[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Giordano]

Slowvehicle,
- Actually, the first time that "likelihood" was mentioned in this thread, I reacted the same way -- if I ever knew of a technical usage, I didn't remember it. However, it does have a technical useage. For some reason, I'm not able to paste the URL, but if you look up "likelihood function," you should see that its usage is appropriate.

What a waste of a post when you have so many more important questions/corrections to address.

 

[xtifr]

It strikes me—and I'm amazed I hadn't noticed before—that Jabba is making a serious, fundamental mistake here that I really haven't seen anyone discuss. (I may have missed it.)

He starts off by saying that his existence (before the fact) was highly improbable, which is hard to deny*, but then he conflates that with the probability of being any random individual with a single finite lifespan. Which is not the same thing at all!

If you roll a billion-sided die, the chance of any particular number coming up is very low, but the chance that one of those numbers will come is is extremely high (near certainty).

Jabba's proposition A (that we are all mortals with finite lives) is not the same as what he's using to calculate the odds (the chance that Jabba, specifically, appeared as a mortal with a single life). To calculate the probability of his A (and thus A~), we don't look at the chance that a particular side was rolled; we look at the chance that one of the set of sides was rolled. And his A~ is equivalent to the probability that the die lands cocked, or vanishes before hitting the table, or something else entirely.

Since we know very little about the construction of the (metaphorical) die here, there's really no way I can see to calculate the probability of his A and A~, aside from sheer speculation. Maybe the vertexes are wide and flat, and it's easy to roll a cocked die. But insofar as we can try to estimate the probability of A, we're all (especially Jabba, but sadly, apparently, the rest of us as well) looking in the wrong place. To calculate the chance of A, we need to consider how likely it is that intelligent life arises by known science-based methods in a universe such as ours. Which is completely different from considering how likely it is that Jabba, specifically, would appear. Unrelated, in fact.

* Actually, he's trying to claim it's impossible, which is easy to deny, but he seems to think that his logic still works even if we only grant a mind-bogglingly small probability. Which is not the case.

 

[godless dave]

It strikes me—and I'm amazed I hadn't noticed before—that Jabba is making a serious, fundamental mistake here that I really haven't seen anyone discuss. (I may have missed it.)

He starts off by saying that his existence (before the fact) was highly improbable, which is hard to deny*, but then he conflates that with the probability of being any random individual with a single finite lifespan. Which is not the same thing at all!

If you roll a billion-sided die, the chance of any particular number coming up is very low, but the chance that one of those numbers will come is is extremely high (near certainty).

Jabba's proposition A (that we are all mortals with finite lives) is not the same as what he's using to calculate the odds (the chance that Jabba, specifically, appeared as a mortal with a single life). To calculate the probability of his A (and thus A~), we don't look at the chance that a particular side was rolled; we look at the chance that one of the set of sides was rolled. And his A~ is equivalent to the probability that the die lands cocked, or vanishes before hitting the table, or something else entirely.

Since we know very little about the construction of the (metaphorical) die here, there's really no way I can see to calculate the probability of his A and A~, aside from sheer speculation. Maybe the vertexes are wide and flat, and it's easy to roll a cocked die. But insofar as we can try to estimate the probability of A, we're all (especially Jabba, but sadly, apparently, the rest of us as well) looking in the wrong place. To calculate the chance of A, we need to consider how likely it is that intelligent life arises by known science-based methods in a universe such as ours. Which is completely different from considering how likely it is that Jabba, specifically, would appear. Unrelated, in fact.

* Actually, he's trying to claim it's impossible, which is easy to deny, but he seems to think that his logic still works even if we only grant a mind-bogglingly small probability. Which is not the case.

Many posters have mentioned this, including myself. Jabba hasn't addressed it.

 

[xtifr]

Many posters have mentioned this, including myself. Jabba hasn't addressed it.

Ah, ok. Can't say I'm surprised.

Me, I was caught up with how he was assuming low possibilities are non-possibilities, and confusing prior probabilities with posterior probabilities, which already undermines his logic sufficiently to blow the whole thing out of the water, so I hadn't bothered to delve much deeper.

 

[abaddon]

Slowvehicle,
- Actually, the first time that "likelihood" was mentioned in this thread, I reacted the same way -- if I ever knew of a technical usage, I didn't remember it. However, it does have a technical useage. For some reason, I'm not able to paste the URL, but if you look up "likelihood function," you should see that its usage is appropriate.

Come on Jabba, step up. I have yet to see you present anything even vaguely plausible.

 

[Akhenaten]

- You left out "at most."

Perhaps because discussing the probability that we exist less than once is an order of magnitude more pointless than the discussion we're already having.

And I use the word 'discussion' advisedly since it's beyond obvious that you aren't here to discuss anything.

 

[dlorde]

... I was caught up with how he was assuming low possibilities are non-possibilities, and confusing prior probabilities with posterior probabilities, which already undermines his logic sufficiently to blow the whole thing out of the water, so I hadn't bothered to delve much deeper.

This is the puzzling thing - you can easily spot the obvious and fatal flaws in jabba's 'argument' (as can we all) without delving deep into the thread, but jabba apparently can't, despite weeks of patient and repeated explanation. He doesn't seem to be intellectually challenged to that degree in other respects, so one wonders what the problem is...

 

[Garrette]

At risk of giving Jabba something else on which to (mistakenly) hang his hat, I'm going to ask a question in hope of clearing something up for myself because I may be missing something obvious.

Many of the latest objections to Jabba's position are that the probability of Jabba is obviously 1, therefore anything else is zero. But his equation does not rest on the Probability of Jabba existing, no?

Without the symbology, and using my own words, what Jabba is trying to compare are the following two probabilities:

1. Given that I exist, what is the probability that I live in a universe in which the only options for my existence are (a) one finite time or (b) not at all?

2. Given that I exist, what is the probability that I live in a universe in which the options for my existence are (c) something besides (a) or (b) above?

Now I've read and re-read Aepervius' posts (and some others, I think) that demonstrate the probability of Jabba existing is independent of the type of universe in which the existence occurs, but I am not sure that it really addresses the issue.

Where am I going wrong?

 

[Jabba]

- So. The basic issue is, "What makes me special -- what separates me from the crowd?
- That's the issue because if I am not somehow special, if I am not separated from the crowd, the "likelihood" of my current existence, according to the scientific opinion to which I've been referring, is not one over infinity (or, one over some unimaginably large number); it is 1.00.
- If I'm not separated from the crowd, my likelihood of existence is the likelihood of someone -- anyone -- existing. I take on the likelihood that any of the potential selves would currently exist...
- Remember that in Bayesian Statistics, "likelihood" means the probability of something happening, before it happens.

- Does anyone not understand, or disagree, with that?

It strikes me—and I'm amazed I hadn't noticed before—that Jabba is making a serious, fundamental mistake here that I really haven't seen anyone discuss. (I may have missed it.)

He starts off by saying that his existence (before the fact) was highly improbable, which is hard to deny*, but then he conflates that with the probability of being any random individual with a single finite lifespan. Which is not the same thing at all!

If you roll a billion-sided die, the chance of any particular number coming up is very low, but the chance that one of those numbers will come is is extremely high (near certainty).

Jabba's proposition A (that we are all mortals with finite lives) is not the same as what he's using to calculate the odds (the chance that Jabba, specifically, appeared as a mortal with a single life). To calculate the probability of his A (and thus A~), we don't look at the chance that a particular side was rolled; we look at the chance that one of the set of sides was rolled. And his A~ is equivalent to the probability that the die lands cocked, or vanishes before hitting the table, or something else entirely.

Since we know very little about the construction of the (metaphorical) die here, there's really no way I can see to calculate the probability of his A and A~, aside from sheer speculation. Maybe the vertexes are wide and flat, and it's easy to roll a cocked die. But insofar as we can try to estimate the probability of A, we're all (especially Jabba, but sadly, apparently, the rest of us as well) looking in the wrong place. To calculate the chance of A, we need to consider how likely it is that intelligent life arises by known science-based methods in a universe such as ours. Which is completely different from considering how likely it is that Jabba, specifically, would appear. Unrelated, in fact.

* Actually, he's trying to claim it's impossible, which is easy to deny, but he seems to think that his logic still works even if we only grant a mind-bogglingly small probability. Which is not the case.

Many posters have mentioned this, including myself. Jabba hasn't addressed it.

- I too have mentioned this issue multiple times, claiming it to be the only weak point in my argument. My post above (at the top) is an example.
- For the moment, I'm trying to establish that the likelihood of my particular current existence, given that we exist for only one finite time at most, is one over infinity (or, if you wish, seven billion over infinity).
-Even more specifically, I'll first try to show why, scientifically speaking, there should be an infinity of potential selves (or "souls").

 

[Akhenaten]

- I too have mentioned this issue multiple times, claiming it to be the only weak point in my argument. My post above (at the top) is an example.

It's an example of you mentioning the issue without actually attempting to address it.

Exactly the behaviour that others are pointing out.


And stop underlining things!

- For the moment, I'm trying to establish that the likelihood of my particular current existence, given that we exist for only one finite time at most, is one over infinity (or, if you wish, seven billion over infinity).

The likelihood of your current existence is 100%.

I wonder who will be the thousandth person to tell you this.

-Even more specifically, I'll first try to show why, scientifically speaking, there should be an infinity of potential selves (or "souls").

You have yet to demonstrate the existence of even one soul, let alone any greater number of them, potential or otherwise.

 

[tsig]

I begin to really like the lottery illustration. I believe winning the NY Powerball is 1/50,000,000 per drawing yet many specific people have. Is this due to reincarnation of the winners?

It's the numbers that keep reincarnating. If you'll check you'll find that no matter the number it always consists of digits 1 to 9 inclusive.

 

[Garrette]

- I too have mentioned this issue multiple times, claiming it to be the only weak point in my argument.

--snip--

-Even more specifically, I'll first try to show why, scientifically speaking, there should be an infinity of potential selves (or "souls").

The flaw is humongous and fatal, but it is far from the only flaw in your argument as has been pointed out repeatedly. Your self-imposed blinders regarding criticism does not add credence to your position.

I recommend you handle this flaw in your argument before moving on. It isn't a matter of subjective and dismissable disagreement; it is fundamental.

I will ask another question here: If there are souls (whether there is an infinite pool or a finite pool), will they always come back as human? Why or why not?

 

[Loss Leader]

- For the moment, I'm trying to establish that the likelihood of my particular current existence, given that we exist for only one finite time at most, is one over infinity (or, if you wish, seven billion over infinity).

Of course you'll accept 7 billion over infinity. I bet you'd accept 700 trillion over infinity, because anything divided by infinity is zero. You will always demand that one side of your equation equal zero and that the other side equal a number - any number. That way, you ensure that you win.

 

[Jabba]

The flaw is humongous and fatal, but it is far from the only flaw in your argument as has been pointed out repeatedly. Your self-imposed blinders regarding criticism does not add credence to your position.

I recommend you handle this flaw in your argument before moving on. It isn't a matter of subjective and dismissable disagreement; it is fundamental.

I will ask another question here: If there are souls (whether there is an infinite pool or a finite pool), will they always come back as human? Why or why not?

- I accept that you guys have shown a lot of weakness in my original claim(s). And again, that's why I came to the Randi forum. I am learning a lot.
- I just think that the other weaknesses simply require more careful focus and wording in order to set things straight with most scientists. For this one, I have a vague reservation myself that may not be removable by revising my wording...
- This is the "chase" that I tried to "cut to" a while back -- but got distracted from.

- For the moment, I'll stick with my attempt to show that there must be an infinity of potential selves.

 

[Jabba]

Of course you'll accept 7 billion over infinity. I bet you'd accept 700 trillion over infinity, because anything divided by infinity is zero. You will always demand that one side of your equation equal zero and that the other side equal a number - any number. That way, you ensure that you win.

- Yes.

 

[Garrette]

- I accept that you guys have shown a lot of weakness in my original claim(s). And again, that's why I came to the Randi forum. I am learning a lot.
- I just think that the other weaknesses simply require more careful focus and wording in order to set things straight with most scientists. For this one, I have a vague reservation myself that may not be removable by revising my wording...
- This is the "chase" that I tried to "cut to" a while back -- but got distracted from.

- For the moment, I'll stick with my attempt to show that there must be an infinity of potential selves.

Okay, but recognize and admit the status here. Every single time a flaw has been pointed out you have failed to either (a) correct it, or (b) demonstrate that it is not a flaw after all.

What you have is a series of flaws in your essential proof, all of which are still there and all of which are fatal to your argument.

Given that this is the status, do you still feel justified in saying that you have the right of it?

 

[Garrette]

- Yes.

And you do not see the problem with that?

You may try looking up Begging the Question.

 

[zooterkin]

- I accept that you guys have shown a lot of weakness in my original claim(s). And again, that's why I came to the Randi forum. I am learning a lot.

Could have fooled me. If that is so, how is it you're trotting out the same nonsense you produced at other forums, years ago?

 

[Akhenaten]

- I accept that you guys have shown a lot of weakness in my original claim(s). And again, that's why I came to the Randi forum. I am learning a lot.

Then why do you keep repeating your mistakes over and over and over?

- I just think that the other weaknesses simply require more careful focus and wording in order to set things straight with most scientists.

I have it on good authority that most scientists don't give a rodent's rectum what you focus on or what words you choose.

For this one, I have a vague reservation myself that may not be removable by revising my wording...

Such is the nature of fatal flaws.

- This is the "chase" that I tried to "cut to" a while back -- but got distracted from.

I gather "distracted from" is Jabbaspeak for "ignored completely in hope that the issue would be forgotten if I could just manage to change the subject frequently enough".

- For the moment, I'll stick with my attempt to show that there must be an infinity of potential selves.

In other words, "I'll ignore that flaw completely in hope that the issue will be forgotten if I can just manage to change the subject frequently enough."

 

[Akhenaten]

Of course you'll accept 7 billion over infinity. I bet you'd accept 700 trillion over infinity, because anything divided by infinity is zero. You will always demand that one side of your equation equal zero and that the other side equal a number - any number. That way, you ensure that you win.

- Yes.

This falls within your definition of honest debate, does it?