• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

Status
Not open for further replies.
Giordano said:
Everyone who knows me knows I am exceedingly improbable, even more than most other people, so I will be even more immortal than most.

Is this proof going to involve the improbability drive from Hitchikers's Guide?
Click to expand...


Well, I'm so improbable that it is very unlikely that I'm even typing this.

(woops, tsig vanishes in a puff of logic)
 
Jabba said:
- Anyway, you can find my whole story over at http://messiahornot.com/ACT2Scene1.php, and http://messiahornot.com/Act2Scene2.php -- but not to worry, I'll present it right here one step at a time.

Scene 1:

Say that you find a deck of cards in the closet and decide to play some solitaire or something.

You sit down at the table and turn over the first card. It's an ace of spades. You place the ace back in the deck, shuffle the cards and once again, turn over the first card. This time, it's the ace of diamonds. Hmm. So, you try the same thing again. This time, you get the ace of spades again.

'Wait a minute…' You do it one more time, and this time, you get the ace of hearts.

If you’re paying attention, you’re growing suspicious about this deck you found in the closet. You’re starting to suspect that you don’t have the ordinary deck that you had assumed. But, why is that? Why are you suspicious?

You’re suspicious because the probability of drawing that 'hand' is so small if the deck is a normal deck.

Let’s try that again. But, this time, the first card you draw is a 3 of diamonds, the second is a
Jack of spades, the third is a 9 of clubs and the fourth is a 9 of hearts. In this case, you probably are not suspicious.

But, of course you realize that the prrobability of drawing that hand, given a normal deck, is just as small as the probability of drawing that previous hand…

So, what’s the problem here? Why are you not suspicious of this deck, when you were suspicious of the first one?

It turns out that there are two factors causing you to be suspicious of that first deck -- and one is missing in regard to the second deck. There is nothing about the second hand that sets it apart in such a way as to suggest another plausible hypothesis… If there were, you’d be suspicious of that second deck as well. It’s as simple as that…

--- Jabba
Click to expand...

In principle, any sequence of 4 cards is equally likely.

However, any given predetermined sequence has a low probability.

The sequence in your first draw is predetermined, in that we, for reasons that are not important here, hold a hand of 4 aces to be something special.

Of all the possible hands of 4 cards, there is only one hand of 4 aces.
While the other hand you mention is as unique, there is nothing that distinguishes from a random hand. Therefore, it is not special.

For this reason, the first hand has low probability, whereas the second (or one like it) has not.

If you drew the second sequence twice in a row, on the other hand.....

Hans
 
I have a deck of 60 cards. I draw 6 of them...
Card 1: 2 of hearts
Card 2: picture of a crowbar
Card 3: Picture of a red evening dress
Card 4: king of spades
Card 5: Picture of a blunderbuss
Card 6: Picture of a deck of cards

What is the likelihood that I picked those exact cards from that specific deck? 1. It already happened.
 
Jabba said:
Humots,
- I'm sure that calling statistics a "language" does make some sense.
- And whatever, the State University of New York was calling it that in my day (I assume that they still do), and, I myself would call math in general a language.
--- Jabba
Click to expand...


Your assurances, assumptions and opinions are not convincing.

I have a Bachelor's Degree in Applied Mathematics and a Master of Science in Mathematics.

I would not call "math in general" a language in any academic sense. The language I took as part of my MS program was German.

I would appreciate a link to a State University of New York Degree requirements description (or to any other university) listing math as a language in a PhD program.
 
Jabba said:
- Anyway, you can find my whole story over at http://messiahornot.com/ACT2Scene1.php, and http://messiahornot.com/Act2Scene2.php -- but not to worry, I'll present it right here one step at a time.

Scene 1:

Say that you find a deck of cards in the closet and decide to play some solitaire or something.

You sit down at the table and turn over the first card. It's an ace of spades. You place the ace back in the deck, shuffle the cards and once again, turn over the first card. This time, it's the ace of diamonds. Hmm. So, you try the same thing again. This time, you get the ace of spades again.

'Wait a minute…' You do it one more time, and this time, you get the ace of hearts.

If you’re paying attention, you’re growing suspicious about this deck you found in the closet. You’re starting to suspect that you don’t have the ordinary deck that you had assumed. But, why is that? Why are you suspicious?

You’re suspicious because the probability of drawing that 'hand' is so small if the deck is a normal deck.

Let’s try that again. But, this time, the first card you draw is a 3 of diamonds, the second is a
Jack of spades, the third is a 9 of clubs and the fourth is a 9 of hearts. In this case, you probably are not suspicious.

But, of course you realize that the prrobability of drawing that hand, given a normal deck, is just as small as the probability of drawing that previous hand…
So, what’s the problem here? Why are you not suspicious of this deck, when you were suspicious of the first one?

It turns out that there are two factors causing you to be suspicious of that first deck -- and one is missing in regard to the second deck. There is nothing about the second hand that sets it apart in such a way as to suggest another plausible hypothesis… If there were, you’d be suspicious of that second deck as well. It’s as simple as that…

--- Jabba
Click to expand...

1) Concerning the hilited area: No, I don't see a random mix of cards as being as improbable as drawing all aces.

2) Of course, you could quit jerking yourself around by simply turning the deck over, spreading it out and looking at the cards to see if its a normal deck or not. I suppose, if the deck of cards symbolizes reality, then turning the deck over to examine the cards is like investigating reality. You ought to try it sometime.

3) If the probability that you will get all aces is equal to that of a random mix of cards, then, extrapolating from your symbol to reality, you would have to say that any appearance of a pattern is, in reality, illusory. Thus, you've made an atheistic argument. Was this your intention?

4) Is this example supposed to be the beginning of your proof, or is just more mental masturbation?
 
"Certified Statistician" + Another Plausible Hypothesis

Humots said:
Your assurances, assumptions and opinions are not convincing.

I have a Bachelor's Degree in Applied Mathematics and a Master of Science in Mathematics.

I would not call "math in general" a language in any academic sense. The language I took as part of my MS program was German.

I would appreciate a link to a State University of New York Degree requirements description (or to any other university) listing math as a language in a PhD program.
Click to expand...
Humots,

- Whatever -- that is what SUNY called it back in my day, and that's what I based my claim of being a "certified" Statistician upon.
- I suspect that this won't help a lot, but I did work for NY State as a Psychometrician for 25 years. I "put together" emplyment exams and analyzed their results. I usually just say that I "wrote" exams, but in reality, the actual writing was minimal...

- No one here accepts my description of what it is about some highly improbable events that make us suspect that they are not random. How would you describe what it is about some improbable events that makes us suspicious of their "randomality"?

--- Jabba
 
Including the first post, this thread has gone three pages without any discussion of how statistics might prove immortality. Most recently, it appears to be about subjective pattern-finding in otherwise statistically meaningless noise. The thread has been moved to Mathematics. If it drifts back towards religion, it can be moved again. On the other hand, if it drifts towards the OP's personal biography, it will be moved over to Forum Community.
Posted By: Loss Leader
 
Loss Leader said:
Including the first post, this thread has gone three pages without any discussion of how statistics might prove immortality.
Posted By: Loss Leader
Click to expand...

I'm sure that very soon Jabba will tell us how he's planning to post something at some point in the future. That will be followed by another post explaining why he hasn't posted anything on-topic in his own thread yet. That will then be followed by another post telling us that it's taking him longer than he thought it would to post something, but that such a posting will be forthcoming at some point.

I imagine we've got about 20-40 pages to go before he actually posts something beyond what he already has.
 
Jabba said:
what it is about some highly improbable events
Click to expand...
Drawing a card from a deck of cards isn't "improbable" though. You see the cards, you pick a card. The chances of your card being a card are 1 in 1. The chances of your card being a banana are less likely.

Just cut to the freaking chase for once. What's your point?
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
- No one here accepts my description of what it is about some highly improbable events that make us suspect that they are not random. How would you describe what it is about some improbable events that makes us suspicious of their "randomality"?

--- Jabba
Click to expand...
Our human tendency towards pattern-finding. Very useful for most of our recorded history, when working out whether the stripy pattern at the edge of the clearing is a hungry tiger, or just some grass. Not quite so useful in a modern world where we ascribe more value to one printed shape on a card than a different printed shape.

Jabba, where are you going with this? Humans have a tendency to see patterns. Not all the patterns we see are meaningful.

Our existence in this tiny part of a vast universe stems from us having evolved to survive on a small part of this particular planet. It's incredibly improbable but it happened, and here we are.

None of this is anything to do with immortality, and since you started this thread almost 48 hours ago, you've yet to lay out what your 'proof' of immortality is. Just post it!
 
Jabba said:
- No one here accepts my description of what it is about some highly improbable events that make us suspect that they are not random. How would you describe what it is about some improbable events that makes us suspicious of their "randomality"?

--- Jabba
Click to expand...


I believe the word you are looking for is randomness, Mr. Statistician. No need to make up new words.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
Humots,

- Whatever -- that is what SUNY called it back in my day, and that's what I based my claim of being a "certified" Statistician upon.
- I suspect that this won't help a lot, but I did work for NY State as a Psychometrician for 25 years. I "put together" employment exams and analyzed their results. I usually just say that I "wrote" exams, but in reality, the actual writing was minimal...
Click to expand...


"Whatever". What a brilliant response. Sure puts me in my place. :rolleyes:

And no, it doesn't help a lot.

Jabba said:
- No one here accepts my description of what it is about some highly improbable events that make us suspect that they are not random. How would you describe what it is about some improbable events that makes us suspicious of their "randomality"?
Click to expand...
  • That the specific event was predicted before it occurred.
  • That the specific event actually occurred as predicted.
Yes, drawing four aces from a regular deck is very unlikely.

But the scenario you are actually describing is not that four aces were drawn. Four cards were drawn and you are claiming that they are "aces".
 
Jabba said:
How would you describe what it is about some improbable events that makes us suspicious of their "randomality"?
Click to expand...

You don't need to ask this question of me, as you already have my answer:

Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Because human beings have an in-built biological tendency to see significance where there is none, and to see patterns where there are none.
Click to expand...

You might not like this answer but it does happen to be true. Please don't do what you're doing in the other thread and ignore any answers which are inconvenient. As I said when I posted that, I'm sorry that that undermines everything you're about to say before you've even said it, but that's because a) you're wrong and b) you've not actually posted the information that should have been in the OP even 48 hours after you started the thread.
 
ace.jpg


OK, So if I understand this right, I just shuffled a deck and this was the top card;

Therefore I am immortal!
 
Last edited:
I want to be immortal too! Where's my deck of cards!

...uh-oh, I drew the Ace of Spades, but it's upside down. Does that mean I was never born? :covereyes hold me, I'm scared
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom