From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Nov 11 20:30:25 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA29761 for chat-outgoing; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 20:30:25 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-chat) Received: from usr03.primenet.com (tlambert@usr03.primenet.com [206.165.6.203]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA29741 for ; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 20:30:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tlambert@usr03.primenet.com) Received: (from tlambert@localhost) by usr03.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id VAA22655; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 21:29:48 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199711120429.VAA22655@usr03.primenet.com> Subject: Re: Newest Pentium bug (fatal) To: eivind@bitbox.follo.net (Eivind Eklund) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 04:29:47 +0000 (GMT) Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, don@PartsNow.com, perhaps@yes.no, nate@mt.sri.com, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <19971112030023.06691@bitbox.follo.net> from "Eivind Eklund" at Nov 12, 97 03:00:23 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > How can you seperate the telepathy theory from the God theory with this > > set up? > > > > The researchers should have lied about the names, or given only number, > > and/or not stated the symptom(s). > > This one is GOOD. I'd have liked them to pray by number, with the > number referencing a random list mapping to names stored in a computer > somewhere, and with about half as many numbers as there were people. > > God is allseeing, rigth? Then the complex mapping should be > inconsequential. Well, that's the problem. You haven't really seperated the theories with this particular test. I should probably define my test more rigorously, but frankly, without the results from an initial double blind test as a basis, it's all a Gendanken experiment anyway. You see, whether or not a numeric handle could be translated by God really depends on what concept of God you are talking about. You may be talking about a God who not quite Omnipotetent. It depends on whose definition you are using. The only thing you are really testing is whether or not God is Omnipotent. If the prayer fails to have the effect it had with names, then you haven't disproven God, only Omnipotence; or even the inability to manipulate God with prayer on a consistent basis. 8-). > OTOH, I don't claim to know God's mind (if he exists). He might > refuse to participate in such a complex experiment, thinking it shows > a lack of faith. Or he might be computer phobic. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.