Is ESP More Probable Than Advanced Alien Life?

[Daylightstar]

Does anyone want to dispute the Bayes analysis I gave? If not, I'm going to assume it to be correct, and that the odds of alien life existing are unknown and cannot be determined with the information we have.

Assume, sure, not establish.

 

[Fudbucker]

Fud, the issue is not whether it is possible for the coin to (somehow) be changed (pace entropy, causality, and object permanence) into a coin that could land showing tails.

That is entirely the issue. If the coin can change, it can start off being whatever and land as something entirely else:

Example: I toss a two-headed coin. I zap it with my atom rearranger and it becomes a two-tailed coin. It lands tails.

That is how a two-headed coin can land tails.

Pay attention, Fud: the issue is that if a coin is changed so that it can land, showing "tails", then (and this is the important part) it is not a "two-headed coin".

LOL, certainly not. Does the fact that you're not a kid anymore mean you never were one???

A "two-headed coin" cannot land showing tails, Fud.

It can, the same way a kid can turn into an adult.

Koozbain is the place of which I am not, by definition, nor can I be, queen. Probability zero (not "almost zero"--zero).

Just like I told you, it's not enough that it's a place where you're not queen, it has to be a place where you can never be queen.

 

[Daylightstar]

Again:

The coin could change into anything unless it's stipulated that it can't change.
...

So, according to you, a tossed coin could change into a chicken.
Is there, according to you, any prior probability for such an event?

Is there any such prior probability, Fudbucker?

 

[Daylightstar]

...
Example: I toss a two-headed coin. I zap it with my atom rearranger and it becomes a two-tailed coin. It lands tails.

That is how a two-headed coin can land tails.
...

A fantasy without prior probability.

 

[Slowvehicle]

The answer is in your tenses:

X IS not a two-headed coin.
X WAS a two-headed coin.

Those aren't contradictory claims. Consider:

X IS not in New York.
X WAS in New York.

Fud, are you purposely ignoring that fact that "is" =/= "was"?

If HQ "was" in New York, but was moved /I] to Albuquerque, then it is not the case that HQ "is" in New York (and with good reason--have you priced office space in NYC?).

Fud, if a "two-headed coin" is changed into a coin that can land showing "tails" then it is not a "two-headed coin". No matter how often you assert it so to be, Fud.

 

[ehcks]

What law of nature would permit prediction of the future (precise, accurate prediction; anyone can predict inaccurately or statistically)?

A perfect understanding of the exact location and velocity of all particles of matter in the universe. Maybe Heisenberg is the next guy all the woosters will be saying was wrong.

 

[jsfisher]

Other than continued alibi generation with a touch of back-pedaling, does this extended semantic quibble serve any purpose, Fudbucker?

 

[Giordano]

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?

I originally stipulated that the assembled deck was made up from standard playing card decks- reread my post. But yes, as I said, the assembled deck may lack any aces so I can't calculate the precious odds; as I said it could be zero. You asked for just such an example. But simply knowing that it might have an ace means it is more likely to have an ace than a 42 of spades.

 

[Fudbucker]

What law of nature would permit prediction of the future (precise, accurate prediction; anyone can predict inaccurately or statistically)?

It's not for me to specify which law would permit it. It's for my opponent to specify which laws it would violate. If ESP does not violate any laws of nature, then it is physically possible.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Daylight, since you won't provide a probability analysis of your own, and can't do anything but repeat the same assertion, I'm not going to waste time on you.

And yet, somehow, Fud, you find it profitable to continue to assert that a coin that has been changed into a coin with one "heads" and one "tails" is still, in fact, a "two-headed coin".

Prolly the coin with which Lincoln bought his axe...

 

[Daylightstar]

Again:


Is there any such prior probability, Fudbucker?

A reasonable question for someone who claims to do Bayesian calculus.

 

[ehcks]

It's not for me to specify which law would permit it. It's for my opponent to specify which laws it would violate. If ESP does not violate any laws of nature, then it is physically possible.

Well, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, for one. A variation on the Grandfather Paradox for another.

I predict I'm going to die tomorrow by a piano falling on me. So I don't stand near or under any pianos. My prediction becomes false, so I don't make it, so I stand under a piano and die...

 

[Slowvehicle]

Well, the real real answer is again in the grasping at magic. For a coin to transform itself into a non-coin in the real universe, you are likely near a naked gravitational singularity where the laws of physics no longer apply.

However, such objects themselves aren't likely to exist so we're still not in the real universe. Perhaps we can next imagine cthulhu rolling dice and suggest that it's equally possible for the die to display ancient magical runes.

"Ftagn! the Motherless Goat of a Thousand Young needs four thousand new pairs of shoes! Seven come eleven 11!!11". ^( ;,; )^

 

[Slowvehicle]

What law of nature would permit prediction of the future (precise, accurate prediction; anyone can predict inaccurately or statistically)?

I hope this one get answered...

 

[Fudbucker]

Other than continued alibi generation with a touch of back-pedaling, does this extended semantic quibble serve any purpose, Fudbucker?

It doesn't serve any purpose, but I am still right. But it's a stupid derail.

 

[Daylightstar]

It's not for me to specify which law would permit it. It's for my opponent to specify which laws it would violate. If ESP does not violate any laws of nature, then it is physically possible.

If you'd want to calculate the probabilities, you'd need to specify prior probability.
But you don't like prior probabilities, you reject them.

Which means, you can never do valid Bayesian calculus.

 

[Giordano]

So, according to you, a tossed coin could change into a chicken.
Is there, according to you, any prior probability for such an event?

As likely as any other unknown event, I guess.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

When will you post proof. (never) The post is not very zen

I knew you were going to say that.

 

[Giordano]

That is entirely the issue. If the coin can change, it can start off being whatever and land as something entirely else:

Example: I toss a two-headed coin. I zap it with my atom rearranger and it becomes a two-tailed coin. It lands tails.

That is how a two-headed coin can land tails.



LOL, certainly not. Does the fact that you're not a kid anymore mean you never were one???


It can, the same way a kid can turn into an adult.







Just like I told you, it's not enough that it's a place where you're not queen, it has to be a place where you can never be queen.

We already know a lot about how kids become adults and there is a lot of precedent in them doing so. How does a two-headed coin become one with a tails, mid flip? And how often does this happen?

 

[Daylightstar]

As likely as any other unknown event, I guess.

Some people need fantasy more than reality. It's easier to control fantasy than reality.