New Book of Abraham Research Group

[_EdGoble]

You seem to be working from a conclusion, seems backwards.

So are you. You conclude that Joseph Smith must be a fraud from the beginning, and your perception of reality bends all reality around that requirement. You care not for suspending that disbelief to see how it is possible and plausible that he is not a fraud.

[_SteelHead]

Uh huhn. Could you provide an example of this, me working from a conclusion instead of following the evidence to the conclusion?

[_Lemmie]

I've been trying to understand your thought process here. I don't think you are understanding why, in math, characters 'substitute for numbers'. You're confusing the simple term 'substitute' for its different use in your theory.

When an algebra equation contains, for example, an x and a y, it is to define a relationship between the starting x and the resulting y that holds, even as x changes values. For example, when I say y =20x, I am predicting that I will observe ordered pairs (x, y) where the y value is twenty times the x value. Say x is the numbers of hours I work, and the pattern is that I am paid $20 per hour. Then, given y =20x, if I 'substitute' in 40 for the x, I expect to get y = 800, or to be paid $800 for my work.

So the term 'substitution' in mathematical relationships is in no way the same as the 'substitution' you describe where a character now takes on a different definition, based on the log or key or whatever substitution process you define. You are not utilizing the mathematical definition of substitution, where all possible values of a variable can be 'substituted' into an equation to make a prediction based on a starting condition and a rule.

It seems more like you are using the term 'substitute' to mean a one-time replacement, something very different from the mathematical use of the term.

You are taking the imperfect analogy of algebra and other types of substitutions too far. I give the types of substitutions in algebra with a very narrowly-defined purpose, as an example to try to get people's minds to work, to get them to understand what I am saying by using the word substitution. You are going far beyond the purpose of the analogy to try to defeat the analogy.

No, I stated the way the term 'substitution' is used in mathematics, after you said this:

In your mind, its irrational to suggest the principle of substitution as an explanation, in the same way that Latin characters in our alphabet are used as variables in algebra.

So, mathematics is irrational in its use of alphabetical characters for substitution for numbers?

Now you are saying this:

When I say in algebra that you use a variable in a simple equation like x = 2 + 2, then you know that x is a substitute for 4. By way of the analogy, then I am saying that the value of 4 has been assigned to the variable.

Which is something entirely different.

You have taken an imperfect analogy too far and now you are trying to apply further mathmatical principles to find fault with an imperfect analogy. Notwithstanding that you have gone down a slippery slope fallacy with your analysis, my usage of an imperfect analogy still stands in that I'm trying to point out to people that in algebra, you have an assignment of value to a symbol. To try to use further mathematical arguements to invalidate an imperfect analogy is to strain at at a gnat to try to invalidate the point. You are taking this too far.

All a reader can do is respond to what you say, it's not straining at a gnat to use terms correctly. What I'm reading now, mixed in with your insults and accusations, is that you really didn't mean to say you are using 'the principle of substitution' as it is used in mathematics; is that correct?

A closer analogy, but still an imperfect one is, as I said, a legend, were symbols on a legend on a map are assigned meanings for usage in the map in particular. If you use those symbols outside of that map for something else, then the symbol may no longer have the same meaning. It is an assignment of value or meaning in the legend. Please see the spirit of what I'm saying instead of trying to strain too much about what I'm saying.

Sorry, I'm not a mind reader. I can't try to blur what you are actually saying while trying to channel a spirit which will tell me something different than what you are actually saying.

Another close analogy (but still imperfect) is in computer programming where a variable as a symbol becomes a place-holder for a complex object in memory. And when I say a complex object, I mean a representation of something tangible in the real world. In object oriented programming, if I have a thing in memory that is representative of a "car", then I have properties of it that track mileage, that track speed, that track how much fuel it has, etc. And all of these are properties stored inside memory that are assigned to a variable, which is a symbol like X. And so, please don't strain too much at imperfect analogies. Just recognize that the purpose of analogies is to try to show people what something is by using things they are already familiar with. You don't have to go so far with the analogy that you think that you can drive down the slippery slope to invalidate it.

I made a legitimate effort to understand what you wrote, and apparently because I disagreed with you about technical issues, you assume nefarious motives on my part. No. You are not understanding academic honesty if you think I would NOT have said the above if I were in spiritual agreement with you. I would still have made my points, because what you said was wrong. It would have been dishonest on my part if I had not said it, only because I was 'on your side'.

My suggestion would be to drop your reference to mathematical substitution entirely, it is misleading and inaccurate.

[_EdGoble]

Uh huhn. Could you provide an example of this, me working from a conclusion instead of following the evidence to the conclusion?

I gave you an example already. Here is your thought process:

(1) Joseph Smith is a fraud because I say so.
(2) Nothing an apologist or faithful theorist is worth anything, because of fact number 1.
(3) A faithful theorist has brain damage because of facts #1 and #2, and there is nothing rational about the thought process of people I disagree with.

[_SteelHead]

So you can't provide an actual example for my part, where you have admitted up thread that you are developing a theory after already come to the conclusion.

These ludicrously complicated theories about the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham are telling.

In examining the Book of Abraham we look at the evidence.
The papyrus is about 2k years old, too recent to be what is claimed by Joseph Smith, written by Abraham's hand.
The translation no where approaches the contents of the Book of Abraham.

What is the logical conclusion?

I'll take spiritual witness for $600, Alex.

Alex: The most convoluted theory one can produce for attempting to legitimize the Book of Abraham.

SH: what is the theory upthread?

[Guest]

So you can't provide an actual example for my part, where you have admitted up thread that you are developing a theory after already come to the conclusion.

These ludicrously complicated theories about the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham are telling.

In examining the Book of Abraham we look at the evidence.
The papyrus is about 2k years old, too recent to be what is claimed by Joseph Smith, written by Abraham's hand.
The translation no where approaches the contents of the Book of Abraham.

What is the logical conclusion?

I'll take spiritual witness for $600, Alex.

Alex: The most convoluted theory one can produce for attempting to legitimize the Book of Abraham.

SH: what is the theory upthread?

If you want to hash out issues of epistemology again, and how to you the Spirit is not a valid source of information, I refer you to previous posts in this thread. You aren't adding anything of value here. Been there, dun that. It is not impressive that all you have to say, like the rest of the critics, is that to you, the Spirit is not a valid source of information.

[_EdGoble]

It seems more like you are using the term 'substitute' to mean a one-time replacement, something very different from the mathematical use of the term.

Here is a simple example from the top of a google search of where variables substitute for numbers, using the word substitution:

http://www.coolmath.com/algebra/12-2x2-systems-of-equations/02-solving-by-substitution-01

You can see that you solve for a number, which essentially assigns a value to a variable, and it becomes a replacement for that number. Then you can plug in that same value where the variable was. There is nothing wrong with this, and I have not mis-comprehended the usege of the term. One-time replacement is one way of looking at it, but I have not mis-comprehended or mis-used the word substitution from the way it is used.

In computer programming, in simple BASIC language, if I use the term "let," this indicates that I am making a value assignment to a variable:

http://media.salford-systems.com/pdf/sp ... ogLang.pdf

And, after that, in the program, unless I re-assign a value to that variable, by working something out in some equation that modifies it, it becomes the place-holder for the information held, and remains that way. And so, no, I am not misusing it at all. In all cases, even though in certain equations, a value of a variable is modified, it still is a place-holder for information. It is not just a one-time use of the variable. Just because there can be modification of that value in a program or in a equation does not mean that it is not the place-holder for that value until a NEW assignment of value is made. In other words. When the value is modified, or when it changes, every time it changes, it is a NEW assignment. It is still an assignment. And for that moment until it changes again, the variable stands for the thing that it stands for, at the moment that it stands for it. I have not misused this at all. Just because in some cases a variable can be a place-holder for some sort of "function" or "process" where the value changes during the time that the process "runs" or the program "runs", does not mean that it does not continue to be a place-holder for a value.

Just because you get complex here and show me how a value can change in a certain usage of a variable doesn't change the fundamental fact that a variable is a place holder or storage place for a value. In computer programming, the storage place is in memory. In a code-table, the code table is the storage place, where you can "look up" the value.

All a reader can do is respond to what you say, it's not straining at a gnat to use terms correctly. What I'm reading now, mixed in with your insults and accusations, is that you really didn't mean to say you are using 'the principle of substitution' as it is used in mathematics; is that correct?

Your accusation that I have misused it is not correct, and the fact of the matter is that I have not misused it, notwithstanding your accusation.

My suggestion would be to drop your reference to mathematical substitution entirely, it is misleading and inaccurate.

I'm a senior software engineer, and I assure you that I'm not misusing this. It just seems that you are trying to obscure the fact that I was making a simple point and you wanted to complicate it and make an accusation yourself.

[Guest]

Here is a simple example from the top of a google search...

Okay. If you have to go with 'simple' from the top of Google, then we clearly are not having a real discussion about a subject.

I assure you that I am not misusing the term that you accuse me of misusing.

Remember that discussion about credentials? 'I assure you' is not a credential. I was specific in my explanation of why I thought you were in error, you have shown everyone with a simple Googling that you have no idea how wrong you are.

We'll have to agree to disagree then.

[Guest]

Remember that discussion about credentials? 'I assure you' is not a credential. I was specific in my explanation of why I thought you were in error, you have shown everyone with a simple Googling that you have no idea how wrong you are.

Ok. So I guess I'll have to go back AGAIN to what you said and show you where I tell you that I knew what you were saying, and where I assured you I was not wrong, but I understood PERFECTLY what you were saying, and where I showed you where I wasn't wrong, but said the same thing you said.. But where I was telling you that complicating it with showing how a variable value can change was an unnecessary complication of the point I was initially making, notwithstanding you are correct.

I've been trying to understand your thought process here. I don't think you are understanding why, in math, characters 'substitute for numbers'. You're confusing the simple term 'substitute' for its different use in your theory.

When an algebra equation contains, for example, an x and a y, it is to define a relationship between the starting x and the resulting y that holds, even as x changes values. For example, when I say y =20x, I am predicting that I will observe ordered pairs (x, y) where the y value is twenty times the x value. Say x is the numbers of hours I work, and the pattern is that I am paid $20 per hour. Then, given y =20x, if I 'substitute' in 40 for the x, I expect to get y = 800, or to be paid $800 for my work.

So the term 'substitution' in mathematical relationships is in no way the same as the 'substitution' you describe where a character now takes on a different definition, based on the log or key or whatever substitution process you define. You are not utilizing the mathematical definition of substitution, where all possible values of a variable can be 'substituted' into an equation to make a prediction based on a starting condition and a rule.

It seems more like you are using the term 'substitute' to mean a one-time replacement, something very different from the mathematical use of the term.

In this quote, you are showing how in a FUNCTIONAL or PROCESS usage of a variable, the value of a variable can CHANGE, BECAUSE the STARTING value starts out as such and such, and because of the PROCESS, it has a RESULT which can be different. But this is ONLY because YOU have inserted a PROCESS into the mix. You are not wrong. You are just inserting the fact into the discussion that a variable value can change when run through a PROCESS or FUNCTION. I am saying that the part of the usage of a variable that I was concerned with is the fact that you can assign a value to a symbol, and it means that. I was not speaking of the more complex fact that, as you say, the PROCESS of a more complex USAGE of a variable can result in a change in value. So no, I have not mis-comprehended at all what you are saying. You have chosen to insert in the use of a PROCESS, and then make an accusation that I did not comprehend the usage of the word substitution. The variable in the PROCESS stands for each change in value as it changes. And yes, the variable can also stand for the process itself in specialized usage. But this is not what I was focused on. I was focused on the fact that if you have a situation where you don't HAVE A PROCESS, but you are simply using a variable as something that you assign a value to and it does not change, and there is nothing more to it than that, then all that happens there is that it continues to retain the value initially assigned to it. And so, you have taken me way down some rabbit hole that meant nothing for the point that I was making, just to try to make an accusation. The effect that you wanted to create is to be able to say "how wrong you are." You didn't want to really acknowledge that when a variable is assigned a value, that it retains a value unless something else acts on it. You wanted to create the appearance that I didn't know what I was talking about by introducing an extraneous fact to the point. Whether you did this intentionally or not, I don't know. Nevertheless, the point you were making didn't invalidate the basic point I was making. And so the point still stands that when a value is assigned, in the most simple example of variable usage, GIVEN THAT NOTHING ELSE ACTS ON IT, it retains the value.

[Guest]

Ok. So I guess I'll have to go back AGAIN to what you said and show you where I tell you that I knew what you were saying, and where I assured you I was not wrong, but I understood PERFECTLY what you were saying, and where I showed you where I wasn't wrong, but said the same thing you said.. But where I was telling you that complicating it with showing how a variable value can change was an unnecessary complication of the point I was initially making, notwithstanding you are correct.

That wasn't what you said the first time, so I'm not sure why you are saying AGAIN, but in any case, not necessary.

was focused on the fact that if you have a situation where you don't HAVE A PROCESS,

So, not algebra then. Hence my suggestion, to leave mathematics out of your analogies.

And so, you have taken me way down some rabbit hole that meant nothing for the point that I was making, just to try to make an accusation.

Please read what I said about academic honesty. Your accusations are inappropriate.