John Edser wrote:
>>>>JE:-
>>>>Typically, you confuse a random
>>>>pattern with a random process. While
>>>>the refutation and verification of either
>>>>a random or non random pattern is possible,
>>>>it is not possible to verify that only a random
>>>>process caused any verified random pattern, ever.
>>>
> 
>>>BOH:-
>>>How can you refute a random pattern? 
>>
> 
>>JE:-
>>By proving the _pattern_ was non random.
>>This is done by measuring the 
>>probability that this pattern was non
>>random (i.e. something and not just
>>zero was actually being observed). If 
>>this probability is high enough then the
>>pattern is now validly redefined as non random
>>i.e. as _significant_ and not just left 
>>to be _assumed_ to be just a random, 
>>not significant, pattern.
> 
> 
> BOH:-
> And how do you measure the probability of for the pattern, without 
> fitting a model, i.e. without making any assumptions about the process?
> 
> JE:-
> In the case where the _perception_ of the pattern
> is not just an inherited biological response
> then "the probability of for the pattern",
> (my interpretation: the probability that the pattern 
> is a significant _non_ random pattern) is
> an _independent_ question that must be _firstly_
> solved before the question re: any supposed
> process caused that pattern. 

But how do you solve this problem, without making any assumptions about 
the process?

Bob

-- 
Bob O'Hara

Rolf Nevanlinna Institute
P.O. Box 4 (Yliopistonkatu 5)
FIN-00014 University of Helsinki
Finland
Telephone: +358-9-191 23743
Mobile: +358 50 599 0540
Fax:  +358-9-191 22 779
WWW:  http://www.RNI.Helsinki.FI/~boh/
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 12/9/03 8:28:03 PM