Skepticism and The Normal

[WWHP]

problem? Well, yeah. Your position isn't consisant, or even consistent. You first present Game and Evolutionary as two separate theories. Then it becomes evolutionary 'game' theory, then it's 'referred to in' yada, yada, yada. Inconsisant.

sinnikal, are you going to bother to address any real argument on this thread? You are continually disrupting this thread with meaningless personal commentary which simply reflects your confusion, nothing more.

What I write regarding tit for tat and game theory is consistant with the common usages of those terms amongst game theorists and biologists.

I have consulted with Game Theorists, I am clear on the matter. I was led to it via Richard Dawkins excellent book, the selfish gene, which i revisted after OS 012 and was alarmed to see what I was getting at so plainly described in the simplest of language.

Coincidentally, if you google the words 'evolutionary' 'tit' 'for' tat', imagine the surprise on finding the wiki you produce at number 9 on the first page.
Spooooooky!!

Good, I'm glad your having a supernatural experience. Now go meditate on it before you return to your guru for further instructions.


BF


PS, Hey Jonny, is this kind of teasing acceptable? I gotta blow off a little steam, right?

 

[Mojo]

The exact quote relating reciprocal altruism to tit for tat on the wiki page is: "This is similar to the tit for tat strategy in game theory".

You do realise that "similar to" does not mean "the same as", don't you?

 

[WWHP]

You do realise that "similar to" does not mean "the same as", don't you?

snore*. Will someone please stick needles in my eyeballs and drain the fluids from my brain.


You do realize that something 'similar' to something shares something in common with something, right? What they share in common is called tit for tat in game theory and reciprocal altruism in biology, they are different points of view relative to ONE thing, behavior. Niether one of them are the behavior observed. Thus, both of them are false relative to the true of behavior, we just just them as functioning and objective maps to navigate that which we can agree on.

Please try to do a little thinking on your own, please. Dont consult with me nor the books, just think about the information you have and how it relates to what you know is true.

 

[WWHP]

We're still doing this, huh?

what do you mean 'we'? your hardly contributing anything of value, please do so before considering yourself a member of this set of intelligencia.


BF

ps
Just a playful tease, jonny, are these okay? I gotta have a little fun....it's fun, right? Oh come on will someone please laugh with me!

bubblefish, you're just off suspension, and you're already back to your old tricks? You're not joking - and you're not fooling anyone here - so keep it impersonal and civil going forward.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jmercer

 

[WWHP]

Back to STEORN

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! C'mon, you always do this, can we please continue our previous exchange before you dance around???

You do this all the time, and then come back to me weeks later with the same set of questions reasked a different way, and then wonder why I take so long to get to your posts! If you stay inside the tit for tat with me, you will get it. Period. I garuntee it. You making this take way much longer than it should.


So I will address the steorn argument in a seperate thread to the community at whole, please please please stay on topic Jimbob, do you have ADHD?

BF

 

[WWHP]

Steorn

There are milennia of observations that demonstrate the laws of thermodynamics

These include:
(people die, things get degraded as they get older)

The laws have been explicitly known for more than 150 years.

The basic laws can be simply stated

as you can't get energy for nothing, at best you could only break even, if you could avoid waste, which is inevitable. (sorry for the gross simplification there)

yes, I am familar the best as any layman can be on the princaple. I dont need it stated in bold, italics, or cartoon bubbles, I get it.

And to that I say, so what? Are you going to tell me that energy for nothing is not a element that could exist in theoritical physics? Are not magnetic monopoles in string theory a theoritical possibility?

Is there any scientist alive who can state that the laws of thermodynamics will never change to account for new phenomena with 100 percent certainty?

What is the probability of find some rare phenomena that alters those laws?

Incredibly incredibly incredibly low?

But it's still theoritically possibly, right?

and if it was to be discovered ever in the history of physics, how would we ever find it if we argued it's possibility out of existence with our arrogance of our laws of the universe? We dont have a unified field theory yet, which means we DO NOT HAVE A COMPREHENSIVE UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THE UNIVERSE WORKS.

Yet, but I think we will, and until we do, I'll hold the old saying true "Natural Laws are just local ordinances"

and if you disagree with me, then y ou disagree with me PHILOSOPHICALLY, not scientifically.

STEORN, are claiming to somehow be the first exception ever to these laws, but haven't shown anyone how their system "works".

Not true. According to Steorn, they h ave showed a number of individuals how thier machine works within a structured NDA. I believe they will still do that within reason to anyone who wants to fly there and sign the NDA. They are extraordinarily open and are willing to provide within reason evidence that they are serious and honest about thier claim.

They also targeted atheir audience at a group of people who are less likely to be scientifically literate, rathern than showing their (paradigm-shifting) technology to engineers and scientists. Nobel prizes wouldn't even come close if it were true; it would be far more significant than the theories of gravity and evolution.

well Jimbob, your a physicist, your not in marketing. Steorn is making marketing and buisness decisions that A.) are consistant with buisness, commerce, and marketing, and B.) Clearly effective to produce the results they wished, they now have 12 highly reputable scientists (they will let you view the list if you sign an NDA) to confirm their technology.

Look where the money is.

Steorn is a commercial company and make money developing anti-fraud technology. The stumbled upon this technology researching batteries for surveliance cameras. That's where there money is.

Will Randi make money either way from STEORN's claims? No.

james randi makes both money and attention, recognition, for exposing frauds, hoaxes, and placing himself at the center of the critical thinking movement. That's his life, that is what he is FAMOUS for. He created that, that wasnt handed to him. He has made that a career. He is doing his job with his career. He wants to protect his career just like anyone else.

Steorn made a public appearance in the media.

Randi responded because he needs to fill his blog space with something. To bad what he fills it with isn't always relevant.

Could STEORN make money from "investors"? Yes.

Yes, but they will not accept any money from investors until all 12 scientists verify their claim.

Do they make extrordinary claims without evidence? Yes.

They are not asking anyone to believe them, they are asking them to accept the evidence once the 12 scientists verify their claim.

Does it fit the pattern of other scams? Yes.

such as? links? films? books?

Is it a scam?

There is absolutly no credible or reasonable evidence which suggests that Steorn is scamming people, absolutly none.

Maybe they are deluded, but I doubt that.

there is a far greater probability that they are deluded than they are scamming people, and based on what I have learned so far, they dont appear to be deluding themselves, either.

Does the technology work as advertised? TANSTAAFFL

sorry, I have absolutly no idea what the hell that means.

Edit: The extra "F" was originally a mistake, but hey, guess what it can be...

That doesnt help


BF

 

[Mojo]

I employ a strategy for online dialogue which is very remarkably similar to tit for tat in game theory. Tit for tat in game theory is SIMILAR to 'reciprocal altruism' in biology. Game Theory is not biology, and biology is not game theory, rather, they intersect with a natural behavorial strategy found in mammalian nature called TIT FOR TAT or 'Evolutionairy Game Theory' in Game Theory and RECIPROCAL ALTRUISM in Biology.

The behavioural strategy known as "tit for tat" (actually not just in mammals) can be a successful strategy in evolutionary terms, in that individuals exhibiting this behavioural trait may under some circumstances be able to produce more offspring than their peers, but this does not mean that it is part of evolutionary theory any more than any other type of trait that evolutionary theory examines is part of the theory.

"Tit for tat" involves individuals changing their behaviour in response to the behaviour of others. The page about evolutionary game theory you linked to didn't appear to mention this: it specifically talked about a "game" involving populations of "hawks" and "doves" with fixed behaviours:

Each individual follows exactly one of two strategies described below:

Hawk Initiate aggressive behaviour, not stopping until injured or until one's opponent backs down.

Dove Retreat immediately if one's opponent initiates aggressive behaviour.

Now, it may be possible to devise a "game" in which some individuals use "tit for tat" rather than "dove" or "hawk" behaviours, but this would not make it part of the game theory itself, just another behaviour that game theory is used to examine.

Now, can you explain how "tit for tat" is used in evolutionary theory or evolutionary game theory, rather than being a behavioural trait that they can be used to explain or examine? You have stated that Dawkins does this pretty well in The Selfish Gene, so presumably you are familiar with his explanation: perhaps you can summarise that.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I don't have the energy for a full blown response atm, however this

But it's still theoritically possibly, right?

couldn't wait. NO, it is NOT theoretically possible, speaking from a scientific standpoint. Neither is it hypothetically possible, speaking from a scientific standpoint.

Please, please read and understand the following:

Michael Shermer on "The Scientific Method"*
Elements of the scientific method ( hypothetico-deductive):

• Induction -- Forming a hypothesis by drawing general conclusions from existing data.
  Deduction -- Making specific predictions based on the hypothesis.
  Observation -- Gathering data, driven by hypothesis that tell us what to look for in nature.
  Verification -- Testing the predictions against further observations to confirm or falsify the initial hypothesis.

Through the scientific method, we may form the following generalizations:

• Hypothesis -- A testable statement accounting for a set of observations.
  Theory -- A well-supported and well-tested hypothesis or set of hypotheses. Fact -- A conclusion confirmed to such an extent that it would be reasonable to offer provisional agreement.

Through the scientific method, we aim for objectivity: basing conclusions on external validation. And we avoid mysticism: basing conclusions on personal insights that elude external validation.
Science leads us toward rationalism: basing conclusions on logic and evidence. And science helps us avoid dogmatism: basing conclusions on authority rather than logic and evidence.
It is important to recognize the fallibility of science and the scientific method. But within this fallibility lies its greatest strength: self-correction.
A scientific law is a description of a regularly repeating action that is open to rejection or confirmation.

Scientific progress is the cummulative growth of a system of knowledge over time, in which useful features are retained, and nonuseful features are abandoned, based on the rejection or confirmation of testable knowledge.
Pseudoscience: claims presented so that they appear scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility.

Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, which involves gathering data to test natural explanations for natural phenomenon. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent that it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions.
A skeptic is one who questions the validity of a particular claim by calling for evidence to prove or disprove it.


Albert Einstein:

• One thing I have learned in a long life: that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike -- and yet it is the most precious thing we have."

*from Why People Believe Weird Things, by Michael Shermer (1997)

http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/talks/LiU/sci_method_2.html

Here's another way of looking at Steorn's statement, from a skeptical perspective (paraphrasing Sagan iirc):
If a person makes a fantastical claim, that goes against the body of knowledge of science, it is reasonable to assume that that person's claim is false, unless it is more fantastical if the person is wrong.

 

[WWHP]

I don't have the energy for a full blown response atm, however this couldn't wait. NO, it is NOT theoretically possible, speaking from a scientific standpoint. Neither is it hypothetically possible, speaking from a scientific standpoint.

Hypothetically, variations or violations are found in new theoritical physics in Mirror Matter and or Magnetic Monopoles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_matter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_monopole

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion [re:New Physics which would allow perpetual motion]

Steorn's claim says it's free energy in 'experimental' physics, which means that perhaps there is some peri-normal phenomena in which case we would not have violation theoritically.

http://www.allaboutscience.org/laws-of-thermodynamics-faq.htm

Sometimes faith in science can lead brilliant men to believe things that are not true, because they haven't seen everything that science - or the universe - has to show them. Lord William Thomson Kelvin, for whom the Kelvin temperature scale is named, stated in 1895, "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." One of the greatest scientists of all time was proven wrong, along with many of his colleagues, just eight years later by the Wright Brothers. There are many popular and widely accepted theories that science cannot prove beyond doubt. Yet, the way they interpret the evidence is good enough for some people to put their faith in. There is great danger in ignoring evidence that contradicts a scientific theory, claiming that the theory is "Modern Science," and so it must be true. What would Lord Kelvin say to that? Like the Laws of Thermodynamics themselves, there have been some powerful, universal, undeniable truths that science has been wrong about in the past. What theories and ideas does "Modern Science" claim today that might not be true? Are there any views of the universe that haven't proven false?

Once again, until we have a unified field theory which can account for everything, we can't have 100% certainty, not scientificaly we can't.

Hawkins relates blackhole thermodynamics to account for the fact that if black holes dont have entropy, then the laws of thermodynamics would find a violation in black holes.

hawkins does not have complete 100% certainty regarding black holes, he lost the 100$ bet, remember?

http://www.allaboutscience.org/laws-of-thermodynamics-faq.htm


Until we have a unified field, we hardly are close to anything close to 100% certainty regarding the laws of the universe. As Richard Dawkins suggests, the universe may just be too queer for us to understand.

We thought our understanding of gravity would hold universally, until we realized that gravity as we understood it could not account for the apparent strength of forces within galaxies. So we 'hypothesize' dark matter. Now we find evidence of dark matter, but can't observe it, yet it makes up over 90% of our universe, which we can't account for with our current models.

So I'm sorry, perhaps I am just a honest skeptic, but when someone tells me there is no more to learn and all phenomena can be accounted for perfectly and forever without need to update our understanding or models, I just doubt that.


BF

 

[WWHP]

If a person makes a fantastical claim, that goes against the body of knowledge of science, it is reasonable to assume that that person's claim is false, unless it is more fantastical if the person is wrong.

steorn is turning to science to verify their claim, they are not asking anyone to believe them. If you want to make metalogical errors and make unknown=false, then go have fun crashing into the universe around you, that's your choice to make, as well as Carl Sagan's. Knowing Sagan's ideas like I do, I would imagine Carl would simply say it is important for science to test steorn's claim, in the interest of science alone.

No matter what happens, true =true, false=false, and unknown=unknown.

The unified knowledge and understanding of universe is unknown. Learn to love it.

 

[WWHP]

Now, can you explain how "tit for tat" is used in evolutionary theory or evolutionary game theory, rather than being a behavioural trait that they can be used to explain or examine.

No, I can only explain how tit for tat works and is a strategy in online discussions, and notice the very glaringly obvious similarity between Mathematical Game Theory, which is the behaviorial theory governing in reciprocal biology.

If your curious about Tit for Tat and game theory in biology, read The Selfish Gene, or take a course at university.


BF

 

[WWHP]

I may be misinterpreting this here, but there is the 'fluctuation theorem' which suggests, to me, that there can be no zero possibility of violation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluctuation_theorem

The fluctuation theorem (FT) is a theorem from statistical mechanics dealing with the relative probability that the entropy of a system which is currently away from thermodynamic equilibrium (maximum entropy) will increase or decrease over a given amount of time. The second law of thermodynamics predicts that the entropy of an isolated system should tend to increase until it reaches equilibrium, but after the discovery of statistical mechanics physicists realized that the second law is only a statistical one, so that there should always be some nonzero probability that the entropy of an isolated system will spontaneously decrease; the fluctuation theorem precisely quantifies this probability.

If your a scientist, you should be RUSHING to prove or disprove Steorn's claim using SCIENCE, not philosophy, occam's razor, or MURPHY's law. You should not be rushing to refute any claim that wishes scientific verification with fraud or hoax.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Hypothetically, variations or violations are found in new theoritical physics in Mirror Matter and or Magnetic Monopoles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_matter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_monopole

Neither of these suggest a violation of the laws of thermodynamics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion [re:New Physics which would allow perpetual motion]

From that link

Scientists and engineers accept the possibility that the current understanding of the laws of physics may be incomplete or incorrect; a perpetual motion device may not be impossible, but overwhelming evidence would be required to justify rewriting the laws of physics.
The conservation laws are particularly robust. Noether's theorem is actually a proof that any conservation law can be derived from any continuous symmetry. In other words, as long as the laws of physics (not simply our understanding of them, but the actual laws, which we may still be trying to discover) and the various physical constants remain invariant over time, the conservation laws must be true.
Any proposed perpetual motion design offers a potentially instructive challenge to physicists: we know it can't work (because of the laws of thermodynamics), so explain how it fails to work. The difficulty (and the value) of such an exercise depends on the subtlety of the proposal; the best ones tend to arise from physicists' own thought experiments. The principles of thermodynamics are so well established that proposals for perpetual motion machines are often met with disbelief on the part of physicists.

...
If hypothetical mirror matter exists, some Maxwell's demons can be made operational. Yet the Second Law is not violated because the demons pay their entropy cost in the hidden (mirror) sector of the world

Steorn's claim says it's free energy in 'experimental' physics, which means that perhaps there is some peri-normal phenomena in which case we would not have violation theoritically.

http://www.allaboutscience.org/laws-of-thermodynamics-faq.htm

And what did you say before? "Is there any scientist alive who can state that the laws of thermodynamics will never change to account for new phenomena with 100 percent certainty?

What is the probability of find some rare phenomena that alters those laws?

Incredibly incredibly incredibly low?

But it's still theoritically possibly, right?"
Suggesting, as you did, that the laws of thermodynamics could "theoritically[sic]" be wrong is very different from suggesting that Steorn may have proven a hypothesis of other means to extract energy that do not violate the laws.

Once again, until we have a unified field theory which can account for everything, we can't have 100% certainty, not scientificaly we can't.

And that is why it is called provisional agreement.

Hawkins relates blackhole thermodynamics to account for the fact that if black holes dont have entropy, then the laws of thermodynamics would find a violation in black holes.

Yes, I am familiar with the Hawking Paradox, and am anxiously awaiting his newest paper on the subject. However, if you will recall, the reason he is putting so much work in to it is not because he thinks thermodynamics are wrong, it is that he thinks he is missing something about black holes.

hawkins does not have complete 100% certainty regarding black holes, he lost the 100$ bet, remember?

His bet was to whether or not Cygnus X-1 was a black hole.

Until we have a unified field, we hardly are close to anything close to 100% certainty regarding the laws of the universe. As Richard Dawkins suggests, the universe may just be too queer for us to understand.

Cripes! Now your dragging unified field theory into this? What other subjects do you think you understand?

We thought our understanding of gravity would hold universally, until we realized that gravity as we understood it could not account for the apparent strength of forces within galaxies. So we 'hypothesize' dark matter. Now we find evidence of dark matter, but can't observe it, yet it makes up over 90% of our universe, which we can't account for with our current models.

"Hypothesis -- A testable statement accounting for a set of observations"

So I'm sorry, perhaps I am just a honest skeptic,

No True Scotsman fallacy.

but when someone tells me there is no more to learn and all phenomena can be accounted for perfectly and forever without need to update our understanding or models, I just doubt that.

Strawman fallacy.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

steorn is turning to science to verify their claim, they are not asking anyone to believe them. If you want to make metalogical errors and make unknown=false, then go have fun crashing into the universe around you, that's your choice to make, as well as Carl Sagan's. Knowing Sagan's ideas like I do, I would imagine Carl would simply say it is important for science to test steorn's claim, in the interest of science alone.

Steorn is compensating scientists that they hand pick to review their product.

No matter what happens, true =true, false=false, and unknown=unknown.

Argumentum ad nauseum.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I may be misinterpreting this here, but there is the 'fluctuation theorem' which suggests, to me, that there can be no zero possibility of violation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluctuation_theorem




If your a scientist, you should be RUSHING to prove or disprove Steorn's claim using SCIENCE, not philosophy, occam's razor, or MURPHY's law. You should not be rushing to refute any claim that wishes scientific verification with fraud or hoax.

We can't because they are hand picking who gets to do the review. What do you not grasp about how this is direct contradiction to standard scientific methodology?

 

[Mojo]

We can't because they are hand picking who gets to do the review.

Not only that, but there are terms in their contract with the "jurors" which effectively give Steorn complete control over what is published. For example, under "confidentiality":

As used herein, the term "Confidential Information" shall mean that private, secret, or confidential information of Steorn, whether or not in writing, of whatever kind or nature disclosed to the Juror or known by the Juror, (whether or not invented, discovered or developed by the Juror) as a consequence of or through the performance of the duties under this Agreement...

Under "intellectual property rights":

All right, title and interest, including, but not limited to, all copyrights, in and to all materials prepared by the Juror pursuant to the terms of this Agreement or otherwise for Steorn (“Work”) shall be the exclusive property of Steorn. All Work shall, to the extent possible, be considered works made by the Juror for hire for the benefit of Steorn. The Juror shall mark all Work with Steorn's copyright or other proprietary notices as directed by Steorn and shall take all actions deemed necessary by Steorn to perfect Steorn's rights therein. In the event that the Work can not constitute work made by the Juror for hire for the benefit of Steorn under applicable law, or in the event that the Juror should otherwise retain any rights to any Work, the Juror agrees to assign, and upon creation thereof automatically assigns, all rights, titles, and interests in and to such Work, including, but not limited to, copyrights pertaining thereto to Steorn, without further consideration.

...

Nothing in this Agreement shall constitute a license or any other rights in favour of the Juror with respect to the Confidential Information or any other proprietary information or rights of Steorn.

Basically, the "jurors" are not allowed to reveal anything about the "validation" process without Steorn's say-so. Everything a juror produces belongs to Steorn, either because it is "work for hire" or because the juror automatically assigns copyright to Steorn the instant he produces it. Anything to do with the "validation" process that Steorn haven't revealed to the outside world is to be considered confidential, even if it was "invented, discovered or developed by the Juror", which would certainly include the findings made by the "jury". Steorn can say what they like about the results of the "validation", and the jurors are not allowed to say anything without Steorn's permission.

 

[WWHP]

Then demonstrate one. I've invited you to support this statement several times.

Well, this is one statement I know you make that is not in touch with reality

However,.... the relationships of logic that you propose in OS012 do not are neigher intuitive nor logical. In fact, they're outright incorrect. And for this reason, OS012 is neither useful, accurate, intuitive, logical, nor coherent.

You have never once provided argument that could maintain/advance itself in dialogue with me.

and you have continuously removed yourself from the tit for tat on the critical arguments about this with me.

So let's get back to the meat of the problem, what's your issue with the third value and metalogic?



BF

 

[Professor Yaffle]

BF, what would have to happen in an online discussion for you to conclude that tit for tat might not be an effective strategy?

 

[Mojo]

No, I can only explain how tit for tat works and is a strategy in online discussions, and notice the very glaringly obvious similarity between Mathematical Game Theory, which is the behaviorial theory governing in reciprocal biology.

The similarity between Mathematical Game Theory, which you claim is the behaviorial [sic] theory governing in reciprocal biology, and what? You really should try to finish your sentences.

 

[Cuddles]

from what i understand, in game theory, it's often referred to as 'evolutionary theory'. I clarified my position and it's consisant.

problem?

Problem? Yes. Your understanding is wrong. Game theory is not evolutionary theory. Game theory can be applied to some aspects of evolutionary theory. It can also be applied to chess and Go.