[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

Status
Not open for further replies.
Toontown said:
The football game analogy is so wrong on so many levels that I may have missed a few levels.
Click to expand...
that is the nature of a good illustration of a fallacy.

it illustrates why one cannot use any calculation regarding the probability of one's existence to support a hypothesis. or attack a hypothesis for that matter.

given that one must exist to argue, then the probability of one's existing is one.
 
lenny said:
that is the nature of a good illustration of a fallacy.

it illustrates why one cannot use any calculation regarding the probability of one's existence to support a hypothesis. or attack a hypothesis for that matter.

given that one must exist to argue, then the probability of one's existing is one.
Click to expand...

Your assertion is itself a fallacy. Your dogmatic rule is conditionally feckless, and I can prove it with another analogy.

A wealthy philanthropist with a reputation for honesty offers you an opportunity to play a possibly very lucrative game. The object of the game is to make a wager on your ability to correctly accept or reject a hypothesis. Under a certain condition, you will be allowed to wager any amount up to and including your entire bank of $100000. If you win, you will be paid even money on your wager.

You are presented with a table on which sits 2 large opaque urns. Behind the urns stands a dealer. The rules of the game are as follows:

One of the urns contains 999999 black pearls and 1 white pearl.

One of the urns contains 1000000 white pearls and 0 black pearls.

The philanthropist informs you that no one present knows which urn contains the black pearls.

The dealer informs you that he will randomly select an urn by rolling a die and randomly select a pearl from it.

The philanthropist further informs you that the hypothesis you must successfully accept or reject is the proposition that the dealer has drawn from the container containing 999999 black pearls and 1 white pearl.

The dealer further informs you that there is a precondition: you will only be allowed to wager if a white pearl is drawn.

Needless to say, if you can do simple math, you accept the proposition. The dealer promptly draws a white pearl and places it before you, all pearly white and probability 1. The philanthropist informs you that you have won the opportunity to make a wager and accept or reject the hypothesis that the dealer has drawn from the urn containing 999999 black pearls and 1 white pearl.

Do the math, and then tell me how much of your stack you will wager, and whether you accept or reject the hypothesis.

Like I said. The guy is a philanthropist. And your assertion is a fallacy.
 
Last edited:
Toontown said:
Your assertion is itself a fallacy. Your dogmatic rule is conditionally feckless, and I can prove it with another analogy.
Click to expand...
Really? OK.

Toontown said:
A wealthy philanthropist (who doesn't exist) with a reputation for honesty (according to whom? Any character references?) offers you an opportunity to play a possibly very lucrative game (which you just made up out of whole cloth). The object of the game is to make a wager on your ability to correctly accept or reject a hypothesis (I reject your game and raise you one reality).

Under a certain condition, you will be allowed to wager any amount up to and including your entire bank of $100000. If you win, you will be paid even money on your wager. (Appeal to something. In terms of your analogy, it might as well be 1 cent)

You are presented with a table on which sits 2 large opaque urns. Behind the urns stands a dealer. The rules of the game are as follows:

One of the urns contains 999999 black pearls and 1 white pearl.

One of the urns contains 1000000 white pearls and 0 black pearls.(Sorry, needs to be verified before the wager, not in hindsight)

The philanthropist informs you that no one present knows which urn contains the black pearls. (OH. We have a new player in town. Who is he? And what are his motivations? You should know this. It's your analogy)

The dealer informs you that he will randomly select an urn by rolling a die and randomly select a pearl from it. (Sure. Everyone gets sucked into a game where the rules are presented after the fact.)

The philanthropist further informs you that the hypothesis you must successfully accept or reject is the proposition that the dealer has drawn from the container containing 999999 black pearls and 1 white pearl. ("You must?" Tell the philanthropist to get a grip.)

The dealer further informs you that there is a precondition: you will only be allowed to wager if a white pearl is drawn. (LOL. Now you are in the game let's add new arbitrary rules.)

Needless to say, if you can do simple math, you accept the proposition. (No. At this point one typically says "Does anyone ever fall for this?")

The dealer promptly draws a white pearl and places it before you, all pearly white and probability 1. The philanthropist informs you that you have won the opportunity to make a wager and accept or reject the hypothesis that the dealer has drawn from the urn containing 999999 black pearls and 1 white pearl. (Gosh the deler has long arms, har har)

Do the math, and then tell me how much of your stack you will wager, and whether you accept or reject the hypothesis. (Sure. State the volume of the vessles, the length and strength of the dudes arms, and the probality that the game has been a priori fixed.)

Like I said. The guy is a philanthropist. And your assertion is a fallacy.
Click to expand...
No, the guy is something you made up.
 
So the discussion about immortality is over? All we all agreed that it does not exist?
 
abaddon said:
No. You have a failed analogy. There is no shame in admitting that it is useless in regard to the OP.
Click to expand...

No, you have a failed attempt to alter the analogy. So why would you try to alter it if it's a failed analogy?
 
dafydd said:
He was only trying to help you.
Click to expand...

I can do without his help. Unless he wants to give me some money.

The analogy demonstrates what it was intended to demonstrate. I would suppose that's why he tried to alter it, except that I don't really think he gets it.
 
Toontown said:
Well, I kinda do know which one, Dave. It's kinda hard not to know. And I kinda do have a rough idea how ridiculous the expected likelihood of this one being hit is. So what am I supposed to do, pretend I don't know that? Fly up in the air and say,

'Well, there are a lot of targets down there, and some of them are sure to be hit, and the sum of all their hit expectations isn't so ridiculous if the set of all possible targets isn't too large. So I should definitely adopt the sum of all the hit expectations of all the targets as my expectation, because...well, because that's a bigger number, and I am definitely among that crowd. I'm not the whole crowd, and only Dave knows how my expectation of being among the crowd is affected in the least by those manipulations, but...whatever.

And I should do all that to avoid rejecting H0 and accepting H1 because________________?
Click to expand...

Because that's how thinking objectively works.
 
Toontown said:
Seems odd to have all that sentience around and not experience any of it because of the imaginary tautological attributes of a nothing that doesn't exist and never will.
Click to expand...

Why does that seem odd? Why would I expect to experience something in someone else's brain?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom