[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
Pixel,
- The chances of the sequence of events that produced my individual consciousness occurring even once is vanishingly small is according to the current scientific model that I will only exist, at most, for one, finite lifetime.
Click to expand...
Didn't you put the number derived from "the current scientific model" into your equation? So aren't you trying to use data from a model to prove that model is wrong?

What model, scientific or otherwise, says that the chances of an extremely unlikely event occurring multiple times is greater than the chances of it occurring just once?

Infinitely alive means that you will never cease to exist.
Click to expand...
And have always existed, presumably. Which, considering that's not true of the universe which gave rise to me, seems manifestly absurd.

Where was I during my infinitely long existence up to the moment of my birth?
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- Re #1, according to Bayesian statistics, it does follow from this that the alternate model is more likely to be true than the standard naturalistic model.
Click to expand...

It really doesn't. You're confusing two separate things: the probability of something existing, and the probability of a model being correct. They are not related.
 
I'm familiar with Bayesian statistics and they are not used in the way you are using them here.

In a rigged poker game, I am more likely to be holding a straight flush than in a regular poker game (assuming it's rigged in my favor). That does not mean that if I am dealt a straight flush, I can concluded that the game is rigged in my favor.
 
Last edited:
godless dave said:
I'm familiar with Bayesian statistics and they are not used in the way you are using them here.

In a rigged poker game, I am more likely to be holding a straight flush than in a regular poker game (assuming it's rigged in my favor). That does not mean that if I am dealt a straight flush, I can concluded that the game is rigged in my favor.
Click to expand...
Dave,

- Here's what I think.
- The "likelihood" of getting an excellent hand when the game is rigged in my favor is only one of the two numbers needed in order to effectively evaluate the "posterior probability" of the game being rigged. The other number needed is the "prior probability" of the game being rigged. It's this latter probability that we naturally, also, take into account when evaluating this situation.
 
Pixel42 said:
If the chances of the sequence of events that produced my individual consciousness occurring even once is vanishingly small then surely the chances of that individual consciousness occurring multiple times is a hell of a lot smaller?

And what on earth does "infinitely alive" mean?
Click to expand...
…
Jabba said:
Pixel,
- The chances of the sequence of events that produced my individual consciousness occurring even once is vanishingly small is according to the current scientific model that I will only exist, at most, for one, finite lifetime.
- Infinitely alive means that you will never cease to exist.
Click to expand...
…
Pixel42 said:
Didn't you put the number derived from "the current scientific model" into your equation? So aren't you trying to use data from a model to prove that model is wrong?

What model, scientific or otherwise, says that the chances of an extremely unlikely event occurring multiple times is greater than the chances of it occurring just once?...
Click to expand...
Pixel,
- I see what you’re saying -- but the “trick” is that in the equation here, my existence is a given. So given that I do exist, which model is more likely to account for my current existence?
- Bayesian statistics sure seems to say that the non-scientific model is more likely.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
Garrette,
- Do you accept that the sum probability of at least one of my claims being true supplies sufficient prior probability that my NSM is true in order to validly consider my NSM in the Bayesian formula?
Click to expand...
Sorry. Real life pulled me away, and threatens to continue to do so. Haven't read all the posts since my last one, and I want to catch up and think a bit before responding. Not sure how long it will take.
 
Garrette said:
Sorry. Real life pulled me away, and threatens to continue to do so. Haven't read all the posts since my last one, and I want to catch up and think a bit before responding. Not sure how long it will take.
Click to expand...
Garrette,
- Thanks for letting me know. And good luck with whatever.
 
Jay, Humots, Lenny, xtifr,
- Any of you guys still around? I can't believe that you don't have any objections to my argument at this point.
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- Can you point me to those objections?
Click to expand...

Sure:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9618197&postcount=853

lenny said:
If you are forecasting over a huge (finite) number of possible outcomes then, in the case some are high probability and others are very very low probability, it is surprising to observe a low probability outcome.

But if every possible outcome is carries a very very low probability, then you expect a low probability outcome, you just don't know which one.
Click to expand...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9596456&postcount=653

Agatha said:
Can you justify your figures?

Why is the probability of 'you' given the 'non-scientific model' 0.9?

Why is the probability of the 'non-scientific model' 0.01?

Don't justify them by saying they are the 1-(the probability you guessed for you given the scientific model) and 1-(the probability you guessed for the scientific model); I realise that is how you arrived at the numbers. I am asking you to justify the numbers as if you had started at this side of the equation, not the other side.

Explain why you think the 'non scientific model' has a one in a hundred chance of being the correct explanation. Explain why you think the chance of you (your consciousness) existing given the 'non scientific model' is an enormous 9 in 10 chance.
Click to expand...
 
Jabba said:
Jay, Humots, Lenny, xtifr,
- Any of you guys still around? I can't believe that you don't have any objections to my argument at this point.
Click to expand...
You don't include me in your list but for the record I have stopped responding because I have given up trying to make sense of your posts.
 
Pixel42 said:
You don't include me in your list but for the record I have stopped responding because I have given up trying to make sense of your posts.
Click to expand...
- But Pixel, you gotta admit that a particular person not being able to make sense of what I'm saying, doesn't necessarily mean that what I'm saying doesn't make sense.
- Whatever, can you say something about what it is in my last attempt that doesn't make sense?
 
Jabba said:
- But Pixel, you gotta admit that a particular person not being able to make sense of what I'm saying, doesn't necessarily mean that what I'm saying doesn't make sense.
- Whatever, can you say something about what it is in my last attempt that doesn't make sense?
Click to expand...

Let me be quite clear here. Your nonsense is worthless. Your pretense of forgetting is transparent, and you have, in this and other threads caused me to question your honesty.

This may indeed be my opinion, but I suspect I will not be alone in that conclusion. But I will take that yellow card which is likely inevitable for speaking the truth. Because you are in fact a covert rules lawyer, and I am tired, exhausted with your ongoing equivocation.

I will take and accept that card in the cause of truth. You sir, are abusing the rules of this forum.
 
Pixel42 said:
You don't include me in your list but for the record I have stopped responding because I have given up trying to make sense of your posts.
Click to expand...

I was included in the list, but my reasons for not responding are very similar. Insofar as I have been able to follow the tenuous line of reasoning, others seem to have been addressing it well enough for my purposes.

For that matter, it's been a while, but I don't remember seeing a full response to my last question. But I may be losing track...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom