🚀 go-pugleaf

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote ...
> On 1/10/2010 6:48 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 1/10/2010 5:43 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
>>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote
>>>>
>>>> What is the "FIRST QUESTION FIRST" protocol?
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>>
>>> The web forms at MR.com are a compromise solution. They separate the
>>> first
>>> question, page number and line number FROM the third page where
>>> 3 questions are simultaneously submitted, BUT the 3 questions are
>>> submitted
>>> almost immediately afterwards.
>>>
>>> Failing that, my next protocol would be more tedious and I would send
>>> the answer to the first (unknown by me) question before the 3 options
>>> are worked out.
>>>
>>> Then there is no way God could mix up the questions and answer the wrong
>>> one!
>>
>> Glad you think so, but it seems to me that you're arguing that God can
>> get confused about the order of questions if they're all posted at once,
>> but there's no danger that God would get confused if it happens that the
>> questioner has *thought* of all the questions in advance. Given that
>> this is allegedly a mind-reading power, whether on your part or on
>> God's, that seems a rather rash position to take. However, I have a
>> solution. See below.
>>
>>>
>>> You can either try MR.com and see if the protocol works, knowing I have
>>> a copout
>>> if it doesn't. Or you can do a single final test where I answer you
>>> before you
>>> send the 3 options, over usenet.
>>>
>>> There is a problem with people knowing my answer and then selecting the
>>> dummy
>>> questions to BETTER FIT than their original question, but since your 5
>>> cosmology
>>> Qs are preset it won't be an issue. If you use a random number to select
>>> the
>>> two dummy questions, (after hearing my channeled answer) then that would
>>> be a valid test assuming you don't cheat.
>>
>> Let me try to get this clear, which a couple of modifications of my own.
>>
>> a) Before each trial, you will post a 10 decimal digit string. It is in
>> your interest that it be random, but that is not a requirement.
>>
>> b) Either before or after (a) I will choose one of the 5 cosmology
>> questions. After (a) I will post an MD5 of a 30 decimal digit string, of
>> which the first digit is the question number, the next 19 digits are of
>> my choosing, and the last 10 digits are the ones you posted. The reason
>> for including the last 10 is explained below.
>>
>> c) You will channel an answer for the numbered question, and tell me
>> that you have done so. You will not tell me what the answer is (you
>> implied otherwise, but I can't see a need for you to tell me, and it
>> eliminates one form of cheating on my part).
>>
>> d) At some time before I need them, including possibly before I choose
>> the question for which I post the MD5, I'll choose 2 other cosmology
>> questions out of the 5. I will now present the numbers of all three
>> shuffled. Since I won't know what your channelled answer is, I cannot
>> cheat by choosing better matching questions. There's also no need for
>> them to be chosen randomly, though I would be inclined to anyway.
>>
>> e) You'll tell me which of the 5 I posted the MD5 for.
>>
>> Since I've previously asked the 5 questions, and you've channelled
>> answers to them, you're obviously not objecting to their reuse.
>> Presumably we can therefore reuse them multiple times to perform a
>> sequence of trials.
>>
>> IMPORTANTLY, it is assumed that God can read from my mind the specific
>> question for which I've chosen to post the MD5. That posting is a
>> discrete act on my part. There is one question, and I'm posting the MD5
>> for it. There can be no question of God's getting confused.
>>
>> Consequently the answer at the end is either right or wrong, and it's
>> impossible for me to cheat by any kind of mental deception.
>>
>> The only way I could cheat would be by being able to choose random keys
>> such as to create collisions between MD5s despite the restriction on the
>> source text. It is accepted by you that this is not something I am
>> likely to be able to do, and certainly not within the available time.
>> Note in particular that your 10 decimal digit string prevents me from
>> launching a birthday-party attack on the MD5 algorithm.
>>
>> A failure on your part to achieve more than chance over a suitably long
>> sequence of trials would be EVIDENCE that neither you, nor God, can read
>> my mind in the required way. There would be NO NULL RESULT.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>>
>>
> Sadly, I've subsequently realised that there is a way for me to cheat.
> 
> Let's see whether Herc can figure it out.
> 
> This would be a whole lot easier to test of God weren't so totally feeble.
> 
> Sylvia.


God's been saying for 10 years "HEY I CAN TALK" and 10,000 skeptics scoffed
and never bothered to listen.  Who's feeble?

Your MD5 idea is no good.  If you limit a private key to 15 numbers you can't
birthday attack a collision.  Just look at page 2 on mindreading.com, you're 
reinventing the wheel with balsa wood.  What would an initial number 5 imply
to systematically quantum entangle your question with the answer?  You may
as well put on 5 ear rings and jump up and down 5 times.


Herc