[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Giordano]

Jabba's arguments have never been honest in how he approaches discussions in this forum; he's admitted to that here and elsewhere.

It's never been about honest discussion with other forum members--he has never intended it to be.

It has always been to him as if he's arguing in front of a jury trial, with the jury in this case being invisible and actually likely existing only in his brain.

A trial lawyer will never admit that he's wrong. He's got to always stand by his client.

Jabba apparently imagines himself to be in some kind of jury trial, with maybe a large silent majority following this thread. (LOL)

It is useless to argue with someone with this mindset, who simply will be utterly closed to any rational argument that contradicts what he has decided to believe and attempt to defend, even while utterly failing.

That's why these threads go on forever and are an utter waste of time.

I think you are right! That helps explain a lot. It is like trying to get an attorney to admit in court that his client is guilty- they never will no matter the evidence or how they truly feel!

But here, the jury has already spoken- the client is guilty! Is there any participant in this thread, or lurker, who votes not guilty on any of Jabba's arguments that have been questioned here? Please post so I am not mis-stating your views.

Also, a good attorney will present evidence in court that counters the prosecutor's evidence. If a prosecutor presents evidence that the defendant was seen shooting the decedent, and the same gun was used to kill the decedent as was owned by the defendant, the defense attorney would present evidence that the eye witness was wrong in their identification and the gun was not in the possession of the defendant the night of the murder. Jabba just allows the prosecutor's damming evidence to go unquestioned in court.

But more so, I do hope Jabba eventually understands that this is not a court of law or a confrontation. First, truth is truth no matter who believes it. And we are only interested in the truth here, and not in court arguments!

 

[Giordano]

- How about this.

- I've defined the poker situation as a "closed" system -- the possibilities are limited by the givens. Such is not the case in the Volkswagen situation -- if the number of possible different (separate) Volkswagens is limited, it is limited by "non-givens."
- These are two different types of limitations -- two different types of "finiteness."

- Can you agree to that, so far? By agreeing, you will not be committing to anything else -- and, you will still be free to change your mind, anyway.

No I do not agree because your arguments are wrong.

If you want more details for my No answer, read the last few pages of this post were I and others have explained to you in multiple different ways why this model is completely wrong. I believe some posters have even summarized their explanations in the last few posts to help you even further.

 

[Giordano]

I regret to come to the conclusion that either Jabba is playing with us, or is totally unable to understand the many ways we have attempted to explain basic statistics and physics to him.

Either way, my initial expectations of improving his knowledge have proven fruitless. I don't see how elaborate future corrections are likely to prove any more effective.

Given that we have explained (some quite cleverly and elegantly) the flaws to Jabba's theories that he has already brought up, I plan to simply refer him to these previous explanations in this thread. I can't do better. Only if he brings up a new theory do I intend to discuss it at length.

 

[John Jones]

- How about this.

- I've defined the poker situation as a "closed" system -- the possibilities are limited by the givens. Such is not the case in the Volkswagen situation -- if the number of possible different (separate) Volkswagens is limited, it is limited by "non-givens."
- These are two different types of limitations -- two different types of "finiteness."

- Can you agree to that, so far? By agreeing, you will not be committing to anything else -- and, you will still be free to change your mind, anyway.

No. Your arguments are just becoming more blatant in their intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Giordano]

By the way Jabba, by your own definitions of intrinsic and extrinsic finiteness (that word always hurts me to type) why aren't "selves" and VWs both reincarnated?

By the way- if I rebuild a VW carburetor, have I reincarnated it? What if I I have "extra" parts left over- is this evidence of a non-physical "self?"

 

[jsfisher]

Jabba,

You should give this guy a call. The Union College faculty I've met are very approachable. I'm sure Dr. Hoerlr would be delighted to met with you...and he's within walking distance.

The two of you can discuss finiteness and Bayesian statistics to your hearts' content.

 

[HighRiser]

By the way Jabba, by your own definitions of intrinsic and extrinsic finiteness (that word always hurts me to type) why aren't "selves" and VWs both reincarnated?

By the way- if I rebuild a VW carburetor, have I reincarnated it? What if I I have "extra" parts left over- is this evidence of a non-physical "self?"

You weren't going to rebuild it in the ancient Indian burial ground out behind the barrens, were you?

 

[jond]

- I've just had an "a-ha!" moment.

- I think we can all agree that the probability of Jabba acknowledging that he is wrong is 1/Infinity.

- Therefore the probability that this thread will continue in an infinite loop is A.

- Given this new learning, I think we can essentially "prove" that sheep's bladders may be used to prevent earthquakes.

 

[John Jones]

- I've just had an "a-ha!" moment.

- I think we can all agree that the probability of Jabba acknowledging that he is wrong is 1/Infinity.

- Therefore the probability that this thread will continue in an infinite loop is A.

- Given this new learning, I think we can essentially "prove" that sheep's bladders may be used to ESSENTIALLY prevent earthquakes.

FIFY.

 

[Slowvehicle]

So, the limits I imposed on the two "situations" are not different types of limitations?

The difference is that you imposed a limit on the poker hands, but did not impose the same limit on VWs.

You created the difference,which was the only way you could pretend that the examples supported the conclusion you had already assumed.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- As far as I can tell, no one has said why those are not different types of limitations. Can you point me to a post that you think does?

Good Morning, Mr. Savage:

You mean, the posts you (fairly obviously) did not read, the first time?

I will simply repeat it here, rather baldly.

You, personally, as the author of the analogy, limited the resources for the number of hands of poker that can be made from one deck of cards to "one deck of cards". That limit only exists because you, personally, declared it so.

You, personally, pretended that it is possible to provide "infinite" time, space, energy, and raw materials, in order to be able to pretend that it is theoretically possible to produce endless VW's. That lack of limit only exists because you, personally, stipulated "infinite" resources.

For your examples to be appositive, or appropriate, or the least bit accurate, you either need to impose the same limit of finite resource on the VWs as you do on the poker hands; or, provide the same theoretically infinite resources for the production of poker hands as you have postulated for the production of VWs. To do anything else is inaccurate.

To continue to do anything else, at this point, is dishonest.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- I've just had an "a-ha!" moment.

- I think we can all agree that the probability of Jabba acknowledging that he is wrong is 1/Infinity.

- Therefore the probability that this thread will continue in an infinite loop is A.

- Given this new learning, I think we can essentially "prove" that sheep's bladders may be used to prevent earthquakes.

Who are you, who are so wise in the ways of science, good sir Knight?

 

[jond]

Who are you, who are so wise in the ways of science, good sir Knight?

Sir Bedivere, my Liege.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Sir Bedivere, my Liege.

Such an address is out of my Liege.

Merely another simple scholar, I.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Dave,
- Can you explain why you say "no"?

...because "yes" would be "wrong"...

 

[Mojo]

- Can you elaborate on what you mean by "no basis"?

All your basis are belong to us.

 

[Jabba]

Jabba,

You should give this guy a call. The Union College faculty I've met are very approachable. I'm sure Dr. Hoerlr would be delighted to met with you...and he's within walking distance.

The two of you can discuss finiteness and Bayesian statistics to your hearts' content.

JS,
- I just emailed Dr. Hoerl at Union. Thanks for the effort. I'll let you know what happens.

 

[Agatha]

Sir Bedivere, my Liege.

...because "yes" would be "wrong"...

Bazinga!

All your basis are belong to us.

Just acknowledging the laughs while we wait for Jabba to essentially provide any evidence.

 

[Garrette]

...because "yes" would be "wrong"...

Take your internet back.

Nommed. Pith.

 

[Garrette]

JS,
- I just emailed Dr. Hoerl at Union. Thanks for the effort. I'll let you know what happens.

And what will be your reaction if he says you are wrong?