[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

Status
Not open for further replies.
Toontown said:
'You' have no expected frequency. Because you insist on a viewpoint that doesn't give you one.
Click to expand...

Even if I use the first-person, subjective viewpoint, the expected frequency matches the observed frequency. My brain had a very small chance of coming into existence. And it did come into existence. Where's the discrepancy?
 
godless dave said:
Even if I use the first-person, subjective viewpoint, the expected frequency matches the observed frequency. My brain had a very small chance of coming into existence. And it did come into existence. Where's the discrepancy?
Click to expand...

There isn't one. The brains that come into existence come into existence. I don't see the problem with that, dubious mathematical statements or not.
 
godless dave said:
Even if I use the first-person, subjective viewpoint, the expected frequency matches the observed frequency. My brain had a very small chance of coming into existence. And it did come into existence. Where's the discrepancy?
Click to expand...

(1 - 0.00000....1)2/ 0.00000....1

Just plug in some small expected value your calculator can handle to see how it works.
 
dafydd said:
There isn't one. The brains that come into existence come into existence. I don't see the problem with that, dubious mathematical statements or not.
Click to expand...

Your assertion is itself the problem - essentially a denial of the entire science of probability.

Who are you people, and why do you hang around in science forums?
 
Toontown said:
(1 - 0.00000....1)2/ 0.00000....1

Just plug in some small expected value your calculator can handle to see how it works.
Click to expand...

It's still a nonzero probability, so there's no discrepancy.

How about answering this question, which seems to be the heart of your error:


godless dave said:
Toontown said:
And why would that be a requirement? Why would I compare the likelihood of my brain with the likelihoods of various random objects in the universe?
Click to expand...
Because your brain is a random object in the universe. Why would you treat it any differently?
Click to expand...
 
dafydd said:
He seems unable to clarify that point. Apparently asking that is mocking.
Click to expand...

We don't want to go there.

You haven't gotten past the probability-that-everything-that-exists-in-fact- exists-is-1, blanket denial of the entire science of probability stage.
 
Toontown said:
We don't want to go there.

You haven't gotten past the probability-that-everything-that-exists-in-fact- exists-is-1, blanket denial of the entire science of probability stage.
Click to expand...

What does science and probability have to do with immorality, which is an imaginary concept with no counterpart in the real world. Don't go there? You don't want to address the topic of the thread? Why? Could it be that you have no evidence?
 
Last edited:
godless dave said:
Because your brain is a random object in the universe. Why would you treat it any differently?
Click to expand...

Because you bogusly implied it is somehow a requirement to compare the expected likelhoods of other random objects in the universe in order to estimate the expected likelihood of my brain. Which I would already have done in order to make the meaningless comparison.

Don't look back. You'll see your tail.
 
Toontown said:
Because you bogusly implied it is somehow a requirement to compare the expected likelhoods of other random objects in the universe in order to estimate the expected likelihood of my brain.
Click to expand...

Why is that bogus? Why should you treat the expected likelihood of your brain differently than the expected likelihood of any other random object in the universe?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom