[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[godless dave]

I'm claiming that the likelihood -- before I occur -- of me actually occurring -- based upon the existing model -- either "approaches zero," or is just unimaginably small.

Neither phrase is very precise. "Approaches zero" means something in calculus, but I don't think that's the way you're using it here. "Unimaginably" small isn't precise enough to be meaningful. How small? What's the number?

But this is all beside the point. The likelihood of events leading to a particular person existing is very small. The likelihood of events leading to a person existing is very large.

If I'm standing in a snowstorm (I live in Minnesota so I expect this to happen within the next two weeks), and I pluck a particular snowflake off my coat and put it under a microsope, I will see a complex arrangement of ice crystals that came about because of a particular series of events happened a certain way. And yet there are thousands of these individual snowflakes, each with a slightly different unlikely crystal structure, falling all around me.

 

[Garrette]

Garrette,

- I still claim that "friendly" debate tends to be much more constructive than does "unfriendly" debate. A lot of the time, you (in particular) do seem to be friendly when addressing my arguments. Above however, when you say, "No. There are two glaring errors, both of which have been pointed out more than once:" you don't sound very friendly.
- In trying to be friendly, I would have said, "I think that there are actually two errors, and that both have been claimed previously." -- or, something like that. I would add "I think," drop "glaring" and change "pointed out" to "claimed." I think that would have given your respondent (me) more (at least subconscious) incentive to be open-minded about your claim...

- Using Bayesian terminology, the probability of an event occurring based upon the existing model (here, one finite life) -- before the event occurs -- is called the "likelihood." I'm claiming that the likelihood -- before I occur -- of me actually occurring -- based upon the existing model -- either "approaches zero," or is just unimaginably small.
- That's a lot to say in one gulp. Hopefully, it doesn't just further confuse the issue.

Hmmmm.... I am going to attempt to write this in a way that comes across as friendly, because that is how I mean it, but I am simultaneously not going to try to worry too much about the trappings as opposed to the substance.

I think that your analysis of my tone demonstrates two things, even if they are not what is intended in your communication.

First, in discussion of friendly vs non-friendly debate, it indicates that you are more concerned with form than with substance and will not engage if a form offends even though the substance sticks. I think I have said in the Shroud threads that I prefer the opposite. I can handle even blatant incivility if the substance is there beneath it. No one, of course, is obligated to put up with incivility, but if your goal is actually seeking a valid conclusion as opposed to dictating decorum, then my own opinion is that effectiveness of debate can and should be divorced from tone.

Second, while I agree that I did not wrap my post in niceties, I really do not see any rudeness in it, though there is directness. Your criticisms, therefore, seem a bit nitpicky to me. I can try to tone the bluntness down a bit because I would like to continue discussion, but I will not promise to do it always or to the level of your preference and certainly not when my limited eloquence would suffer if I aimed for softness over clarity.

That's the general stuff. About the particulars of my posting style, I think I may have shared this before on the forum, too, but perhaps not. In both real life and in person I am quite civil, calm, and decorous when one of three things is true:

1. The formal situation calls for it
2. I do not yet have a good feel for my interlocutor
3. I do not have the greatest respect for the relevant skills or knowledge of my interlocutor

In real life, when I have had my most boisterous, noisome, and to-an-outside-observer downright rude exchanges, it has been when my opponent and I have shared a very high level of mutual respect. We knew each other could take it.

Take for instance this thread's exchanges with Toontown. I think that any outside observer would categorize a large portion of Toontown's posts as some form of boorish, obnoxious, rude, and/or insulting, yet I continued to engage him, sometimes giving back a bit of what I got. The point being that the substance of his posts is separate from their tone, and he certainly does not come across as someone who can't handle some verbal rough-housing.

And so my exchanges with you. I don't think it is appropriate on this forum to get as boisterous as my real life exchanges have done, but I also do not feel that you need to be molly coddled. Am I wrong?

 

[Jabba]

Neither phrase is very precise. "Approaches zero" means something in calculus, but I don't think that's the way you're using it here. "Unimaginably" small isn't precise enough to be meaningful. How small? What's the number?

But this is all beside the point. The likelihood of events leading to a particular person existing is very small. The likelihood of events leading to a person existing is very large.

If I'm standing in a snowstorm (I live in Minnesota so I expect this to happen within the next two weeks), and I pluck a particular snowflake off my coat and put it under a microsope, I will see a complex arrangement of ice crystals that came about because of a particular series of events happened a certain way. And yet there are thousands of these individual snowflakes, each with a slightly different unlikely crystal structure, falling all around me.

Dave,
- As I understand what you're saying, you're pointing out that there is no reason to think that this one in a billion snowflake isn't just random. I agree. I can't think of any other somewhat reasonable explanation for that snowflake.
- However, as to the question of me (IMO, at least), I (and many intelligent people) can think of other somewhat reasonable explanations.

 

[Garrette]

Dave,
- As I understand what you're saying, you're pointing out that there is no reason to think that this one in a billion snowflake isn't just random. I agree. I can't think of any other somewhat reasonable explanation for that snowflake.
- However, as to the question of me (IMO, at least), I (and many intelligent people) can think of other somewhat reasonable explanations.

Jabba, I think we get that. I know I do, and I am fairly certain that godless dave does. The question is why do you think that?

So far, what you have in effect said is Because the me has consciousness/sentience, but that isn't an argument.

 

[godless dave]

Jabba, I think we get that. I know I do, and I am fairly certain that godless dave does. The question is why do you think that?

So far, what you have in effect said is Because the me has consciousness/sentience, but that isn't an argument.

What Garrette said.

 

[lenny]

Hmmmm.... I am going to attempt to write this in a way that comes across as friendly, because that is how I mean it, but I am simultaneously not going to try to worry too much about the trappings as opposed to the substance.
...snip...
if your goal is actually seeking a valid conclusion as opposed to dictating decorum, then my own opinion is that effectiveness of debate can and should be divorced from tone.

agreed. as long as the information is clear and concise.

 

[Toontown]

What we have here is a failure to acknowledge the difference between objective probability and conditional probability.

Classical probability is conditional. This means the probabilities associated with a particular random observation can and often do vary with the observer and/or the circumstances. Every random observation carries information which may or may not be useful to a random observer. And the information carried by the random event may well be different for different observers.

I'm playing holdem. I started with AA. The river card is the 3 of clubs. I see nothing special about it. It doesn't pair the board or create a straight or flush threat. There is no reason to think the random card changed anything. I correctly assess, based on the information available to me, that I am the probable winner of the pot.

However, the lowly random 3 has transmitted entirely different information to my opponent, who happens to be holding pocket 3's. My opponent correctly assesses, based on the information available to him, that he is the probable winner of the pot.

I correctly bet. My opponent correctly raises. Entirely or in part because of the same random 3, which transmitted different information to each of us.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- As I understand what you're saying, you're pointing out that there is no reason to think that this one in a billion snowflake isn't just random. I agree. I can't think of any other somewhat reasonable explanation for that snowflake.
- However, as to the question of me (IMO, at least), I (and many intelligent people) can think of other somewhat reasonable explanations.

I'm not sure you're getting the point of what I'm saying.

In a snowstorm, the likelihood of any particular snowflake shape is very small.

But there are thousands of snowflakes. We might have trouble predicting which shapes those snowflakes will take, but we know that there will be thousands of snowflakes and that each one will have a particular shape. The combination of events that leads to snowflakes being formed will happen, so even though the likelihood of a particular shape is small, that doesn't mean that it is unexpected or remarkable that thousands of snowflakes will form.

 

[lenny]

Yes, I did see it coming, and I do cry foul.

yes. you did cry foul.
but you did not provide criticism or counter example. for the most part you repeated your opinion from past posts. the conclusion "Probability one, no surprise" stands.

two small possible hints of new direction

Bayes, schmayes.

if you want to have a robust discussion of interesting questions of probability, the framework matters. as i suggested, the entire question might look different in a frequentist framework.
or you can introduce another notion of probability. but under Bayes "Probability one, no surprise" stands (so far).

At this point, I'm not sure you know that probability can be used to test a hypothesis. You seem to be denying the validity of data as a statistical test because it already exists.

i have some experience in such matters. i pointed to this general issue in my post and am in no way denying the use of existing (but unknown) data. (while noting that true out-of-sample data is always to be preferred statistically [and in physics])

the exception is when "you" yourself are an element in the data. in this case there is no chance that any data will yield "not you", meaning turn out "you" do not exist. Probability one, no surprise.

Wierd how that nonexistence stuff works, isn't it. Not surprising that you don't know anything about it, never having had any dealings with it.

as it happens, much of my day job deals with things which arguably do not exist.

We will see what Mama will and will not allow.

well we may not read the same books, but we hear the same tunes.

ain't no chang'n the weather.

 

[Toontown]

yes. you did cry foul.
but you did not provide criticism or counter example.

Criticism of what? Counter example to what?

I don't know what you want. You say stuff, I say stuff back.

for the most part you repeated your opinion from past posts. the conclusion "Probability one, no surprise" stands.

What am I supposed to do? If you don't get it, you don't get it.

You flatter yourself. That highlighted part is not a conclusion. At best, it's an opinion. I'm unsure whether it even qualifies as an opinion.

if you want to have a robust discussion of interesting questions of probability, the framework matters. as i suggested, the entire question might look different in a frequentist framework.
or you can introduce another notion of probability. but under Bayes "Probability one, no surprise" stands (so far).

Not existing would also be probability one, that you don't exist. Whether the situation that exist is in fact the situation that exists, is not the question. The question usually arises after an expected probability distribution has collapsed to 1 from it's previous uncertain state. A question may then arise as to the implications thereof.

i have some experience in such matters. i pointed to this general issue in my post and am in no way denying the use of existing (but unknown) data.

How is "unknown data" used, for either analysis or testing? What does "unknown data" mean?

I'll conditionally assume you're talking about data used for testing, as opposed to data used for analysis. But you have to look at the testing data to use it for testing.

the exception is when "you" yourself are an element in the data.

And there it is. The arbitrary, magical exception.

in this case there is no chance that any data will yield "not you", meaning turn out "you" do not exist. Probability one, no surprise.

Nonsense. Nonexistence yields "not you", the expectation of which was roughly giganogargantuan, per the stated hypothesis you asked for. Which rightly wouldn't cast any doubt on the hypothesis at all, so it doesn't matter anyway.

But oddly, that supposed near-certainty did not come to pass. The other expectation did. The one the hypothesis says has an expectation of roughly 1/infinity.

You're correct in assuming your existence doesn't tell anyone else anything about the credibility of the hypothesis. Because your existence does not transmit the same information to them that it does to you. However, their existence does transmit similar information to them. But not to you.

as it happens, much of my day job deals with things which arguably do not exist.

That statement itself proves my assertion that you know nothing about nonexistence. If these "things" have any properties at all, they exist.

 

[lenny]

So there was this guy who won the lottery, was invited to join a sooper-sekrit club for lottery winners, and went around the whole time saying "So, you won the lottery too, huh? Man, what are the odds?"

Can someone tell me whether this thread's any more profound than the observations of Mr Not-So-Bright the lottery winner? Because I'm not seeing it.

i think that sums up the central flaw rather well.

but what if he recognized everyone else in the club as a girl he dated in high school? or someone with the same birthday as his?

and went around the whole time saying "So, you won the lottery too, huh? Man, what are the odds?"

 

[Toontown]

So there was this guy who won the lottery, was invited to join a sooper-sekrit club for lottery winners, and went around the whole time saying "So, you won the lottery too, huh? Man, what are the odds?"

i think that sums up the central flaw rather well.

but what if he recognized everyone else in the club as a girl he dated in high school? or someone with the same birthday as his?

4 immediately obvious reasons why that analogy does not apply to me:

1. I do not consider it the least bit unlikely that people win the lottery. The probability that people win the lottery converges on 1.

2. The probability that I, specifically, would find myself among the lottery winners converges on zero.

3. I would therefore correctly be surprised to find myself among the lucky winners, and correctly unsurprised that other lottery winners exist.

4. I do not consider my current sentient experience an unlikely event, because I reject the unique brain hypothesis on the grounds that it flunked my frog's eye observation.

So. One more time.

I would correctly be surprised if I won the lottery, because there is no way to eliminate the cause of my hypothetical surprise at winning the lottery (15 million to 1, assuming I find a ticket or someone gives me one)

I am not surprised that I exist, because, correctly or incorrectly, I have rejected the cause of surprise (unique brain hypothesis--> 1/infinity)

OK, one more time.

I would correctly be surprised if I won the lottery.

I am not surprised to be experiencing sentience.

 

[Garrette]

4 immediately obvious reasons why that analogy does not apply to me:

1. I do not consider it the least bit unlikely that people win the lottery. The probability that people win the lottery converges on 1.

2. The probability that I, specifically, would find myself among the lottery winners converges on zero.

3. I would therefore correctly be surprised to find myself among the lucky winners, and correctly unsurprised that other lottery winners exist.

4. I do not consider my current sentient experience an unlikely event, because I reject the unique brain hypothesis on the grounds that it flunked my frog's eye observation.

So. One more time.

I would correctly be surprised if I won the lottery, because there is no way to eliminate the cause of my hypothetical surprise at winning the lottery (15 million to 1, assuming I find a ticket or someone gives me one)

I am not surprised that I exist, because, correctly or incorrectly, I have rejected the cause of surprise (unique brain hypothesis--> 1/infinity)

OK, one more time.

I would correctly be surprised if I won the lottery.

I am not surprised to be experiencing sentience.

Hmmmm.... so in the case of lottery winners you are an anti-solipsist, but in the case of sentient existence you are a solipsist but only because everyone is?

 

[Toontown]

Hmmmm.... so in the case of lottery winners you are an anti-solipsist, but in the case of sentient existence you are a solipsist but only because everyone is?

Your tentative conclusion does not follow from my premises.

I'm quite certain a great number of sentiences exist. I just did away with a failed hypothesis, which cleared things up nicely.

 

[Garrette]

Your tentative conclusion does not follow from my premises.

I'm quite certain a great number of sentiences exist. I just did away with a failed hypothesis, which cleared things up nicely.

Not that I wasn't mostly serious before, but here's a fully serious question: What is it that led you to draw different conclusions regarding lottery winners and sentience? Was it merely the degree of giganogargantuan odds or was it some characteristic of sentience itself?

 

[Toontown]

Not that I wasn't mostly serious before, but here's a fully serious question: What is it that led you to draw different conclusions regarding lottery winners and sentience? Was it merely the degree of giganogargantuan odds or was it some characteristic of sentience itself?

I'm just playing the odds. I simply do not expect to beat giganogargantuan odds. I think it would be utterly stupid to expect to beat such odds, and equally stupid to believe I have done so if there is a less stupid alternative.

Obviously I think it would be utterly stupid to seriously believe I've beaten the giganogargantuan odds the "unique brain" hypo stacks against me.

Obviously, I have to see something about the nature of the alternative that I think makes it the less stupid choice.

You, on the other hand, say "merely the degree of giganogargantuan odds" as if it's nothing.

 

[lenny]

4 immediately obvious reasons why that analogy does not apply to me:

Toontown, it was not addressed to you. it was addressed to Recovering Agnostic and those who accepted the lottery analogy (you didn't).

 

[Jabba]

Hmmmm.... I am going to attempt to write this in a way that comes across as friendly, because that is how I mean it, but I am simultaneously not going to try to worry too much about the trappings as opposed to the substance.

I think that your analysis of my tone demonstrates two things, even if they are not what is intended in your communication.

First, in discussion of friendly vs non-friendly debate, it indicates that you are more concerned with form than with substance and will not engage if a form offends even though the substance sticks. I think I have said in the Shroud threads that I prefer the opposite. I can handle even blatant incivility if the substance is there beneath it. No one, of course, is obligated to put up with incivility, but if your goal is actually seeking a valid conclusion as opposed to dictating decorum, then my own opinion is that effectiveness of debate can and should be divorced from tone.

Second, while I agree that I did not wrap my post in niceties, I really do not see any rudeness in it, though there is directness. Your criticisms, therefore, seem a bit nitpicky to me. I can try to tone the bluntness down a bit because I would like to continue discussion, but I will not promise to do it always or to the level of your preference and certainly not when my limited eloquence would suffer if I aimed for softness over clarity.

That's the general stuff. About the particulars of my posting style, I think I may have shared this before on the forum, too, but perhaps not. In both real life and in person I am quite civil, calm, and decorous when one of three things is true:

1. The formal situation calls for it
2. I do not yet have a good feel for my interlocutor
3. I do not have the greatest respect for the relevant skills or knowledge of my interlocutor

In real life, when I have had my most boisterous, noisome, and to-an-outside-observer downright rude exchanges, it has been when my opponent and I have shared a very high level of mutual respect. We knew each other could take it.

Take for instance this thread's exchanges with Toontown. I think that any outside observer would categorize a large portion of Toontown's posts as some form of boorish, obnoxious, rude, and/or insulting, yet I continued to engage him, sometimes giving back a bit of what I got. The point being that the substance of his posts is separate from their tone, and he certainly does not come across as someone who can't handle some verbal rough-housing.

And so my exchanges with you. I don't think it is appropriate on this forum to get as boisterous as my real life exchanges have done, but I also do not feel that you need to be molly coddled. Am I wrong?

Garrette,

- Wow! I could never give a coherent response to your response in the time it took you to give a coherent response to my response... I seem to be at a decided disadvantage here...

- Anyway, in my case, molly coddling might be a good thing...
- I would certainly enjoy the discussion much more if you could refrain from hints of disrespect. And too, doing so probably would help me in being somewhat open-minded...
- I was being "nitpicky," above -- but, I was because I am enjoying our conversation, and, for the most part you're very civil...
- Whatever, I should probably drop this issue (for now, at least)...
- Back to substance.

 

[Jabba]

Jabba, I think we get that. I know I do, and I am fairly certain that godless dave does. The question is why do you think that?

So far, what you have in effect said is Because the me has consciousness/sentience, but that isn't an argument.

Garrette,

- It seems to me, for instance, that reincarnation is a reasonable possibility. You probably don't think much of the evidence -- but, I'm impressed by some of it.

- Some of the claimed evidence for near death experiences also seems pretty impressive.

- And then, I suspect that "now" isn't what we think it is.
- Most likely such a claim just sounds weird -- but for some reason, I "intuit"(?) real meaning to it. One way to begin alluding to this intuition of mine is, to wonder what's happening "now" a million light years away? Does "now" stretch across this universe?
- Another thing to think about is a different version of "Groundhog Day," the movie. What if something like the movie is true, only nothing changes? Our film just keeps re-playing, and we're "never" the wiser. Maybe, people in the future will be wiser, and discover in their one lifetime, the truth... What do later generations do about that? (Weird, huh?)

- What if this issue for us is like calculus to a worm?

- We humans seem to think two different ways -- "analytically," and "holistically." Apparently, this difference is the product of having two different cerebral hemispheres -- one processes data analytically, while the other processes holistically.
- Some of us humans sense -- or imagine -- something we call "transcendence." Apparently, from my readings, the analytic hemisphere is "transcendence blind." Re transcendence, this hemisphere does not sense -- or, imagine -- what the other hemisphere does sense -- or imagine...
- Maybe, transcendence is real, and the analytic hemisphere really is transcendence blind.

- And then, I suspect that our belief in mortality is much less supported than we tend to think that it is. Why do we tend to think that we have but one, finite life anyway?
- Mostly, I think that's because we don't remember existing before the current life, and no one seems to be around afterwords.
- Couldn't it be that we simply forget previous lives, and that we go into a different "plane" or "dimension" (or something) after our previous lives?

 

[Toontown]

Toontown, it was not addressed to you. it was addressed to Recovering Agnostic and those who accepted the lottery analogy (you didn't).

Thanks. Just wanted to verify that my provisional membership had been cancelled.

FYI, there are actually 2 lottery winners clubs: the one you're referencing, and the Not Surprised Lottery Winners club, whose members meet to discuss how completely unremarkable it is that they have won the lottery, and how foolish those Lottery Winners Club members are for thinking otherwise.