[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
Garrette,
- I didn't say "probability of"; I said "likelihood of." That's what Bayesian statistics calls the probability of an event happening before it happens.
Click to expand...

When do you expect immortality to happen?
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- I think that the probability "approaches zero" because I think that there is an infinite 'number' of potential selves/souls. I have to go pick up my grand kids from daycare in a few minutes, or I'd tell you why I think the potential number is infinite...
Click to expand...
So it's the D&D example with a truely massive dice? "Look at all the infinitely many different possibilities each with an a priori probability approaching 1/infinity. That one of them occurres can't be down to chance alone! The odds are 1/infinity!"

Is there a reason to suppose that this particular 1/infinity a priori probability universe is more special than any of the infinite other 1/infinity a priori possibile universe?
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- I think that the probability "approaches zero" because I think that there is an infinite 'number' of potential selves/souls.
Click to expand...
Have you really forgotten that you acknowledged the fundamental mistake in this argument a few days ago? The whole "special snowflake" business?
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- I think that the probability "approaches zero" because I think that there is an infinite 'number' of potential selves/souls. I have to go pick up my grand kids from daycare in a few minutes, or I'd tell you why I think the potential number is infinite...
Click to expand...


Is this a variation on your "I plan to present evidence in the indefinite future" strategy of Effective Debate(TM)?

You've had way more than a year to present it, and you've not done so.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
Dave,
- I think that the probability "approaches zero" because I think that there is an infinite 'number' of potential selves/souls.
Click to expand...

If it's one over infinity, then it's not approaching zero, it's zero. If it is only approaching zero (according to what precision of measurement? 1 is approaching zero in some scenarios), then there's no problem with us being here.
 
Pixel42 said:
Have you really forgotten that you acknowledged the fundamental mistake in this argument a few days ago? The whole "special snowflake" business?
Click to expand...

Going around in a circle could carry on for an infinite amount of time.
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- I think that the probability "approaches zero" because I think that there is an infinite 'number' of potential selves/souls. I have to go pick up my grand kids from daycare in a few minutes, or I'd tell you why I think the potential number is infinite...
Click to expand...

Good afternoon, Mr. Savage:

--At the risk of being accused of being condescending, may I point out that the highlighted bits are but one of the kinds of sticking points that have run this presentation aground? I think that my partner is the comeliest, most attractive, most intelligent and most talented (not to mention killer funny) life partner possible--but without substantiation, it is no more than my opinion. What I have been asking for all along is substantiation for your opinions.

Further, if I may make so bold, why have you put scare quotes around the word number? Is the company of souls not really expressible as a cardinal quantity, or what?
 
Last edited:
shuttlt said:
So it's the D&D example with a truely massive dice? "Look at all the infinitely many different possibilities each with an a priori probability approaching 1/infinity. That one of them occurres can't be down to chance alone! The odds are 1/infinity!"

Is there a reason to suppose that this particular 1/infinity a priori probability universe is more special than any of the infinite other 1/infinity a priori possibile universe?
Click to expand...


Yes: it's the only one Jabba has drawn a bullseye around.
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- I think that the probability "approaches zero" because I think that there is an infinite 'number' of potential selves/souls.
Click to expand...

We know. You've said so before. You've never explained why you think that, nor have you explained why you used the phrase "approaches zero" when you're not using an integral function.
 
Garrette said:
You keep wanting to pretend this is a simple thinking game like high schoolers would play when they think they are being deep, but it doesn't work that way.
Click to expand...

I am unsure how to ask my question without sounding disrespectful, so I will simply ask you to believe that I am not being snarky.

Why doesn't it work that way?

I see no difference between this thread and a discussion of high schoolers believing they are deep. What exactly do you see as being the difference?
 
Jabba said:
Garrette,
- I didn't say "probability of"; I said "likelihood of." That's what Bayesian statistics calls the probability of an event happening before it happens.
Click to expand...
Yes, yes, and you're still misusing it and missing the point. More than one poster here, including me, have gone out of their way to understand your point despite misuse of terminology. It would be respectful to afford me the same courtesy. It would be even more respectful not to insinuate that an inexact quotation invalidates the entire argument. I am civil, Jabba; I truly think I have been with you, but this is completely uncivil of you to find a minor quibble and address it while ignoring the actual argument.


Jabba said:
Dave,
- I think that the probability "approaches zero" because I think that there is an infinite 'number' of potential selves/souls. I have to go pick up my grand kids from daycare in a few minutes, or I'd tell you why I think the potential number is infinite...
Click to expand...
As others have said, we have been asking for this for a very long time.

For my part, let me save you some trouble, since I think I can predict the basics of your argument: It doesn't matter if the potential number is infinite.

1. If there is an infinite pool of somethings and only one specific something is plucked from it, there is exactly zero information upon which to conclude that the plucking was purposeful; you have merely writ the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy as large as the universe.

2. How do you know that all the infinite consciousnesses do not exist? Have you scoured the corners of the cosmos for them? Have you relied upon some hidden psychic reach a la Professor X with Cerebro and discovered no one there? If you want to use an infinity of potential consciousnesses to demonstrate the specialness of your consciousness then you must demonstrate that all the others do not exist. You will find that a hard mountain to climb, indeed.
 
Ladewig said:
I am unsure how to ask my question without sounding disrespectful, so I will simply ask you to believe that I am not being snarky.

Why doesn't it work that way?

I see no difference between this thread and a discussion of high schoolers believing they are deep. What exactly do you see as being the difference?
Click to expand...
That's rather my point, which I apparently communicated poorly. It should not be like that group of high schoolers, but it is how Jabba is treating it, intentionally or not.
 
Jabba said:
- Would you guys accept the complementary hypothesis to you having but one short life to live, at most, if the complementary hypothesis had a prior probability of 50%?
Click to expand...

If the complement of hypothesis H has prior probability P(~H)=.5, then the prior probability of H, P(H)=.5 as well. How could one possibly "accept" either hypothesis over the other, if their probabilities are equal?
 
Garrette said:
That's rather my point, which I apparently communicated poorly. It should not be like that group of high schoolers, but it is how Jabba is treating it, intentionally or not.
Click to expand...


I have absolutely no evidence with which I can disprove even part of your observation.

..........................
If I may ask, where do you see this thread going? Will page 70 look much different from page 60? Will page 170 look much different from page 60?
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- I think that the probability "approaches zero" because I think that there is an infinite 'number' of potential selves/souls.
Click to expand...
Well, I have no idea what a 'potential self' is, but 'soul' is a superstition with no evidence for it whatsoever, but even if I accept that a human happens to 'pick' from an endless number of potential 'selves/souls', it is clear that it does not matter which one actually picked. After the fact, no matter which one was picked, you will think it was an amazing coincidence that this exact potential 'self/soul' was picked!

Am I right?
 
Loss Leader said:
This is where everything falls apart. First of all, one divided by infinity is zero. It's not close to zero, it's not a lot like zero. It is zero.
Second of all, the likelihood of my existing right now is a lot higher than zero. It's actually 100%. I exist right now, thus I likely exist right now.

You live in a universe where you did come to exist. That is all the information you have. You cannot possibly tell how likely it would have been for you to exist because you know nothing about how the universe works. If you ran the universe from the beginning, how likely would it be to produce you again? Nobody knows. Nobody can know.

So, either you plug zero into your equation or 1. It doesn't matter. In both cases, the probability of your existence goes to infinity.





No. I'm not going to assign a prior probability without some sort of evidence. Bayesian statistics works when we can retrospectively use our knowledge to ascertain what the prior probability should have been. On 9/10/01, I think most Americans would have put the probability of bringing down the Twin Towers at one in a million. On 9/12/01, we could look back and say that the chance of that attack was 20% or higher. On 9/12, we had information we didn't have on 9/10: Our border security was terrible; our intelligence agencies weren't sharing information; our beliefs about the fireproofing on the interior columns were dead wrong (the fireproofing was done quite poorly); our beliefs about terrorists who knew how to fly airplanes were wrong; etc.

You want us to assign a prior probability when we have no better information now than before. You think you're being generous by offering us 50/50 odds. But we don't know the odds. They cannot be determined.





It is defined well enough to answer. The answer is, "No."
Click to expand...

One divided by infinity is undefined else:

1/i = 0 then (1/i)*i = 0*i

or 1 = 0*i

since any number multiplied by zero = zero

1 = 0.

IINAMM*

I am not a math major.:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom