Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: quentron.com  (Read 1261343 times)

sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2865 on: August 10, 2014, 03:01:00 PM »
It is a folly of hubris to unilaterally declare that low probability dictates that an experiment should not be conducted.
I'm not sure what "unilateral" means in this context but I will say that data should drive your decisions, all your decisions.  Including the decision to run the experiment.  As soon as you (or someone else says) that we should ignore the data saying that the experiment is stupid and perform the experiment - that is being just as arrogant  as ignoring that true equipoise exists.
Quote
It is important to distinguish the differences between:  likely, extremely likely, and absolutely true.
I disagree, those distinctions are both difficult to determine and are subsumed but a much better criterion:  Is the experiment likely to produce useful data?  The rationality of performing an experiment is directly proportional to this. 
Quote
But none of us are omniscient.
Precisely! Which is why a validating experiment without having an understanding it's likelihood of success is worthless - as an experiment and performing an experiment which is only going to succeed 1 in 10^1000 times is equally so.
Quote
Before I give up an idea I must first have it.
If you're talking about research which is hypothesis generating.  This is fine but you have to let go of the end result being meaningful and you would design your experiment differently than profitis did.
Quote
I argue the idea that if someone wishes to expend their resources testing an idea, even if the idea seems silly, that I see no good reason to discourage such an act.
There are no good reasons to discourage bad science? or is something that is far more likely to produce bad data rather than good somehow not "bad science"?
Quote
That means that an experiment that produces a false positive has educational value provided the reason for the false positive is tracked down.
Only if it's novel.  I'll also point out that this is moving the goalposts somewhat.  Value to the extant body of work is different than "might possibly be helpful to someone somewhere sometime about something maybe!".
Quote
Case in point was the FTL neutrino experiments at CERN.  An unusual result was reported.  It was the result of all things a loose optical connector.  The episode taught many people valuable lessons in conducting experiments
However it's a lesson that is impossible to learn from profitis's experiment. So it's not a very good example.  OPERA had a confidence interval.  Profitis has shit squared.  It was having a probabilistic model that MADE that lesson possible.
Quote
A limit approaching zero is distinct from zero.
Irrelevant.  Every day, you personally treat hundreds of thousands of non-zero probabilities as if they were zero (at least).  Thousands of those (at least) are greater than the probability of pomodoros experiment producing useful data.  So to me, this is just cherry picking.

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2866 on: August 10, 2014, 10:42:04 PM »
I'm not sure what "unilateral" means in this context but I will say that data should drive your decisions, all your decisions.  Including the decision to run the experiment.  As soon as you (or someone else says) that we should ignore the data saying that the experiment is stupid and perform the experiment - that is being just as arrogant  as ignoring that true equipoise exists.
In the one case we have an apriori declaration that we should not collect data, because the likelihood that new useful information is low.  On the other hand we have a decision to collect data recognizing that the likelihood that it will yield new useful information is low.  There is no arrogance in acknowledging the data we have collected and the probabilities surrounding any new data that we collect.  I submit that there is great arrogance in declaring that because a likelihood is low that we MUST treat the likelihood as zero, so much so that we must avoid collecting new data.  I am sorry but that is really bad logic.  At what arbitrary confidence level do you declare that all data collection MUST stop?
Quote

I disagree, those distinctions are both difficult to determine and are subsumed but a much better criterion:  Is the experiment likely to produce useful data?  The rationality of performing an experiment is directly proportional to this.  Precisely! Which is why a validating experiment without having an understanding it's likelihood of success is worthless - as an experiment and performing an experiment which is only going to succeed 1 in 10^1000 times is equally so.If you're talking about research which is hypothesis generating.  This is fine but you have to let go of the end result being meaningful and you would design your experiment differently than profitis did.

Pomodoro has performed carefully constructed experiments, and there is little surprise that his results are consistent with general understanding and inconsistent with Profitis' extraordinary claims.  How is this not useful?  Why is it that you appear to declare this "bad science"?
Quote

There are no good reasons to discourage bad science? or is something that is far more likely to produce bad data rather than good somehow not "bad science"?Only if it's novel.  I'll also point out that this is moving the goalposts somewhat.  Value to the extant body of work is different than "might possibly be helpful to someone somewhere sometime about something maybe!".

I gather that maybe you do not do much lab work.  There is much that goes wrong in a lab that people do not predict or expect.  It takes quite a bit of experience for people to get really rigorous about the way they conduct themselves in a lab.  Experiments with expected outcomes are fundamentally useful to that process, both for the experimenters in the lab and all observers.  Pomodoro is clearly very experienced, and has conducted his work carefully.  He has provided a wonderful example of how to go about setting up an experiment, and conducting verifying experiments to cross-check results.  Those are important skills to share.  Were we to discourage that sort of behavior then I submit we create a vacuum that leaves people more likely to conduct poorly controlled experiments because we never taught them any better.
Quote

However it's a lesson that is impossible to learn from profitis's experiment. So it's not a very good example.  OPERA had a confidence interval.  Profitis has shit squared.  It was having a probabilistic model that MADE that lesson possible.Irrelevant. Every day, you personally treat hundreds of thousands of non-zero probabilities as if they were zero (at least).  Thousands of those (at least) are greater than the probability of pomodoros experiment producing useful data.  So to me, this is just cherry picking.
Of course sane people make most of their decisions treating less than absolute certainties as absolute.  There is no other practical way to function.  It should guide people on how to make productive use of their resources.  Should and must are quite distinct.  Take for instance the diversion that you and I afford ourselves by posting here.  It is a safe bet that you assign a very low probability of positively influencing for example:  Profitis.  Yet, you expend much energy engaging him.  Is it productive?  For purposes of changing Profitis' stated views it probably isn't.  But that doesn't matter.  It's a diversion you choose to engage in, and are most certainly free to do so.  You may or may not manage to influence others who are not so dug in as Profitis with some of the valuable mathematical and logical skills that you possess.  Even if you don't, the diversion does something for you. 

sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2867 on: August 20, 2014, 06:45:50 AM »
In the one case we have an apriori declaration that we should not collect data, because the likelihood that new useful information is low.
I'm not really making an a priori argument or even a declaration in the way you appear to be using it.  Nice attempt to use loaded terms though!  Please be more honest (and less arrogant) in the future.   I'm talking about a simple consequence of math which I assume you agree applies here - that a wrong result was many orders of magnitude higher than new data.  You rather carefully left that out and talked as if the only consequence was "no useful information".   It would be nice if you could be objective about this.
Quote
On the other hand we have a moronic decision to collect data recognizing that the likelihood that it will yield new useful information is low. There is no arrogance in acknowledging the data we have collected and the probabilities surrounding any new data that we collect.
Doing something implies that it is worth doing.  To use your terms you are making an arrogant a priori declaration that this was worth doing.  I would suggest a better criterion.  Arrogance is simply how much you are willing to put your views above the evidence.  For the sake of argument lets say that this experiment could be done millions of times (or millions of variants of the same experiment could be done) without getting new data specific to the experiment i.e. that which we are attempting to demonstrate.   The evidence in this case says this experiment is not worth doing.  In fact it will be indistinguishable for the vast majority of people who attempt it - to attempting to trisect an angle with a compass and straightedge.  The data says: This isn't worth doing.   Doing it anyway is putting your views far, far, far above the actual evidence.

So by my more objective definition of arrogance.  Isn't it you who are being arrogant here?

Quote
we must avoid collecting new data.
You're being a bit deceptive here.  What I'm saying is it's only "new data" if the result is novel and correct.  An experiment where the unexpected outcome which is far, far, far, far more likely to be bad than good.  You are not actually collecting any new data (in the vast majority of cases).  More accurately I'm saying "stop doing experiments of this kind" or "do better experiments".
Quote
I am sorry but that is really bad logic.
Nope but please show me my error by providing a syllogism demonstrating your point using the terms as I have defined them without omitting anything.
Quote
At what arbitrary confidence level do you declare that all data collection MUST stop?
"confidence level" isn't really the right word since there are lots of reliability estimates.  CL being only one.  Secondly you appear to be misunderstanding the difference between a reliability estimate and a prior probability.   A better way of putting it is, assuming we are talking about a CL it's the ratio of the prior to it.
Quote
Pomodoro has performed carefully constructed experiments, and there is little surprise that his results are consistent with general understanding and inconsistent with Profitis' extraordinary claims.  How is this not useful?
The likely outcome is not novel.  The most likely novel outcome will be wrong.  How is that useful to science?
Quote
Why is it that you appear to declare this "bad science"?
See above.   It's interesting that you can't see why this would be true.
Quote
Experiments with expected outcomes are fundamentally useful to that process, both for the experimenters in the lab and all observers.
Expected novel outcomes.  Experiments where the expected outcome has already been demonstrated so many times that the most likely case by an enormous margin for a novel outcome is a mistake is so far from the kind of expected outcomes which you want in the lab makes your statement much closer to a lie than an honest ignorant mistake.

Quote
He has provided a wonderful example of how to go about setting up an experiment, and conducting verifying experiments to cross-check results.  Those are important skills to share.
As stated before this is you simply moving the goalposts.  I mean I understand that moving from talking about if something was good science to "if there's any possible way this might be beneficial to someone somewhere somehow" helps you avoid being wrong but it's a little less than honest to consider that you're doing anything but reaching here. :D

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2868 on: August 20, 2014, 07:02:44 AM »
At the third ad hom I just stopped reading.

sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2869 on: August 20, 2014, 02:54:47 PM »
At the third ad hom I just stopped reading.
For reference an "ad hominem" is technically an attack on you (e.g. your abilities, your honesty) to make an argument.  I haven't done anything like that. :-)  If I have, again I'd be happy to be corrected IF you can provide a more formal argument demonstrating your point.  (You can use the term colloquially to just mean "insult" but if so you might as well use that term instead)

I have stated that you used words in ways that are misleading and that you should be more honest and objective and less arrogant.  My argument does not hinge on you being or not being any of these things. :)

That said, if you needed an out.  I do understand how stomping off under the guise of being insulted might be a good way to avoid dissonance. :)  It's a little interesting if this is not the case that you're kind of implicitly claiming that I am so amazing at being insulting in a single post that you couldn't complete reading it.  Yet you have endured many insulting posts from other folk here. :)

The upshot of my post is:  In order to rationally do something you must have decided or assumed that it is worth doing.  So assuming that somehow you didn't accidentally perform an experiment.  Deciding to do something, like all decisions is either informed by data or it isn't.  If it is and the data says otherwise then that fits my definition of arrogant. 

Your comment about an "arbitrary confidence interval" should convince you of my point.  You appear to be saying there that, to you not only does the amount of data against a useful result not have ANY control over you performing an experiment (assuming unlimited resources) but you don't believe any amount of empirical data would be sufficient to change your mind.  Surely that meets even your own internal definition of arrogant.  Holding on to your own belief without any regard for the data?

Of course you can make up any number of other reasons for doing something that fit your outcome but I'm surprised that they sound reasonable to you.  For example sure you can fabricate that this was done for entertainment purposes, or for the education of profitis or for people who want an education in how to do labwork.  However by the same token you would have to believe that it's okay to say "This is a perfectly useful car" even though it can't move an inch.  When questioned you can then say: "Well it's perfectly useful for teaching someone what an engine block looks like" and expect people to think that the first statement wasn't misleading.  In fact you could point to a cinderblock and say "This is a perfectly useful car" and confabulate some explanation like: "It's perfectly useful for instructing people on how to construct a car from a cinderblock".

Aside: Philip has missed his deadline in Australia.  Let's see if he makes it here.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2014, 05:36:28 PM by sarkeizen »

sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2870 on: August 20, 2014, 05:44:13 PM »
all air oxygen experiments require none of the above.
Yawn.  Weak logic.  If air oxygen experiments clearly and unambiguously demonstrate a 2LOT violation and can be done by anyone.  Then if you want pomodoro to keep doing experiments.   It would seem far far far more reasonable to convince him/her of the possibility by doing that experiment.

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2871 on: August 20, 2014, 06:03:52 PM »
Sarkeizen I have no more goodwill to offer you.  If you think that constitutes a win, then so be it. 

sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2872 on: August 20, 2014, 06:59:43 PM »
Sarkeizen I have no more goodwill to offer you.  If you think that constitutes a win, then so be it.
Don't you find it pretty odd that your goodwill appears to have been depleted in a single post?  Aren't you someone who has repeatedly ignored the barbs of many far less polite folk than myself for much longer?  Not only that but you haven't just ignored them but you've responded by attempting to focus on the issue?  Aren't you asking me to believe that I somehow stumbled on the a few sentences that sends you packing?

Now the answer to all of the above may be "yes" but don't I - rationally speaking - have to consider other hypotheses?  For example it seems pretty clear that resources not withstanding you think it's always better to have more data than less data as something of a core belief.  So isn't my argument asking you to give up a core belief?  If so, isn't it plausible that such a thing is going to be harder than simply declaring you're offended and exiting the conversation?

While there clearly are a myriad of possibilities just weighing those two seems like both are at least somewhat plausible.

Worth noting, that if this is all about my use of "arrogant" and "be more honest".  It might be useful to see where you implied the same thing about myself and others before you consider it reason to deplete your goodwill.  While your implication doesn't bother me.  I and a number of other people I find do take it as licence to express the same thing about you.  Which might keep you from shutting down a conversation in the future.




Madebymonkeys

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 164
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2873 on: August 22, 2014, 12:23:29 AM »
So where exactly is Philip going to make his announcement from?

It's not here since he left in a huff and unless it's an entirely difference kind of product then it's not from his website.

No idea. I had a look at quentron.com and, strangely, it has a bit of a Japanese call-girl thing about it. I can't read Japanese but clicking a link or two at random proved interesting!

Philip - What was/is the announcement?

sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2874 on: August 22, 2014, 12:36:08 AM »
Philip - What was/is the announcement?
There's another thread called...HABTEC I think.  It has the current manifestation of his crazy.

profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2875 on: September 20, 2014, 09:13:26 AM »
Quenco's are edging there way onto the scene.here's a quenco based on continual cyclic hydrogen spillover: http://revolution-green.com/paradigm-change/

sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2876 on: September 25, 2014, 01:11:00 AM »
Quenco's are edging there way onto the scene.here's a quenco based on continual cyclic hydrogen spillover
I've heard him talk on his PN diode nonsense. 

It's the usual problem.  He presents a device which sounds simple - the diode driven oscillator - the way he explains it it should be simple enough for anyone to build.  However he immediately jumps to fabricating this at the nano scale.  Which should tell you that there exists no simple easily built device which would unambiguously demonstrate the principle.

As soon as you are there the argument becomes which is more likely.  That 2nd law is wrong or could he have perhaps missed something.  Smart money is on the later.

profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2877 on: September 26, 2014, 11:26:42 AM »
Incorrect @sarkeizen.sheehan is only allowed to show or openly discuss a very,very,very limited amount of shit (propriety,nda,neon-sign fear etc ).he gets paid,he gets paid big.he is very well equipped in the lab

sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2878 on: September 26, 2014, 11:09:40 PM »
Incorrect @sarkeizen.sheehan is only allowed to show or openly discuss a very,very,very limited amount of shit (propriety,nda,neon-sign fear etc ).he gets paid,he gets paid big.he is very well equipped in the lab
Either I have to believe Sheehan that 2LOT violations are as easy to construct as he discussed in his lecture or he is wrong.  The math is simply on the side of the later.

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2879 on: September 26, 2014, 11:18:26 PM »
Incorrect @sarkeizen.sheehan is only allowed to show or openly discuss a very,very,very limited amount of shit (propriety,nda,neon-sign fear etc ).he gets paid,he gets paid big.he is very well equipped in the lab
If and when Dr. Sheehan can ever report a confirmed violation of the second law, we can all be very certain that he will report as much.  To paraphrase Dr. Sheehan:  "The Second Law is true, except when it isn't."  Finding an exception if such an exception exists is the big, yet to happen trick.

As prospective Second Law violating devices, diodes are a lousy prospect.  Diodes do however make good RF detectors.  The local radio station, Wi-Fi router, cell phone etc are not Second Law violations.