[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[dafydd]

That doesn't even scratch the surface. Give a couple of hadrons a slight push shortly after the big bang, and this entire solar system wouldn't exist.

Congrats on stating the obvious. Why are brains an exception? Do you have any examples of the hypotheses that you mentioned just now?

 

[Toontown]

What does it say? Give us some examples of these hypotheses please.

OK. Bring me a pizza and I'll give you some examples. Which I already have, come to think of it. But anyhow, step and fetch that pizza.

 

[dafydd]

OK. Bring me a pizza and I'll give you some examples. Which I already have, come to think of it. But anyhow, step and fetch that pizza.

Please direct me to the examples or I will assume that you have none.

 

[Toontown]

How is it a meaningless comparison?

An asteroid, comet, or grain of sand exists because of a series of individually unlikely events.

A particular brain exists because of a series of individually unlikely events.

Why is the latter remarkable but the rest are not?

Your red herring count is becoming mildly annoying, dave.

At no point have I ever said that any observation used to test any hypothesis is "remarkable". I've said observations have expected frequencies supplied by the hypothesis, which can be used to compute a variance between observed and expected frequencies, which can be used to compute a P-value, which is the probability that chance alone accounts for the variance, which is identical to the probability that the hypothesis is true. Standard probability theory.

 

[dafydd]

Your red herring count is becoming mildly annoying, dave.

At no point have I ever said that any observation used to test any hypothesis is "remarkable". I've said observations have expected frequencies supplied by the hypothesis, which can be used to compute a variance between observed and expected frequencies, which can be used to compute a P-value, which is the probability that chance alone accounts for the variance, which is identical to the probability that the hypothesis is true. Standard probability theory.

And what does that have to do with the topic of the thread?

 

[Toontown]

Please direct me to the examples or I will assume that you have none.

Go ahead and assume that. attempting to herd electrons around in your brain is not worth the bother to dig up the examples I've given in this thread, or to go looking for others. You haven't even brought me a pizza.

 

[godless dave]

Your red herring count is becoming mildly annoying, dave.

At no point have I ever said that any observation used to test any hypothesis is "remarkable". I've said observations have expected frequencies supplied by the hypothesis, which can be used to compute a variance between observed and expected frequencies, which can be used to compute a P-value, which is the probability that chance alone accounts for the variance, which is identical to the probability that the hypothesis is true. Standard probability theory.

And I am pointing out that in the cases of asteroids, comets, grains of sand, and human brains, the expected frequencies match the observed frequencies.

 

[Toontown]

And what does that have to do with the topic of the thread?

Ask dave. It's an answer to his question.

 

[jt512]

I've said observations have expected frequencies supplied by the hypothesis, which can be used to compute a variance between observed and expected frequencies, which can be used to compute a P-value, which is the probability that chance alone accounts for the variance, which is identical to the probability that the hypothesis is true. Standard probability theory.

In what standard theory of probability is the p-value equal to the posterior probability of a hypothesis?

 

[abaddon]

Why, in this dense little monkey hell, would I do that?

In what sense would estimating my brain's expected likelihood not require the presumption that it is a random object in the universe?

Are you then accepting that your brain, or mine for that matter, are simply random objects in the universe, no more or less likely than any other object in the universe?

 

[Toontown]

And I am pointing out that in the cases of asteroids, comets, grains of sand, and human brains, the expected frequencies match the observed frequencies.

And I'll ask: Under what hypothesis did you estimate those expected frequencies?

And you'll reply: Under the hypothesis that the probability that they exist is equal to the probability that they exist.

And I'll reply: Then they're not expected frequencies, they're observed frequencies. I do that too. P(x) = n_x / n_t
But I'm not doing that now. You are stubbornly insisting, by bald assertion, that I must do that.

3 steps ahead of you, dave.

 

[abaddon]

3 steps ahead of you, dave.

Nope.

 

[godless dave]

And I'll ask: Under what hypothesis did you estimate those expected frequencies?

Under the hypothesis where human brains are created via sexual reproduction, which exists because of hundreds of millions of years of evolution, which exists because of conditions in the early solar system, which existed because of 8 billion years of events happening since the beginning of the universe.

As you pointed out, things could have gone very differently during any of those stages, making the prior probability of the existence of a particular human brain very unlikely, but not zero.

 

[Toontown]

Are you then accepting that your brain, or mine for that matter, are simply random objects in the universe, no more or less likely than any other object in the universe?

When did I not accept that random objects in the universe are random objects in the universe?

Are you issuing another blanket denial of the validity of probability theory?

 

[Toontown]

Under the hypothesis where human brains are created via sexual reproduction, which exists because of hundreds of millions of years of evolution, which exists because of conditions in the early solar system, which existed because of 8 billion years of events happening since the beginning of the universe.

So, how do you estimate the expected likelihood of a random object?

I know how you get the observed likelihood: O=1.

 

[abaddon]

When did I not accept that random objects in the universe are random objects in the universe?

Are you issuing another blanket denial of the validity of probability theory?

Not an answer to the question posed.

Do you accept that your brain, my brain and anyone else's brain is a random constituent of the universe no different than any other random object in the universe?

 

[Toontown]

In what standard theory of probability is the p-value equal to the posterior probability of a hypothesis?

In the kind where you don't assume the conclusion that any variance between observed and expected is due to chance alone. If you don't assume that, then the p-value is identical to the truth value of the hypothesis.

 

[godless dave]

So, how do you estimate the expected likelihood of a random object?

One would have to know every variable, which isn't possible at this time (and probably never will be). But we know it's non-zero because we don't know of anything that precludes the Milky Way galaxy forming, or our solar system forming, or life evolving.

So you tell me - how are you getting the expected likelihood that you claim differs from the observed likelihood?

 

[Toontown]

Not an answer to the question posed.

Do you accept that your brain, my brain and anyone else's brain is a random constituent of the universe no different than any other random object in the universe?

If I don't assume that, I both can't do the test, and needn't to the test.

You're not exactly helping whatever you think your case is with these incredibly ignorant questions, so I'm faced with a choice of assuming the obvious or assuming ulterior motive on your part.

Trust me. You really want people to think it's ulterior motive.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Your red herring count is becoming mildly annoying, dave.

At no point have I ever said that any observation used to test any hypothesis is "remarkable". I've said observations have expected frequencies supplied by the hypothesis, which can be used to compute a variance between observed and expected frequencies, which can be used to compute a P-value, which is the probability that chance alone accounts for the variance, which is identical to the probability that the hypothesis is true. Standard probability theory.

So how do your calculations, derived from the target, after the fact, demonstrate immortality?