[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Click to expand...


Are you really so far down the rabbit hole that you've actually convinced yourself that Pixel42 is the only person that can't make any sense out of the utter balderdash that you're posting here?



Jabba said:
- Whatever, can you say something about what it is in my last attempt that doesn't make sense?
Click to expand...


I can.

All of it.
 
xtifr said:
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...
Click to expand...
xtifr,
- I couldn't find your last question.
 
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...

So in preference, you invent a model which says that anyone who ever won the lottery has actually won it every single week, they just didn't know about it. And you say this is a more likely explanation.

I am underwhelmed by your arguments.
 
lenny said:
First I think it is important to always note what you are conditioning on, the background information "I" which informs your probabilities, P(x |data, I).

Second, I think it is useful to evaluate the probability you expected to observe, under the assumption that I holds and your probability (forecast, in my case) is True.

Skill scores for probability forecast systems are useful both for seeing how good one system is relative to another, and (some of them) can be used to see how surprised you "should" be give a specific outcome. A poor score is surprising only if a good score was to be expected, given the probability forecast issued.

I cannot follow the whole of jabba's argument, but it seems suggest the observed value has too low a probability to happen by chance. It appears to me that the expected probability assigned to the outcome (that is, the value corresponding to an outcome determined by the true probability distribution) is vanishingly small. Thus it is no surprise that the probability of the observed outcome is vanishingly small.

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. I do not claim this is the first time this basic idea has been stated on this thread.
Click to expand...
Lenny,
- This thread HAS addressed this issue before, but this issue IS the issue that most "worries" me -- and, your expression of it (especially where I've hilited) is probably the best I've seen (at least for me).

- Simplefied somewhat, my question has been, ‘We’re comparing two hypotheses: 1) We “selves” exist for one finite lifetime at most, and 2) We selves exist continuously. Given that I currently exist, which thesis has the greatest posterior probability?’
- Superficially at least, the answer is #2.
- Can you explain why that is not the case?
 
Given the "uniqe brain" hypothesis, you do not expect a low probabiity outcome, for the very simple reason that there is also a high probability outcome.

The high probability outcome is the near certainty that you, specifically, should never have seen the light of day at all. Not once, not ever. But that is not the outcome you are observing, in case you haven't noticed.

Furthermore, it wouldn't matter anyway if all the possible outcomes were low probability, in terms of the expectation of observing a specific one. There happens to be a vast difference between the sum of all low probability events, versus a specific low probability event:

The sum of all low probability events = 0.999999....
One specific low probability event=0.000000....1

That's why the likelhood of observing a random lottery winner is far greater than the likelihood of observing yourself winning.

In case any of you were wondering why other people keep winning the lottery but you never do.
 
Last edited:
Toontown said:
Given the "uniqe brain" hypothesis, you do not expect a low probabiity outcome, for the very simple reason that there is also a high probability outcome.

The high probability outcome is the near certainty that you, specifically, should never have seen the light of day at all. Not once, not ever. But that is not the outcome you are observing, in case you haven't noticed.

Furthermore, it wouldn't matter anyway if all the possible outcomes were low probability, in terms of the expectation of observing a specific one. There happens to be a vast difference between the sum of all low probability events, versus a specific low probability event:

The sum of all low probability events = 0.999999....
One specific low probability event=0.000000....1

That's why the likelhood of observing a random lottery winner is far greater than the likelihood of observing yourself winning.

In case any of you were wondering why other people keep winning the lottery but you never do.
Click to expand...
Toon,
- I'm olde and dense, but I don't really understand what you're saying. I'll need to ask one baby question at a time.
- I'm assuming that the "unique brain" hypothesis is #2, above -- that each of us selves exist continuously. Is that correct?
 
Jabba said:
Toon,
- Or, does the "unique brain" hypothesis underly #1...
Click to expand...

That's it. Ye olde #1.

One incomprehensibly complex unique organism occurring at one unique set of spacetime coordinates, or bust.

"Bust" meaning nothingness forever.

And I'm getting this deja vu all over feeling again.

Actually, my post was directed mostly to lenny and others who don't seem to recognize that it is the presumed high probability nothingness they are not experiencing, which is actually the other possibility implied by #1.

And then there is the larger crowd who don't seem to differientiate between the sum of all low probability events and a specified one, leading them to say things like "So? Unlikely things happen all the time."
 
Last edited:
Toon,
- I think we won! Maybe, we should try to collect our million dollars from Randi...
 
Jabba said:
Toon,
- I think we won! Maybe, we should try to collect our million dollars from Randi...
Click to expand...

:pigsfly

I'm afraid collecting that million from Randi is one of those extremely low probability events that we, specifically, will never see.
 
Toon,

- Clearly, getting that million dollars would, itself, be a miracle -- but, I do want to do what I can to provoke more debate. I would like the members of the Randi forum to give it their best shot. I still have some questions myself -- but, I also have other possible answers...

- So now, I'd like to pose the issue to the administrators.
- First, I'd like to find out if a probability of one over infinity for the thesis that we selves exist for one finite lifetime at most, would be considered "proof" that the thesis is wrong. I assume that it would not be considered proof, but as we say in New York re the lottery, 'Hey! You never know!'
- Next, I'd like to make sure that "immortality" is considered "supernatural.
- Whatever, I'd like to pose our challenge to the administration and see where they go with it...

- Unfortunately, the last time I tried to ask a question to the administrators, I didn't get an answer. I probably did something wrong, so I'd like to get you involved to make sure that I do everything right this time.
- Thanks.
 
HighRiser,
- Thanks. As you probably know, I'm always in a rush -- and in this case, I can't even claim that I forgot about the MDC topic. I doubt that it ever "registered" with me.
- Anyway, that sounds like the appropriate place to start. I'll give it a try.
 
Pardon my obtuseness, but what does all this have to do with immortality which after all does not exist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom