godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
I don't know, I just ran it again and got 2018-02-15 13:14:36.707. It seems like the value of "now" is changing, but that can't be right. I'll open a ticket with Microsoft.
Proof of Immortality, VII
- Thread starter abaddon
- Start date
- Status
Belz...
Fiend God
Oh, that last one's been on the list for some time.
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2008
- Messages
- 8,449
Now that I've been thinking about it a bit more, you're right. I've even pointed it out before myself. I think I'll go ahead and withdraw my objection to what you wrote.
We can talk all day about the nearly infinite variety of errors and fallacies presented by Jabba in this thread, but it's clear that the most fundamental issue is the Sharpshooter Fallacy.
Jabba has been asked a thousand times to state in his own words what that is, and he either can't or won't. He has, through his "replies" made it very clear that he doesn't understand it.
Jabba has also admitted several times that he knows it's a flaw in his argument and can't give a proper rebuttal, but he thinks that's somehow a failing in everyone other than himself.
Jabba, there's no point - none - in going down these rabbitholes you keep trying to divert the conversation to. Until and unless you can understand the Sharpshooter Fallacy and why it applies to your formula everything else is irrelevant. I'm not saying that the rest is right - far from it - but this is the core problem you keep running into no matter what other issue you're trying to address.
Jabba has been asked a thousand times to state in his own words what that is, and he either can't or won't. He has, through his "replies" made it very clear that he doesn't understand it.
Jabba has also admitted several times that he knows it's a flaw in his argument and can't give a proper rebuttal, but he thinks that's somehow a failing in everyone other than himself.
Jabba, there's no point - none - in going down these rabbitholes you keep trying to divert the conversation to. Until and unless you can understand the Sharpshooter Fallacy and why it applies to your formula everything else is irrelevant. I'm not saying that the rest is right - far from it - but this is the core problem you keep running into no matter what other issue you're trying to address.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Dave,
- Given OOFLam, you're certainly correct.
- But forget the actual question for the moment, and just consider the lottery question.
- We have a lottery barrel of 100 tickets, one of those being yours. And your ticket was drawn. What is the likelihood of your ticket being drawn if this was a fair lottery?
- What if we have a computer containing a million numbered entrants, and the one entrant selected was you? What if we have a computer with 140,000,000 entrants?
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
By the way, as I learned these things, observations have probabilities and conditions have likelihoods.
"With a fair coin, what is the probability of observing 5 head-tosses in a row?"
"Having observed 5 head-tosses in a row, what is the likelihood the coin is fair?"
"With a fair coin, what is the probability of observing 5 head-tosses in a row?"
"Having observed 5 head-tosses in a row, what is the likelihood the coin is fair?"
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
None of the tickets in the barrel are his.
One of the tickets will become his after he draws it.
Why don't you take a moment to explain the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy, in your own words.
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
1/100. But that's a completely different question.
You already know the answers to these questions, and you already know that those are different situations than a human being born.
Thermal
August Member
halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2012
- Messages
- 10,259
Yes, but I think he likes being beaten over it.
Thermal
August Member
Reminds me of a sign in a local building department:
Arguing with an inspector is like wrestling with a pig. You're covered in mud and feces by the time you realize the pig likes it.
Well you see given OOAAM (Only one argument at most) the odds of his question dying is 1 in A googleplex times infinity times the grains of sand in the Sahara times to the stars in the night sky time aleph null therefore according to quantum-Bayesian extrapolation under the Super Hyper Awesome Debate Format my socks are made of cheese.
Belz...
Fiend God
What difference does it make, since you've already agreed that both are cause-and-effect dependant, and that there is no actual randomness involved? Your agreement to this means that the odds for both are 1 anyway.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
No, your silly made-up concepts really don't have anything to do with the question you asked. Or your the proof you're trying to formulate. Your question amounted to "What is the probability that up is high?" It was ill-formed, because you have a penchant for equivocation -- and got caught again -- and because you don't understand how continuous variables work in statistics.
We're now two questions deep in your requests to forget your past embarrassments. At what point does it become painfully obvious that you're stalling and swerving, with no earthly hope of finding your way back to your proof?
Let's stipulate it's a raffle, since lotteries can mean more than one winner per draw.
Trivially 1/100, but a raffle is not equivalent to the timeline of human existence for the reasons we described yesterday and which you have still not addressed. Here's another problem for your proof. The significance of the ticket drawn was established before the drawing. That's how a raffle differs from your proof. Your proof is tantamount to holding a blank raffle ticket, and then frantically scribbling the called-out number on it and waving it in the air and declaring how vastly improbable it was that you were selected.
If you could explain the Texas sharpshooter fallacy in your own words -- which clearly you can't -- you would see the error you're making.
We've been through this. You don't understand probability density, so you don't understand how your raffle analogy doesn't fit your lifetime-slots theory. Your analogies are all based on simplistic discretization of the sample space and unjustified uniform density across the space. So no, you don't get to generalize the simple examples you know how to work to more complicated questions you clearly don't. You're trying to make the problem fit your understanding instead of expanding your understanding to accommodate the problem.
And we've also been through the qualitative differences between human births and a raffle. I assume you remember them and, like the other fatal flaws, admit you can't overcome them.
Last edited:
THERE'S NO GODDAMN LOTTERY!
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
js,
- Good question.
- But, I think that you're really asking about the posterior probability of the coin being fair -- given 5 straight head-tosses. And, the answer to that question requires an estimate of the prior probability that the coin is fair.
- I've never seen a two headed coin, so unless there was money riding on this, I'd suggest a prior probability of 99.99% that the coin was fair and the posterior probability that the coin was fair would be (.5*.5*.5*.5*.5)*.9999/((.5*.5*.5*.5*.5)*.9999 +1*1*1*1*1*.0001), or
0.031246875/(0.031246875+.0001)=0.031246875/0.031346875, or approximately 99.7% (by my calculations).
Belz...
Fiend God
I'd suggest 7.166%.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
- Status