[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
- Unfortunately, I still think that I have mathematically included (with my proposed complement) all the Venn rectangle of "anything and everything that is not a member of A".
Click to expand...


It is indeed unfortunate that you still think that.

Does your "proposed complement" include things that you haven't thought of?
 
Jabba said:
- Can you provide a source for your claim?
Click to expand...
I think, as a very non-statistician, that there is confusion in terms, partly because Slowvehicle, as someone who knows his stats, is continually bouncing between formal terminology and casual terminology in dealing with those of us who don't know stats.

Allow me to try to decipher:

If your hypothesis is A, then the complement is ~A (or the other symbology that I discovered is out there like A' or A with a horizontal line over the top).

If you choose to define ~A, then you must ensure that your definition actually includes all ~A. In some cases this is easy. For instance, if A is defined as rolling a 1 on a fair six-sided die, then ~A can be defined as rolling a 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 on a fair six-sided die. For your A of a single, finite Jabba, you can if you like take the time to define ~A, but to do so you will need to define everything that is not single, everything that is not finite, and everything that is not Jabba. So saying ~A is multiple Jabba is insufficient though you seem to think differently.

But there is another problem that looms just as large that seems apparent to me, the casual non-statistician, and it not only looms as large as the definition problem but seems to be the source of much of your confusion.

First, going back to the die scenario, where A is defined as rolling a 1 on a fair, six-sided die, it makes implicit assumptions, and it does this because it is not a universe-addressing scenario. ~A isn't really limited to 2,3,4,5, or 6. It should also include landing on an edge in a crack on the table and landing on a corner in the shaggy carpet and getting stuck to my sweaty palm and quantum-phasing through the table and getting eaten by a goose. We don't include those things in the definition of ~A for the scenario because we have made assumptions, i.e., that a normal outcome will occur. In doing so, we make the statistics manageable, but we have also defined our problem down to an ideal. That is perfectly fine because we are not looking at fundamental universal laws.

With your immortality gambit, though, you are looking at fundamental universal laws, but you are treating it like the scenario with the die. You want to define all the abnormal things out of the problem and then use your calculations as if they apply to the abnormal things.

Ah, well. Best I can do. If it's just a pile of layman mushy ignorance, I apologize.
 
Last edited:
A

Jabba said:
Slowvehicle,

- Unfortunately, I still think that I have mathematically included (with my proposed complement) all the Venn rectangle of "anything and everything that is not a member of A". And, I don't know how to improve upon my argument...
Click to expand...

Good Morning,Mr. Savage! I do hope your Tuesday provides you with happiness.

I am not surprised that you "still think" that your fixed desire to make your assumed conclusion unassailable means that you may imagine a limited reality, and then claim that your limited imagination encompasses all of reality. It has been demonstrated to you, in many different ways, why your resulting construct is not a proper complement.

The way to"improve" an incorrectly-structured complement pair is to construct it correctly. You may define A however you choose...but then reality gets to define ~A. If you try to define A and ~A, your complement pair is inescapably incomplete.

Jabba said:
In other words, I suspect that I should “move on,” but that I should start at the "other end" of the problem -- i.e. the "evidence"...
Click to expand...

What a fascinating, and novel, idea! I heartily endorse this course of action.

Jabba said:
- But then, I still have one more foray to attempt before I move on.
- In this case, I won't present my alternative hypothesis as ~A -- I'll just present it as B, in which case it's prior probability would be even less than 1%. But then the posterior probability of A|me would still be 1/∞, and obviously much smaller than the posterior probability of B.
Click to expand...

I wonder if you understand that this is actually what you have been doing all along?

I have said that when you presume to define both A and ~A, the proper logical complement to your construction can only be "~(A U ~A)". Changing the name of what you have been incorrectly calling "~A" to "B" does not change anything but labels--the only proper complement to your defined terms is still "~(A U B)".

Instead of going back and getting stuck (again) in the bog of demonstrating that your assumed conclusion is inevitable because anything else is, in your mind, just so darned improbable, , may I suggest that you pursue your excellent idea, above, and present your practical, empirical, objective evidence that the "soul" exists? Start there--you can worry about the "and is immortal" part after you get over that hurdle.
 
That's a very clear explanation, Garrette, thank you.
 
Garrette said:
With your immortality gambit, though, you are looking at fundamental universal laws, but you are treating it like the scenario with the die. You want to define all the abnormal things out of the problem and then use your calculations as if they apply to the abnormal things.

Ah, well. Best I can do. If it's just a pile of layman mushy ignorance, I apologize.
Click to expand...

Not at all. I think this goes to the heart of Jabba's problem. Well done!
 
Garrette said:
I think, as a very non-statistician, that there is confusion in terms, partly because Slowvehicle, as someone who knows his stats, is continually bouncing between formal terminology and casual terminology in dealing with those of us who don't know stats.

Allow me to try to decipher:

If your hypothesis is A, then the complement is ~A (or the other symbology that I discovered is out there like A' or A with a horizontal line over the top).

If you choose to define ~A, then you must ensure that your definition actually includes all ~A. In some cases this is easy. For instance, if A is defined as rolling a 1 on a fair six-sided die, then ~A can be defined as rolling a 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 on a fair six-sided die. For your A of a single, finite Jabba, you can if you like take the time to define ~A, but to do so you will need to define everything that is not single, everything that is not finite, and everything that is not Jabba. So saying ~A is multiple Jabba is insufficient though you seem to think differently.

But there is another problem that looms just as large that seems apparent to me, the casual non-statistician, and it not only looms as large as the definition problem but seems to be the source of much of your confusion.

First, going back to the die scenario, where A is defined as rolling a 1 on a fair, six-sided die, it makes implicit assumptions, and it does this because it is not a universe-addressing scenario. ~A isn't really limited to 2,3,4,5, or 6. It should also include landing on an edge in a crack on the table and landing on a corner in the shaggy carpet and getting stuck to my sweaty palm and quantum-phasing through the table and getting eaten by a goose. We don't include those things in the definition of ~A for the scenario because we have made assumptions, i.e., that a normal outcome will occur. In doing so, we make the statistics manageable, but we have also defined our problem down to an ideal. That is perfectly fine because we are not looking at fundamental universal laws.

With your immortality gambit, though, you are looking at fundamental universal laws, but you are treating it like the scenario with the die. You want to define all the abnormal things out of the problem and then use your calculations as if they apply to the abnormal things.

Ah, well. Best I can do. If it's just a pile of layman mushy ignorance, I apologize.
Click to expand...

Well said!

The terminology issue is a fair cop--one of the reasons disciplines develop specific vocabularies (that can seem like "jargon" to the uninitiate), is to avoid having to explain, each time, the assumption sets.

Your explanation is clear, concise, and clever, and I appreciate it.

Polishing the E in JREF, indeed!

(Aside...as you began explaining the problem of thinking of everything that must be included in what could have happened to the die, I was composing the phrase "...or a seagull swooped down, and, mistaking the die for a cubical grasshopper, ate it..." which nearly cost me a laptop when I got to your "...eaten by a goose." You win. Geese are inherently funnier than gulls.)

ETA: I have nominated your post.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
Slowvehicle,

- Unfortunately, I still think that I have mathematically included (with my proposed complement) all the Venn rectangle of "anything and everything that is not a member of A". And, I don't know how to improve upon my argument... In other words, I suspect that I should “move on,” but that I should start at the "other end" of the problem -- i.e. the "evidence"...
Click to expand...


I don't suppose the dozens of times you've been told to do just this had some effect on you forming this suspicion, did it Captain?



Jabba said:
- But then, I still have one more foray to attempt before I move on.
Click to expand...


Only one? That'll be the day.



Jabba said:
- In this case, I won't present my alternative hypothesis as ~A -- I'll just present it as B, in which case it's prior probability would be even less than 1%. But then the posterior probability of A|me would still be 1/∞, and obviously much smaller than the posterior probability of B.
Click to expand...


You can call it a duck-billed platypus if you like, Jabba, for all the difference it makes.

There's not much chance of you ever realising that you can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear just by changing the labels, is there?
 
Agatha said:
Reality.

More specifically, logic and the limit of human imagination. We cannot know all the possibilities that exist, or might exist, or may have existed in the past, or may exist in the future.

If you define A (or B, or whatever label) then the complement is EVERYTHING else which is not included in your definition. Unless you claim to be omniscient, it's not possible to define everything which is going to fall into your complement...
Click to expand...
- If your claim is correct, there aught to be a text book, or an article by a recognized expert, pointing it out.
- I'm claiming that ~A has mathematical restrictions that can be expressed more explicitly than "anything and everything that is not A." I expressed ~A as "given that I currently exist, my existence will be either continuous, or more than once, or (somehow) both. I'm claiming that in mathematics, the possibilities are limited and identifiable.
 
Jabba said:
- If your claim is correct, there aught to be a text book, or an article by a recognized expert, pointing it out.
- I'm claiming that ~A has mathematical restrictions that can be expressed more explicitly than "anything and everything that is not A." I expressed ~A as "given that I currently exist, my existence will be either continuous, or more than once, or (somehow) both. I'm claiming that in mathematics, the possibilities are limited and identifiable.
Click to expand...

Why can't you just accept that ~A would be everything else and move on? Is your strange proof so flimsy that it requires you to define your complement?
 
Jabba said:
- If your claim is correct, there aught to be a text book, or an article by a recognized expert, pointing it out.
Click to expand...


It's in the same book as the explanation of the claim that water is wet.

How do you think it looks, Jabba, that you are asking for a reference to help you understand the most basic principles of addition and subtraction?


For Thoth's sake, this is all there is to it:


if 1 - A = ~A then A + ~A = 1​

Are you really going to continue to dispute this? My bloody cat understands it.



Jabba said:
- I'm claiming that ~A has mathematical restrictions that can be expressed more explicitly than "anything and everything that is not A." I expressed ~A as "given that I currently exist, my existence will be either continuous, or more than once, or (somehow) both. I'm claiming that in mathematics, the possibilities are limited and identifiable.
Click to expand...


At this stage it beggars belief that you remain unable to see that it makes not an iota of difference what you claim. Reality disagrees with you and that's the clincher.

As opposed to the equations above, what you are trying to claim is that:

if 1 - A = ~A then A + ~A ± some other stuff = 1​

Unless "some other stuff" = zero then you are flat-out wrong and if you need a reference to explain that to you better than it has been over and over in this very thread then you really are beyond hope.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
- If your claim is correct, there aught to be a text book, or an article by a recognized expert, pointing it out.
- I'm claiming that ~A has mathematical restrictions that can be expressed more explicitly than "anything and everything that is not A." I expressed ~A as "given that I currently exist, my existence will be either continuous, or more than once, or (somehow) both. I'm claiming that in mathematics, the possibilities are limited and identifiable.
Click to expand...

Good Morning, Mr. Savage!

My favorite intern came home sick last night, so I am concocting chicken soup and tea. All in all, it is still a beautiful morning. I hope yours is going well.

Here is a link to a Wikipedia page:
\http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementary_event

The relevant part:
"The event A and its complement [not A] are mutually exclusive and exhaustive."

Here is a slightly more math-focused page:
http://www.emathzone.com/tutorials/basic-statistics/exhaustive-and-complementary-events.html

Do consider simply dropping this line of approach, and presenting, instead,your practical, objective, empirical evidence that consciousness is anything other than an emergent property of the neurosystem in which it resides. Have you, in fact, any such evidence?
 
Jabba said:
- If your claim is correct, there aught to be a text book, or an article by a recognized expert, pointing it out.
- I'm claiming that ~A has mathematical restrictions that can be expressed more explicitly than "anything and everything that is not A." I expressed ~A as "given that I currently exist, my existence will be either continuous, or more than once, or (somehow) both. I'm claiming that in mathematics, the possibilities are limited and identifiable.
Click to expand...


Are you claiming that you are omniscient?
 
Garrette said:
...If you choose to define ~A, then you must ensure that your definition actually includes all ~A. In some cases this is easy. For instance, if A is defined as rolling a 1 on a fair six-sided die, then ~A can be defined as rolling a 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 on a fair six-sided die. For your A of a single, finite Jabba, you can if you like take the time to define ~A, but to do so you will need to define everything that is not single, everything that is not finite, and everything that is not Jabba. So saying ~A is multiple Jabba is insufficient though you seem to think differently...
Click to expand...
- I did define all the possibilities that are not singular -- given that I do currently exist, I will exist more than once.
- I also defined all the possibilities that are not finite -- given that I currently exist, I will exist continuously (infinitely).
- And then, I don't need to define non-Jabba. I am Jabba, and my claim only deals with me -- I'm not saying anything about any non-Jabbas.
 
Mojo;[U said:
9833280]Are you claiming that you are omniscient?
Click to expand...
- No. I'm claiming that we can fully express "anything and everything that is not A" in mathematical terms -- which is all I've really done.
- I'm also claiming that doing so should help us to better understand the possible implications of my claim.
 
Jabba said:
- I did define all the possibilities that are not singular -- given that I do currently exist, I will exist more than once.
- I also defined all the possibilities that are not finite -- given that I currently exist, I will exist continuously (infinitely).
- And then, I don't need to define non-Jabba. I am Jabba, and my claim only deals with me -- I'm not saying anything about any non-Jabbas.
Click to expand...

Good Morning, again, Mr. Savage:

Here is a link to a Wikipedia page:
\http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementary_event

The relevant part:
"The event A and its complement [not A] are [I]mutually exclusive[/I] and exhaustive."

Here is a slightly more math-focused page:
http://www.emathzone.com/tutorials/b...ry-events.html

Your events may seem exclusive, to you, but they are, in fact, far from exhaustive.

Not to mention: if, as you claim, you are not talking about any consciousness (or "soul") other than your own, what relevance has this to your claim that you can "essentially prove" "immortality"?

If your intent has ever been to demonstrate that any consciousness other than your own is anything other than an emergent property of the neurosystem in which it resides, you do,in fact, need to deal with, as you put it, "any non-Jabbas" (in fact, all "non-Jabbas").

Do consider simply dropping this line of approach, and presenting, instead,your practical, objective, empirical evidence that consciousness is anything other than an emergent property of the neurosystem in which it resides. Have you, in fact, any such evidence?
________
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom