[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Akhenaten]

That's a lie. I haven't said I had a claim.

So your claim is that you haven't said that you had a claim. Got it.

I said I have my own interpretation of Jabba's observation, which I have no interest in presenting, for glaringly obvious reasons.

It's a secret? The MIB are on to you? Copyright issues? It's a really stupid interpretation?

I'm afraid it's not as obvious as you seem to think.

Viewed in context, there should be no difficulty understanding why I said that.

I suspect it's more a complete lack of interest than any kind of difficulty.

 

[John Jones]

[...]
I suspect it's more a complete lack of interest than any kind of difficulty.

*golf clap*

 

[godless dave]

So to recap:

Rolling a die with 400 trillion sides will always result in one of the sides being on top.

Any particular side being on top is so unlikely as to be extraordinary.

 

[Toontown]

So to recap:

Rolling a die with 400 trillion sides will always result in one of the sides being on top.

Any particular side being on top is so unlikely as to be extraordinary.

But not extraordinary enough to question the prevailing system of belief as to how it came to be on top. Right?

 

[Garrette]

So to recap:

Rolling a die with 400 trillion sides will always result in one of the sides being on top.

Any particular side being on top is so unlikely as to be extraordinary.

Accurate synopsis but incomplete:

To make it ordinary, assume it was never 400 Trillion to 1 begin with.

That leads to a deterministic-like view in which the resulting die roll had to be on top as opposed to having chanced to be on top.

Ergo, Jabba's formulation of his premise is correct though his conclusion is wrong.


NB: I'm not trying to be snarky. This is my take on Toontown's comments so far, and I am open to correction.

 

[godless dave]

But not extraordinary enough to question the prevailing system of belief as to how it came to be on top. Right?

Not according to me. But it seems like it is to you.

 

[Cuddles]

I think that I can essentially prove that people are likely to be suspended if the bickering and insults continue.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

 

[Toontown]

Not according to me. But it seems like it is to you.

I'm sorry, you've confused me. Are you indicating that your emergence, in spite of the 400 trillion odds, is sufficient to cause you to question your system of belief?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Good Morning, Mr. Savage!

I notice that you did not post yesterday--I trust you are well, and that real life simply interfered with the "important stuff"...

 

[Slowvehicle]

Sorry, duplicate post.

 

[godless dave]

I'm sorry, you've confused me. Are you indicating that your emergence, in spite of the 400 trillion odds, is sufficient to cause you to question your system of belief?

No, that's the opposite of what I said.

 

[zooterkin]

That's a lie. I haven't said I had a claim. I said I have my own interpretation of Jabba's observation, which I have no interest in presenting, for glaringly obvious reasons. Viewed in context, there should be no difficulty understanding why I said that.

You used a strange form of words, then, if you meant to communicate that you had no claim, as opposed to having a claim you chose not to present:

Jabba's claim is not my claim. You don't know what my claim would be, were I to present it. Which I won't.

 

[Aepervius]

I think that I can essentially prove that people are likely to be suspended if the bickering and insults continue.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

But is it a bayasian proof or a frequentist one ?






*duck and run away cackling*

 

[Toontown]

No, that's the opposite of what I said.

So, your "extraordinary" emergence against the 1 in 400 trillion odds is NOT enough to cause you to question your system of beliefs as to how it came about.

Like I said in the first place, and you put reverse spin on.

Your form of trolling is time consuming to respond to. I'll give you that.

 

[godless dave]

So, your "extraordinary" emergence against the 1 in 400 trillion odds is NOT enough to cause you to question your system of beliefs as to how it came about.

Like I said in the first place, and you put reverse spin on.

I did no such thing. I agreed with you that that's what I was saying. I was restating your position, using the 400 trillion sided die analogy, to illustrate why your position does not make sense.

 

[Toontown]

You used a strange form of words, then, if you meant to communicate that you had no claim, as opposed to having a claim you chose not to present:

Imagine my sense of futility at the prospect of presenting such a claim, when so plain a statement, so plainly spoken, is spun as "a strange form of words".

 

[Garrette]

Imagine my sense of futility at the prospect of presenting such a claim, when so plain a statement, so plainly spoken, is spun as "a strange form of words".

Toontown, it may seem like some, most or all of the posters here are trying to be obstinate and to play gotcha with you, but I really don't think that's the case at all, and this last exchange demonstrates it.

zooterkin was not presenting the quotations as a "strange form of words" in a vacuum; it was in the context of you having elsewhere said something that these words seemed to contradict.

If you don't agree that that is what is going on, then I have to insist you are mistaken. If you do agree but disagree that the contradiction actually exists, then I suggest demonstrating it would be a more fruitful course.

Most people here really aren't out to get you. I venture to say that most people would enjoy an actual discussion, if there is disagreement, but it seems to repeatedly go sideways, and usually for no reason.

You have on more than one occasion, given me shortshrift and exhibited an undisguised rudeness. I don't take it personally. Might I suggest that you react the same when you think you have borne the brunt of rudeness and simply try to guide the discussion to the topic as opposed to the apparent mental shortcomings of your debating foes.

 

[Toontown]

zooterkin was not presenting the quotations as a "strange form of words" in a vacuum; it was in the context of you having elsewhere said something that these words seemed to contradict.

If you don't agree that that is what is going on, then I have to insist you are mistaken. If you do agree but disagree that the contradiction actually exists, then I suggest demonstrating it would be a more fruitful course.

Jabba's claim is not my claim. You don't know what my claim would be, were I to present it. Which I won't.

It is logically impossible to make a claim without presenting it. The presentation IS the claim. It is possible to have a potential claim, but it doesn't become an actual claim unless it's presented as a claim. It does not become a claim by simply alluding to the possibility, in response to someone else wrongly claiming I had made a claim.

Even if I think it's a claim, it is still not a claim unless I actually present it. But clearly I did not think so. I said my interpretation would be a claim if I presented it.

So. Is that parsed yet?

And look at the time. 10:17 already.

 

[Garrette]

It is logically impossible to make a claim without presenting it. The presentation IS the claim. It is possible to have a potential claim, but it doesn't become an actual claim unless it's presented as a claim. It does not become a claim by simply alluding to the possibility, in response to someone else wrongly claiming I had made a claim.

Even if I think it's a claim, it is still not a claim unless I actually present it. But clearly I did not think so. I said my interpretation would be a claim if I presented it.

So. Is that parsed yet?

That makes it relatively clear how you intended what you wrote to be interpreted. It does not make the case that your intended meaning was either the only or even the most likely interpretation. The point being that implications (and outright statements) regarding other's duplicity and/or ignorance are neither fruitful nor accurate, and may, in fact, be at least part of the reason you find your time on the JREF to be neither fruitful nor accurately received.

And look at the time. 10:17 already.

You've invented time travel! It was 11:17 here when you posted.

 

[Toontown]

I did no such thing. I agreed with you that that's what I was saying. I was restating your position, using the 400 trillion sided die analogy, to illustrate why your position does not make sense.

Well, you've succeeded in asserting that my position does not make sense because you don't think it makes sense.