[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[godless dave]

I take it, then, that you would not reject a hypothesis that has a one in a google shot of being correct, but you would reject a hypothesis that has a 1/ infinity shot of being correct.

That's right.

I would reject both of them. That is the "practical" difference between them. You know, "practical". That word you studiously left out.

That's not practical at all - it's foolish.

Regardless, we were not talking about the probability of a hypothesis being true, we were talking about the probability of one specific outcome under a given hypothesis. A hypothesis isn't improbable just because each of many specific outcomes under that hypothesis is improbable.

 

[godless dave]

No.

Then what were you saying?

 

[Toontown]

That's not practical at all - it's foolish.

How is it foolish to reject a hypothesis that's a 1 in a google shot? Why wouldn't it be approximately a google more foolish not to look for another answer?

Regardless, we were not talking about the probability of a hypothesis being true, we were talking about the probability of one specific outcome under a given hypothesis.

Same thing. And my pearl analogy proves it. Do the math.

 

[Toontown]

Then what were you saying?

Same thing jt512 said here.

 

[godless dave]

How is it foolish to reject a hypothesis that's a 1 in a google shot? Why wouldn't it be approximately a google more foolish not to look for another answer?

I didn't say I wouldn't consider other hypotheses, I said I wouldn't reject the improbable one.

Same thing. And my pearl analogy proves it. Do the math.

They are not the same thing at all. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand math.

 

[AdMan]

Infinity, a google, how does it matter?

Do you mean googol? Or the search engine? Or don't you know the difference?

 

[xtifr]

An oversimplification which ignores the fact that a particle can occupy a point more than once. Any point. Any time. The wave function gives a non-zero probability of a particle being anywhere, any time.

Doesn't matter. The Planck length limitation still applies. Remember, time is more-or-less just another dimension.

And something with a one-in-a-googol (or even one-in-a-googolplex) chance is infinitely more likely than something with a zero chance. Infinitely more likely is a whole lot!

 

[Akhenaten]

Have we essentially proved immortality yet?

 

[trebor]

Have we essentially proved immortality yet?

Yes, it has been proved that this thread is immortal and will never die.

 

[Jabba]

Humots,
- I'm not claiming that the likelihood of an event has to be expressed as a limit; I'm claiming that one over infinity has to be expressed as a limit.

Why?

Dave,
- My quick answer is that infinity is not a "number." But then, I'm not really sure of that answer.
- Mostly, it was my "understanding" that one over infinity had to be expressed as a limit.
- But, it does seem to make sense, doesn't it?

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- My quick answer is that infinity is not a "number." But then, I'm not really sure of that answer.
- Mostly, it was my "understanding" that one over infinity had to be expressed as a limit.

Your understanding is incorrect.

- But, it does seem to make sense, doesn't it?

No.

 

[Toontown]

Do you mean googol? Or the search engine? Or don't you know the difference?

Wow. You jumped on that like a half-starved hound dog on a ham bone. Do minor misspellings often have that effect on you?

 

[Toontown]

I didn't say I wouldn't consider other hypotheses, I said I wouldn't reject the improbable one.



They are not the same thing at all. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand math.

Well, Dave, there is math. And then there is your math. Which apparently will not allow you to reject a ludicrously unlikely hypothesis. And apparently makes you think anyone who would do so is "foolish".

So, why do you keep arguing with Jabba's ludicrously unlikely hypothesis?

 

[godless dave]

So, according to your reasoning, the Mega Millions lottery must be rigged.

 

[Jabba]

xtifr,
- I wasn't claiming that the probability of my current existence is one over infinity -- I was claiming that the likelihood of my current existence is one over infinity given the scientific model.
- I'm claiming that the scientific model is not correct.

If by "given the scientific model" you mean using probability in the accepted sense, this is wrong. It is a very small number before the event “Jabba exists”, but it is not one over infinity...

Humots,
- By "scientific model," I'm don't mean "using probability in the accepted sense." By "scientific model," I'm referring to what I think is the consensus opinion amongst relevant scientists regarding mortality: i.e., each (potential) human "self" (consciousness) exists for one finite lifetime, at most.
- If you basically accept that opinion as the "scientific model," but were really referring to the "scientific method" involved (instead), I will be trying to show why the scientific method would result in a likelihood of one over infinity.

 

[Jabba]

Your understanding is incorrect.



No.

Dave,
- Can you explain your answers?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Interesting. As an early Altavista user, I never knew what "babelfish" meant. I caught the tower of babel reference, but that's it. Babelfish.altavista.com was the first online language translation program I was aware of.

You've never read The Hitch-Hiker's Guide To The Galaxy? Get thee to a bookshop at once. You can buy all 5 books in the trilogy for about £15.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- Can you explain your answers?

I'll let Wikipedia do it for me:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_(mathematics)

In mathematics, a limit is the value that a function or sequence "approaches" as the input or index approaches some value

You don't have a function or sequence that is approaching some value, and you're not using integrals or derivatives.

A result of a function that approaches infinity is not the same as the result being equal to infinity.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

xtifr,
- I wasn't claiming that the probability of my current existence is one over infinity -- I was claiming that the likelihood of my current existence is one over infinity given the scientific model.

Yes, but you're wrong about that. And you haven't even started to try to demonstrate why you believe it to be so.

 

[Akhenaten]

Do you mean googol? Or the search engine? Or don't you know the difference?

Wow. You jumped on that like a half-starved hound dog on a ham bone. Do minor misspellings often have that effect on you? My mistake. Thank you for the correction.

FTFY