🚀 go-pugleaf

On Oct 1, 3:38 am, "|-|ercules" <radgray...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Sylvia Else" <syl...@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" <syl...@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?

You are, spammer.