Is ESP More Probable Than Advanced Alien Life?

Giordano said:
I've been assuming that means the literal and most popular translation of ESP: Extra- Sensory Perception. That sort of self-defines ESP as being beyond known physics, and certainly cannot be applied to clues obtained by seeing body language or hearing faint voicings.

It gets a bit ambiguous if we also include senses that have not yet been discovered and which may not exist all. For example: reading the electrical impulses of a brain by the ability of another brain to tune in the faint electromagnetic impulses caused by the first. Even this would violate much of what we think we know about the physics of the strength and propagation of these electromagnetic signals, as well as what we think we know as to the biology: that we only have 5 senses, and that we can't understand how a brain can sense these very weak signals (and to decode them as a thought in the face of the huge number of similar signals coming from the many neurons in the signaling brain). It certainly flies in the face of the results of well-designed tests that have been used to evaluate the ability of brains to detect ESP, or brains to detect even even simple electromagnetic signals.

Again, I hate to use the word impossible (there may be a pink unicorn in my crawl space after all), but I would say that ESP is not compatible with our current understandings of biology/physics, which generally view people as having 5 senses and which do not have a known mechanism by which a thought could be propagated by one brain and received by another. ESP would therefore require a major scientific rethink if it was ever discovered.
Click to expand...

When I think of ESP, I think of an ability that we have not seen before and for which no causal mechanism (or physical explanation) currently exists. This could be accurately predicting the future, telepathy, etc. There is no law of nature which states that people can't predict the future. We just haven't observed anyone with the ability. Perhaps the MWI of QM is correct, and they're able to scan other worlds in some way and assign probabilities for this one.
 
Giordano said:
This is an excellent example!

To detail it a bit more for Fudbucker: Let's even say that someone made up a 52 card deck from cards from other decks of standard playing cards (think of molecules from the standard chemistry of the Universe). I would not know if they included no aces in the 52 card deck, four, or all the cards were aces. So I don't really know my extract probability of picking an ace from the assembled 52 card deck: it might be anywhere from 0 through 1/13 to 1 (chemistry forming life on another planet). But I would know that my chance of picking a ace, even if ill-defined, would be much greater than picking a 42 of spades card. Yes, there might be a 42 of spades card in a deck due to some error in printing or something else very unlikely. I don't know the precise odds of that, either. I've never seen a 42 of spades in a standard deck of cards, but I would not state that it was impossible: just never seen before, violating the rules of card printing as we understand them, and therefore highly improbable as a result. Thus, I can state that it is more likely that I will select an ace than a 42 of spades, even without knowing the precise odds of either, or even knowing if there was indeed an ace in the deck at all.

Not all unknown values have equal chances of occurring. Some are more likely, based on the precedent of knowing that they can occur and having no reason to think that they would not occur again, than others which are not known to have ever occurred and which would require a complete revolution in our understanding, This is true even if the exact probability can not be calculated.
Click to expand...

You can't come to that conclusion. If there is no ace of spades in the deck you were handed, then the probability of you finding one is almost zero. Your lack of knowledge of what's in the deck prohibits you from comparing probabilities.

Think of it this way: suppose I handed you a mysterious deck of handmade cards. What are the odds that an ace will show up, versus the nine of cups?
 
Fudbucker said:
You can't come to that conclusion. If there is no ace of spades in the deck you were handed, then the probability of you finding one is almost zero. Your lack of knowledge of what's in the deck prohibits you from comparing probabilities.

Think of it this way: suppose I handed you a mysterious deck of handmade cards. What are the odds that an ace will show up, versus the nine of cups?
Click to expand...

A normal deck of cards has four aces. If you throw 52 cards with the same backing on the floor, I'd assume there are four aces and zero chickens. I can guess at the probability without actually knowing it.

But you continue to maliciously alter the rules to try to force magic to be equal to reality. Why?
 
Fudbucker said:
You can't come to that conclusion. If there is no ace of spades in the deck you were handed, then the probability of you finding one is almost zero. Your lack of knowledge of what's in the deck prohibits you from comparing probabilities.

Think of it this way: suppose I handed you a mysterious deck of handmade cards. What are the odds that an ace will show up, versus the nine of cups?
Click to expand...

"Almost" zero?

/thread
 
ehcks said:
A normal deck of cards has four aces. If you throw 52 cards with the same backing on the floor, I'd assume there are four aces and zero chickens. I can guess at the probability without actually knowing it.

But you continue to maliciously alter the rules to try to force magic to be equal to reality. Why?
Click to expand...

Handing you a homemade deck of cards and asking you to guess if the ace of spades is in it is "maliciously altering the rules"? LOL, OK.
 
Slowvehicle said:
Fudbucker said:
You can't come to that conclusion. If there is no ace of spades in the deck you were handed, then the probability of you finding one is almost zero. Your lack of knowledge of what's in the deck prohibits you from comparing probabilities.

Think of it this way: suppose I handed you a mysterious deck of handmade cards. What are the odds that an ace will show up, versus the nine of cups?
Click to expand...

"Almost" zero?

/thread
Click to expand...

Perhaps the thread should end on this note. As I said, it's not my job to educate you guys on probability.

Slow, there is indeed a reason I said "almost zero":

Probability Laws
There are many different versions of the probability laws. Probability can be defined over sentences or over sets; it can be defined as conditional or unconditional. This article assumes the following laws of unconditional probability defined over sentences:

(A1) All probabilities are between zero and one -- that is, for any sentence S: 0 ≤ P(S) ≤ 1.
(A2) Logical truths have probability one -- that is, for any logical truth L: P(L) = 1.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-bayesian/supplement1.html
 
Fudbucker said:
Slow, there is indeed a reason I said "almost zero":

Probability Laws
...
(A1) All probabilities are between zero and one -- that is, for any sentence S: 0 ≤ P(S) ≤ 1.
Click to expand...

(Highlighting added.) Well, that answers my previous question.
 
jsfisher said:
You consider those two numbers to be close to each other?
Click to expand...

The odds of .01 to the 12th.




Greater-than-or-equal. The probability of drawing an ace from a deck of cards with no aces is zero. Not almost.
Click to expand...

I said there were no aces in the deck the person was handed. There are plenty of logically coherent possibilities for how an ace could get into the deck after it is handed to them and before the person finishes going through all the cards. Perhaps the atoms of a card spontaneously rearrange themselves to form an ace of spades. Improbable but not impossible.
 
Fudbucker said:
Perhaps the thread should end on this note. As I said, it's not my job to educate you guys on probability.

Slow, there is indeed a reason I said "almost zero":

Probability Laws
There are many different versions of the probability laws.<snip for space>
Click to expand...


Fud, if "...;there is no ace of spades in the deck..." (as per your hypothetical), then the probability of finding an ace of spades in the deck is, in fact, zero. Not "almost" zero, but zero.

The only way to get a non-zero probability is to "cheat"; that is, "find" an ace of spades in your sleeve (which is not, by definition, "in the deck"); or "find" and ace of spades on the floor (which is not, by definition, "in the deck"); or call one of the Jokers an "ace of spades" (which is a quibble--a "wild card" can represent an ace of spades, but is not, by definition, an "ace of spades"); or find an ace of spades in the deck that was, in fact, there all along (which obviates your claimed original condition).

Fud, a "version of probability" that claims a non-zero probability for something that does not exist ("...there is no ace of spades in the deck...") is a "version of probability" that does violence to reality.

If what you are saying, Fud, is that you, personally, as author of the hypothetical, are using "...there is no ace of spades in the deck..." to mean "...there may be an ace of spades in the deck, but I will make free to dishonestly load the hypothetical by claiming there is not one..." then the problem is not with your understanding of probability.

Fud, in the same way that the probability of something that has, in fact, already happened is 1 (see any thread by Rich Savage), the probability of somehting that is absolutely prevented from happening (finding an ace of spades in a deck when "...there is no ace of spades in the deck..." is zero.

 Fud, the probability that I am my mother is not "almost zero".
 
Last edited:
Fudbucker said:
The odds of .01 to the 12th.
Click to expand...

Odds, is it? There was no mention of odds in the statement from which I took the quotation. You said, ".01 to the 12th power is pretty close to the number of planets in the universe."

I said there were no aces in the deck the person was handed. There are plenty of logically coherent possibilities for how an ace could get into the deck after it is handed to them and before the person finishes going through all the cards. Perhaps the atoms of a card spontaneously rearrange themselves to form an ace of spades. Improbable but not impossible.
Click to expand...

Again, you pretend you wrote something different from what you posted. You were explaining to Slowvehicle why you had written "almost zero" rather than just zero, and you did that by citing a Stanford University reference. You used bold, large type to focus to on "all probabilities are between zero and one" with extra special focus on the word "between."

Your intent and meaning were clear, and this back-pedaling does not suit you.
 
Last edited:
Slowvehicle said:
Fud, if "...;there is no ace of spades in the deck..." (as per your hypothetical), then the probability of finding an ace of spades in the deck is, in fact, zero. Not "almost" zero, but zero.

The only way to get a non-zero probability is to "cheat"; that is, "find" an ace of spades in your sleeve (which is not, by definition, "in the deck"); or "find" and ace of spades on the floor (which is not, by definition, "in the deck"); or call on of the Jokers an "ace of spades" (which is a quibble--a "wild card" can represent an ace of spades,but is not, by definition, an ace of spades); or find an ace of spades in the deck that was, in fact, there all along (which obviates your claimed original condition).

Fud, a "version of probability" that claims a non-zero probability for something that does not exist ("...there is no ace of spades in the deck...") is a "version of probability" that does violence to causality and reality.

If what you are saying, Fud, is that you, personally, as author of the hypothetical, are using "...there is no ace of spades in the deck..." to mean "...there may be an ace of spades in the deck, but I will make free to dishonestly load the hypothetical by claimingb there is not one..." then the problem is not with your understanding of probability.

Fud, in the same way that the probability of something that has, in fact, already happened is 1 (see any thread by Rich Savage), the probability of somehting that is absolutely prevented from happening (finding an ace of spades in a deck when "...there is no ace of spades in the deck..." is zero.

 Fud, the probability that I am my mother is not "almost zero".
Click to expand...

The scenario was that there is no ace in the deck you're handed. That does not make it logically impossible that you find an ace of spades. There are numerous possible scenarios I can give for how an ace shows up in the deck before you're done looking through the cards.

But I can see how you could interpret it otherwise, so that it's logically impossible. My statement about the deck was unclear. My fault.
 
Fudbucker said:
The odds of .01 to the 12th.

I said there were no aces in the deck the person was handed. There are plenty of logically coherent possibilities for how an ace could get into the deck after it is handed to them and before the person finishes going through all the cards. Perhaps the atoms of a card spontaneously rearrange themselves to form an ace of spades. Improbable but not impossible.
Click to expand...

Can I call 'em, or what?

Actually, Fud, what you said was:
Fudbucker said:
...If there is no ace of spades in the deck you were handed...
Click to expand...

If you want to change the conditions of your hypothetical, now, feel free; but that will not change the fact that the probability of finding an ace of spades in a deck when "...there is no ace of spades in the deck..." is zero. Not "almost zero", but zero.
 
jsfisher said:
Odds, is it? There was no mention of odds in the statement from which I took the quotation. You said, ".01 to the 12th power is pretty close to the number of planets in the universe."
Click to expand...

Yes, I wasn't clear. Obviously, there aren't .01 planets.

I was referring to the denominator of the odds when .01 to the 12th is written as a fraction.



Again, you pretend you wrote something different from what you posted. You were explaining to Slowvehicle why you had written "almost zero" rather than just zero, and you did that by citing a Stanford University reference. You used bold, large type to focus to on "all probabilities are between zero and one" with extra special focus on the word "between."
Click to expand...

Right, I thought Slow was making a wrong claim about odds. The scenario only claims there is no ace in the deck. That does not mean an ace can't appear while the person is looking through it. In order to have logical impossibility, the scenario would have to say: there's no ace in the deck and no ace can possibly appear in the deck while the cards are examined.

Your intent and meaning were clear, and this back-pedaling does not suit you.
Click to expand...

My intent was clear because in my mind, I knew there was nothing logically impossible about an ace appearing while the cards are looked at. So my intent was to point out to Slow why they were wrong.

But I realize I was unclear and how it could be construed to be logically impossible to find an ace in the example I gave. I think you need the additional premise I added to get to logical impossibility, but I certainly could have been clearer, and the mistake is mine. I apologize to Slow for sarcastically pointing out a website on probability.
 
Fudbucker said:
...
A Bayesian calculus of a god showing up would show that such an event would be extremely surprising. In other words Pr(living parent visit) > Pr(god visit).
...
Click to expand...
Hilite by Daylightstar
In light of the above, your earlier question:
Fudbucker said:
Maybe you could explain what you mean by "prior probability"?
Click to expand...

..... is very strange. Very strange indeed.
 
Last edited:
Fudbucker said:
The scenario was that there is no ace in the deck you're handed. That does not make it logically impossible that you find an ace of spades. There are numerous possible scenarios I can give for how an ace shows up in the deck before you're done looking through the cards.

But I can see how you could interpret it otherwise, so that it's logically impossible. My statement about the deck was unclear. My fault.
Click to expand...

Actually, Fud, what you said was:
Fudbucker said:
You can't come to that conclusion. If there is no ace of spades in the deck you were handed, then the probability of you finding one is almost zero. Your lack of knowledge of what's in the deck prohibits you from comparing probabilities.

Think of it this way: suppose I handed you a mysterious deck of handmade cards. What are the odds that an ace will show up, versus the nine of cups?
Click to expand...

You can look it up: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10388686#post10388686

That is not "logically unclear", but, simply, wrong. Now, if you want to move the goalposts, and say that what you meant is different from what you said, you are, of course free so to do. You have the option of making all the alibis you can stomach.

However, Fud, that does not change the fact the the probability of finding an ace of spades in a deck "...if there is no ace of spades in the deck..." is not "almost zero" but, in fact, zero. If "...there is no ace of spades in the deck..." then there is no ace of spades in the deck.

If, in violation of entropy, causality, and physical reality, an ace of spades "appears" in the deck, then (watch closely) there is, ijn fact,an ace of spades in the deck, and your condition ("...there is no ace of spades in the deck...") is no longer true.

But, Fud, if "...there is no ace of spades in the deck..." then there is no ace of spades in the deck.

Th probability that I am Her majesty the queen of Koozbain is not "almost zero", but zero.
 
Last edited:
Daylightstar said:
In light of the above, your earlier question:


..... is very strange. Very strange indeed.
Click to expand...

I don't see how it's strange at all. What I think prior probability means and what someone else thinks it might mean can be two different things, obviously. It's better to ask the person what they mean, rather than assume.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom