Proof of Immortality II

[Slowvehicle]

Humots,
- It is new information in the sense that it was not part of the general knowledge used to determine the prior probability of "A."

In what way does this demonstrate, inform, or even relate to your supposition that the "soul" exists, and is "immortal"?

 

[Akhenaten]

Humots,
- It is new information in the sense that it was not part of the general knowledge used to determine the prior probability of "A."

Your particular existence has absolutely nothing to do with the proposition that all living things are mortal.

That the probability that every living thing will eventually die is indeed general knowledge.

 

[Loss Leader]

Humots,
- It is new information in the sense that it was not part of the general knowledge used to determine the prior probability of "A."

Yes, it was. Prior to your birth, we had all the information we needed to conclude that lots of humans would be born, but the chance of any one specific configuration would be low. Your birth was a low-probability event that was predicted by the model you're now trying to disprove.

The Yankees would have a better shot at winning the Pennant if there were only two teams in the world. The fact that they win the Pennant doesn't make it more likely that there were only two teams in the world.

In any case, the first part of Giordano's proof very elegantly solves this problem. It deserves to be laid out in full just to answer this question. That is what I'll do next.

 

[Mojo]

Jabba, how would your formula look if "A" was defined as "the hypothesis that Jabba is immortal"?

 

[Giordano]

Giordano's priorities notwithstanding, I think that his approach to a proof is so revolutionary that it needs to be set out in full at the earliest opportunity. I will be back to do just that.

In thinking about it, Loss Leader (having seen it) is correct to think that my proof is so important and revolutionary that I will share in in my next post. That is, given that Jabba apparently isn't interested in sharing his own proof and evidence first. I'll be back.

 

[Slowvehicle]

We also surf who only post and wait...

 

[Loss Leader]

In thinking about it, Loss Leader (having seen it) is correct to think that my proof is so important and revolutionary that I will share in in my next post. That is, given that Jabba apparently isn't interested in sharing his own proof and evidence first. I'll be back.

I'm glad Giordano has taken this view. Jabba, please pay close attention to his proofs, especially the first part. More later.

 

[Giordano]

I just realized that my easy proof requires assuming that "selfs" are things and not simply processes. Now, I can prove immortality a second harder way without this requirement, but I wondered if Jabba would just please post his own proof and evidence of "selfs" as things? I can easy take it from there. If not, my own proof will take me more work. But I'll be back.

 

[Humots]

Humots,
- It is new information in the sense that it was not part of the general knowledge used to determine the prior probability of "A."

So you are saying that your existence is new and unprecedented, not part of the "general knowledge" used to determine the prior probability of "A".

How is your existence so monumentally important? Your "I think therefore..." argument does not suffice.

Jabba, lots of people have had the realization "Hey, I exist! I'm here, looking at the world from behind my eyes!"

And what exactly do you mean by "general knowledge"? Is this another of those terms you invent and assume everyone accepts?

 

[Garrette]

Humots,
- It is new information in the sense that it was not part of the general knowledge used to determine the prior probability of "A."

So you are saying that your existence is new and unprecedented, not part of the "general knowledge" used to determine the prior probability of "A".

How is your existence so monumentally important? Your "I think therefore..." argument does not suffice.

Jabba, lots of people have had the realization "Hey, I exist! I'm here, looking at the world from behind my eyes!"

And what exactly do you mean by "general knowledge"? Is this another of those terms you invent and assume everyone accepts?

Which also means there was never a potential for Jabba, a potential that is critical to his (flawed) formula.

 

[Giordano]

- Dave,
- I would say that prediction is not the only way that a specific improbable event gets set apart from its crowd. I'll try to expand upon that tomorrow.

It is now Oct 16 in the USA (the day after the day you indicated that you would expand on that proposal). I don't see a relevant post from you- did I miss it?

 

[Jabba]

Jabba, if you guess at what a die will roll, roll the die, and get the number you guessed, you were "lucky". The more sides the die has, the more lucky your correct guess was (that is, the more unlikely it would be that the number you guessed in advance would come up).

But that's not the situation here. You didn't exist before the die was rolled. You are the number that happened to come up. Nobody guessed it before the roll. The number that came up does not correspond to any number anyone picked before it was rolled. It's not a coincidence, just an incident.

- Dave,
- I would say that prediction is not the only way that a specific improbable event gets set apart from its crowd. I'll try to expand upon that tomorrow.

- 100 students, taught by 5 different teachers, take the same exam. The null hypothesis is that when taking the test, there was no significant difference between the the knowledge of the 5 different populations.
- It turns out, however, that the top 7 scores were received by students of Ms Smith. These scores set Ms Smith's class apart from the other classes -- they suggest at least one of two alternative hypotheses: Ms Smith was the best teacher in this case and/or she had (for some reason) been assigned the best students.

- I suspect that I should hereby slow down...
- My example involves something like prediction...

- For me, this is the key question -- what is the principle that sets me apart from the rest of you schmucks, for our purposes here? (Or really, what's the principle that sets us scmucks apart from the blank wall?)
- What's the principle that sets apart one event from a multitude of other similar events -- and, in our formula, allows the entered likelihood of the particular event to be the likelihood specific to it rather than the likelihood general to any example of those similar events?
- So far, I can't even express this question with any confidence of it being understood... If you think you know what I'm trying to ask, see if you can ask it better.

- Anyway, I think that I am justified in using 1/10⁸⁰! as P(me|A) instead of 1.00 -- and, the specific question is, "What sort of characteristic of "me" would it take to separate me from the masses, and to logically use 10⁸⁰! as P(me|A) in the Bayes formula?

- I'll be back.

 

[godless dave]

So you don't have an answer, you just restated the question and restated your intent to provide an answer to it.

(Or really, what's the principle that sets us scmucks apart from the blank wall?)

Yes, that's the question. As far as I can tell, the only thing that sets us apart is that we exist, which is not the least bit inconsistent with hypothesis A.

 

[Mojo]

Jabba, how would your formula look if "A" was defined as "the hypothesis that selves are immortal"?

 

[Garrette]

- 100 students, taught by 5 different teachers, take the same exam. The null hypothesis is that when taking the test, there was no significant difference between the the knowledge of the 5 different populations.
- It turns out, however, that the top 7 scores were received by students of Ms Smith. These scores set Ms Smith's class apart from the other classes -- they suggest at least one of two alternative hypotheses: Ms Smith was the best teacher in this case and/or she had (for some reason) been assigned the best students.

- I suspect that I should hereby slow down...
- My example involves something like prediction...

- For me, this is the key question -- what is the principle that sets me apart from the rest of you schmucks, for our purposes here? (Or really, what's the principle that sets us scmucks apart from the blank wall?)
- What's the principle that sets apart one event from a multitude of other similar events -- and, in our formula, allows the entered likelihood of the particular event to be the likelihood specific to it rather than the likelihood general to any example of those similar events?
- So far, I can't even express this question with any confidence of it being understood... If you think you know what I'm trying to ask, see if you can ask it better.

- Anyway, I think that I am justified in using 1/10⁸⁰! as P(me|A) instead of 1.00 -- and, the specific question is, "What sort of characteristic of "me" would it take to separate me from the masses, and to logically use 10⁸⁰! as P(me|A) in the Bayes formula?

- I'll be back.

Translation:

My question does not lead to the desired answer. Therefore, you misunderstand the question.

Argument ad youguysarethick?

 

[Mojo]

- 100 students, taught by 5 different teachers, take the same exam. The null hypothesis is that when taking the test, there was no significant difference between the the knowledge of the 5 different populations.
- It turns out, however, that the top 7 scores were received by students of Ms Smith. These scores set Ms Smith's class apart from the other classes -- they suggest at least one of two alternative hypotheses: Ms Smith was the best teacher in this case and/or she had (for some reason) been assigned the best students.

I think that I can essentially prove that Ms Smith was assigned the best students using Bayesian statistics.

1. The proper formula to use in determining the post-probability of “A,” given “me” is
P(A|me) = P(me|A)*P(A)/(P(me|A)*P(A)+P(me|~A)*P(~A)).
1.1. “A”: the hypothesis that Ms Smith is the best teacher.
1.2. “me”: the current existence of my, specific, self.
1.3. “~A”: the hypothesis that “A” is not true.

If we are justified in using 1/10⁸⁰! as P(me|A), it is clearly very unlikely that Ms Smith is the best teacher, and therefore almost certain that she was assigned the best students.

 

[Resume]

- I suspect that I should hereby slow down...

Slow down? You've been at this for two years with no discernible result.

You frikken better be immortal at this rate.

 

[Giordano]

- 100 students, taught by 5 different teachers, take the same exam. The null hypothesis is that when taking the test, there was no significant difference between the the knowledge of the 5 different populations.
- It turns out, however, that the top 7 scores were received by students of Ms Smith. These scores set Ms Smith's class apart from the other classes -- they suggest at least one of two alternative hypotheses: Ms Smith was the best teacher in this case and/or she had (for some reason) been assigned the best students.

- I suspect that I should hereby slow down...
- My example involves something like prediction...

- For me, this is the key question -- what is the principle that sets me apart from the rest of you schmucks, for our purposes here? (Or really, what's the principle that sets us scmucks apart from the blank wall?)
- What's the principle that sets apart one event from a multitude of other similar events -- and, in our formula, allows the entered likelihood of the particular event to be the likelihood specific to it rather than the likelihood general to any example of those similar events?
- So far, I can't even express this question with any confidence of it being understood... If you think you know what I'm trying to ask, see if you can ask it better.

- Anyway, I think that I am justified in using 1/10⁸⁰! as P(me|A) instead of 1.00 -- and, the specific question is, "What sort of characteristic of "me" would it take to separate me from the masses, and to logically use 10⁸⁰! as P(me|A) in the Bayes formula?

- I'll be back.

Yes, I agree with you: you should slow down. A lot. Think about your posts and find some evidence for you theories before you post them here. Take you time.

Are you not ready yet to post your own proof and evidence of "selfs" as things? Okay, that makes my own proof of immortality more difficult to present, but still possible. The specific question we are both asking is:"Does the Bayesian formula essentially prove immortality?" Right? (I may have gotten a bit confused here and I want to be certain as to the topic under discussion).

In any case, I'll be back to present my own proof.

 

[Nonpareil]

For me, this is the key question -- what is the principle that sets me apart from the rest of you schmucks

Well, for one, an understanding of basic probability.

 

[Humots]

- 100 students, taught by 5 different teachers, take the same exam. The null hypothesis is that when taking the test, there was no significant difference between the the knowledge of the 5 different populations.
- It turns out, however, that the top 7 scores were received by students of Ms Smith. These scores set Ms Smith's class apart from the other classes -- they suggest at least one of two alternative hypotheses: Ms Smith was the best teacher in this case and/or she had (for some reason) been assigned the best students.

Not necessarily.

Did each class have exactly 20 students?

"Top" and "best" are relative.

Were the top 7 scores significantly (in the statistical sense) higher than the highest scores in the other classes?

Were Ms Smith's students best in an absolute sense (all A's, say ) or were students in the other classes bad students (all F's, say)?

- Dave,
- I would say that prediction is not the only way that a specific improbable event gets set apart from its crowd. I'll try to expand upon that tomorrow.

I think you are using the word prediction in the wrong way.

If the null hypothesis is correct, we would predict that the scores would fit some form of normal distribution.

If the results do not fit that prediction, we could use statistical methods to determine the deviation from the normal distribution.

We might find that one or more non-null hypotheses fit the actual distribution. One indeed might be that Ms Smith has the best students.

The main thing is that we are comparing the predictions of various hypotheses with the actual results.