[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Akhenaten]

I hope you're not saying what it looks like you're saying, and if you are, I am pretty sure, based on your current existence, that you do not conduct your life accordingly. At any rate, where do you see Jabba conflating those probabilities? I don't see him using p=1. I see him using p=1/infinity.

What you don't see is Jabba using P, A, B ~(all of the above) and a few other random variables as being equal to all manner of strange and arbitrary values. Reading the thread may help to alleviate this lack.

If you're walking along a sidewalk in Chicagoland and you hear the unmistakable sound of a bullet zipping past your ear, do you tell yourself "Ah, no problem. The probability that some arbitrary individual will hear a bullet zip past his ear is certainly 1."

No.

That would be an incorrect use of probability.

No, it would be the beginning of an attempt to make a really bad analogy.

That would be you conflating the probability that you heard a bullet zip past your ear with the probability that some arbitrary individual will hear a bullet zip past his ear. That would be a bad mistake. Possibly fatal.

Again, no. That would be the second part of a really bad analogy.

Take evasive action immediately. The use of conditional probability is a good thing. And it works.

Perhaps you'd rather discuss that than whatever you've attempted in this post?

 

[jsfisher]

I hope you're not saying what it looks like you're saying, and if you are, I am pretty sure, based on your current existence, that you do not conduct your life accordingly.

I had thought what I wrote was clear. If there is some part you think unclear or that you may be misinterpreting, though, please don't hesitate to ask.

At any rate, where do you see Jabba conflating those probabilities? I don't see him using p=1. I see him using p=1/infinity.

I don't see him using p=1, either. Then again, I never said he did. That you seem to think I did suggests you should consider my invitation, above.

 

[Toontown]

Let's give it a try then.

Since I do exist, P(me) = 1.

Since life actually is finite, P(A) = 1.

Therefore, P(me|A) = 1.

You're wasting your time. You don't know how to "give it a try". You don't know what probability is.

This is obvious because you are apparently seriously claiming that the expectation that hypothesis A would produce you, specifically, is 1. Clearly, you don't know the difference between an expectation and an observation.

Hint: the expectation is what you expect to observe (or not), given hypothesis A. An observation is what you actually observe (or not).

Hopefully you will not let it be known that you still don't know the difference even after having it explained to you. Which may require a certain degree of restraint on your part.

 

[Toontown]

I had thought what I wrote was clear. If there is some part you think unclear or that you may be misinterpreting, though, please don't hesitate to ask.



I don't see him using p=1, either. Then again, I never said he did. That you seem to think I did suggests you should consider my invitation, above.

OK. What did you mean when you said this?

"In some respects, Jabba is doing the same thing by conflating the probabilities of the existence of an arbitrary individual with that of himself. The former may be 1 / some "giganogargantuan" number, but the latter is certainly 1."

It looks a lot like you said Jabba was conflating those probabilities you mentioned. But now you say you didn't say what it looks like you said.

 

[PixyMisa]

You're wasting your time. You don't know how to "give it a try". You don't know what probability is.

And yet, what I said was precisely correct.

This is obvious because you are apparently seriously claiming that the expectation that hypothesis A would produce you, specifically, is 1.

You're not responding to what I actually said. The expectation that hypothesis A would produce me, specifically, given that hypothesis A is true, and that I exist, is 1.

If we preclude the observation that I exist, we have P(someone|A) = 1.

This is one of the many, many reasons Jabba's argument fails.

 

[jsfisher]

OK. What did you mean when you said this?

"In some respects, Jabba is doing the same thing by conflating the probabilities of the existence of an arbitrary individual with that of himself. The former may be 1 / some "giganogargantuan" number, but the latter is certainly 1."

It looks a lot like you said Jabba was conflating those probabilities you mentioned. But now you say you didn't say what it looks like you said.

Jabba is conflating the probability of the existence of an arbitrary individual with the probability of his own existence. Is that not clear? He is using the former as if it were the latter.

ETA: By "arbitrary individual" I mean an individual with an arbitrarily chosen set of characteristics, one of a randomly chosen "self" as Jabba might express it.

 

[Toontown]

And yet, what I said was precisely correct.


You're not responding to what I actually said. The expectation that hypothesis A would produce me, specifically, given that hypothesis A is true, and that I exist, is 1.

If we preclude the observation that I exist, we have P(someone|A) = 1.

This is one of the many, many reasons Jabba's argument fails.

You don't know how to stop digging, either.

Everything you said is gibberish. Allow me to use the same gibberish in lieu of reason, and I can prove any hypothesis I wish.

Example:

H1: You were created by Tinker Bell the fairy, as a joke.

O1: You exist.

P1: Your existence is consistent with H1, given that H1 is true.

C1: H1 is true. You were created by Tinker Bell, as a joke.

C2: Tinker Bell has a poor sense of humor.

 

[PixyMisa]

Jabba is conflating the probability of the existence of an arbitrary individual with the probability of his own existence. Is that not clear? He is using the former as if it were the latter.

Precisely. If Jabba could show that his existence, as opposed to, say, someone exactly like him except for being half a millimetre taller, actually matters, then fine.

But he doesn't even seem to understand that this is a point that needs to be addressed.

 

[John Jones]

You're wasting your time. You don't know how to "give it a try". You don't know what probability is.

Something tells me that you're about to tell us what probability means, or demand that we guess what your definition of probability means.

So let us hear your conflagration of probability and reason and get it over with.

 

[jsfisher]

Something tells me that you're about to tell us what probability means, or demand that we guess what your definition of probability means.

So let us hear your conflagration of probability and reason and get it over with.

No, no, no. He must first tell us what we mean by probability, then he can berate us for having it all wrong and tell us the true meaning.

First pillage, then burn. Order is important.

 

[Toontown]

Jabba is conflating the probability of the existence of an arbitrary individual with the probability of his own existence. Is that not clear? He is using the former as if it were the latter.

ETA: By "arbitrary individual" I mean an individual with an arbitrarily chosen set of characteristics, one of a randomly chosen "self" as Jabba might express it.

Sadly, I must conclude that you were indeed saying what I thought you were saying.

As I just finished explaining to pixymisa, P(me|A) is an expectation. Not an observation.

That would explain why Jabba gives P(me|A) a value of 1/infinity, instead of 1.

Which you could easily have surmised by simply giving Jabba credit for having sense enough to know he certainly exists.

Amazing. After all these months.

 

[Toontown]

Something tells me that you're about to tell us what probability means, or demand that we guess what your definition of probability means.

So let us hear your conflagration of probability and reason and get it over with.

Congratulations. You've just joined the ranks of those who have proven they do not know what probability is.

I explained clearly why I said pixy misa doesn't know what probability is. You didn't get it.

 

[Toontown]

No, no, no. He must first tell us what we mean by probability, then he can berate us for having it all wrong and tell us the true meaning.

First pillage, then burn. Order is important.

You don't mean anything by probability. You don't know what it is, and you don't know how to use it.

If Pokerstars was still available in the US, I would extend you a special invitation.

 

[PixyMisa]

Sadly, I must conclude that you were indeed saying what I thought you were saying.

As I just finished explaining to pixymisa, P(me|A) is an expectation. Not an observation.

There is a valid point here, though it's not what you think it is. I shouldn't have written P(me|A), because that's not what I was saying - and nor is it what Jabba is saying.

What I am saying is that P(me|A ∧ me) = 1. Or equivalently, P(someone|A) = 1.

That would explain why Jabba gives P(me|A) a value of 1/infinity, instead of 1.

But Jabba has (a) made no progress at all in showing that this is valid, and (b) continued to treat it as if it were P(someone|A) = 1/∞, which is entirely false.

Which you could easily have surmised by simply giving Jabba credit for having sense enough to know he certainly exists.

It's not sufficient for him to know he exists. He must acknowledge this fact is his formula.

He doesn't. He doesn't even see the problem.

Amazing. After all these months.

Indeed.

 

[jsfisher]

Sadly, I must conclude that you were indeed saying what I thought you were saying.

Don't be sad.

As I just finished explaining to pixymisa, P(me|A) is an expectation. Not an observation.

Is that what that was? Perhaps you might want to look up "random variable" then to see how it might enter in to the explanation. It has some bearing on what both you and Jabba seem oblivious to.

That would explain why Jabba gives P(me|A) a value of 1/infinity, instead of 1.

Many things Jabba does can be explained.

Which you could easily have surmised by simply giving Jabba credit for having sense enough to know he certainly exists.

I'm not following your chain of reasoning here at all. Looks like a non sequitur.

Amazing. After all these months.

Sure, but we haven't given up hope for either you or Jabba just yet. Hang in there.

 

[PixyMisa]

I explained clearly why I said pixy misa doesn't know what probability is. You didn't get it.

It's not that we don't get it. It's that we're right.

 

[Toontown]

Precisely. If Jabba could show that his existence, as opposed to, say, someone exactly like him except for being half a millimetre taller, actually matters, then fine.

But he doesn't even seem to understand that this is a point that needs to be addressed.

Hint: you're not using Jabba's expectation if you apply the formula. You're using your own expectation. It happens to be the same as Jabba's.

If you use the formula, the (me) is you. It's conditional probability, the use of your unique perspective.

 

[Toontown]

I'm not following your chain of reasoning here at all. Looks like a non sequitur.

That's because some part of your brain is beginning to realize that you're dead wrong, and you're going into denial.

 

[Toontown]

It's not that we don't get it. It's that we're right.

No, it's that you don't get it, and post #4987 demonstrates that fact conclusively, by reducing your gibberish to the absurdity that it was.

 

[Slowvehicle]

More succinctly: Toontown agrees with Jabba's premise but not his conclusion, and he disagrees with both our premise and conclusion.

He "flounced off" again this morning; it lasted about 8-and-a-half hours.

He does not seem to be able to make it stick.