LilWabbit
Senior Member
what about "a type of" is unclear to you?
What about "a real-valued random variable" is unclear to you? The discussion was about whether a Gaussian distribution concerns random variables. It does.
what about "a type of" is unclear to you?
(2) is a non sequitur. The interval between me encountering a bagpiper is long on average, but the median is quite short as bagpipers often come in groups. The frequency of appearance allows no conclusion as to the distribution of appearances of rainbows.(1) The probability that the rainbow would be visible at Buckingham Palace or Windsor Castle is roughly the same as at any other spot roughly within the same unpredictable weather system at the time.
(2) Due to 1, statistically the rainbow is regularly visible at Buckingham Palace or Windsor Castle after somewhat long intervals due to the low frequency of their appearance.
no, @jplaza's point was that you're describing a different type of real-valued random variable, and that calling it "Gaussian" is a mistake.What about "a real-valued random variable" is unclear to you? The discussion was about whether a Gaussian distribution concerns random variables. It does.
@LilWabbit how likely is it that a superpower causes all rainbows in Britain all the time?
Not a claim anyone has made.
Had the rainbow appeared on a clear day with no raindrops in the sky then I'd be impressed by the claim of "power over physics".In short, 'intelligence' and 'power over physics' are logically reasonable components of the deterministic contraposition to chance in this particular case.
(2) is a non sequitur. The interval between me encountering a bagpiper is long on average, but the median is quite short as bagpipers often come in groups.
The frequency of appearance allows no conclusion as to the distribution of appearances of rainbows.
Specifically, if the weather conditions are right (e.g. in the month of September), they can appear frequently and at many locations.
Gaussian distribution in the way it was applied in my argument means two things:
(1) The probability that the rainbow would be visible at Buckingham Palace or Windsor Castle is
Monarchs' deaths are pretty much an exemplar for the Poisson distribution. And when lambda is so low - not many monarchs would be expected to die per day - Poissons are almost as different from Gaussians as it's possible to be, with their reciprocal skew and kurtosis.I'm assuming the death of monarchs and rainbow appearances are more or less random variables. Obviously, using the Gaussian model here is a theoretical approximation of a more nuanced real-world variable, employed as a rough tool.
Monarchs' deaths are pretty much an exemplar for the Poisson distribution. And when lambda is so low - not many monarchs would be expected to die per day - Poissons are almost as different from Gaussians as it's possible to be, with their reciprocal skew and kurtosis.
Whether only some are, or they all are, caused by superpower intervention is a direct consequence of claims that have been made: namely that there could be at least one insance of a superpower bringing about one rainbow for symbolic reasons. Do not propose that extraordinary claim, and the some/all dichotomy evaporates. Propose that claim, and you reify the question.
I'm appalled that you cannot see the resemblance between pink unicorns and a powerful "intelligence". The two are equally invisible, equally evidence-free for their existence, and equally devoid of any plausible mechanism by which to influence either atmospheric conditions or the timing thereof.'Pink unicorns' is actually quite a cheap shot and a trite strawman, I would've expected a more reasonable counter-point from you. I
But wouldn't you say the death of monarchs is a discrete uniform distribution in terms of the historical locations and times of death? As a theoretical model, they could die just as likely in England on the 8 September 1315 as they would in France or China? And a monarch on planet earth could just as likely die on 8 September 1315 as he/she would on the 9th?
That's a possiblity indeed. Now we need data to support such a claim. At the moment the rough data we have doesn't suggest they're all that frequent and all that concurrent at different locations.
Yet in post #1, you said: "I have no personal commitment whatsoever to the claim that these rainbows are a sign."No claim of a divine intervention of even one of those co-occurrences has been made.
Yet in post #1, you said: "I have no personal commitment whatsoever to the claim that these rainbows are a sign."
Geographical location of death appears to be irrelevant - given the corroborated evidence we have at hand.
I'm saying that over time it's a Poisson distribution. You appear to be trying to say the same thing, but not having the right vocabulary for it.
I'm appalled that you cannot see the resemblance between pink unicorns and a powerful "intelligence". The two are equally invisible, equally evidence-free for their existence, and equally devoid of any plausible mechanism by which to influence either atmospheric conditions or the timing thereof.
They're your words, lilrabbit: (From post number 102)So no, you're not addressing any explicit points I've made but rather your own caricatures and strawmen. Whether some sort of an 'intelligence' as the origin of seeming design in existence and a pink unicorn fall under the same epistemological category is a separate discussion and in no way disproves the contraposition outlined for this specific case.
However, if you cannot see any bias of your own at play in your consistent trivialization of the mourners' meaningful experience of a 'sign from heaven' as just another Pink Unicorn claim, then we have very little to work with. But at least this discussion provides interesting back-and-forths for the anonymous viewer.
They're your words, lilrabbit:
"Logically, it's either (1) a very unlikely chance occurrence or, by contraposition, (2) more likely a purposefully timed appearance orchestrated by 'something intelligent and powerful' whatever that may be (the specifics are irrelevant)."
ever-changing
How does your 'pink unicorns are silly and gods are equally silly' trope disprove that these are the logically alternative claims?
Lil rabbit never said superpower.And why did he snub Scotland, that's still unanswered; the place where the Queen chose to end her days - is that aspect not important to this superpower?
yes it has.The gist of the OP question has never changed nor lost relevance
Lil rabbit never said superpower.
Because it demonstrates that if you wish to have a scientific argument in the twenty-first century, if you want to bring *either* of those two things into the discussion, then you need *extraordinary evidence*.
In our case, we have a seemingly extraordinary observable phenomenon.
Sorry this whole post makes no sense to me. Absolutely none. I don't even know where to start.While we fully agree that all scientific claims require sound objective evidence to back them up, Carl Sagan's popular slogan, whilst poignantly poetic, is not an established scientific standard. Sagan's slogan is often misused by populist science writers/personas to describe science operating as some infallible arbiter between outlandish and mundane claims. Science is not about brokering between extraordinary and unextraordinary claims regarding headline-making popular events, which we subsequently need to support with evidence by the courtesy of Google and Flickr. That's what happens only on vitriolic Facebook and MetaBunk debates between valiant internet warriors the likes of me and you who perhaps think they're more clever than they actually are.
In classical natural science we have a carefully observed phenomenon in need of an internally consistent logical explanation which is also fully consistent with all the observations. The best explanations are able to predict measurement outcomes. There're always rival logical explanations to the same set of facts / phenomenon. As long as they are parsimonious, consistent with the facts and internally consistent, they're all worth exploring without bias, irrespective of how extraordinary or unextraordinary they subjectively feel to a particular scientist.
In our case, we have a seemingly extraordinary observable phenomenon. A seemingly extraordinary co-occurrence of beautiful rainbows, royal palaces and royal deaths. If it indeed were just a rainbow appearing on any other rainy September day of no significance, right above Auntie Pat's cabbage patch, then your "there was a rainbow" obfuscation of the phenomenon at issue would be an accurate description of a mundane state of affairs. But it wasn't Auntie Pat's cabbage patch on Sunday afternoon, was it.
Chance and determinism have been outlined as the two logical contrapositions to explain this seemingly extraordinary co-occurrence. If there's a third one, let me know. The properties of 'intelligent design' and 'power over physics' are reasonable components of any deterministic (non-chancy) hypothesis where some unknown non-random deterministic process seems to bring together a sociopolitically significant event and an awe-inspiring natural event with uncanny timing. And the co-occurrence of which reminds a casual observer of a commemoration at human funerals but now on a grander scale with nature taking part. The OP suggests that this is a reasonable alternative claim to chance rather than just a delusional one such as a pink unicorn farting bubbles in the sky. However, all further talk about 'gods' or 'divine' is unparsimonious at this point. There's simply no scientific need to go there, nor to prove them as fuller theoretical constructs. Which is what you are unreasonably insisting. We only need to focus on the said specific theoretical 'properties', rather than any hypothetical theological beings and entities people may speculate these properties to belong to.
My task is done if an intellectually honest reader of this discussion is able to see that both of the presented claims, if he/she really reads them with thought as described in the above, are logical and reasonable, even if neither can be proven with sufficient objective evidence. The fact that many of the regulars on MB won't gel well with 'intelligent design' is to be expected.
Maybe the universe has been brilliantly calibrated in just the right way for two random events (the official announcement of the death of Queen Elizabeth II and rainbows appearing at her chief seats of reign) to meaningfully coincide on 8 September 2022 at 1830 hrs, without any need for a deus ex machina 'divine intervention' to manipulate the laws of physics. But it would still be intelligent design/calibration. Maybe that same brilliant calibration has had, and will have, similar uncanny co-occurrences in store for rare occasions. But if not, that's fine too. Then the co-occurrence in question was just an amazing coincidence. And not even all that amazing if indeed rainbows appearing at Buckingham Palace on a September afternoon are a daily occurrence.
In short, 'intelligence' and 'power over physics' are logically reasonable components of the deterministic contraposition to chance in this particular case. God/Atman/Gaia/Earth Mother/Iluvatar/The Universe/The Cosmic Consciousness/What Have You are unnecessary and unprovable further speculations.
It's just a rainbow. It's not extraordinary, nor does it seem that way to anyone I would consider rational.
that's fine, except you said "he" snubbed Scotland.We all simply mean some agent outside the realm of naturalistic explanation. Fussing over which specific term is used to refer to the same concept looks like an unnecessary derailing of the thread even more than it is already.
lol. right?Sorry this whole post makes no sense to me. Absolutely none. I don't even know where to start.
then debunk his claim that a double rainbow at Buckingham Palace is extraordinary. I'm sure you can find some evidence (pictures) to back up your counterclaim, instead of just arguing opinions.It's just a rainbow. It's not extraordinary,
ther eare a heck of alot of irrational news outlets out there.It's not extraordinary, nor does it seem that way to anyone I would consider rational.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/learn-about/weather/optical-effects/rainbows/double-rainbowsthen debunk his claim that a double rainbow at Buckingham Palace is extraordinary. I'm sure you can find some evidence (pictures) to back up your counterclaim, instead of just arguing opinions.
External Quote:
A double rainbow is a wonderful sight where you get two spectacular natural displays for the price of one.
Surprisingly, this phenomenon is actually relatively common, especially at times when the sun is low in the sky such as in the early morning or late afternoon.
that's fine, except you said "he" snubbed Scotland.
Just pointing out that Mendel changed rabbits "intelligent and powerful" to superpower. then you added a he.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/learn-about/weather/optical-effects/rainbows/double-rainbows
External Quote:
A double rainbow is a wonderful sight where you get two spectacular natural displays for the price of one.
Surprisingly, this phenomenon is actually relatively common, especially at times when the sun is low in the sky such as in the early morning or late afternoon.
give me a break. youre the one who brought up "Him" and "snubbing Scotland". Am i not allowed to complain about YOUR derailments? Be fair.that's less of a complaint than I have for your second utter derailing attempt, which appears to have nothing to do with anything.
give me a break. youre the one who brought up "Him" and "snubbing Scotland". Am i not allowed to complain about YOUR derailments? Be fair.
Define "relatively common". Respect to what?we're all aware of the general science. Now show it is "relatively common" at Buckingham Palace.
If you'll permit a childish simplification, here's a quick and dirty sketch made from the weather map of the USA yesterday. The essential requirements are rain, the end of the cloud cover, and the sun low enough to come underneath. It wasn't a completely solid rain cloud, but fairly close.Define "relatively common". Respect to what?
Spotting rainbows from Buckingham Palace is more or less frequent/rare than Westminster? Greenwich? Dover? Why are Buckingham/Windsor special?