Proof of Immortality, the IV league

[JayUtah]

But since we don't know the number of "potential bananas" we can say it's infinite. That means the probability of any real number of bananas existing is essentially zero. And the probability of any one particular banana existing is essentially zero.

 

[caveman1917]

By the Bekenstein bound, the number of "potential bananas" in a finite region of space is finite.

 

[jsfisher]

I did answer the question. P(H|E) = P(H) for this case.

That is incorrect. Try this:

Let H be "humans exist"
Let ~H be "humans do not exist"
Let E be "I exist"

Let P(E | H) >> P(E | ~H) = 0. Then my existence, as a human, is not evidence for the existence of humans?

Not a very good hypothetical. The prior on P(H) is unity. That you may be yet another example of a human doesn't add anything.

You have also been loose with your usage of the word 'exist.' Your "Let E be 'I exist'" is misleading; you really meant "Let E be 'I am a human.'" You have wandered quite far from Jabba's "I exist."

 

[caveman1917]

Not a very good hypothetical. The prior on P(H) is unity.

No it isn't. Start with equal priors.

 

[Hokulele]

No it isn't. Start with equal priors.

Why on earth would they be equal?

 

[caveman1917]

Why on earth would they be equal?

Maximum entropy principle. A prior probability distribution which maximizes entropy needs no justification, it is any change in this distribution which decreases entropy which requires justification (ie evidence, such as "I exist (as a human)")

 

[jsfisher]

No it isn't. Start with equal priors.

What she said:

Why on earth would they be equal?

 

[jsfisher]

Maximum entropy principle.

How about I already know that there are humans principle?

 

[caveman1917]

What she said:

It's your burden of proof, don't turn it around.

How about I already know that there are humans principle?

Evidence? And if you're going to point to someone and say "this person exists therefor humans exist" then also explain why, by your earlier claim, this person can not themselves say "I exist therefor humans exist".

 

[abaddon]

for goodness' sake...

P1: Alice exists
P2: Bob exists
P3: Charlie exists as the child of Alice and Bob

Can Charlie say "my existence (P3) is evidence for Alice and Bob having met". Differently: P(Met | P1, P2, P3) > P(Met | P1, P2).

If you really want a story to go along with it: it was a rainy autumn evening as Charlie was staring out his bedroom window when suddenly it hit him: "I exist, therefor my parents Alice and Bob have likely met".

And my guarantee that Joe was not the donor is what?

 

[jsfisher]

Evidence? And if you're going to point to someone and say "this person exists therefor humans exist" then also explain why, by your earlier claim, this person can not themselves say "I exist therefor humans exist".

Did I say that? I don't recall saying that. Perhaps you can link to the post where I said that.

I also note you continue to include the gratuitous "exists" to give the illusion of paralleling Jabba's usage.

 

[caveman1917]

Did I say that? I don't recall saying that. Perhaps you can link to the post where I said that.

Correct, you said it with regards to "my existence is evidence for my parents having met". The point still stands though.

I also note you continue to include the gratuitous "exists" to give the illusion of paralleling Jabba's usage.

Exists means exists, I'm not particularly interested in Jabba's usage. E is an event in a probability space which is understood as "I exist". Or differently, E is a subset of the set of all possible worlds such that "I exist" is true.

 

[jsfisher]

...I'm not particularly interested in Jabba's usage....

I entered this thread arc with you because of this post. In that post you asked jt512 for the difference between Jabba's 'he exists therefore immortal' proposition and your hypothetical regarding an electrical wire. At their very core, the differences hinge on Jabba's and your usage of the word, exists.

Your latest revelation I find curious.

 

[abaddon]

I entered this thread arc with you because of this post. In that post you asked jt512 for the difference between Jabba's 'he exists therefore immortal' proposition and your hypothetical regarding an electrical wire. At their very core, the differences hinge on Jabba's and your usage of the word, exists.

Your latest revelation I find curious.

Tempting, but declined.

 

[caveman1917]

I entered this thread arc with you because of this post. In that post you asked jt512 for the difference between Jabba's 'he exists therefore immortal' proposition and your hypothetical regarding an electrical wire. At their very core, the differences hinge on Jabba's and your usage of the word, exists.

As we can read:

the fundamental issue with Jabba's argument is that under both hypotheses, he can only observe the data (E), that he exists, if, in fact, he exists.

Let's call these two purported uses of "exists" exists_jabba and exists_caveman. The issue with exists_jabba is that it has the property that Jabba can only observe exists_jabba if exists_jabba is indeed true. This property is shared by exists_caveman, hence even if there were further differences between exists_jabba and exists_caveman they are not relevant for this argument.

This point is repeated in the very next sentence:

Thus he is conditioning the data on the data itself.

Yes, the property that "exists" can only be observed if the person saying "I exists" does, in fact, exist is clearly the basis for the argument.

Your latest revelation I find curious.

I'm sorry but I'm not particularly interested in what you find "curious" or what you "notice" about "illusions". If you have an argument to make then make it, so far it has been nothing but assertions and allusions.

 

[Hokulele]

Maximum entropy principle. A prior probability distribution which maximizes entropy needs no justification, it is any change in this distribution which decreases entropy which requires justification (ie evidence, such as "I exist (as a human)")

When I walk out the door, I can either be hit by lightning, or not be hit by lightning. That means that there is a 50% chance I will be hit by lightning when I walk out the door.

 

[caveman1917]

When I walk out the door, I can either be hit by lightning, or not be hit by lightning. That means that there is a 50% chance I will be hit by lightning when I walk out the door.

Before you account for evidence, yes. Then you start adding evidence and updating your prior.

 

[Hokulele]

Before you account for evidence, yes. Then you start adding evidence and updating your prior.

No, you take the priors into account before even formulating such a silly thing. This is why they are called priors.

 

[caveman1917]

No, you take the priors into account before even formulating such a silly thing. This is why they are called priors.

Priors are not something which can be taken into account, evidence can be taken into account. If you were consistently using Bayesian inference to arrive at your current beliefs regarding getting hit by lightning (ie posterior becomes new prior as new piece of evidence comes in and so on) then we can iterate backwards to what your priors were before you took the first piece of evidence into account. You can assert no prior distribution for this which has non-maximal entropy without acquiring a burden of proof.

 

[Hokulele]

Priors are not something which can be taken into account, evidence can be taken into account. If you were consistently using Bayesian inference to arrive at your current beliefs regarding getting hit by lightning (ie posterior becomes new prior as new piece of evidence comes in and so on) then we can iterate backwards to what your priors were before you took the first piece of evidence into account. You can assert no prior distribution for this which has non-maximal entropy without acquiring a burden of proof.

What? Of course you can, that is the whole point of Bayesian reasoning. My priors can be anything such as "Zeus has it out for me" or "Chewing gum prevents lightning strikes". While a Bayes' formula can include equal and opposite hypotheses, it certainly isn't required to.