Proof of Immortality III

[JoeMorgue]

Oh my god this is like water having a crisis of faith over the incalculable odds that it fits so perfectly into a puddle.

 

[Toontown]

Yes you did (when you explicitly assign special importance to your own existence), and yes you did (when you use this assigned importance to try and justify a dismissal of the idea that you exist by chance).

You haven't begun to prove that my existence is not significant from my perspective.

No chance of making the TS charge stick until you do that.

No, it doesn't. Again, you equivocate between the probability of a specific result turning up on a specific die and the probability of the die itself being rolled. They are not equivalent, no matter how hard you wish it were so.

Izzatafact.

What if the specific result is (11390777)? How would that number have turned up on the 6 sided die?

And the (3) is almost as unlikely to turn up on the trillion sided die. Precariously clinging to a ledge of forlorn possibility by it's finernails, but orders of magnitude more likely that the roller used the 6 sided die.

So it looks like there actually is some equivalence between the die chosen and the outcome. Quite a bit of equivalence, actually. Total equivalence if the outcome is greater than 6. Very strong equivalence if the outcome is less than 7.

Swing and a miss. You're still batting zero.

 

[Toontown]

Oh my god this is like water having a crisis of faith over the incalculable odds that it fits so perfectly into a puddle.

Oh my god another fallacy-fitter trying to hammer a square peg into a round fallacy hole.

 

[Nonpareil]

You haven't begun to prove that my existence is not significant from my perspective.

Your perspective is irrelevant when it comes to probability.

Izzatafact.

What if the specific result is (11390777)? How would that number have turned up on the 6 sided die?

If you wish to be needlessly pedantic and demand that "barring a given result being a literal impossibility" be added to every sentence, that is your prerogative, but I care very little for pointless gotcha games.

And the (3) is almost as unlikely to turn up on the trillion sided die.

All results on the trillion-sided die, three or otherwise, have an equal probability of occurrence. This probability is non-zero, and does not approach zero. A result of three on any given die roll does not indicate either die.

Denying this does not make it any less true.

 

[JoeMorgue]

How far exactly are we right now from proving immortality?

 

[Loss Leader]

How far exactly are we right now from proving immortality?

Well, the guy who made that claim said he was going to fix his helicopter and disappeared, so I'd say pretty damn far.

 

[Mojo]

What if the specific result is (11390777)? How would that number have turned up on the 6 sided die?

If that was one of the six numbers on the six-sided die.

 

[caveman1917]

And what if the die is chosen randomly from a bag containing a trillion trillion-sided dice and one six-sided die?

And what if the die is chosen randomly from a bag chosen randomly from all possible bags of a trillion dice (split between trillion-sided and six-sided dice)?

Would that change your bet?

If you are asserting information (ie chose a prior with extremely low entropy) then you should provide evidence for that information, otherwise it's equal priors.

 

[caveman1917]

All results on the trillion-sided die, three or otherwise, have an equal probability of occurrence. This probability is non-zero, and does not approach zero. A result of three on any given die roll does not indicate either die.

This is wrong and anti-scientific. Suppose I have two possible theories for gravity, DOWN which says that if you let go of something it falls down p=99% of the time and up 1% of the time and UP which is vice versa. I observe a sequence of n times something falling down, and I conclude that DOWN is likely correct and assume that the next time I let go of something it will probably fall down.

Your argument is that then you can not conclude that DOWN is like correct and should not assume that the next time you let go off something it will likely fall down, because you can not know that the prior probability of UP might have been much higher than the prior probability of DOWN. In other words, science is impossible because you never know that we might have turned out to be on a massively exceptional "lucky streak" of observations.

There is no inherent different between a single observation and a sequence of observations, for any given p and n there exists another p such that when taking n=1 we'd get the same result.

 

[Mojo]

A distinction without a difference. Either way, the ludicrous coincidence remains.

A single event is not a coincidence.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I don't give a squat if we have septaquilliondillion ^43 sided die "Jabba's Gonna Live Forever Because He's So Special and Stuff and Has This Thing That is Totally a Soul I'm Just Not Calling it That Wink Wink" isn't a side on it.

 

[Toontown]

Your perspective is irrelevant when it comes to probability.

False, but not surprising coming from a member of the camp that thinks winning the lottery is the same as "someone" winning the lottery.

Nevermind the fact that the probability that "someone" will win a lottery approaches 1, while the probability that you will win the lottery approaches 0. Because perspective is irrelevant in probability. Yeah, that's it. Perspective is irrelevant. As long as we refuse to acknowledge or use it. So it's like a self-fullfing prophecy. It's irrelevant because we make it irrelevant. By ignoring it. Yeah, that's it.

No. That's not it. I was being sarcastic.

If you wish to be needlessly pedantic and demand that "barring a given result being a literal impossibility" be added to every sentence, that is your prerogative, but I care very little for pointless gotcha games.

And yet gotcha games is all you've produced. How unfortunate for you, to keep producing what you care so little for.

Why is it a pointless gotcha game to point out that your claim is demonstrably wrong?

I haven't noticed you refraining from grasping at any straw in your ongoing failed effort to prove me wrong about something. Oh wait. That's not correct. You haven't been trying to "prove" me wrong. You've just been repeating that I'm wrong about stuff.

But when I point out one of your obvious falsehoods, all of a sudden it's a pointless gotcha game?

So perspective does matter when you're wrong?

I'm sorry. It's so hard to keep up with when perspective matters and when it doesn't. Your perspective relevancy rules are so...complicated.

A 3 on any given die roll does not indicate either die.

Depends on how you define "indicate" when you're playing semantic gotcha games.

On the other hand:

The probability of a number less than 7 being rolled on a trillion sided die is 6/1000000000000

The probability of a number less than 7 being rolled on a 6 sided die is 1

You know nothing about about how the dice are selected.

What you know is what matters in probability. You use what you know. You don't refuse to use what you know simply because you don't know everything. If you do that, you can't use probability at all (because that's what probability is for), which effectively renders you a probabilistic cripple. Or perhaps "probabilistically challenged" is the politically correct term.

 

[Toontown]

A single event is not a coincidence.

It is interesting that you would say that, since we weren't talking about a single event. As I recall, we were talking about a confluence of events, in which the single event you may be fixating on was dependent on another series of events.

Nah. That's not really interesting at all. I was being sarcastic. just you grabbing at another straw and missing.

 

[Toontown]

If that was one of the six numbers on the six-sided die.

But that wasn't one of the numbers on the six-sided die. Trust me on this. I know this because it's my hypothetical. And I deliberately tried to make it simple for you. So you could understand. The sides of the dice are numbered sequentially, starting with 1. I wasn't trying to trick you.

And now here you go, trying to change things around, bringing in complications, as if you are trying to obfuscate something.

But see, you don't get to change or create the parameters of my hypothetical. It is what it is. Deal with it.

 

[Mojo]

But that wasn't one of the numbers on the six-sided die. Trust me on this. I know this because it's my hypothetical. And I deliberately tried to make it simple for you. So you could understand. The sides of the dice are numbered sequentially, starting with 1. I wasn't trying to trick you.

No, you were trying to equivocate between improbable and impossible.

 

[Mojo]

But that wasn't one of the numbers on the six-sided die. Trust me on this. I know this because it's my hypothetical. And I deliberately tried to make it simple for you. So you could understand. The sides of the dice are numbered sequentially, starting with 1. I wasn't trying to trick you.

And now here you go, trying to change things around, bringing in complications, as if you are trying to obfuscate something.

But see, you don't get to change the parameters of my hypothetical. It is what it is. Deal with it.

Her's your hypothetical. Feel free to point out the bit where you said the sides of the dice were numbered in a particular way.

As usual, you have falsely represented my reasoning. Or perhaps you simply don't follow, your protests to the contrary notwithstanding.

There is nothing fallacious about recognizing that a particular observation is inconsistent with a given hypothesis as to the origin or cause of the events in question, while other observations are not inconsistent with the hypothesis. Or vice versa. Detectives and scientists do that often.

Example:

I know (nevermind how, it's only an analogy) that the the following numbers were obtained either by rolling a six sided die or by rolling a trillion sided die.

48887398898
158486874
3
36598746
215478

Would I be committing the Texas sharpshooter fallacy if I concluded, with very high confidence, that the number (3) was rolled with the six sided die?

Stonewalling won't help you here. Reasonable people know what the correct answer is. Any response on your part, be it yes, no, or refusing to answer the way you did with the kidnapper analogy, will serve my purpose here nicely.

Disclaimer: no relation between the analogy above and Jabba's claim is intended. The analogy simply demonstrates that Nonpareil's description of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy is bogus.

 

[Toontown]

Her's your hypothetical. Feel free to point out the bit where you said the sides of the dice were numbered in a particular way.

Feel free to pretend you are making a point and not playing a gotcha game.

Anyway, now you know. The sides of the dice are numbered sequentially, starting with 1. I really wasn't trying to trick you.

 

[abaddon]

Her's your hypothetical. Feel free to point out the bit where you said the sides of the dice were numbered in a particular way.

It appears that the claim is that although the numbers 1-6 exist on the trillion sided die, they are less likely to come up than the other trillion-6 numbers on the die simply by dint of the existence of the 6 sided die even if the six sided is never rolled. Thus, if the result is 1-6, it is more likely to have come from the 6 sided die than the trillion sided die regardless of whether the 6 sided die was ever even rolled at all.

My circle detector is off the scale.

 

[Toontown]

No, you were trying to equivocate between improbable and impossible.

Oh really? Is that why I said this?

I can live with the exceedingly slim possibility that I could be wrong about how the (3) was obtained. I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. In fact, I wouldn't lose any sleep if it turned out that the (3) was rolled with the trillion sided die. Because I would still have been absolutely correct to bet against that.

In fact, I wish I could bet that the (3) wasn't obtained by rolling a trillion sided die. I'd bet the farm on that. That way, I'd have a few chances in a trillion of losing some sleep. And nearly a trillion chances of doubling up.

And you're still batting zero.

 

[Nonpareil]

This is wrong and anti-scientific. Suppose I have two possible theories for gravity, DOWN which says that if you let go of something it falls down p=99% of the time and up 1% of the time and UP which is vice versa. I observe a sequence of n times something falling down, and I conclude that DOWN is likely correct and assume that the next time I let go of something it will probably fall down.

Your argument is that then you can not conclude that DOWN is like correct

No, it isn't. It is a very simple statement that, so long as there is a possibility of that result happening within the system, having that result turn up does not in any way act as proof against the system.

Rolling a one on a trillion-sided die, even n times in a row, does not establish that the die is loaded. In order to establish that the die is loaded, you must examine the die.

Improbable is not equivalent to impossible, and improbable results - even when they are staggeringly improbable - are not inconsistent with what we know of probability. They can provide a reason for you to investigate the system more closely and look for concrete evidence of the system being rigged, but they are not in and of themselves hard evidence.

There is a difference between reason for suspicion and actual evidence. That is all.

False, but not surprising coming from a member of the camp that thinks winning the lottery is the same as "someone" winning the lottery.

You have yet to establish any way in which it is not. You, in case you forgot, are someone. You have the same chance that anyone else does to win. If you were to win the lottery today, you would have absolutely no evidence whatsoever in favor of the idea that the game were rigged in your favor.

<snip pointless lack of actual argumentation>

The probability of a number less than 7 being rolled on a trillion sided die is 6/1000000000000

The probability of a number less than 7 being rolled on a 6 sided die is 1

You know nothing about about how the dice are selected.

What you know is what matters in probability. You use what you know. You don't refuse to use what you know simply because you don't know everything. If you do that, you can't use probability at all (because that's what probability is for), which effectively renders you a probabilistic cripple. Or perhaps "probabilistically challenged" is the politically correct term.

And so you can guess either one, and either one can be true. Again, you don't seem to actually understand what it is that is being said to you.

The chances of you rolling a number less than seven are obviously greater if the system is rigged in your favor (a six-sided die is rolled) than if it is not (a trillion-sided die is rolled). This is trivially true, and has never been in dispute. Because you seem to have a problem grasping this point, I will say it again, in plainer language: the six-sided die is obviously the more likely of the two, if something less than seven is rolled. We do not disagree on this front.

But the system turning up a result that is less than seven is possible even if the odds are incredibly against it (a trillion-sided die is rolled). Even turning up a long string of numbers less than seven is possible; it is, in fact, no less likely than any other particular string of numbers.

Saying that the six-sided die is more likely to turn up that result is, again, trivially true. Of course it is. But the fact that the result has turned up is in no way proof that the six-sided die was rolled.

Your confidence that the six-sided die is the one being rolled may go up as the string of numbers below seven decreases. Your confidence that the trillion-sided die is not being rolled may go down. But no matter how long the string, there is still a non-zero chance that it was, in fact, rolled on the trillion-sided die - and if the trillion-sided die is revealed to be the one that was rolling, you have not been cheated. The data is not inconsistent, as you continuously assert that it is. It is simply improbable.

As you yourself said, you use what you know. But what you know is explicitly insufficient to actually determine which of the two options is the case.

This is why your obsession with the subjective perspective is pointless. It does not allow you to actually learn anything. Your personal confidences, no matter how close to certainties they get, can never be actual certainties. To actually know what is going on, whether or not the system is rigged in your favor or you are just lucky enough to be the one that turned up, you must examine the system itself. Actual evidence and examination always trumps hunches and confidence, because improbable is not the same as inconsistent.