Cont: Proof of Immortality VIII

[Dancing David]

- That just isn't true. E is a given, but the probability that E would exist -- if H were true -- is very small.
- Back off and assume that we don't know that E exists, and we simply ask how likely is it that E would exist if H is true.

Classic special pleading "imagine the rules don't apply"

 

[jsfisher]

- That just isn't true. E is a given, but the probability that E would exist -- if H were true -- is very small.

Nope, it is true. "E is given" and therefore P(E) = 1. Condition it with H, condition it with ~H, condition it with anything you like, and the (conditional or unconditional) probability continues to be 1.

- Back off and assume that we don't know that E exists, and we simply ask how likely is it that E would exist if H is true.

No need. "E is given" and so considering any case where E isn't given does not help in our inference.

 

[jt512]

- That just isn't true. E is a given, but the probability that E would exist -- if H were true -- is very small.

Jabba,

It is true.

P(E) is the denominator in Bayes' Theorem. Since you like the word "likelihood" so much, you'll be happy to know that P(E) is called the marginal likelihood. It is the weighted average of P(E|H) and P(E|~H), where the weights are P(H) and P(~H), respectively. Thus the denominator in Bayes' Theorem is

P(E) = P(E|H)P(H) + P(E|~H)P(~H).

You have stated that P(E) = 1 and that P(H) and P(~H) are both non-zero. If you deny that that implies that P(E|H) = P(E|~H) = 1, then, in the equation below, plug in your favorite values for P(H) and P(~H) and find any values other than 1 for P(E|H) and P(E|~H) for which the equation (below) is true. We will be looking forward to your response.

1 = P(E|H)P(H) + P(E|~H)P(~H).

 

[JoeMorgue]

Classic special pleading "imagine the rules don't apply"

And yet another variation on "If you already agree I am right, I am right."

 

[Belz...]

- That just isn't true. E is a given, but the probability that E would exist -- if H were true -- is very small.

It's still wrong no matter how many times you say it. The only way out of this is to show how you calculated 10^-100. But we all know how you did, don't we?

- Back off and assume that we don't know that E exists, and we simply ask how likely is it that E would exist if H is true.

You cannot make the observation unless E is true.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I've made the passing joke in this thread several times that it seems like Jabba isn't trying to prove immortality, he's trying to create.

I actually want to revisit that in a slightly more serious manner.

There seems to be this vague idea, an almost religious faith to be honest, floating around a lot of fringe idea that... arguments and rhetoric have an almost reality warping power.

I've long been a critic of the overly rhetoric obsessed among us, those for whom following some vague and arbitrary set of rules as to how word a "proper" argument but I also am starting to wonder if, for some, it goes even deeper than that.

I do wonder at times if Jabba (the person or the character he plays) really does think on some level that he really can make something literally true, actually conjure a fact from the void as it where, if he can just find the "correct" way to phrase it.

I've long dismissed a great deal a street level "Coffee Shop" philosophy as mere silly word games, intentionally creating what are nothing more than meaningless surface level contradictions that exist only on a purely linguistic level and trying to Frankenstein some sort grand meaning out of it.

But more and more as time goes on I am honestly wondering if some people really don't think that the tail wags the dog here. If the "Formalized Debate" mentality of "You can win any side of any argument if you are just that good of a debate" has morphed into something more sinister, the metaphorical subtext of that leaking into people textual conception of actual reality.

I'd (no snark) dearly love to get an honest, truthful answer from Jabba (or other similar fringe proponent) as to whether or not that really do think that. Do you really think you can make 1+2=5 by phrasing the argument a specific way? Do you really think you can polish the edges of a square so much it becomes a circle?

Too Long, Didn't Read. I wonder if Jabba really does, in some way, on some level think that immortality becomes true if he... wins an argument about it.

 

[Jabba]

If the likelihood of your body existing is the same in H and ~H, and in both models your current existence depends on your body existing, how can P(E|~H) be greater than P(E|H)?

- Two points:
- The current existence of my self (even if my spiritual existence depends upon the existence of a physical body to "produce," or receive it) is much more likely in ~H than in H. In ~H, the existence of my spiritual self does not depend upon a particular body...

It doesn't? Why not?...

Dave,
- If reincarnation is true, my self will inhabit many different bodies. And again, maybe brains receive, rather than produce their selves.

- In ~H, my spiritual existence may not require any body.

But E isn't your spiritual existence.

- In ~H, it must be that E includes a spiritual existence.

 

[jond]

Dave,
- If reincarnation is true, my self will inhabit many different bodies. And again, maybe brains receive, rather than produce their selves.



- In ~H, it must be that E includes a spiritual existence.

Your current existence includes your body. In H or ~H. However in H, there Is no spiritual existence, there is only your body.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- If reincarnation is true, my self will inhabit many different bodies. And again, maybe brains receive, rather than produce their selves.

Yes, that's the hypothesis you're trying to prove.

- In ~H, it must be that E includes a spiritual existence.

Includes it, yes. But it also includes your current existence, which involves your body.

 

[Belz...]

- If reincarnation is true, my self will inhabit many different bodies. And again, maybe brains receive, rather than produce their selves.

What part of "this is irrelevant to the question of your CURRENT existence" don't you understand?

 

[Jabba]

jt,
- Why do you refer to P(E|H) as "both"?

Are you serious? It was obviously a typo.

jt,
- Yes. I figured it was a typo, but wanted to make sure what you had meant to say.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Dave,
- If reincarnation is true, my self will inhabit many different bodies. And again, maybe brains [U]receive[/U], rather than [U]produce[/U] their selves.

If pigs had wings, bacon would taste different.

- In ~H, it must be that E includes a spiritual existence.

Have your spiritual self post here without your brain so we can see the difference.

 

[Jabba]

- That just isn't true. E is a given, but the probability that E would exist -- if H were true -- is very small...

Nope, it is true. "E is given" and therefore P(E) = 1. Condition it with H, condition it with ~H, condition it with anything you like, and the (conditional or unconditional) probability continues to be 1...

- From https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/bayes-for-beginners-probability-and-likelihood
The distinction between probability and likelihood is fundamentally important: Probability attaches to possible results; likelihood attaches to hypotheses. Explaining this distinction is the purpose of this first column.

- Back off and assume that we don't know that E exists, and we simply ask how likely is it that E would exist if H is true.

No need. "E is given" and so considering any case where E isn't given does not help in our inference.

js,
- Please read that article (or some of it) and show me how it disagrees with my claims.

 

[Monza]

Jabba,

What characteristic does an immortal person have that a mortal person doesn't?

How can you differentiate between mortal and immortal?

 

[RoboTimbo]

- From https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/bayes-for-beginners-probability-and-likelihood
The distinction between probability and likelihood is fundamentally important: Probability attaches to possible results; likelihood attaches to hypotheses. Explaining this distinction is the purpose of this first column.



js,
- Please read that article (or some of it) and show me how it disagrees with my claims.

You have a history of not reading the articles that you cite and then being spanked with them later.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The distinction between probability and likelihood is fundamentally important: Probability attaches to possible results; likelihood attaches to hypotheses.

Since your current existence is a result rather than a hypothesis, why do you keep referring to its "likelihood"?

Dave

 

[Belz...]

jt,
- Yes. I figured it was a typo, but wanted to make sure what you had meant to say.

And it didn't dawn on you to perhaps discuss the actual matter rather than focus on just that?

 

[Belz...]

- Please read that article (or some of it) and show me how it disagrees with my claims.

It is incredibly rude to ask your critics to read your own sources to debunk your own theories.

No. YOU tell us why you think it supports you.

 

[JayUtah]

- From https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/bayes-for-beginners-probability-and-likelihood

Amazing how this beginner's tutorial seems to be the only source you can quote for information regarding Bayesian inference. Bayesian methods are widely used and there are many sources of information. You yourself claim to have taken a class -- albeit abbreviated, by your admission -- on the subject. Why does your expertise on the subject rise no higher than that of a layman frantically Googling for whatever sources seem to support his preconception?

The distinction between probability and likelihood is fundamentally important: Probability attaches to possible results; likelihood attaches to hypotheses. Explaining this distinction is the purpose of this first column.

The first sentence is correct. You do not understand the distinction between probability and likelihood, but paradoxically you keep pretending that your critics suffer from precisely that deficiency. Whenever a glaring error is found in your reasoning, you mention the word "likelihood" and then, under those colors, go on to suggest algebraic manipulations that are simply not valid in probability theory (which, naturally, includes likelihoods). You are not presumed to be competent in this debate, Jabba, and you must demonstrate the necessary competence by means that transcend your typical bluffing.

And the second sentence is wrong, or at best highly simplified. You keep harping on the one statement as if it somehow corrects all your errors, but you demonstrate in spades that you really don't understand any of those terms as they are used in statistics. You have previously considered jt512 to be an expert and you have previously consulted him. He weighed in on this particular passage and disputed it. Why are you now suddenly disregarding his expertise and once again citing this one solitary source?

Please read that article (or some of it) and show me how it disagrees with my claims.

That article does not fix the errors in your proof, or even address them much. Your ploy is pretty obvious: you're trying to set onerous and time-consuming tasks for your critics that you insinuate are critical to the debate, but which really do not address either your problems or their rebuttals.

Please demonstrate a proficiency in statistical inference that goes beyond mindlessly quoting disputed sources. Simply throwing out a quote, insinuating that it somehow defends your brazenly broken reasoning, and shifting the burden of proof onto your critics is not effective debate. Please explain, using quotes from your source as appropriate, how that source specifically validates your method in the face of your critics' objections.

 

[Jabba]

- That just isn't true. E is a given, but the probability that E would exist -- if H were true -- is very small.
- Back off and assume that we don't know that E exists, and we simply ask how likely is it that E would exist if H is true.

Jabba,

It is true.

P(E) is the denominator in Bayes' Theorem. Since you like the word "likelihood" so much, you'll be happy to know that P(E) is called the marginal likelihood. It is the weighted average of P(E|H) and P(E|~H), where the weights are P(H) and P(~H), respectively. Thus the denominator in Bayes' Theorem is

P(E) = P(E|H)P(H) + P(E|~H)P(~H).

You have stated that P(E) = 1 and that P(H) and P(~H) are both non-zero. If you deny that that implies that P(E|H) = P(E|~H) = 1, then, in the equation below, plug in your favorite values for P(H) and P(~H) and find any values other than 1 for P(E|H) and P(E|~H) for which the equation (below) is true. We will be looking forward to your response.

1 = P(E|H)P(H) + P(E|~H)P(~H).

- I just took about 30 minutes halfway answering your request, and accidentally erased it.
- I'll try again.
- First, I assume that the symbol hilited above is a typo, and should have been "+."

- P(H|E) = P(E|H)*P(H)/(P(E|H)*P(H) + P(E|~H)P(~H))
- P(H|E) = 10^-100 *.99/(10^-100 *.99 + .62 * .01)
- P(H|E) = 10^-100 /(10^-100 + .0062)
- P(H|E) = 10^-100 /.0062
- P(H|E) = 10^-100- P(H|E) = 0
- And,
- P(~H|E) = .0062/(.0062 + 10^-100*.99)
- P(~H|E) = 1.

- I accept that 10^-100 isn't 0, but I do think that it's good enough for government work (I'm retired from government work, but you know what they say about old dogs).