous. Obviously any natural process that could create
such a cube would be very unlikely. I can think of at least one
possible way (a varient on the 'lost wax' casting technique) that, in
the very unlikely case that it happened, would require several million
years to complete. The chance that it would be found at the proper
time is even less likely. Asking for repeatability is nuts.
I find the situation we have arrived at quite amusing. Sean's 'method'
now seems to require the rejection of all but the most carefully made,
extremely symetrical objects. Yet he is on record as claiming his
'method' would work quite well to determine that Michelangelo's David
was designed. [Message-ID:
<1147190748.7...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>]
So Sean, give us your algorythm for determining that 'david' is
designed and see if someone can find a naturally occurring object that
meets *those* criteria.
Inez
wrote:
Sure, although the pattern is only useful because that's how you
recognize that something biased is going on. Seemingly random series
of cards could just as easily be due to biased selection, the pattern
is only useful in allowing you to notice.
But still humans are the reference point. If humans were somehow not
able to produce regular pieces of granite while natural forces,
although very unlikely to, were still capable of it, then we would
predict regular pieces of granite to be of natural origin.
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 19:21:10 -0700, Seanpit
>
> So Sean, give us your algorythm for determining that 'david' is
> designed and see if someone can find a naturally occurring object that
> meets *those* criteria.
> --
> Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" - PN)
I thought that he had quietly withdrawn his assertion that his method
could detect that "David" is "designed", especially after it was
pointed out to him that the characteristic of "David" which he claimed
*showed* that it is designed, the "reflective symmetry" of the face,
does not exist. The face of "Davis" is deliberately asymmetrical.
Bearing in mind that he introduced the characteristic of "reflective
symmetry" into his "methodology" so that he *could* claim to be able
to detect that "David" is an artifact, there is a certain irony in
this. What is more ironic is that he is *now* claiming that by
"reflective symmetry" he means "rotational symmetry" - rather
different concept.
His original claim was that his methodology was based on the analysis
of shapes of granite objects produced by "deliberate" and "non-
deliberate" forces, and that he could show statistically that there is
a difference. He claimed to be able to discriminate between naturally
occurring objects and artifacts with a high degree of statistical
probability.
At the time, I don't think that he was claiming to have carried out
his methodology, yet felt confident enough of what the outcome would
be to claim statistical support for his assertions. Since then he has
claimed that he has actually carried out his method, something which
is patently untrue as he cannot define his methodology, and keeps
changing the methods by which measurements should be carried out when
he is not leaving up to decisions of whoever is measuring the granite
objects. His confusion over rotational as opposed to reflective
symmetry is just another piece of evidence undermining his claim to
have carried out his methodology.
I'm not sure when he introduces the requirement that objects could not
be smooth or rounded. It must have been *after* he claimed to be able
to detect "reflective symmetry" in "David", because the sculpture
obviously has rounded surfaces. I can find no reference to this
requirement *before* it was pointed out to him that some water-worn
granite cobbles may meet his requirements for "reflective
symmetry" (which is what he was calling what he now claims to be
calling "rotational symmetry" at the time.
As for his highly specified granite cube: it is not clear if claims
that he drew up the stringent criteria for "reflective" (or should
that be "rotational"? ) symmetry *after* carrying out a statistical
analysis, or that it is simply something he pulled out of the air -
which he claims as a valid approach to statistical analysis. In either
case it is irrlevant, as there appears to be no granite object at all,
natural or artificial, which meets his standards. He has, of course,
offered to *drop* his standards "for your sake" - which is not true,
of course, as it is for *his* sake - so that some objects can actually
meet his criteria. This seems a strange thing to do if those standards
were arrived at by statistical calculations, but this is Sean we're
dealing with.
It looks as if Sean has a fool-proof method for deciding if non-
existent objects are artifacts. I can't see the value of such a test
myself, but evidently it proves that irreducible complexity must be
the product of "deliberate forces". I don't find this argument very
compelling, but perhaps someone can explain why I should be so
compelled.
RF
Seanpit
wrote:
> > I tried many many times to get Richard to understand the concept of
> > rotational symmetry a while back and it never seemed to get through.
> > That is why I decided this time to just talk about the method used in
> > enough detail so as to describe rotational symmetry without having to
> > get hung up on trying to explain it again.
>
> I'm sorry, but this just seems disingenuous. You repeatedly referred to
> "reflexive symmetry." Then you brought up "angular symmetry" and then
> dropped it when it was pointed out that they are not the same thing.
I explained the typo for "angular symmetry" already.
> When and where did you try to get Richard Forrest to understand the concept
> of rotational symmetry before using the term reflection symmetry?
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c21d71ad9774f1ed?hl=en&
> > The measurements used in the references I've given for reference
> > granite cubes and the like, to the listed degrees of tolerance, would
> > in fact match my own described measurements without them having to be
> > directly measured. This is just a matter of simple geometry.
>
> You can determine tight tolerances without direct measurements? How? Actual
> objects don't quite conform themselves to pure geometry.
They do to within the degree of measured tolerance.
> >> >> > They have always been measured with respect to a central point and
> >> >> > compared with each other, with the overall variance being less than
> >> >> > 0.001%.
>
> >> >> You've made measurements to 0.001%? I do not believe you.
>
> >> > That's not what I said. I said that my test has always required the
> >> > degree of tolerance to be measured in this manner.
>
> >> You used the words "they have always been measured." That implies
> >> measurements have been made. Perhaps you might rephrase?
>
> > Oh please . . . This passage should be quite clear in context.
>
> No, the passage is not quite clear. You have made implications about having
> made measurements enough times that you will be pressed on it.
Anything can be twisted to mean just about anything when taken out of
context. However, in context, such phrases cannot be so easily
misinterpreted. You can't simply pick out words and phrases out of
the overall context and present them as implying something I clearly
was not implying. Several times I explained in these series of
discussions that a very high positive predicative value based on such
a high degree of tolerance was an induction from much lower level
observations that I had made.
> > As far as I've been able to tell from reading this reference and
> > others, like the one listed below, the measurement of parallelism
> > seems like it is in fact related to the flatness of the parallel
> > surfaces being measured. If the surfaces are not flat, and you happen
> > to measure an elevated point on one of them, that will through off the
> > parallelism measurement. For example, the references listed below
> > describes measuring parallelism using a laser that is referenced to 3
> > points on one surface before measuring the parallel surface, at
> > different points, for variance. If either surface isn't "flat" the
> > variance in flatness could throw off the measure of parallelism - or
> > at least that is how it seems to me so far.
>
> Yes, a badly chosen point can throw off a parallelism measurement.
So, how do you know if the chosen points are properly chosen? If the
chosen points have a tolerance of say 2 microns with regard to
flatness, the chosen points shouldn't be off by more than 4 microns -
correct? So, if the resulting calculation of parallelism is say 5
microns, isn't this result based on the degree of tolerance of the
overall flatness - as far as the confidence one can be in the
tolerance of parallelism?
> > "Measuring Parallelism
>
> > To measure parallelism of 2 surfaces using our continuously
> > rotating lasers, the laser plane has to be bucked in to 3 reference
> > points on the first surface (see Measuring Flatness above). After
> > that, a target is placed on the second surface on one reference point,
> > adjusted so it detects the laser plane and zeroed. It can then be
> > moved to other points on the surface and any deviation from the
> > reference point is a measure of the parallelism of the first surface
> > to the second. At least 3 points should be measured. However, the best
> > way to determine parallelism is to measure both surfaces with the
> > laser plane and enter the data into our Plane5 software."
>
> >http://www.hamarlaser.com/howitworks/general_alignment.htm
>
> You may have misinterpreted what this means. If you measure three points on
> a surface, you can define a reference plane through the three points (as
> long as they are not on a single axis, which would be clear to anyone
> attempting this method).
Yes . . .
> The first three reference points define a datum
> plane.
Right . . .
> You then find an equivalent plane for the other surface. If you take
> more than three points, dollars to donuts that Plane5 software is doing a
> best fit regression to decide where the other plane is.
So, you are suggesting that parallelism is determined by regression
analysis - averaging basically? So, even though the surfaces may be
rather bumpy, and overall average of their bumpiness with respect to
the datum plane can produce a calculation of parallelism? If this is
true, consider a hypothetical situation in which the flatness of the
opposing surface has a tolerance of 2 microns. Lets also assume that
this flatness is uniform across the entire surface with randomly
arranged dips and bumps of no more than 2 microns off plane. Different
points on this surface are going to be used in reference to the datum
plane for measuring parallelism - right? Let's say that the
parallelism was measured to have a tolerance of 5 microns. That
number is based on an average of point measurements. Since this
number is an average measurement of the opposing points, this suggests
that any particular opposing point may be off by 5+2 = 7 microns from
perfection. Is that correct?
< snip >
> >> That depends on which tolerances you are referring to, and how warped it
> >> is.
>
> > Like the new tolerance of 0.01% . . . warping beyond which would be
> > "significant".
>
> Are you applying 0.01% to all tolerances? In design, we tolerance dimension,
> angle, radius, hole concentricity, parallelism, perpendicularity, flatness,
> and roughness, for example.
I was think to apply the 0.01% to the degree of variation between half
a straight line passing through the center of the stone and the other
half as a percentage of the full distance. The other measures you
mention can be used to calculate this particular tolerance.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
> On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 19:21:10 -0700, Seanpit
>
> So Sean, give us your algorythm for determining that 'david' is
> designed and see if someone can find a naturally occurring object that
> meets *those* criteria.
All that would be needed is a reduction in degree of tolerance with
regard to symmetry and allowance for more kinds of symmetry with
regard to surface irregularities - instead of just one type. The same
basic method would still be in play.
> Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" - PN)
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Bobby Bryant
Seanpit <seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> writes:
> Granite, Symmetry, and ID - Summary
>
> This is to summarize recent discussions I've had regarding my notion
> that various forms of symmetry, such as reflective symmetry, can be
> used with the material of granite to hypothesize deliberate artifact
> with an excellent true positive and low false positive rate.
>
> I initially presented certain parameters that were very narrowly
> defined to overwhelmingly exclude any remote possibility of a
> potential false positive.
At least you _assumed_ they would.
> After numerous comments and sometimes heated "suggestions", I'll
> summarize a few of the clarifications that seem to have solved at
> least a few minor cases of some confusion.
>
> The material in question is still granite. It is not some single
> crystal that may be found in granite, but granite.
And we care about detecting ID in granite blocks because...?
> The unit of measure is still meters, centimeters, millimeters, or
> whatever unit of measure, or fraction thereof, seems most appropriate
> to the specimen.
>
> The quality being measured is still reflective symmetry with regard to
> surface irregularities. Spheres, cylinders, spheroid, parabolic, or
> rounded off shapes do not qualify as "irregularities". For additional
> clarification, though I believe I've made this abundantly clear in the
> past, the type of irregularities I'm looking for are those where one
> flat surface forms a sharply defined angle with another flat surface.
> The angle cannot be "rounded" off to less than the degree of tolerance
> described below.
That's an epicycle that I haven't seen previously. What false positive
did you need it to rule out?
> The basic method of measuring symmetry is still the same, but with a
> few more clarifications. The distance of each surface point on one
> half of the rock is measured from the center of the stone. This
> distance is compared to the surface point exactly opposite as measured
> from the center of the rock. For example, if a straight line is drawn
> through the center of the rock, the surface points that it passes
> through on either side of the rock are "exactly opposite" surface
> points. The distance of each surface point is measured from the
> center of the stone. This distance is compared to the distance of the
> opposing surface point measured in the same way.
Center of mass, center of volume, center of minimal enclosing convex
hull, or what?
You need to define what you mean by 'center'. One interpretation
would make your symmetry trivially true for all measurements!
> Also, the plane of symmetry really doesn't matter as long as it
> is passes through the center of the stone. The reflective symmetry
> will be the same regardless of the various number of ways this can be
> done.
No, that's not true. There are infinitely many ways you can pass a
plane through the center of {mass,volume} of a hen's egg that would
result in a bilateral symmetry, but also an infinite number of ways
of doing it to get an asymmetrical result.
> And, the choice of the "center" of the stone also doesn't
> matter. Any center that is chosen that actually aids in fulfilling
> all the listed criteria is the better choice.
>
> The degree of irregularity is still the same. At least 30% of the
> surface points on one half of the rock must vary in distance from the
> center of the rock by more than 10% of the average surface point
> distance.
Boy, you're _really_ piling on the epicycles now, aren't you.
> The degree of tolerance previously listed (0.001%) seems to have come
> under the most heat. It remains that all of the surface point
> distances on one half of the rock must match all of the surface point
> distances on the exact opposite side of the rock to within the stated
> degree of tolerance as a fraction of the total distance from one
> surface point to the opposing surface point. For example, a granite
> cube measuring 500 mm on each side could sustain a variation in
> surface point distance of one side compared with the other of up to 5
> microns and still pass the tolerance test. For even further
> clarification, if the distance between the center of the cube and one
> surface point were 5 microns smaller or greater than the opposing
> distance, this variation would pass the test. In other words, the
> variation relative to the total distance cannot be greater than
> 0.001%.
> Of course, the main argument hasn't been so much one over how
> to measure the degree of tolerance, but that the stated degree of
> tolerance is far too restrictive to allow for anything of artifactual
> nature or otherwise to pass the test. As I see it, this really isn't
> an issue since if this degree of tolerance were ever achieved the
> artifactual nature of such a highly symmetrical granite object would
> be extremely clear. The reason this conclusion would be so clear is
> because there is a clearly established pattern of greater and greater
> positive predictive power for finer and finer tolerances well before
> the degree of 0.001% tolerance is realized.
Anyone know what the tolerance on a quartz crystal is?
> Therefore, it is quite reasonable to induce from this pattern that
> the pattern will only continue in like manner. Beyond this, there
> are several examples of manufactured granite cubes that do indeed
> fall within this degree of tolerance - with respect to symmetry and
> the measurement of tolerance as described above (see references
> listed below).
I think you've reduced the metric to trivially satisfiable again.
Suppose you are checking a wooden fence post. You don't expect
manufacture to that kind of tolerance, right? But since it doesn't
have to be symmetrical in _every_ measurement, you just work your way
down and around, one femtometer at a time -- yielding a seemingly
infinite number of possible measurements -- and keep the ones that
match while throwing out the ones that don't.
The problem with your argument and the seemingly infinite number of
patches to rule out the potential false positives you want to rule
out, is that you aren't developing the argument from any principle.
You're starting with some claim that you _want_ to be true, and
trying to patch it up until it is. (Or perhaps merely looks like
it is.)
> Even so, because I wish to avoid as much balking over this point
> as possible, I'll reduce the degree of tolerance to 0.01% - even
> further, but with a corresponding decrease in positive predictive
> power. Again, the point here is not so much the degree of tolerance,
> but the pattern of significantly increasing true positive rate and
> decreasing false positive rate (with respect to the hypothesis of
> deliberate artifact) that presents itself as the degree of tolerance
> is increased.
Can you quantify that? It's hardly useful as a design detection
tool otherwise.
> And, finally, the hypothesis is still the same. Namely, that if the
> above parameters are met the prediction of deliberate artifact carries
> with it very high positive predictive value (i.e., a very high true
> positive rate with a correspondingly low false positive rate)
What do you mean by "very high true positive rate? Surely your
method is going to miss almost all intelligently designed stone
artifacts.
> that is related to the strictness of the various parameters. Beyond
> this, if the criteria of this test are not met, the possibility of
> deliberate artifact is not addressed. In other words, the test does
> not address negative results beyond the statement that "there is no
> prediction with regard to negative results at all".
That's fair enough, but -
> Some think this last part makes such a test worthless - that if it
> is not general enough to encompass all potential artifacts and have a
> good true negative rate as well as a true positive rate, why bother.
> Those who make such arguments don't seem to understand that having a
> test with a true positive rate that is excellent, even with a poor
> true negative rate, is much much better than having no test at all.
The problem is that you can always make a test strict enough to give
few false positives, because it gives few positives at all.
Can you quantify any of that for us?
Heck, can you tell us what principles your method is built on? You
started with a simple claim that symmetry was indicative of design,
and now you've got the whole pile of crap above. Why should we
believe it actually detects design, other than because you say so?
And now that you've narrowed it down to the point that it can only
be applied to finely machined granite blocks, why should anyone
care about your method even if they thought it actually worked?
> References:
>
> "Undersigned is guide to a batch of three students of Mechanical
> Engineering for Masters Program I-STAR who have undertaken a project
> of assessing geometrical accuracy of 3 D - CMM. During the course of
> conducting project we have come across a situation which requires
> certain clarifications as under. A mechanical artifact of Granite Cube
> of size 500 X 500 x 500 mm (Hollow design having total mass of 140 Kg)
> while being checked using First Principal for checking
> perpendicularity has shown value within 5 microns for all the faces
> where as flatness values for each of the six faces have been observed
> within the range of 3 to 4 microns and parallelism of opposite faces
> while checking with digital electronic probe ( gauge head ) are within
> maximum 5 microns."
>
> http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/5439/Methods-for-Inspection-of-Checking-Reference-Granite-Cube
>
> Another fair example of modern technology when it comes to the
> material of granite is the Microplan Group (see link). They
> manufacture, among other things, granite testing devices, to include
> cubes, machined to within tolerances of 1-3 micrometers depending on
> size (i.e., a um = 1/1000 of a millimeter or 0.001% of 10 cm =
> 0.000001 m).
>
> http://www.microplan-group.com/pagine/prodotti_gb/cu_gb.htm
And what are you going to say when someone produces a naturally
occuring object with even higher precision? Got any more epicycles
left in the back of the closet?
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
Bobby Bryant
"R. Baldwin" <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> writes:
> I strongly suggest this should be "vary in distance from a datum
> plane through the geometric center of the rock." I suspect that is
> what you mean.
Of course, then if Michaelangelo had carved his David in an artificially
perfectly symmetrical pose, except with one pinkie deliberately bent in
by a millimeter, Seans "method" would leave him wondering whether it
was designed or just a naturally occuring rock.
Vend
wrote:
<snip>
> However, when one starts to consider symmetry with regard to non-
> rounded sharply defined surface irregularities, an interesting pattern
> starts to materialize. Nature has a more and more difficult time
> producing greater and greater degrees of symmetry when it comes to
> surface irregularities. It just doesn't seem to be able to copy such
> irregularities from one side onto the other side very well - to
> produce this type of repetitive "pattern" given the material of
> granite. There is a clear "stalling out" effect that is directly
> related to increasing degrees of symmetry beyond which nature has a
> much harder time compared with the range that can be achieve using
> human-level intelligence and technological know-how.
The probability that any specific granite rock shape is produced by
non-artificial processes is approximately uncorrelated to whether it's
is symmetric (excluding perhaps some special cases).
There are more asymmetric shapes than symmetric ones, thus an non-
artificial rock is more likely to be asymmetric than symmetric.
Humans are more likely to produce symmetric granite objects that other
known non-artificial processes.
Therefore, if you find a polished granite block lying on a beach, you
can infer that it's likely human-made not because a non-artificial
origin would be less likely than that of the unspecial rock lying next
to it (it isn't), but because an human origin would be more likely.
Without knowlege of what humans are likely to do, you can't infer
human design.
Seanpit
> I thought that he had quietly withdrawn his assertion that his method
> could detect that "David" is "designed", especially after it was
> pointed out to him that the characteristic of "David" which he claimed
> *showed* that it is designed, the "reflective symmetry" of the face,
> does not exist. The face of "Davis" is deliberately asymmetrical.
You mean it is not perfectly symmetrical. Yet, it is still has a
pretty high degree of symmetry - much higher than that attainable via
non-deliberate natural processes. In fact, several studies have been
done with faces showing that people find faces with a fairly high
degree of symmetry to be most attractive. You can't seriously be
arguing that human faces have no symmetry whatsoever - can you?
> Bearing in mind that he introduced the characteristic of "reflective
> symmetry" into his "methodology" so that he *could* claim to be able
> to detect that "David" is an artifact, there is a certain irony in
> this.
It seems like you are in fact trying to suggest that David does not
express any degree of reflective symmetry or any other form of
symmetry? Is that really what you are trying to suggest?
> What is more ironic is that he is *now* claiming that by
> "reflective symmetry" he means "rotational symmetry" - rather
> different concept.
We discussed rotational symmetry before when the topic of symmetry and
David came up - remember?
> His original claim was that his methodology was based on the analysis
> of shapes of granite objects produced by "deliberate" and "non-
> deliberate" forces, and that he could show statistically that there is
> a difference. He claimed to be able to discriminate between naturally
> occurring objects and artifacts with a high degree of statistical
> probability.
>
> At the time, I don't think that he was claiming to have carried out
> his methodology, yet felt confident enough of what the outcome would
> be to claim statistical support for his assertions. Since then he has
> claimed that he has actually carried out his method, something which
> is patently untrue as he cannot define his methodology, and keeps
> changing the methods by which measurements should be carried out when
> he is not leaving up to decisions of whoever is measuring the granite
> objects. His confusion over rotational as opposed to reflective
> symmetry is just another piece of evidence undermining his claim to
> have carried out his methodology.
>
> I'm not sure when he introduces the requirement that objects could not
> be smooth or rounded. It must have been *after* he claimed to be able
> to detect "reflective symmetry" in "David", because the sculpture
> obviously has rounded surfaces. I can find no reference to this
> requirement *before* it was pointed out to him that some water-worn
> granite cobbles may meet his requirements for "reflective
> symmetry" (which is what he was calling what he now claims to be
> calling "rotational symmetry" at the time.
I've discussed spheres and spheroid object even before you first
brought up the statue of David - that they didn't express symmetry
with regard to the type of surface irregularities I was talking
about. Beyond this, David most certainly has pretty sharply defined
surface irregularities . . . He's not just a rounded blob.
> As for his highly specified granite cube: it is not clear if claims
> that he drew up the stringent criteria for "reflective" (or should
> that be "rotational"? ) symmetry *after* carrying out a statistical
> analysis, or that it is simply something he pulled out of the air -
> which he claims as a valid approach to statistical analysis. In either
> case it is irrlevant, as there appears to be no granite object at all,
> natural or artificial, which meets his standards. He has, of course,
> offered to *drop* his standards "for your sake" - which is not true,
> of course, as it is for *his* sake - so that some objects can actually
> meet his criteria. This seems a strange thing to do if those standards
> were arrived at by statistical calculations, but this is Sean we're
> dealing with.
I have carried out analyses of my basis method - even though I have
not personally measured the high degrees of tolerances listed. I base
my conclusions of the predictive value of such high tolerances based
on the much lower degrees of tolerance that I have observed - as well
as the resulting pattern of positive predictive value with increasing
degrees of tolerance.
> It looks as if Sean has a fool-proof method for deciding if non-
> existent objects are artifacts. I can't see the value of such a test
> myself, but evidently it proves that irreducible complexity must be
> the product of "deliberate forces". I don't find this argument very
> compelling, but perhaps someone can explain why I should be so
> compelled.
You're blind to the value of the test because you don't seem to
understand the inductive basis behind it; that loosening the
tolerances and including more types of symmetry can make it very
applicable to all kinds of forms - to include the statue of David.
Beyond this, your own "method" for detecting artifact uses the very
same basic principles. There is no fundamental difference between
your search for evidence of "manufacture" and my "test" or variations
of it.
> RF
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
richardal...@googlemail.com
wrote:
> On Jul 7, 12:35 am, "R. Baldwin" <res0k...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net>
> wrote:
>
> > > I tried many many times to get Richard to understand the concept of
> > > rotational symmetry a while back and it never seemed to get through.
> > > That is why I decided this time to just talk about the method used in
> > > enough detail so as to describe rotational symmetry without having to
> > > get hung up on trying to explain it again.
>
> > I'm sorry, but this just seems disingenuous. You repeatedly referred to
> > "reflexive symmetry." Then you brought up "angular symmetry" and then
> > dropped it when it was pointed out that they are not the same thing.
>
> I explained the typo for "angular symmetry" already.
>
So are you talking about "reflective symmetry", "angular symmetry" or
"rotational symmetry"?
> > When and where did you try to get Richard Forrest to understand the concept
> > of rotational symmetry before using the term reflection symmetry?
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c21d71ad9774f1ed?hl=en&
Let's see:
"Every hear of mirror image rotational symmetry?"
Well, no. Google shows it to be a term whose use is restricted to the
description of the complex three-dimensional structures of large
protein molecules.
Perhaps you can explain how it is relevant to the detection of
symmetries in artifacts?
" How about glide
reflection symmetry? "
Well, yes, I had.
Mind you, as this is the first time you've mentioned it, it doesn't
seem to form part of your methodology. Or does it?
"Most of the sections of each limb on the statue of
David show some form of rotational symmetry and/or glide reflection
symmetry."
Not to any degree of accuracy they don't. The statue is not
symmetrical.
" Thigh matches thigh,"
Nope. If you look at a photograph of the statue, you will see that the
right thigh is depicted as bearing the weight of the body, and the
muscle of the upper thigh is expanded. The left thigh is shown with
the muscle relaxed.
" upper arm matches upper arm,"
Nope. The right arm hangs by David's side, and the left arm is bent,
the muscle expanded.
" finger
joint matches finger joint, "
Nope. The right hand is smaller than the left hand. The size of the
upper part of the statue is exagerated for perspective effect.
"right thorax matches left thorax,"
]
Nope. The body is bent at the waist.
" right
face matches left face . . . etc."
Nope. The eyes point in different directions.
"In short, you have many major sections of the statue that show some
form of high-level symmetry with the opposing side."
In short, you see no such thing.
"Such parts may be
rotated, relative to the other matching part in space, but that
doesn't
remove their symmetrical match."
There is no "symmetrical match" to remove.
" Most of the "parts" or segments on one
side of the statue share a high-level match with a part or segment of
the other side."
Nope. Certainly none of the parts you have identified do - just look
at a few photographs of the statue.
If you don't believe me, try this:
"For all Michelangelo's mastery of human anatomy, the David possesses
certain anatomical imperfections. The right hand is bigger than the
left with an enlarged abductor digiti minimi-suggested as a device to
draw attention to the stone as a symbol of his courage and physical
power.5 Yet the most significant anomaly is in the David's eyes, which
seem to manifest an exodeviation. The right eye is in the primary
position while the left eye appears to be looking out to the left
(Figure 1). The likely reason why this detail has been unrecognized
for hundreds of years is that most viewers have been physically unable
to examine the David at eye level and at arms-length. The statue,
about 5 metres tall in addition to its supporting pedestal, was meant
to be viewed from below and, presumably, at a distance. In 1999, the
Digital Michelangelo Project, led by Stanford University and Marc
Levoy, professor of computer science and engineering, rendered a three-
dimensional computer model that permitted the work to be viewed from
different angles and with varying light intensity and colour
modulation.6 A digitally rendered direct frontal image-a perspective
not easily attainable by photography and certainly not by floor
observation-indicated that the David is exotropic"
http://www.jrsm.org/cgi/content/full/98/2/75
" All you have to do is turn it a bit in space and it
will line up and "fit" with the opposing part as a mirror image. "
Which it won't do, as the parts of the statue are not symmetrical.
So we can rule out "David" as an artifact.
Glad we're clear on that.
Funny, but I always thought that it was.
>
> > > The measurements used in the references I've given for reference
> > > granite cubes and the like, to the listed degrees of tolerance, would
> > > in fact match my own described measurements without them having to be
> > > directly measured. This is just a matter of simple geometry.
>
> > You can determine tight tolerances without direct measurements? How? Actual
> > objects don't quite conform themselves to pure geometry.
>
> They do to within the degree of measured tolerance.
Are you referring to your 0.001% tolerance here? If so, how do you
measure it?
"David" very obviously doesn't meet even rather loose degrees of
tolerance.
>
> > >> >> > They have always been measured with respect to a central point and
> > >> >> > compared with each other, with the overall variance being less than
> > >> >> > 0.001%.
>
> > >> >> You've made measurements to 0.001%? I do not believe you.
>
> > >> > That's not what I said. I said that my test has always required the
> > >> > degree of tolerance to be measured in this manner.
>
> > >> You used the words "they have always been measured." That implies
> > >> measurements have been made. Perhaps you might rephrase?
>
> > > Oh please . . . This passage should be quite clear in context.
>
> > No, the passage is not quite clear. You have made implications about having
> > made measurements enough times that you will be pressed on it.
>
> Anything can be twisted to mean just about anything when taken out of
> context. However, in context, such phrases cannot be so easily
> misinterpreted. You can't simply pick out words and phrases out of
> the overall context and present them as implying something I clearly
> was not implying. Several times I explained in these series of
> discussions that a very high positive predicative value based on such
> a high degree of tolerance was an induction from much lower level
> observations that I had made.
Could you explain how you can use the phrase "they have always been
measured" when nothing has been measured?
>
> > > As far as I've been able to tell from reading this reference and
> > > others, like the one listed below, the measurement of parallelism
> > > seems like it is in fact related to the flatness of the parallel
> > > surfaces being measured. If the surfaces are not flat, and you happen
> > > to measure an elevated point on one of them, that will through off the
> > > parallelism measurement. For example, the references listed below
> > > describes measuring parallelism using a laser that is referenced to 3
> > > points on one surface before measuring the parallel surface, at
> > > different points, for variance. If either surface isn't "flat" the
> > > variance in flatness could throw off the measure of parallelism - or
> > > at least that is how it seems to me so far.
>
> > Yes, a badly chosen point can throw off a parallelism measurement.
>
> So, how do you know if the chosen points are properly chosen? If the
> chosen points have a tolerance of say 2 microns with regard to
> flatness, the chosen points shouldn't be off by more than 4 microns -
> correct? So, if the resulting calculation of parallelism is say 5
> microns, isn't this result based on the degree of tolerance of the
> overall flatness - as far as the confidence one can be in the
> tolerance of parallelism?
>
Do you understand what "tolerance" means?
Well, that very firmly rules out "David" as being an artifact, no
matter *how* you measure symmetry!
> The other measures you
> mention can be used to calculate this particular tolerance.
>
But Sean: You claim to have a methodology!
What did *you* measure when you studied a thousand granite objects?
To what tolerances did you measure?
How many different kinds of symmetry did you measure?
Oh, and how many of the thousand granite objects you measured met the
criteria you set?
RF
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
richardal...@googlemail.com
wrote:
> On Jul 7, 7:24 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > I thought that he had quietly withdrawn his assertion that his method
> > could detect that "David" is "designed", especially after it was
> > pointed out to him that the characteristic of "David" which he claimed
> > *showed* that it is designed, the "reflective symmetry" of the face,
> > does not exist. The face of "Davis" is deliberately asymmetrical.
>
> You mean it is not perfectly symmetrical. Yet, it is still has a
> pretty high degree of symmetry - much higher than that attainable via
> non-deliberate natural processes.
The symmetry is nowhere near the criterion of 0.001% or even 0.01% you
have set.
> In fact, several studies have been
> done with faces showing that people find faces with a fairly high
> degree of symmetry to be most attractive.
The face of "David" is *deliberately* asymmetrical!
The eyes point in different directions.
> You can't seriously be
> arguing that human faces have no symmetry whatsoever - can you?
No, but the face if a statue is not a human face. In fact, I doubt
that any human faces is symmetrical to the degree of even your relaxed
standard of 0.01%. However, the face of "David" is quite deliberately
*not* symmetrical.
>
> > Bearing in mind that he introduced the characteristic of "reflective
> > symmetry" into his "methodology" so that he *could* claim to be able
> > to detect that "David" is an artifact, there is a certain irony in
> > this.
>
> It seems like you are in fact trying to suggest that David does not
> express any degree of reflective symmetry or any other form of
> symmetry? Is that really what you are trying to suggest?
I'm saying that "David" does not exhibit any symmetry even remotely
approaching the standard of 0.01% you set as a criterion for
"artificiality". In fact, none of the elements of the statue are
symmetrical. The legs are carved differently because one is shown
bearing the weight of the body, the other relaxed. The hands are of
different sizes, the torso is bent and slightly twisted, one arm is
raised, the other hanging loosely by the side of the figure, the eyes
point in different directions and so on. The perspective of the statue
is deliberately distorted so that the upper part is proportionately
larger than the lower.
>
> > What is more ironic is that he is *now* claiming that by
> > "reflective symmetry" he means "rotational symmetry" - rather
> > different concept.
>
> We discussed rotational symmetry before when the topic of symmetry and
> David came up - remember?
Yes, but you then switched to talking about reflective symmetry, and
even went on to give a rather inadequate description of how your
methodology measured reflective symmetry.
Rotational symmmetry came up again when it was pointed out to you that
you *can't* have reflective symmetry about a point.
You have now introduced "angular symmetry" and all sorts of other
forms of symmetry.
I thought that you claimed not only to have a methodology, but to have
carried it out on a thousand granite objects!
But you demanded no smooth surfaces within the tolerances you
specified - i.e. 0.001%. Or should that be 0.01%? The curved surfaces
of David most certainly do *not* meet those tolerances!
>
> > As for his highly specified granite cube: it is not clear if claims
> > that he drew up the stringent criteria for "reflective" (or should
> > that be "rotational"? ) symmetry *after* carrying out a statistical
> > analysis, or that it is simply something he pulled out of the air -
> > which he claims as a valid approach to statistical analysis. In either
> > case it is irrlevant, as there appears to be no granite object at all,
> > natural or artificial, which meets his standards. He has, of course,
> > offered to *drop* his standards "for your sake" - which is not true,
> > of course, as it is for *his* sake - so that some objects can actually
> > meet his criteria. This seems a strange thing to do if those standards
> > were arrived at by statistical calculations, but this is Sean we're
> > dealing with.
>
> I have carried out analyses of my basis method - even though I have
> not personally measured the high degrees of tolerances listed.
But you claimed to have measured a thousand granite objects, Sean.
"> You have not carried through any of the stages, yet you claim
> conclusions based on your methodology.
I have carried them out. I haven't published anything yet, but that
doesn't mean I don't have enough information to present a very
reasonable hypothesis. "
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/talk.origins/msg/3b398a7da18abb7d?dmode=source&hl=en
> I base
> my conclusions of the predictive value of such high tolerances based
> on the much lower degrees of tolerance that I have observed - as well
> as the resulting pattern of positive predictive value with increasing
> degrees of tolerance.
So where is the data set from which you drew those conclusions, and
what statistical methods did you use to obtain them?
>
> > It looks as if Sean has a fool-proof method for deciding if non-
> > existent objects are artifacts. I can't see the value of such a test
> > myself, but evidently it proves that irreducible complexity must be
> > the product of "deliberate forces". I don't find this argument very
> > compelling, but perhaps someone can explain why I should be so
> > compelled.
>
> You're blind to the value of the test because you don't seem to
> understand the inductive basis behind it; that loosening the
> tolerances and including more types of symmetry can make it very
> applicable to all kinds of forms - to include the statue of David.
Nothing you have described as a methodology could detect that "David"
is an artifact.
>
> Beyond this, your own "method" for detecting artifact uses the very
> same basic principles. There is no fundamental difference between
> your search for evidence of "manufacture" and my "test" or variations
> of it.
The fundamental difference is that the method used by scientists
forms hypotheses which can be tested against the evidence for *how* an
object was created. If scientist cannot form a testable hypothesis,
they conclude that they don't know how an object was created.
What scientists *don't* do is to claim to be able to know what effect
unknown processes have on a material. This is why scientists devoted a
fair amount of energy in looking for *natural* explanations for crop
circles in spite of the fact that they look artificial. If you don't
know the process by which something is made, you don't know if it's
natural or artificial.
You can't just pull numbers out of the air and claim that this is any
sort of scientific test.
RF
>
> > RF
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
R. Baldwin
> On Jul 7, 12:35 am, "R. Baldwin" <res0k...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net>
> wrote:
>
>> > I tried many many times to get Richard to understand the concept of
>> > rotational symmetry a while back and it never seemed to get through.
>> > That is why I decided this time to just talk about the method used in
>> > enough detail so as to describe rotational symmetry without having to
>> > get hung up on trying to explain it again.
>>
>> I'm sorry, but this just seems disingenuous. You repeatedly referred to
>> "reflexive symmetry." Then you brought up "angular symmetry" and then
>> dropped it when it was pointed out that they are not the same thing.
>
> I explained the typo for "angular symmetry" already.
>
Yes, I recall.
>> When and where did you try to get Richard Forrest to understand the
>> concept
>> of rotational symmetry before using the term reflection symmetry?
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c21d71ad9774f1ed?hl=en&
Thanks for the link. I had not followed that thread.
I don't see that it supports what you are saying here. It appears that you
were then, as now, shifting what you meant by "symmetry" as the conversation
went along. You clearly began the thread with a discussion of reflection
symmetry, and even described it correctly. You even used these words: "My
methodology is based on finding the same irregularities on both sides of a
line of reflective symmetry" within the thread making it quite clear that
reflection symmetry as it is conventionally understood was what your method
was specifically based upon. Then you began tossing in other defintions as
objections were raised.
You did not explain the concept of rotational symmetry in the post you
cited. You simply asked if he had ever heard of "mirror image rotational
symmetry" and "glide symmetry." You did not explain either term. Of course,
it would not be any surprise if he never heard of "mirror image rotational
symmetry" since it has precisely three hits on Google, all in the same
article on PubMed. Late in the thread you described a method for observing
symmetry in Michelangelo's David, which depended on defining curving lines
through the statue. No algorithm is offered for defining the curves. It
appears to be an intuitive, subjective system used by artists. You did not
explain how this method used rotational symmetry, glide symmetry, or "mirror
image rotational symmetry."
>
>> > The measurements used in the references I've given for reference
>> > granite cubes and the like, to the listed degrees of tolerance, would
>> > in fact match my own described measurements without them having to be
>> > directly measured. This is just a matter of simple geometry.
>>
>> You can determine tight tolerances without direct measurements? How?
>> Actual
>> objects don't quite conform themselves to pure geometry.
>
> They do to within the degree of measured tolerance.
You did not answer the question. How can you determine tight tolerances
without direct measurements?
>
>> >> >> > They have always been measured with respect to a central point
>> >> >> > and
>> >> >> > compared with each other, with the overall variance being less
>> >> >> > than
>> >> >> > 0.001%.
>>
>> >> >> You've made measurements to 0.001%? I do not believe you.
>>
>> >> > That's not what I said. I said that my test has always required the
>> >> > degree of tolerance to be measured in this manner.
>>
>> >> You used the words "they have always been measured." That implies
>> >> measurements have been made. Perhaps you might rephrase?
>>
>> > Oh please . . . This passage should be quite clear in context.
>>
>> No, the passage is not quite clear. You have made implications about
>> having
>> made measurements enough times that you will be pressed on it.
>
> Anything can be twisted to mean just about anything when taken out of
> context. However, in context, such phrases cannot be so easily
> misinterpreted. You can't simply pick out words and phrases out of
> the overall context and present them as implying something I clearly
> was not implying. Several times I explained in these series of
> discussions that a very high positive predicative value based on such
> a high degree of tolerance was an induction from much lower level
> observations that I had made.
The point is, Sean, many of us find it objectionable when you exxagerate. It
obfuscates things. When you tell people you have a method for taking
measurements and you've used it, then it turns out you've only got a thought
experiment for a method that you haven't really used, and you have no data,
but you think your method intuitively agrees with informal observations, you
are going to get called on it, and you won't be taken seriously. If you say
you have a test method, and you say it produces such and such results, you
WILL be asked for your data, and you WILL be asked for the exact, repeatable
procedure.
>
>> > As far as I've been able to tell from reading this reference and
>> > others, like the one listed below, the measurement of parallelism
>> > seems like it is in fact related to the flatness of the parallel
>> > surfaces being measured. If the surfaces are not flat, and you happen
>> > to measure an elevated point on one of them, that will through off the
>> > parallelism measurement. For example, the references listed below
>> > describes measuring parallelism using a laser that is referenced to 3
>> > points on one surface before measuring the parallel surface, at
>> > different points, for variance. If either surface isn't "flat" the
>> > variance in flatness could throw off the measure of parallelism - or
>> > at least that is how it seems to me so far.
>>
>> Yes, a badly chosen point can throw off a parallelism measurement.
>
> So, how do you know if the chosen points are properly chosen? If the
> chosen points have a tolerance of say 2 microns with regard to
> flatness, the chosen points shouldn't be off by more than 4 microns -
> correct? So, if the resulting calculation of parallelism is say 5
> microns, isn't this result based on the degree of tolerance of the
> overall flatness - as far as the confidence one can be in the
> tolerance of parallelism?
For surface that deviates badly from flat, you don't. For a nearly flat
surface, there are a number of methods. You choose one that is good enough
for the purposes at hand. It might be as simple as placing the object on a
granite reference plate laying a gage plate on top of it, or as complex as
using laser measurements of many points on each surface and fitting a datum
plane through the two data sets by least square regression.
No. Not directly. The datum planes can be determined by regression analysis.
That is not the only method for selecting datum planes, but if you want
super accuracy, that is probably what you would do. Parallelism is
determined by comparing the two datum planes.
> So, even though the surfaces may be
> rather bumpy, and overall average of their bumpiness with respect to
> the datum plane can produce a calculation of parallelism? If this is
> true, consider a hypothetical situation in which the flatness of the
> opposing surface has a tolerance of 2 microns. Lets also assume that
> this flatness is uniform across the entire surface with randomly
> arranged dips and bumps of no more than 2 microns off plane. Different
> points on this surface are going to be used in reference to the datum
> plane for measuring parallelism - right? Let's say that the
> parallelism was measured to have a tolerance of 5 microns. That
> number is based on an average of point measurements. Since this
> number is an average measurement of the opposing points, this suggests
> that any particular opposing point may be off by 5+2 = 7 microns from
> perfection. Is that correct?
Almost. You neglected that the other surface also deviates from flat. Your
tolerance stackup includes the flatness of both surfaces independently, as
well as the parallelism.
I've noticed that industry literature on the web has slightly different
definitions for flatness. It seems more common to use flatness to describe
the deviation from a flat plane on a gross scale - your machine runout
varies across the surface, or the tool dwells longer near the edges than at
the center, or the roller doesn't make perfectly flat sheet stock because it
has a slight angle. Roughness (for example, the small-scale variation in a
grainy material) would usually be distinctly defined from flatness and given
a root mean square value, but I have seen web sites where the two ideas are
combined.
>
> < snip >
>
>> >> That depends on which tolerances you are referring to, and how warped
>> >> it
>> >> is.
>>
>> > Like the new tolerance of 0.01% . . . warping beyond which would be
>> > "significant".
>>
>> Are you applying 0.01% to all tolerances? In design, we tolerance
>> dimension,
>> angle, radius, hole concentricity, parallelism, perpendicularity,
>> flatness,
>> and roughness, for example.
>
> I was think to apply the 0.01% to the degree of variation between half
> a straight line passing through the center of the stone and the other
> half as a percentage of the full distance. The other measures you
> mention can be used to calculate this particular tolerance.
>
You also had criteria for whether you were willing to accept the argument.
How do you plan to apply tolerance to those?
R. Baldwin
> On Jul 6, 8:32 pm, catHORME...@cc.umanitoba.ca (Don Cates) wrote:
>> On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 19:21:10 -0700, Seanpit
>>
>> This is rediculous. Obviously any natural process that could create
>> such a cube would be very unlikely. I can think of at least one
>> possible way (a varient on the 'lost wax' casting technique) that, in
>> the very unlikely case that it happened, would require several million
>> years to complete. The chance that it would be found at the proper
>> time is even less likely. Asking for repeatability is nuts.
>>
>> I find the situation we have arrived at quite amusing. Sean's 'method'
>> now seems to require the rejection of all but the most carefully made,
>> extremely symetrical objects. Yet he is on record as claiming his
>> 'method' would work quite well to determine that Michelangelo's David
>> was designed. [Message-ID:
>> <1147190748.764457.186...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>]
>>
>> So Sean, give us your algorythm for determining that 'david' is
>> designed and see if someone can find a naturally occurring object that
>> meets *those* criteria.
>
> All that would be needed is a reduction in degree of tolerance with
> regard to symmetry and allowance for more kinds of symmetry with
> regard to surface irregularities - instead of just one type. The same
> basic method would still be in play.
>
Relaxing tolerance increases the false positve rate. This is inherent to
tests that use measurement for accept/reject.
Noelie S. Alito
> In article <138rf7o...@news.supernews.com>,
> "R. Baldwin" <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> writes:
>
>> I strongly suggest this should be "vary in distance from a datum
>> plane through the geometric center of the rock." I suspect that is
>> what you mean.
>
> Of course, then if Michaelangelo had carved his David in an artificially
> perfectly symmetrical pose, except with one pinkie deliberately bent in
> by a millimeter, Seans "method" would leave him wondering whether it
> was designed or just a naturally occuring rock.
Since the vast majority of designs for art, architecture and
utility are deliberately asymmetric to achieve their goals,
and natural forces can produce the most symmetrical objects,
I'm at a loss to understand the vital importance of being
able to detect inhuman symmetry in granite objects.
Smooth surfaces and sharp edges can be desirable in granite
for building or decor, but there is no application for
which any piece needs to have perfect symmetry within a
tolerance of 1:100,000 (unless you're a billionaire with
Obsessive/Compulsive Disorder).
Conversely, applications which do require objects with
extremely high tolerances of symmetry (high performance
optics or ball bearings, say) use designed _materials_, not
something as ad lib as granite. It's just slowly-cooled
magma of uncertain chemistry, for crying out loud!
With no intelligent _intent_, where's the relevance to
intelligent _design_?
Noelie
--
<My_name>2007@<capital_of_Texas>.rr.com
richardal...@googlemail.com
wrote:
> On Jul 6, 1:05 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > > The unit of measure is still meters, centimeters, millimeters, or
> > > whatever unit of measure, or fraction thereof, seems most appropriate
> > > to the specimen.
>
> > If you are defining a methodology, you don't leave it to whoever is
> > carrying out the test to decide for themselves which dimensions to
> > measure and what units to use.
>
> > This clarifies the fact that your claim to have a methodology is
> > false.
>
> The units of measure chosen do not affect the result (inches, meters,
> etc).
I didn't say that they did. I said that a methodology does not leave
it up to whoever applies the methodology to decide what to measure.
> The % tolerance is still the same regardless of units.
So what?
> Also,
> I've already defined how each surface point is measured from the
> center of the stone and compared to the distance to the exact opposite
> surface point (drawn with a straight line though the center and both
> surface points).
It's by no means clear what you mean by a "surface point". Do you mean
a "surface irregularity"? Do you mean an arbitrary series of points on
the surface? Do you plot a grid onto the surface and measure from each
of the intersections?
>
> > > The quality being measured is still reflective symmetry with regard to
> > > surface irregularities. Spheres, cylinders, spheroid, parabolic, or
> > > rounded off shapes do not qualify as "irregularities". For additional
> > > clarification, though I believe I've made this abundantly clear in the
> > > past, the type of irregularities I'm looking for are those where one
> > > flat surface forms a sharply defined angle with another flat surface.
>
> > No, you haven't. You have made it clear that you define the corner of
> > a cube as a "surface irregularity" (which is about as non-standard a
> > definition as one can have), but you have also stated that "all
> > surface irregularities beyond the tolerance threshold are measured."
> > This includes patterns etched on the surface, saw marks and so on, and
> > from your statement implies that *any* irregularity deviating more
> > than 0.001% of the dimension from the reference plane to the surface
> > of the object is counted as a "surface irregularity".
>
> Such etchings and marks are made up of flat surfaces that do in fact
> form sharp angles (like ~90 deg) with the flat surface of the cube
> demarcated by a distinct line of transition.
A saw cut does not from a mark of this type. If I chisel a letter into
the surface, the sides on the letter form a 45 degree angle to the
surface. In any case, if by "surface irregularity" you mean any
deviation of more than 0.001%, or even 0.01% from perfect flatness,
how are you going to determine where such irregularities lie? A
scratch on the surface would be deeper than 0.01% of the deviation -
in a 100m cube it would be a hundreth of a millimeter, and on a larger
cube proportionately larger. That's not a very deep scratch.
>
> > Are you changing your definition of "surface irregularity", or are we
> > to consider any deviation of more than 0.001% of the distance from the
> > reference plane to the surface from any surface to be a "surface
> > irregularity"?
>
> The only thing I've changed here is the degree of tolerance from
> 0.001% to 0.01%. I'm just making it clear here that the
> "irregularities" cannot merge into each other in a gradual or
> "rounded"-off manner. They must be defined by a sharp line of
> demarcation.
This is becoming a very, very tight definition. It excludes letters
carved on the surface, as the sides slope at 45 degrees. It excludes
scratches, because they don't have a sharp line of demarcation. You
could have a hole drilled into the surface, but unless there was a
matching one exactly opposite that would destroy the symmetry and the
object would not longer be identified as artificial.
It looks to me as if you have a specific object in mind which you know
to be artificial, and are setting up your test so that it identifies
that object and that object alone as being artificial.
What is the point of such a test, by the way? A perfect cube with a
manufacturers mark engraved in one corner would not be identified as
artificial.
So we have changed from "reflective symmetry" to "rotational symmetry"
now.
Why?
> I know we
> had trouble the concept of rotational symmetry before, so I avoided
> using that term here. But, that is really what is being measured by
> my proposed method.
I have never had any trouble with the idea of rotational symmetry,
Sean. I know what the term means.
Why should using the term "reflective symmetry" instead of "rotational
symmetry" avoid confusion?
>
> > > And, the choice of the "center" of the stone also doesn't
> > > matter. Any center that is chosen that actually aids in fulfilling
> > > all the listed criteria is the better choice.
>
> > Do you think that you can give three people a granite object, ask them
> > to measure it in the way you have described, and get the same set of
> > numbers from all three?
>
> Yep - - if they have the same type of technology.
What nonsense!
>
> > > The degree of irregularity is still the same. At least 30% of the
> > > surface points on one half of the rock must vary in distance from the
> > > center of the rock by more than 10% of the average surface point
> > > distance.
>
> > Can you give an instance of *any* object, artificial or natural, which
> > does *not* meet these requirements?
>
> A sphere . . . to name one.
No, in a sphere 100% the points on the outside are 100% of the average
surface point distance from the centre of the rock. 100% is more than
10%.
>
>
>
> > > The degree of tolerance previously listed (0.001%) seems to have come
> > > under the most heat. It remains that all of the surface point
> > > distances on one half of the rock must match all of the surface point
> > > distances on the exact opposite side of the rock to within the stated
> > > degree of tolerance as a fraction of the total distance from one
> > > surface point to the opposing surface point. For example, a granite
> > > cube measuring 500 mm on each side could sustain a variation in
> > > surface point distance of one side compared with the other of up to 5
> > > microns and still pass the tolerance test. For even further
> > > clarification, if the distance between the center of the cube and one
> > > surface point were 5 microns smaller or greater than the opposing
> > > distance, this variation would pass the test. In other words, the
> > > variation relative to the total distance cannot be greater than
> > > 0.001%.
>
> > This is, of course, the criterion under which the reference cubes of
> > granite fail.
> > I'm glad that you concede that I am correct in saying that they don't
> > meet your criteria.
>
> I haven't conceded this point.
But the reference cubes of granite plainly do *not* meet your
criterion! Isn't that why you reduced your demand on tolerance from
0.001% to 0.01%?
So now that you have reduced your surface tolerance requirements, how
many of the objects you studied met your reduced tolerance?
> Beyond
> that, one cannot say that a test that has yet to produce a positive
> result has a positive predictive power of "zero".
Yes one can.
> And, before any
> positive test result is produced, one can be very confident in the
> degree of positive predictive value that can be expected from the test
> - based on inductive inference from an established pattern of tests
> with varying degrees of lower positive predictive value.
So what data did you use to infer this?
>
> > > Again, the point here is not so much the degree of tolerance,
> > > but the pattern of significantly increasing true positive rate and
> > > decreasing false positive rate (with respect to the hypothesis of
> > > deliberate artifact) that presents itself as the degree of tolerance
> > > is increased.
>
> > But your "true positive rate" is zero.
> > Your "false positive rate" is also zero.
>
> > How can one change a ratio of zero to zero?
>
> Did you not notice the phrase "as the degree of tolerance is
> increased"? Start with a much lower tolerance level that allows both
> artifacts and non-artifacts to pass the test. Then, increase the
> tolerance levels incrementally and note what happens to the pattern of
> positive predictive value of the test in relationship to changes in
> the tolerance levels.
And is this what you have done?
If so, why did you start with a tolerance which excludes from
"artificial" the most accurately made granite object you can find?
Can you explain in what way your "methodology" is superior to the one
which is used on a routine basis by archaeologists and other
scientists who discriminate between naturally occurring objects and
artifacts on a routine basis? It appears to be utterly useless.
RF
>
> > > And, finally, the hypothesis is still the same. Namely, that if the
> > > above parameters are met the prediction of deliberate artifact carries
> > > with it very high positive predictive value (i.e., a very high true
> > > positive rate with a correspondingly low false positive rate) that is
> > > related to the strictness of the various
>
> ...
>
> read more »
R. Baldwin
news:1183835677.7...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On 7 Jul, 06:05, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.0catch.com>
> wrote:
>> On Jul 6, 1:05 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>> > > The degree of irregularity is still the same. At least 30% of the
>> > > surface points on one half of the rock must vary in distance from the
>> > > center of the rock by more than 10% of the average surface point
>> > > distance.
>>
>> > Can you give an instance of *any* object, artificial or natural, which
>> > does *not* meet these requirements?
>>
>> A sphere . . . to name one.
>
> No, in a sphere 100% the points on the outside are 100% of the average
> surface point distance from the centre of the rock. 100% is more than
> 10%.
>
Based on Sean's more recent postings, I get the idea that he wants to take
the set of all axes through the geometric center of the object, and compare
the opposing points on each axis defined by where it bisects the surface. It
is a strange way to measure things, and available measurement intruments
aren't designed to handle this method for objects with flat surfaces, but
what the heck.
Using this scheme, Sean's scheme would indeed ignore spheres, because none
of the surface points vary by more than 10% of the average surface point
distance. It is a deviation greater than 10% he specified, not a dimension
greater than 10%. It would not ignore the majority of oblate spheroids or
prolate spheroids, so most river cobbles would pass his 30%/10% prescreen
even if they were beautiful spheroids - simply because of the eccentricity.
For real world measurement, a point datum inside a solid object is usually
problematic because you can't set your instrument there. So are measurements
that require two successive axis datums to vary by infintesimally small
degrees, which this scheme would need for wide, flat objects. Theoretically,
you could measure arbitrary objects this way, but in practice, it would be
very difficult.
[snip]
Bobby Bryant
"Noelie S. Alito" <noe...@deadspam.com> writes:
> Bobby Bryant wrote:
>> In article <138rf7o...@news.supernews.com>,
>> "R. Baldwin" <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> writes:
>>
>>> I strongly suggest this should be "vary in distance from a datum
>>> plane through the geometric center of the rock." I suspect that is
>>> what you mean.
>>
>> Of course, then if Michaelangelo had carved his David in an
>> artificially perfectly symmetrical pose, except with one pinkie
>> deliberately bent in by a millimeter, Seans "method" would leave
>> him wondering whether it was designed or just a naturally occuring
>> rock.
>
> Since the vast majority of designs for art, architecture and utility
> are deliberately asymmetric to achieve their goals, and natural
> forces can produce the most symmetrical objects, I'm at a loss to
> understand the vital importance of being able to detect inhuman
> symmetry in granite objects.
It's just an argument he has gotten carried away with. He started out
with a claim about entropy, and after being shown wrong about a
hundred times on variations of that claim he switched to Kolmogorov
complexity, and after many months of dodging flaws in that, it mutated
again to a simple claim about symmetry, which he'll defend with
increasingly bizarre modifications for months until it becomes
completely transformed again.
After each mutation he goes through a long period of ad hoc revisions
that are supposed to rule out false positives, which is what resulted
in the current strange focus on the finely machined properties of
hypothetical granite cubes as a mechanism for proving that God exists.
> With no intelligent _intent_, where's the relevance to intelligent
> _design_?
That's the heart of the matter. Since the con artists at the
Discovery Institute have to divorce design from God for political
reasons, they have to divorce it from any designer at all so they can
leave God in for consideration, and as a result of that they are have
to prove that objects are designed with no reference to intent.
Or methods of manufacture. Or any definition at all beyond a nebulous
"I know it when I see it".
IMO, "design" is a statement of intent, usually as constrained by
things such as possibility, cost, etc. But when the designer is
capable of magic there aren't any constraints at all, so it becomes a
pure statement of intent.
But the first thing the IDologists say is that they don't know
anything about the designer, including His intentions. So they're
studying pure intent without taking intent into consideration.
But it's hardly news that the movement is as devoid of substance as it
is of honesty.
_Arthur
Professor Pitman has an entirely different methodology for detecting
design in lumps of marble.
Sheesh !
John Wilkins
Irreducible chiselling?
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Bobby Bryant
j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) writes:
> _Arthur <Art...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> But Michelangelo's David is in *MARBLE*, not granite.
>>
>> Professor Pitman has an entirely different methodology for detecting
>> design in lumps of marble.
>>
>> Sheesh !
>
> Irreducible chiselling?
Actually God put _David_ in the stone; Michaelangelo simply removed the
irrelevant parts.
John Wilkins
> In article <1i0xioo.mgprvx1fxuiryN%j.wil...@uq.edu.au>,
> j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) writes:
> > _Arthur <Art...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >
> >> But Michelangelo's David is in *MARBLE*, not granite.
> >>
> >> Professor Pitman has an entirely different methodology for detecting
> >> design in lumps of marble.
> >>
> >> Sheesh !
> >
> > Irreducible chiselling?
>
> Actually God put _David_ in the stone; Michaelangelo simply removed the
> irrelevant parts.
I thought we couldn't mention the Designer, just the Artisan.
richardal...@googlemail.com
wrote:
> On Jul 6, 7:59 pm, "R. Baldwin" <res0k...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
>
> > > My method allows for the measure of certain types of reflective
> > > symmetry in that all forms that show symmetry using my method have
> > > reflective, or at least inversely reflective, symmetry - i.e., n-fold
> > > rotational symmetry where n=2, 4, 6, 8, 10, etc.
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotational_symmetry
> > >http://www.mathsisfun.com/geometry/symmetry-rotational.html
>
> > reflection symmetry after all?
>
> > Perhaps you ought to go review the facts about geometry and measurement,
> > then come back and post your method later, when you can clearly articulate
> > what it is, using correct terminology and standard measurement techniques.
>
> This is what I've been describing all along . . . reflectively
> symmetrical lines that go through a central point. I think that has
> been clearly stated several times. I didn't use the term "rotational
> symmetry" because in previous exchanges with Richard he didn't seem to
> understand the concept of rotational symmetry. Regardless, the
> description of the type of symmetry being measured was clearly
> described for anyone not looking for any excuse to misunderstand.
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
It's a bit subtle, perhaps, but what Sean is claiming is that he used
the term "reflective symmetry" when he meant "rotational symmetry"
because he claims I didn't understand the concept of "rotational
symmetry".
Using the wrong term for a concept it makes it clearer in Seanworld.
Mind you, describing "rotational symmetry" as "reflectively
symmetrical lines that go through a central point" is a rather novel
way of defining the concept.
RF
Martin Kaletsch
> On 7 Jul, 05:13, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.0catch.com>
>> This is what I've been describing all along . . . reflectively
>> symmetrical lines that go through a central point. I think that has
>> been clearly stated several times. I didn't use the term "rotational
>> symmetry" because in previous exchanges with Richard he didn't seem to
>> understand the concept of rotational symmetry. Regardless, the
>> description of the type of symmetry being measured was clearly
>> described for anyone not looking for any excuse to misunderstand.
>>
>> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
>
> It's a bit subtle, perhaps, but what Sean is claiming is that he used
> the term "reflective symmetry" when he meant "rotational symmetry"
> because he claims I didn't understand the concept of "rotational
> symmetry".
>
> Using the wrong term for a concept it makes it clearer in Seanworld.
>
> Mind you, describing "rotational symmetry" as "reflectively
> symmetrical lines that go through a central point" is a rather novel
> way of defining the concept.
It's not novel, it's plain wrong! Point symmetry is something quite
different from rotational symmetry.
--
"It was the laugh of the Elder Gods observing their creature man and noting
their omissions, miscalculations and mistakes." Fritz Leiber
Seanpit
> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > On 7 Jul, 05:13, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.0catch.com>
> >> This is what I've been describing all along . . . reflectively
> >> symmetrical lines that go through a central point. I think that has
> >> been clearly stated several times. I didn't use the term "rotational
> >> symmetry" because in previous exchanges with Richard he didn't seem to
> >> understand the concept of rotational symmetry. Regardless, the
> >> description of the type of symmetry being measured was clearly
> >> described for anyone not looking for any excuse to misunderstand.
>
> >> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
>
> > It's a bit subtle, perhaps, but what Sean is claiming is that he used
> > the term "reflective symmetry" when he meant "rotational symmetry"
> > because he claims I didn't understand the concept of "rotational
> > symmetry".
>
> > Using the wrong term for a concept it makes it clearer in Seanworld.
>
> > Mind you, describing "rotational symmetry" as "reflectively
> > symmetrical lines that go through a central point" is a rather novel
> > way of defining the concept.
>
> It's not novel, it's plain wrong! Point symmetry is something quite
> different from rotational symmetry.
Really? If an object has rotational symmetry, it must have either
line or point symmetry - or both. And, only an object that has line
symmetry or point symmetry can have rotational symmetry.
Given the way I've described my method of measuring symmetry, were the
irregularities on any one half of an object match the irregularities
on the other as measured by a straight line through a central point,
all such objects will have both point and rotational symmetry.
> "It was the laugh of the Elder Gods observing their creature man and noting
> their omissions, miscalculations and mistakes." Fritz Leiber
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
> > To use another illustration of yours, this is like picking a
> > particularly unlikely hand of cards (52 in a deck) - like a set of 7
> > specific cards. Although very unlikely to be dealt this specific
> > hand, if this hand does happen to be dealt, it doesn't given one any
> > pattern that can be used to predict the future. However, if the same
> > hand were dealt over and over again, like 2, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100 . . .
> > times in a row, a pattern starts to emerge that can be used to predict
> > the future with greater and greater predictive value each time the
> > prediction succeeds. And, as this prediction succeeds, the odds that
> > the hand is really being dealt in a non-biased random way drop quite
> > dramatically each time.
>
> Sure, although the pattern is only useful because that's how you
> recognize that something biased is going on. Seemingly random series
> of cards could just as easily be due to biased selection, the pattern
> is only useful in allowing you to notice.
The fact is that randomness can never be proved in mathematics. Even
though the vast majority of possible sequences can be proved to be
random no single finite or infinite sequence can be proved to be the
result of a truly random source of production. In the same line, bias
also cannot be proved with 100% certainty. However, this does not
mean that the hypothesis of bias cannot be supported with greater and
greater predictive value once any particular type of predictable
pattern or "bias" is actually noticed. The fact that such a pattern
is not noticed, even though it "could be" there, does not remove the
value of those patterns that are in fact noticed.
This is in fact the basis of all forms of science - of establishing
predictive value. If bias could never be detected in anything, if
everything had the appearance of randomness to us, there could be no
basis for further prediction and therefore no basis for forming
hypotheses that actually gain predictive power. Beyond this, the fact
that the true origin of an apparently biased or random pattern cannot
be known with 100% certainty means that no hypothesis, theory, or even
law of science can be known with 100% certainty. In fact, science is
useful because nothing can be known for sure. If anyone could know
anything in any sort of absolute way, the scientific method would no
longer be needed. Basically the, science is only useful because it
helps us live as well as we can with limited knowledge and knowability
concerning the world around us.
> > It isn't therefore a matter of if humans are *likely* to do it this
> > way or that way. Rather, it is more of if humans *can* do it this way
> > or that way compared to natural processes? And, even if neither is
> > known to be able to achieve a particular feature, which one comes
> > closer in what they are known to be able (not likely, but able - as in
> > capable range) to achieve?
>
> But still humans are the reference point. If humans were somehow not
> able to produce regular pieces of granite while natural forces,
> although very unlikely to, were still capable of it, then we would
> predict regular pieces of granite to be of natural origin.
That's right . . . That is why it takes at least some knowledge and
experience with a particular type of material as it interacts with
both basic types of forces. This interaction cannot simply be assumed
without any observation of how it really interacts in real life.
There was a philosophy that assumed that the truth of nature could be
discovered based simply on a set of internally derived laws and
extrapolated with theoretical constructs from there on out. This
notion simply doesn't pan out. Real life observations and
measurements of natural forces in action are needed before useful
hypotheses with more and more dependable predictive value can be
achieved.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Ken Rode
At this site:
http://www.teachersnetwork.org/dcs/math/symmetry/Rotational/
there is an image of a 7-bladed pinwheel that has rotational symmetry
but does not have line or point symmetry.
Seanpit
> On 7 Lug, 01:00, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.0catch.com>
> wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > However, when one starts to consider symmetry with regard to non-
> > rounded sharply defined surface irregularities, an interesting pattern
> > starts to materialize. Nature has a more and more difficult time
> > producing greater and greater degrees of symmetry when it comes to
> > surface irregularities. It just doesn't seem to be able to copy such
> > irregularities from one side onto the other side very well - to
> > produce this type of repetitive "pattern" given the material of
> > granite. There is a clear "stalling out" effect that is directly
> > related to increasing degrees of symmetry beyond which nature has a
> > much harder time compared with the range that can be achieve using
> > human-level intelligence and technological know-how.
>
> The probability that any specific granite rock shape is produced by
> non-artificial processes is approximately uncorrelated to whether it's
> is symmetric (excluding perhaps some special cases).
> There are more asymmetric shapes than symmetric ones, thus an non-
> artificial rock is more likely to be asymmetric than symmetric.
This range can be used, quite successfully, to make predictions as to
the true origin of a particular granite rock. Symmetry, with regard to
surface irregularities, is therefore correlated to the predictive
power of the hypothesis of non-artifactual origin with greater degrees
of symmetry being less likely fits to this hypothesis.
> Humans are more likely to produce symmetric granite objects that other
> known non-artificial processes.
It is more helpful to note that the range of humans with regard to
what can be done with granite is demonstrable greater than the range
of what non-deliberate forces can achieve - when it comes to symmetry
of surface irregularities.
> Therefore, if you find a polished granite block lying on a beach, you
> can infer that it's likely human-made not because a non-artificial
> origin would be less likely than that of the unspecial rock lying next
> to it (it isn't), but because an human origin would be more likely.
It requires knowledge of both. For instance, if you had knowledge
that highly symmetrical granite cubes were in fact the common product
of some volcanic process, it wouldn't be nearly as easy to infer ID
when such an object were found. It is therefore only because you have
some sort of hypothesis regarding the limits of all non-deliberate
forces of nature that you can adequately detect and proposed any
hypothesis of ID.
> Without knowlege of what humans are likely to do, you can't infer
> human design.
Knowledge of what humans are capable of achieving is certainly needed
- but this is no less important than knowledge of what the likely
limits of non-deliberate forces in the formation of a useful
hypothesis of ID.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
> On 7 Jul, 16:47, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.0catch.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 7, 7:24 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > > I thought that he had quietly withdrawn his assertion that his method
> > > could detect that "David" is "designed", especially after it was
> > > pointed out to him that the characteristic of "David" which he claimed
> > > *showed* that it is designed, the "reflective symmetry" of the face,
> > > does not exist. The face of "Davis" is deliberately asymmetrical.
>
> > You mean it is not perfectly symmetrical. Yet, it is still has a
> > pretty high degree of symmetry - much higher than that attainable via
> > non-deliberate natural processes.
>
> The symmetry is nowhere near the criterion of 0.001% or even 0.01% you
> have set.
So you admit that there is in fact some symmetry to "David"? - just
that it is not at 0.01%? Finally, we're getting somewhere!
Obviously, the particular test using 0.01% tolerance carries with it
an extremely high positive predictive value. This doesn't mean that
tests of symmetry with significantly less stringent tolerances, with
regard to surface irregularities, do not carry very good degrees of
predictive value.
What I'm trying to do in presenting these various degrees of symmetry
is to make some cases so overwhelmingly clear as to make the whole
process of what it takes to detect ID clear. There is a range of
lesser and greater degrees of tolerance that include lesser or wider
variances and more or less forms of various types of symmetry or
pattern recognition. The more stringent the parameters, the more
positive predictive value. That pattern is very clearly evident to
anyone approaching this problem with a candid mind.
> > You can't seriously be
> > arguing that human faces have no symmetry whatsoever - can you?
>
> No, but the face if a statue is not a human face.
That doesn't matter. All that matters for the detection of ID is that
the irregularities of this "non-human" face have a pretty high degree
of symmetry - a degree that does in fact carry with it a high degree
of predictive value with it comes to detecting ID. One might be able
to see forms within natural granite rocks and mountains that resemble
human faces, people do it all the time and even name certain mountains
based on their resemblances to people, but none of these naturally
formed rocks or mountains comes remotely close to the degree of
symmetry exhibited by David's face - even given that it is not
"perfectly" symmetrical or the fact that it was deliberately made to
be less than perfectly symmetrical according to a certain pattern of
planned distortion.
< snip rest >
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
> > Really? If an object has rotational symmetry, it must have either
> > line or point symmetry - or both. And, only an object that has line
> > symmetry or point symmetry can have rotational symmetry.
>
> At this site:
> http://www.teachersnetwork.org/dcs/math/symmetry/Rotational/
> there is an image of a 7-bladed pinwheel that has rotational symmetry
> but does not have line or point symmetry.
That's why I specifically indicated that my objects would only have a
certain type of rotational symmetry - i.e., n = 2, 4, 6, 8, etc.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
> On 7 Jul, 06:05, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.0catch.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 6, 1:05 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > > > The unit of measure is still meters, centimeters, millimeters, or
> > > > whatever unit of measure, or fraction thereof, seems most appropriate
> > > > to the specimen.
>
> > > If you are defining a methodology, you don't leave it to whoever is
> > > carrying out the test to decide for themselves which dimensions to
> > > measure and what units to use.
>
> > > This clarifies the fact that your claim to have a methodology is
> > > false.
>
> > The units of measure chosen do not affect the result (inches, meters,
> > etc).
>
> I didn't say that they did. I said that a methodology does not leave
> it up to whoever applies the methodology to decide what to measure.
>
> > The % tolerance is still the same regardless of units.
>
> So what?
If it is the same regardless of the units used, the actual type of
units used does not need to be specified. Any units that are chosen
could be transfered into any other units with a simple calculation.
It simply doesn't matter Richard. There is no need to specify
something in a methodology that doesn't matter - that doesn't affect
the outcome in the slightest. The test would produce the same result
if you used centimeters or inches. I just doesn't matter.
R. Baldwin
It is a mistake to casually mix up different meanings for "random" as you
have done here. The vast majority of possible sequences can be proved to be
algorithmically random. The vast majority of these are infinitely long
sequences that cannot be computed with a finite algorithm, so they are
algorithmically random with respect to all reference computers. Any finite
string is algorithmically random with respect to some computers and
algorithmically non-random with respect to others.
Randomness with respect to playing cards has to do with a chaotic
combination of mechanical forces that approximate non-determinism.
You can apply the tools of statistics to both algorithmically random
sequences and stochastic random variables, but they are not the same thing.
>
> This is in fact the basis of all forms of science - of establishing
> predictive value. If bias could never be detected in anything, if
> everything had the appearance of randomness to us, there could be no
> basis for further prediction and therefore no basis for forming
> hypotheses that actually gain predictive power. Beyond this, the fact
> that the true origin of an apparently biased or random pattern cannot
> be known with 100% certainty means that no hypothesis, theory, or even
> law of science can be known with 100% certainty. In fact, science is
> useful because nothing can be known for sure. If anyone could know
> anything in any sort of absolute way, the scientific method would no
> longer be needed. Basically the, science is only useful because it
> helps us live as well as we can with limited knowledge and knowability
> concerning the world around us.
This is well put.
>
>> > It isn't therefore a matter of if humans are *likely* to do it this
>> > way or that way. Rather, it is more of if humans *can* do it this way
>> > or that way compared to natural processes? And, even if neither is
>> > known to be able to achieve a particular feature, which one comes
>> > closer in what they are known to be able (not likely, but able - as in
>> > capable range) to achieve?
>>
>> But still humans are the reference point. If humans were somehow not
>> able to produce regular pieces of granite while natural forces,
>> although very unlikely to, were still capable of it, then we would
>> predict regular pieces of granite to be of natural origin.
>
> That's right . . . That is why it takes at least some knowledge and
> experience with a particular type of material as it interacts with
> both basic types of forces. This interaction cannot simply be assumed
> without any observation of how it really interacts in real life.
>
It's good that you recognize that you need background knowledge in addition
to a pattern. I'm surprised, because you've been arguing recently that one
can make predictions based on patterns with zero knowledge or experience of
the process that generated it.
Seanpit
> >> > > The degree of irregularity is still the same. At least 30% of the
> >> > > surface points on one half of the rock must vary in distance from the
> >> > > center of the rock by more than 10% of the average surface point
> >> > > distance.
>
> >> > Can you give an instance of *any* object, artificial or natural, which
> >> > does *not* meet these requirements?
>
> >> A sphere . . . to name one.
>
> > No, in a sphere 100% the points on the outside are 100% of the average
> > surface point distance from the centre of the rock. 100% is more than
> > 10%.
All of the surface points on a sphere are the same distance as
measured from the center of the sphere. There are no surface point
irregularities for a perfect sphere. They are all the same distance
with 0% variability.
> Based on Sean's more recent postings, I get the idea that he wants to take
> the set of all axes through the geometric center of the object, and compare
> the opposing points on each axis defined by where it bisects the surface. It
> is a strange way to measure things, and available measurement intruments
> aren't designed to handle this method for objects with flat surfaces, but
> what the heck.
>
> Using this scheme, Sean's scheme would indeed ignore spheres, because none
> of the surface points vary by more than 10% of the average surface point
> distance. It is a deviation greater than 10% he specified, not a dimension
> greater than 10%. It would not ignore the majority of oblate spheroids or
> prolate spheroids, so most river cobbles would pass his 30%/10% prescreen
> even if they were beautiful spheroids - simply because of the eccentricity.
That is why I specifically noted that spheroids were ruled out - that
the surface irregularities had to be made up of flat surfaces that
were sharply defined from each other (i.e., not "rounded").
> For real world measurement, a point datum inside a solid object is usually
> problematic because you can't set your instrument there. So are measurements
> that require two successive axis datums to vary by infintesimally small
> degrees, which this scheme would need for wide, flat objects. Theoretically,
> you could measure arbitrary objects this way, but in practice, it would be
> very difficult.
In practice, it would also be very difficult to measure the
irregularities of any pattern in granite with the intricacies of a
snowflake - regardless of the method of modern technology chosen.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
richardal...@googlemail.com
wrote:
You wrote "If an object has rotational symmetry, it must have either
line or point symmetry - or both."
You were wrong.
RF
R. Baldwin
While there is something in what you are saying, you need to understand that
the tools of measurement, and therefore the measurement methods accessible
to you, vary dramatically with scale. We use electron microscopes on one
scale, calipers and coordinate measuring machines on large scale, then
surveyors instruments, cartographic tooks, and radio telescopes. Different
limitations come into play at each scale.
There is a huge difference between a hypothetical scheme for a method and an
actual method.
Seanpit
wrote:
> Relaxing tolerance increases the false positve rate. This is inherent to
> tests that use measurement for accept/reject.
Do I hear and echo?? ? ? ? ?
How many times have I made this very same point myself? This *is* my
whole point! There is a very clear pattern produced, regarding the
true and false positive rate, with increasing symmetry threshold
requirements regarding the ID hypothesis.
The point is that a decrease in the true positive rate from an
*extremely huge* degree to simply a *huge* degree still provides a
clearly significant positive predictive value.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
Fine - If an object has rotational symmetry of N = 2, 4, 6, 8 etc, it
will also have point symmetry. And, if an object has point symmetry,
it will also have rotational symmetry. Feel better? The point is
that there is a lot of overlap between these symmetries. They are
related. Your continued blindness to the fact that symmetries are
indeed obvious in objects like the statue of "David" is quite
mysterious.
> RF
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
R. Baldwin
While that is no doubt your intent, your scheme for ruling out spheroids
does not in fact reject most spheroids. I have in my living room a bowl of
sandstone cobbles from the Olympic Coast. They are all approximately oblate
spheroids. They are very flat. Every single one of them has more than 30% of
surface points vary in distance from the centroid by more than 10%. The same
is true of some granite river rock I have in my garden.
You'll find that this is not an easy algorithm to establish. Actual machined
objects often have a slightly spherical surface where you want it flat. It
is an artifact of the process of machining.
>
>> For real world measurement, a point datum inside a solid object is
>> usually
>> problematic because you can't set your instrument there. So are
>> measurements
>> that require two successive axis datums to vary by infintesimally small
>> degrees, which this scheme would need for wide, flat objects.
>> Theoretically,
>> you could measure arbitrary objects this way, but in practice, it would
>> be
>> very difficult.
>
> In practice, it would also be very difficult to measure the
> irregularities of any pattern in granite with the intricacies of a
> snowflake - regardless of the method of modern technology chosen.
>
So you have a test that is nearly impossible to perform, but you believe it
will reliably identify objects that probably don't exist as designed. Tell
us again what the use is of this?
R. Baldwin
Pardon me, but you keep TELLING us it is huge - but you've never provided
any EVIDENCE that its is. Lots of people think their pet method is the
greatest thing since sliced bread. Forgive us for being skeptical, but let's
see the data, please. What, exactly, is the measured success rate of this
method?
If you have to relax the tolerance for any existing designed object to pass
the test, perhaps you'll end up with enough false positives to make it a
test with zero predictive value. You won't know until you've run
verification trials on this test.
Seanpit
> > The fact is that randomness can never be proved in mathematics. Even
> > though the vast majority of possible sequences can be proved to be
> > random no single finite or infinite sequence can be proved to be the
> > result of a truly random source of production. In the same line, bias
> > also cannot be proved with 100% certainty. However, this does not
> > mean that the hypothesis of bias cannot be supported with greater and
> > greater predictive value once any particular type of predictable
> > pattern or "bias" is actually noticed. The fact that such a pattern
> > is not noticed, even though it "could be" there, does not remove the
> > value of those patterns that are in fact noticed.
>
> It is a mistake to casually mix up different meanings for "random" as you
> have done here. The vast majority of possible sequences can be proved to be
> algorithmically random.
That's true. However, no *particular* string or pattern can be proved
to be random.
> The vast majority of these are infinitely long
> sequences that cannot be computed with a finite algorithm, so they are
> algorithmically random with respect to all reference computers. Any finite
> string is algorithmically random with respect to some computers and
> algorithmically non-random with respect to others.
That's right. However, one cannot prove that just because a
particular string is "random" from the perspective of a particular
reference computer that it will be random compared to another or that
a further increase of the string's size coming from the same source
will be random or non-random regardless of the original reference
computer chosen.
> Randomness with respect to playing cards has to do with a chaotic
> combination of mechanical forces that approximate non-determinism.
Not necessarily . . . The apparent randomness of the shuffle of
playing cards could be deliberately designed in way in which someone
could detect given the proper decoding key or "reference computer".
> You can apply the tools of statistics to both algorithmically random
> sequences and stochastic random variables, but they are not the same thing.
The same basic assumptions apply . . .
> > This is in fact the basis of all forms of science - of establishing
> > predictive value. If bias could never be detected in anything, if
> > everything had the appearance of randomness to us, there could be no
> > basis for further prediction and therefore no basis for forming
> > hypotheses that actually gain predictive power. Beyond this, the fact
> > that the true origin of an apparently biased or random pattern cannot
> > be known with 100% certainty means that no hypothesis, theory, or even
> > law of science can be known with 100% certainty. In fact, science is
> > useful because nothing can be known for sure. If anyone could know
> > anything in any sort of absolute way, the scientific method would no
> > longer be needed. Basically then, science is only useful because it
> > helps us live as well as we can with limited knowledge and knowability
> > concerning the world around us.
>
> This is well put.
Thanks . . .
> >> > It isn't therefore a matter of if humans are *likely* to do it this
> >> > way or that way. Rather, it is more of if humans *can* do it this way
> >> > or that way compared to natural processes? And, even if neither is
> >> > known to be able to achieve a particular feature, which one comes
> >> > closer in what they are known to be able (not likely, but able - as in
> >> > capable range) to achieve?
>
> >> But still humans are the reference point. If humans were somehow not
> >> able to produce regular pieces of granite while natural forces,
> >> although very unlikely to, were still capable of it, then we would
> >> predict regular pieces of granite to be of natural origin.
>
> > That's right . . . That is why it takes at least some knowledge and
> > experience with a particular type of material as it interacts with
> > both basic types of forces. This interaction cannot simply be assumed
> > without any observation of how it really interacts in real life.
>
> It's good that you recognize that you need background knowledge in addition
> to a pattern. I'm surprised, because you've been arguing recently that one
> can make predictions based on patterns with zero knowledge or experience of
> the process that generated it.
You confuse the ability to detect bias and make predictions as to
pattern based on the detected bias, with determining the origin of the
bias. The deliberate or non-deliberate origin of bias does not need
to be known before bias itself can be adequately recognized.
To put it another way, one can make predictions as to the future of a
detected bias given only knowledge of the pattern itself. However,
knowledge of bias or predictive value based on the detection of bias
alone is not the same thing as knowing the origin of the bias. Bias
can be detected and used without knowing anything about the actual
origin of the bias.
Now, in order to adequately hypothesize concerning the origin or cause
of the detected bias, some previous experience with the various
mechanisms of bias production, and their respective characteristics
and limitations, is needed.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Ernest Major
richardal...@googlemail.com writes
designed, but not a pentagonal prism. But at least the hypothesis that
Sean was attempting to specify dihedral symmetry is (weakly) refuted.
--
alias Ernest Major
richardal...@googlemail.com
wrote:
> On Jul 7, 9:40 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 7 Jul, 16:47, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.0catch.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 7, 7:24 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > > > I thought that he had quietly withdrawn his assertion that his method
> > > > could detect that "David" is "designed", especially after it was
> > > > pointed out to him that the characteristic of "David" which he claimed
> > > > *showed* that it is designed, the "reflective symmetry" of the face,
> > > > does not exist. The face of "Davis" is deliberately asymmetrical.
>
> > > You mean it is not perfectly symmetrical. Yet, it is still has a
> > > pretty high degree of symmetry - much higher than that attainable via
> > > non-deliberate natural processes.
>
> > The symmetry is nowhere near the criterion of 0.001% or even 0.01% you
> > have set.
>
> So you admit that there is in fact some symmetry to "David"? - just
> that it is not at 0.01%? Finally, we're getting somewhere!
I've never denied that there is a degree of symmetry to some elements
of "David"!
However, you have not produced *any* methodology which could detect
that symmetry, and the fact that once again you are changing your
criteria shows that you haven't.
> Obviously, the particular test using 0.01% tolerance carries with it
> an extremely high positive predictive value. This doesn't mean that
> tests of symmetry with significantly less stringent tolerances, with
> regard to surface irregularities, do not carry very good degrees of
> predictive value.
You write this nonsense over and over again, but that does not make it
meaningful or true.
You talk about "high degrees of predictive value" as if you could
place numerical value against "predictive value".
You can't, because your have no data, no methodology, a thoroughly
confused idea of symmetry, tolerance, statistics and virtually
everything you need to carry out the process you claim to have done!
You haven't made a methodological study of any granite objects.
You have *no* statistical backing for you claims.
You have nothing except empty assertion and evasion whenever it is
pointed out that you are thoroughly confused over terminology, method
and everything else. The sheer comedy value of your assertion that you
used the term "reflective symmetry" because you thought I didn't
understand what you mean by "rotational symmetry" is priceless. Are
you honestly telling us that you deliberately used the *wrong* term to
describe something to *avoid* confusion?
> What I'm trying to do in presenting these various degrees of symmetry
> is to make some cases so overwhelmingly clear as to make the whole
> process of what it takes to detect ID clear.
What on earth has symmetry to do with ID? Symmetry is not a property
unique to artifacts. In fact, various forms of symmetry are common in
the natural world both in minerals and living organisms. If anything,
symmetry is *less* common in artifacts.
This has nothing to do with the "tests of ID" which the clowns working
for the DI have proposed, which are premiated
on the assertion that certain types of *complexity* are the signature
of ID. They have tacitly withdrawn that claim after the utter
dishonesty of their assertions was exposed in court, and are now
trying the tactic of asserting that the definition of science be
changed to accommodate the supernatural, and that we should "teach the
controversy" - a dishonest pretence that there is any controversy in
science over the validity of evolutionary theory.
Your argument seems to be that if you take an object which you know to
be an artifact, specify characters which you can measure on that
artifact to exclude any natural object, you have demonstrated
characters unique to "designed" objects in general. This is utter
nonsense. All you have proved is that if you know that an object is an
artifact, you can specify characters of that object. It tells us
absolutely nothing about "design" or "deliberate" forces, or anything
else except the characters of that object. The reason why you know
that it's an artifact is not that it meets some arbitrary criterion of
symmetry, or tolerance or shape, but because it is one of a class of
objects you know to be artifacts and that you know, or have a pretty
good idea, of how it was made.
> There is a range of
> lesser and greater degrees of tolerance that include lesser or wider
> variances and more or less forms of various types of symmetry or
> pattern recognition. The more stringent the parameters, the more
> positive predictive value. That pattern is very clearly evident to
> anyone approaching this problem with a candid mind.
To anyone approaching this problem with a candid mind it is crystal
clear that you are talking bullshit, and making claims to have carried
through a methodology which it is crystal clear that you have not
done.
>
> > > You can't seriously be
> > > arguing that human faces have no symmetry whatsoever - can you?
>
> > No, but the face if a statue is not a human face.
>
> That doesn't matter. All that matters for the detection of ID is that
> the irregularities of this "non-human" face have a pretty high degree
> of symmetry - a degree that does in fact carry with it a high degree
> of predictive value with it comes to detecting ID.
The face of "David" does *NOT* have a "pretty high degree of
symmetry". It is *asymmetrical*, and *deliberately* so.
> One might be able
> to see forms within natural granite rocks and mountains that resemble
> human faces, people do it all the time and even name certain mountains
> based on their resemblances to people, but none of these naturally
> formed rocks or mountains comes remotely close to the degree of
> symmetry exhibited by David's face - even given that it is not
> "perfectly" symmetrical or the fact that it was deliberately made to
> be less than perfectly symmetrical according to a certain pattern of
> planned distortion.
So it "as a pretty high degree of symmetry" *and* it's "deliberately
made to be less than perfectly symmetrical"?
Make up your freaking mind!
>
> < snip rest >
Evade away, little chicken.
Let's put back some of the points you haven't addressed, shall we
Sean?
You'll snip them again which is your typical response when it is
demonstrated that you are writing a load of nonsense. This is
dishonest, of course, but what else have we come to expect from you?
> You mean it is not perfectly symmetrical. Yet, it is still has a
> pretty high degree of symmetry - much higher than that attainable via
> non-deliberate natural processes.
The symmetry is nowhere near the criterion of 0.001% or even 0.01% you
have set.
> In fact, several studies have been
> done with faces showing that people find faces with a fairly high
> degree of symmetry to be most attractive.
The face of "David" is *deliberately* asymmetrical!
The eyes point in different directions.
> You can't seriously be
> arguing that human faces have no symmetry whatsoever - can you?
No, but the face if a statue is not a human face. In fact, I doubt
that any human faces is symmetrical to the degree of even your relaxed
standard of 0.01%. However, the face of "David" is quite deliberately
*not* symmetrical.
> > Bearing in mind that he introduced the characteristic of "reflective
> > symmetry" into his "methodology" so that he *could* claim to be able
> > to detect that "David" is an artifact, there is a certain irony in
> > this.
> It seems like you are in fact trying to suggest that David does not
> express any degree of reflective symmetry or any other form of
> symmetry? Is that really what you are trying to suggest?
I'm saying that "David" does not exhibit any symmetry even remotely
approaching the standard of 0.01% you set as a criterion for
"artificiality". In fact, none of the elements of the statue are
symmetrical. The legs are carved differently because one is shown
bearing the weight of the body, the other relaxed. The hands are of
different sizes, the torso is bent and slightly twisted, one arm is
raised, the other hanging loosely by the side of the figure, the eyes
point in different directions and so on. The perspective of the statue
is deliberately distorted so that the upper part is proportionately
larger than the lower.
> > What is more ironic is that he is *now* claiming that by
> > "reflective symmetry" he means "rotational symmetry" - rather
> > different concept.
> We discussed rotational symmetry before when the topic of symmetry and
> David came up - remember?
Yes, but you then switched to talking about reflective symmetry, and
even went on to give a rather inadequate description of how your
methodology measured reflective symmetry.
Rotational symmetry came up again when it was pointed out to you that
you *can't* have reflective symmetry about a point.
You have now introduced "angular symmetry" and all sorts of other
forms of symmetry.
I thought that you claimed not only to have a methodology, but to have
carried it out on a thousand granite objects!
> > His original claim was that his methodology was based on the analysis
> > of shapes of granite objects produced by "deliberate" and "non-
> > deliberate" forces, and that he could show statistically that there is
> > a difference. He claimed to be able to discriminate between naturally
> > occurring objects and artifacts with a high degree of statistical
> > probability.
> > At the time, I don't think that he was claiming to have carried out
> > his methodology, yet felt confident enough of what the outcome would
> > be to claim statistical support for his assertions. Since then he has
> > claimed that he has actually carried out his method, something which
> > is patently untrue as he cannot define his methodology, and keeps
> > changing the methods by which measurements should be carried out when
> > he is not leaving up to decisions of whoever is measuring the granite
> > objects. His confusion over rotational as opposed to reflective
> > symmetry is just another piece of evidence undermining his claim to
> > have carried out his methodology.
> > I'm not sure when he introduces the requirement that objects could not
> > be smooth or rounded. It must have been *after* he claimed to be able
> > to detect "reflective symmetry" in "David", because the sculpture
> > obviously has rounded surfaces. I can find no reference to this
> > requirement *before* it was pointed out to him that some water-worn
> > granite cobbles may meet his requirements for "reflective
> > symmetry" (which is what he was calling what he now claims to be
> > calling "rotational symmetry" at the time.
> I've discussed spheres and spheroid object even before you first
> brought up the statue of David - that they didn't express symmetry
> with regard to the type of surface irregularities I was talking
> about. Beyond this, David most certainly has pretty sharply defined
> surface irregularities . . . He's not just a rounded blob.
But you demanded no smooth surfaces within the tolerances you
specified - i.e. 0.001%. Or should that be 0.01%? The curved surfaces
of David most certainly do *not* meet those tolerances!
> > As for his highly specified granite cube: it is not clear if claims
> > that he drew up the stringent criteria for "reflective" (or should
> > that be "rotational"? ) symmetry *after* carrying out a statistical
> > analysis, or that it is simply something he pulled out of the air -
> > which he claims as a valid approach to statistical analysis. In either
> > case it is irrlevant, as there appears to be no granite object at all,
> > natural or artificial, which meets his standards. He has, of course,
> > offered to *drop* his standards "for your sake" - which is not true,
> > of course, as it is for *his* sake - so that some objects can actually
> > meet his criteria. This seems a strange thing to do if those standards
> > were arrived at by statistical calculations, but this is Sean we're
> > dealing with.
> I have carried out analyses of my basis method - even though I have
> not personally measured the high degrees of tolerances listed.
But you claimed to have measured a thousand granite objects, Sean.
"> You have not carried through any of the stages, yet you claim
> conclusions based on your methodology.
I have carried them out. I haven't published anything yet, but that
doesn't mean I don't have enough information to present a very
reasonable hypothesis. "
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/talk.origins/msg/3b398a7da18abb7d?dm...
> I base
> my conclusions of the predictive value of such high tolerances based
> on the much lower degrees of tolerance that I have observed - as well
> as the resulting pattern of positive predictive value with increasing
> degrees of tolerance.
So where is the data set from which you drew those conclusions, and
what statistical methods did you use to obtain them?
> > It looks as if Sean has a fool-proof method for deciding if non-
> > existent objects are artifacts. I can't see the value of such a test
> > myself, but evidently it proves that irreducible complexity must be
> > the product of "deliberate forces". I don't find this argument very
> > compelling, but perhaps someone can explain why I should be so
> > compelled.
> You're blind to the value of the test because you don't seem to
> understand the inductive basis behind it; that loosening the
> tolerances and including more types of symmetry can make it very
> applicable to all kinds of forms - to include the statue of David.
Nothing you have described as a methodology could detect that "David"
is an artifact.
> Beyond this, your own "method" for detecting artifact uses the very
> same basic principles. There is no fundamental difference between
> your search for evidence of "manufacture" and my "test" or variations
> of it.
The fundamental difference is that the method used by scientists
forms hypotheses which can be tested against the evidence for *how* an
object was created. If scientist cannot form a testable hypothesis,
they conclude that they don't know how an object was created.
What scientists *don't* do is to claim to be able to know what effect
unknown processes have on a material. This is why scientists devoted a
fair amount of energy in looking for *natural* explanations for crop
circles in spite of the fact that they look artificial. If you don't
know the process by which something is made, you don't know if it's
natural or artificial.
You can't just pull numbers out of the air and claim that this is any
sort of scientific test.
RF
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
richardal...@googlemail.com
> In message <1183910485.191816.308...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com writes
One of the most curious aspects of Sean's method is if you *add*
information to an object, you can no longer detect that it is
designed. A perfect granite cube would be identified as "designed",
yet if it had "Made in Birmingham" engraved on the bottom it would no
longer be identifiable as "designed".
I've asked him several times what he thinks the value of such a method
is, but he is being very coy about answering. Perhaps he is too busy
reading children's books on maths to brush up on his knowledge of the
various forms of symmetry.
RF
Ken Rode
I will apologize in advance for not having read the complete thread,
so if I say something here that has already been discussed, please
ignore me.
"David" is a representation of an organism that has bilateral
symmetry. "Bilateral symmetry" is a biological term and is not a
mathematical term. These other types of symmetry that you have been
discussing (rotational, line, point) are mathematical forms of
symmetry, and none of them apply to "David". That is to say: "David"
does not have rotational symmetry, line symmetry, or point symmetry.
"David", as it is not itself a biological organism, does not have
bilateral symmetry either. If you persist in using bilateral symmetry
to demonstrate that "David" is designed, I suspect that you can at
best be attempting to show that the organism that "David" represents
is designed.
> > RF
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
R. Baldwin
> On Jul 8, 8:54 am, "R. Baldwin" <res0k...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
>
>> > The fact is that randomness can never be proved in mathematics. Even
>> > though the vast majority of possible sequences can be proved to be
>> > random no single finite or infinite sequence can be proved to be the
>> > result of a truly random source of production. In the same line, bias
>> > also cannot be proved with 100% certainty. However, this does not
>> > mean that the hypothesis of bias cannot be supported with greater and
>> > greater predictive value once any particular type of predictable
>> > pattern or "bias" is actually noticed. The fact that such a pattern
>> > is not noticed, even though it "could be" there, does not remove the
>> > value of those patterns that are in fact noticed.
>>
>> It is a mistake to casually mix up different meanings for "random" as you
>> have done here. The vast majority of possible sequences can be proved to
>> be
>> algorithmically random.
>
> That's true. However, no *particular* string or pattern can be proved
> to be random.
I never said otherwise. The statement is correct for both algorithmic
randomness and stochastic randomness, though for different reasons. You seem
to be missing the point.. You conflated two different meanings for "random"
and should not have done.
>
>> The vast majority of these are infinitely long
>> sequences that cannot be computed with a finite algorithm, so they are
>> algorithmically random with respect to all reference computers. Any
>> finite
>> string is algorithmically random with respect to some computers and
>> algorithmically non-random with respect to others.
>
> That's right. However, one cannot prove that just because a
> particular string is "random" from the perspective of a particular
> reference computer that it will be random compared to another or that
> a further increase of the string's size coming from the same source
> will be random or non-random regardless of the original reference
> computer chosen.
What point are you trying to make here?
>
>> Randomness with respect to playing cards has to do with a chaotic
>> combination of mechanical forces that approximate non-determinism.
>
> Not necessarily . . . The apparent randomness of the shuffle of
> playing cards could be deliberately designed in way in which someone
> could detect given the proper decoding key or "reference computer".
OK, that is correct, but beside the point.
No, I have not. You can pick a reference and detect a bias within any
pattern with respect to that reference, without background knowledge. It
requires background knowledge to know whether you've made a reasonable
choice of reference, against which predictions are possible.
>
> To put it another way, one can make predictions as to the future of a
> detected bias given only knowledge of the pattern itself.
No, one can't. One doesn't even know if the pattern HAS a future. The
pattern may be the entire data set, with no more data forthcoming.
Furthermore, the bias is always with respect to a reference, which is
arbitrarily chosen when one has only knowledge of the pattern. There are an
infinite number of references, and one can find all kinds of patterns in any
finite data set simply by choice of reference.
> However,
> knowledge of bias or predictive value based on the detection of bias
> alone is not the same thing as knowing the origin of the bias. Bias
> can be detected and used without knowing anything about the actual
> origin of the bias.
One at least needs to know the context in which the data is found.
>
> Now, in order to adequately hypothesize concerning the origin or cause
> of the detected bias, some previous experience with the various
> mechanisms of bias production, and their respective characteristics
> and limitations, is needed.
More is needed than that.
richardal...@googlemail.com
I have no problem with the idea that there is a degree of symmetry
about some elements of "David". Where did you get the idea that I
have?
The issue is that you claim a methodology which can *detect* such
symmetries using a statistical method of analyzing objects, and
furthermore that you claim to have carried out this method on granite.
You have not demonstrated that you can detect symmetry using any form
of algorythm even in a symmetrical object, let alone detect symmetry
in the parts of "David" which might be symmetrical.
If you were not claiming to have a methodology which you had applied,
the issue would not arise. As it is very clear that you have no
methodology and that you haven't applied it to granite objects, all
you are doing is making yourself look dishonest.
That's fine with me - after all, as I keep telling people, one of the
reasons why I post here is to demonstrate the dishonesty of
creationists.
RF
>
> > RF
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
David Wilson
in talk.origins Seanpit <seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote:
.... [snip] .....
> Fine - If an object has rotational symmetry of N = 2, 4, 6, 8 etc, ...
I presume you mean here that it has rotational symmetries of _all_ even
orders, otherwise your following assertion is not true even in 2
dimensions.
> ... it
> will also have point symmetry. And, if an object has point symmetry,
> it will also have rotational symmetry.
These assertions are true _only in a 2-dimensional space_. In 3 dimensions,
which seems to be what all your previous posts were discussing, _neither_
of them is true in general. I have already pointed out to you (in article
<http://groups.google.com.au/group/talk.origins/msg/28c5dbafe265b0b3> )
an example of a point symmetrical 3-dimensional body which has _no_
rotational symmetry. An example of a 3-dimensional body with rotational
symmetries of all orders but no point symmetry is any right circular
cone.
... [snip rest] .....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Wilson
SPAMMERS_fingers@WILL_BE_fwi_PROSECUTED_.net.au
(Remove underlines and upper case letters to obtain my email address.
David Wilson
I (David Wilson <see_sig@for_my.address>) wrote:
> In article <1183911169....@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com> on July 8th
> in talk.origins Seanpit <seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote:
>
> .... [snip] ..... >
>
> > Fine - If an object has rotational symmetry of N = 2, 4, 6, 8 etc, ...
>
> I presume you mean here that it has rotational symmetries of _all_ even
> orders, otherwise your following assertion is not true even in 2
> dimensions. ...
Oops. This was a blunder on my part. In _2 dimensions_ a figure with a
rotational symmetry of even order necessarily has one of order 2, and
a rotational symmetry of order 2 in _2_ dimensions _is precisely_ a point
symmetry. My apologies for the error, but I nevertheless stand by the
remaining assertions of my preceding article.
Von R. Smith
<snip>
>
> You confuse the ability to detect bias and make predictions as to
> pattern based on the detected bias, with determining the origin of the
> bias. The deliberate or non-deliberate origin of bias does not need
> to be known before bias itself can be adequately recognized.
>
> To put it another way, one can make predictions as to the future of a
> detected bias given only knowledge of the pattern itself. However,
> knowledge of bias or predictive value based on the detection of bias
> alone is not the same thing as knowing the origin of the bias. Bias
> can be detected and used without knowing anything about the actual
> origin of the bias.
>
> Now, in order to adequately hypothesize concerning the origin or cause
> of the detected bias, some previous experience with the various
> mechanisms of bias production, and their respective characteristics
> and limitations, is needed.
What previous experience do you have with the limitations of millions
of years of evolution?
_Arthur
> One of the most curious aspects of Sean's method is if you *add*
> information to an object, you can no longer detect that it is
> designed. A perfect granite cube would be identified as "designed",
> yet if it had "Made in Birmingham" engraved on the bottom it would no
> longer be identifiable as "designed".
Or, if we come to find a black Monolith slab, of dimensions 1:2:4,
made of plastometal alloy on the Moon, but with a chipped corder
The monolith would fail the Pitmann Artifact Detection Test because:
1) It is not made of granite
2) It is not perfectly symetrical, because of the chipped corner
3) It is less than 1000 AA fairly specified bases residues from
another protein.
Seanpit
Certain parts of David have bilateral or reflective symmetry - like
David's face. The body itself also has bilateral symmetry given the
ability to rotate the limbs in space to equivalent positions. I don't
know where you get this idea that bilateral or reflective symmetry is
not a mathematical term? Where did you come up with that idea?
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
John Wilkins
> On Jul 8, 12:38 pm, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > One of the most curious aspects of Sean's method is if you *add*
> > information to an object, you can no longer detect that it is
> > designed. A perfect granite cube would be identified as "designed",
> > yet if it had "Made in Birmingham" engraved on the bottom it would no
> > longer be identifiable as "designed".
>
> Or, if we come to find a black Monolith slab, of dimensions 1:2:4,
> made of plastometal alloy on the Moon, but with a chipped corder
I thought it was 1, 2^2, 3^2...
>
> The monolith would fail the Pitmann Artifact Detection Test because:
> 1) It is not made of granite
> 2) It is not perfectly symetrical, because of the chipped corner
> 3) It is less than 1000 AA fairly specified bases residues from
> another protein.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Seanpit
> I have no problem with the idea that there is a degree of symmetry
> about some elements of "David". Where did you get the idea that I
> have?
You keep saying that David or even parts of David, like his face, "Is
not symmetrical."
> The issue is that you claim a methodology which can *detect* such
> symmetries using a statistical method of analyzing objects, and
> furthermore that you claim to have carried out this method on granite.
Obviously such symmetries can be detected using various methodologies
- including mine (just vary the degree of tolerance and include more
types of symmetries). If this were not true, you couldn't say that
"there is a degree of symmetry about some elements of David".
> You have not demonstrated that you can detect symmetry using any form
> of algorythm even in a symmetrical object, let alone detect symmetry
> in the parts of "David" which might be symmetrical.
What do you mean, "which might be symmetrical"? You just said that
you yourself recognize that at least some elements of David are
symmetrical to a certain degree.
> If you were not claiming to have a methodology which you had applied,
> the issue would not arise. As it is very clear that you have no
> methodology and that you haven't applied it to granite objects, all
> you are doing is making yourself look dishonest.
I do have a methodology, a methodology which you yourself have applied
in order to know that objects like "David" do indeed have a certain
degree of symmetry. I mean really, this can't be denied since the
symmetry of David is downright obvious to anyone without an agenda in
forums like this. All you are doing in trying to find some way to call
me a "liar". You do this by going about trying to find whatever you
can to deliberately mischaracterize my position - like taking lines
and phrases out of context or just making things up out of thin air.
And you call me dishonest?
> That's fine with me - after all, as I keep telling people, one of the
> reasons why I post here is to demonstrate the dishonesty of
> creationists.
That is in fact your whole goal. You'll do whatever it takes to paint
your opponents as dishonest because you have told people that they all
are dishonest. Therefore you will twist, distort, and otherwise
deliberately misinterpret and misrepresent what they are actually
doing and saying.
Compare this with my approach. I do not think any more than a small
minority of evolutionists are dishonest. I've found that the large
majority of evolutionists are good, honest, sincere people. Just
because I don't agree with evolutionism doesn't mean that I feel the
need to defame evolutionists. Your absolute way of thinking where all
creationists or IDists or anyone who doesn't see things your way are
morally corrupt is quite revealing when it comes to your own character
and personality.
> RF
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com