Franko's "Universe as a Computer Program" Debunked

[Tricky]

Sure it is. It is pre-determined by the rules of baseball (and the players themselves).

I can prove it too, because I have watched a lot of baseball, and I have never seen anyone score a touchdown in baseball. I've never seen anyone teleport from 1st to 3rd base either. Everything that happens in a professional baseball game is according to the rules of baseball.

Then why do the bookmakers give odds? Why don't they just tell us in advance who is going to win?

 

[wraith]

What's you point?

Thats the new information...

 

[MRC_Hans]

Explain how probability works without Determinism being True?

It wouldn’t.

Its "determinism", not "Determinism". Of course deterministic functions exist. But I have challenged you to explain a simple, everyday observable phenomenon using ONLY determinism (phosphoroscence), and so far I hear only crickets.

I have a deck of cards with various different symbols on them. If I don’t tell you how many cards I have, or how many different symbols there are can you tell me the probability that you will draw a card with the “Ahnk” on it?

Without DETERMINED parameters there is no probability. You are being incredibly naïve and dogmatic MRC.

I quite agree that probability requires deterministic parameters (and I have not said otherwise). Now you show me YOU are not naïve and dogmatic, and explain how probability can exist without RANDOM factors?

Do you know HOW you know the probability of getting HEADS when you flip a coin is 50%??? It’s because you have preDETERMINED that:

1) a coin has two sides which are mutually exclusive when the coin is flipped.
2) the likelihood of either side landing is approximately equal.

Quite. And your point?

Explain why you believe that Fractals are not artwork?

I already did. DO read my posts. Tha fact that you dont understand the explanation doesnt mean that it isn't there.

Define Artwork. Explain why artworks are not predetermined, but the Mandelbrot set was?

I can explain that the Mandelbrot set is predetermined, but I cant prove a negative. YOU provide evidence that the Mona Lisa was predetermined.

Wasn’t the painting of the Mona Lisa preDETERMINED by what Mona Lisa (the person) actually looked like? How is the Mona Lisa ANY different then a photographic portrait MRC?

I would say that you are culturally deprived. I'm sorry, I neither have the ability nor motivation to educate you culturally. A photo can be art too, however.

When you take a photograph of you wife does a different person ever show up when you have the film developed?

I sure hope not. That might get me into serious trouble.

According to your view of reality are photographs deterministic like a fractal, or are they magical like “artwork”?

Nothin is magical, but some art comes close, heheh. Photograps are less deterministic than fractals.

The Mona Lisa is no different then the Mandelbrot set. It is just a fractal, the result of many many iterations of a very simple algorithm. Explain why you believe that the Mandelbrot set is different then any other art work? What specifically is different about it MRC?

I already have explained. And I have asked you to provide the formula for Mona Lisa. So what will Mona Lisa look like with one more iteration? Or one less?

How is the Mona Lisa any different then a photograph (portrait) of any other women MRC?

Well, if you insist on exposing your cultural poverty repeatedly, I shall not stop you.

Is photography more evidence for indeterminism?

Not especially, why?

Really?

Well I suggest you try jumping off the roof of a tall building or roll around in a large bon fire and then tell yourself that Reward and punishment are cultural concepts, they have nothing to do with the laws of physics.

Let us know how it turns out.

That is logical consequences of actions. They are not the same as punishment. But I realize you dont understand the difference, and I really dont think I want to bother with trying to explain it to you.

If you want to make a fool of yourself for the sake of your religious dogma MRC, I’ll be more than happy to help you out.

Oh, well -- gee, thanks, Frank!

Hans

(Edited for some of the typos)

 

[wraith]

Hans

I can explain that the Mandelbrot set is predetermined, but I cant prove a negative. YOU provide evidence that the Mona Lisa was predetermined.

You said that the Mona Lisa was not predetermined...thats your claim...so it's up to you to support it

 

[MRC_Hans]

Wraith asks if I can predict the lottery.
I answer: What's your poit?

Thats the new information...

Ehr, yes ---- and? This is a problem for YOU, pal, not for me. You are the one with the totally deterministic cosmology, not I. In my cosmology, the lottery is a random event, and thus new information added to the world.

You said that the Mona Lisa was not predetermined...thats your claim...so it's up to you to support it

Har, har, har. Nope, pal, YOU are the one touting total Determinism, and Mona Lisa was YOUR example, YOU do the proving.

Hans

 

[wraith]

Wraith asks if I can predict the lottery.
I answer: What's your poit?

Ehr, yes ---- and? This is a problem for YOU, pal, not for me. You are the one with the totally deterministic cosmology, not I.

How is this a problem for me?

In my cosmology, the lottery is a random event, and thus new information added to the world.

Yeah your belief is WACK. The present is not based on the past. Thats tops

Har, har, har. Nope, pal, YOU are the one touting total Determinism, and Mona Lisa was YOUR example, YOU do the proving.

The painting did not exist till it was painted...any other brain busters? :eekL:

 

[MRC_Hans]

How is this a problem for me?

Well if it isn't I suggest we forget it

Yeah your belief is WACK. The present is not based on the past. Thats tops

That was a reeealy good argument

The painting did not exist till it was painted...any other brain busters? :eekL:

Ehh, what exactly are you arguing for here?

Hans

 

[Franko]

Tricky:
Then why do the bookmakers give odds? Why don't they just tell us in advance who is going to win?

When a bookmaker gives odds ... the team they give the better odds of winning is the team that they are telling you is going to win.

 

[Franko]

Franko:
Well I suggest you try jumping off the roof of a tall building or roll around in a large bon fire and then tell yourself that Reward and punishment are cultural concepts, they have nothing to do with the laws of physics.

Let us know how it turns out.

MRC: (severely brainwashed A-Theist)
That is logical consequences of actions. They are not the same as punishment. But I realize you dont understand the difference, and I really dont think I want to bother with trying to explain it to you.

Explain the precise difference between a "logical coonsequence for action" and "punishment"?

If you murder someone, and I catch you and put you in jail, isn't that "punishment", AND "logical consequence for action"?

Face it MRC, all you are doing is creatively redefining words so you don't have to concede all of the ridiculous contradictions in your religious dogma.

I'm going to point out all of the holes and problems with your concept of "art" and "fractals" (Math), but I want to let you hang yourself on this one first ...

 

[Tricky]

When a bookmaker gives odds ... the team they give the better odds of winning is the team that they are telling you is going to win.

And are they always correct? (Hint: Remember the Superbowl?)

Actually, bookmakers don't give a ratsass who wins. They set the point spread to get an equal number of people betting for both sides. That way, the losers pay the winners and the bookmaker takes his vigorish. But it is a risky profession. Lots of bookmakers lost their shirts on the Superbowl.

 

[Franko]

And are they always correct? (Hint: Remember the Superbowl?)

Why do they have to be correct 100% of the time to prove determinism True?

If determinism is False, then how would they ever do any better than 50-50?

Actually, bookmakers don't give a ratsass who wins. They set the point spread to get an equal number of people betting for both sides. That way, the losers pay the winners and the bookmaker takes his vigorish. But it is a risky profession. Lots of bookmakers lost their shirts on the Superbowl.

Never-the-less, their rate of accurate predictions is far better than can be accounted for by "random chance" alone.

So how do you account for it Tricky?

 

[Tricky]

Explain the precise difference between a "logical coonsequence for action" and "punishment"?

A logical coonsequence is to put all of your racoons in order of increasing size.

A logical consequence may be punishment, reward or neither. For example, if you mistreat your girlfriend, and she leaves you as a consequence, is that punishment or reward? Depends on your point of view, does it not?

 

[Franko]

Tricky it is very simple ...

A consequence you like is a Reward.

A consequence that you don't like is a Punishment.

 

[Tricky]

Why do they have to be correct 100% of the time to prove determinism True?

May I remind you that you said

posted by Franko 02-11-2003
Uncertain from who's perspective?

Certainly not a bookmaker's, or a professional gambler's

If they don't know it 100%, then it is uncertain. Or are you going to redefine "uncertain" too?

Never-the-less, their rate of accurate predictions is far better than can be accounted for by "random chance" alone.

So how do you account for it Tricky?

The more you learn about something, the better you can predict it. But even if you learn more than everybody else in the world, you still can't make perfect predictions.

However, knowing the rules of football would in no way help you predict winners if you didn't know anything about the teams.

 

[Tricky]

Tricky it is very simple ...

A consequence you like is a Reward.

A consequence that you don't like is a Punishment.

What about a consequence that you have mixed feelings or no feelings about? You need examples?

 

[Franko]

Tricky:
May I remind you that you said

Am I suppose to guess what you are referring to?

How is this a contradiction?

Franko: (from Tricky's link)
By the same token if you want to pretend that an incomplete understanding of TLOP means that you don’t actually OBEY TLOP then keep believing it.

Bookmakers don’t have a complete understand of TLOP either Trixy. But make no mistake, they run their business based on the notion that REALITY OPERATIVES BY AN OBJECTIVE FIXED SET OF LAWS. Probability and Statistics cannot exist unless determinism is True.

Tricky:
If they don't know it 100%, then it is uncertain. Or are you going to redefine "uncertain" too?

So you are once again claiming that if a person doesn’t have knowledge of TLOP, then TLOP does not function?

What you are claiming is that if you believe the Earth is Flat and motionless, the Earth really is Flat and motionless?

The more you learn about something, the better you can predict it.

Then why do you claim that this is not True for TLOP itself? Wouldn’t it be True that the better you understood TLOP the better you could predict what TLOP would do next? Tell me, how is that any different then predicting another persons actions?

Tricky:
But even if you learn more than everybody else in the world, you still can't make perfect predictions.

You are contradicting yourself again – why not?

Are you claiming that you can predict a strangers actions just as well as you can predict your wife or childrens’ actions?

Is it easier for you to predict the actions of young children, or is it easier for them to predict your actions? Explain your answer … Why is that the case?

Tricky:
However, knowing the rules of football would in no way help you predict winners if you didn't know anything about the teams.

Well, I’d say that you would have to know the rules of football in order to know what was important about the teams.

 

[Tricky]

How is this a contradiction?

Because you first say Bookmakers and Gamblers are not uncertain, then you say they are not always right. That's about as much of a contradiction as it is possible to make.

Bookmakers don’t have a complete understand of TLOP either Trixy. But make no mistake, they run their business based on the notion that REALITY OPERATIVES BY AN OBJECTIVE FIXED SET OF LAWS. Probability and Statistics cannot exist unless determinism is True.

Just the opposite is true. If determinism exists, then the probability of everything is 100% since there can be no deviation from what is preordained. The laws of probability are predicated on randomness.

So you are once again claiming that if a person doesn’t have knowledge of TLOP, then TLOP does not function?

Nope. You have once again mistaken your strawman for what I actually said.

Then why do you claim that this is not True for TLOP itself? Wouldn’t it be True that the better you understood TLOP the better you could predict what TLOP would do next? Tell me, how is that any different then predicting another persons actions?

If you really understand TLOP, you will understand probability and randomness. That will help keep you from the problem of gamblers ruin. (It's a statistics term. Look it up.)

Well, I’d say that you would have to know the rules of football in order to know what was important about the teams.

Very true, but knowing The Rules of Football perfectly, in and of themselves tell you nothing about who will win. You must have other knowledge.

In the same way, knowing The Laws of Physics perfectly in and of themselves does not predict the outcome of any given event. You must have other knowledge.

 

[Franko]

In the same way, knowing The Laws of Physics perfectly in and of themselves does not predict the outcome of any given event. You must have other knowledge.

That's right ... TLOP plus the Initial State.

And really the LG is not TLOP. TLOP is simply Her expressions. The LG is the initial state. Just like your initial state corresponds to your Graviton.

 

[Franko]

Trixy: (A-Theism Cult Recruiter)
Because you first say Bookmakers and Gamblers are not uncertain, then you say they are not always right. That's about as much of a contradiction as it is possible to make.

No I said that it is a FACT that the oddsmakers are correct more often then they are incorrect, if you are claiming that Determinism is False, then how do you account for this?

Some people are able to anticipate future events far better than others (adults generally tend to do it much better than children for example). How do you account for this if determinism is false. If determinism were true then you would expect that Time and experience would amount to an increase in information and thus predictions would become more accurate.

But you seem to be saying that this is False. You seem to be claiming that even if someone (God) had ALL information they would still not be able to predict things more accurately then you or I could.

So how do you explain it. (my prediction … Tricky won’t explain it, we’ll see more woo-woo stuff and evasions).

 

[MRC_Hans]

Explain the precise difference between a "logical coonsequence for action" and "punishment"?

If you murder someone, and I catch you and put you in jail, isn't that "punishment", AND "logical consequence for action"?

Face it MRC, all you are doing is creatively redefining words so you don't have to concede all of the ridiculous contradictions in your religious dogma.

I'm going to point out all of the holes and problems with your concept of "art" and "fractals" (Math), but I want to let you hang yourself on this one first ...

Better get on with the math, Frank. But do your homework well. You know, math is a pretty concise discipline, no "lexicon" will help you there.

Consequence is nonconscious; if I drop a stone, it falls to the ground. If the drop is long enough, the stone breaks, but thats not punishment, thats just consequence.

Punishment is conscous. If you steal somethinG, your society has decided that it will not accept it, so (if caught) it punishes you to keep you from doing it again.

And, you will find overlapping examples, like if you run a red light, and meet a truck.

This is what i mean by the difference between consequence and punishment (and reward, of course). I realize such nuances probably dont exist in your cosmology, but thats not my loss.

Now what were you gonna teach me about fractals?

Hans

Edited to add: And you still owe me the Deterministic explanation for phosphoroscence.