So, because you think that our existence is so improbable, something even more unlikely must be true?
[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics
- Thread starter Jabba
- Start date
- Status
So, because you think that our existence is so improbable, something even more unlikely must be true?
Mashuna
Ovis ex Machina
Not just whether your numbers are correct, but whether you're using Bayesian statistics correctly.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Wollery,
- I know what the results would be.
- The key number is the probability of me existing now given the scientific model. So far, you guys are saying that the probability is 1.00 -- which, if true, would ruin my claim about the "scientific" hypothesis.
--- Jabba
That ought to give you a clue that both your 'hypothesis' and your guessed numbers are incorrect.
The fact that nobody has ever been observed to be immortal also should give you a clue that no matter what your imaginary probabilities are, reality doesn't allow for immortality.
The fact that nobody has ever been observed to be immortal also should give you a clue that no matter what your imaginary probabilities are, reality doesn't allow for immortality.
Shouldn't it be the probability of anything existing now? What are you? Why are you special? Would the existence of any one of the uncountably many other humans (let alone non-humans) that were your alternatives have proved something different?
Surely you need to be using the total probability that any one of these different possibilities and say, given that one of them happened, what is the odds of the "scientific" hypopthesis being correct?
Surely you need to be using the total probability that any one of these different possibilities and say, given that one of them happened, what is the odds of the "scientific" hypopthesis being correct?
I think Jabba means immortal in a sense that covers reincarnation, returning to the eternal cosmic oneness, and all sorts of other possibilities besides.
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
Dressed in a medieval shroud?
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
You exist, therefor the probability of you existing is 1.00.
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2003
- Messages
- 11,308
Not quite.
The probability of you existing is 1.
You do exist.
The problem is your assumption about the probability that the scientific model is correct, and your conflation of that with the a priori probability that you were going to exist had it been calculated 40,000 years ago.
Your existence cannot demonstrate any a priori state of the Universe. Since you exist it is a given that you exist, regardless of how you came to be here. If the "scientific model" (as you are using the term) is correct then that's how you came to be here, and if the "non-scientific model" is correct then that's how you came to be here.
The mere fact that you are here cannot be used to differentiate between the two models.
What is being said, over and over, by many people, is that you cannot assign probabilities with any accuracy, because the probabilities are utterly dependent on your assumptions.
And that's my point. Without a very good reason to assume a given probability the maths is meaningless.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Mashuna,
- As far as I can tell, no one is currently claiming that my useage is incorrect. Hopefully, Humots and Jay are still around and will comment one way or the other.
--- Jabba
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Your usage is irrelevant if your assumptions are incorrect.
More in hope than optimism let's try:
There exists a set of "potential Jabbas". Had your parents done things at a different time there might be a female "potential Jabba". Or a "potential Jabba" with blue, or green, or brown eyes. There is a "potential Jabba" who was poor, or rich, or just muddled along. There was a "potential Jabba" who was fat, or thin, or intelligent, or thick as a ditch.
You get the picture. The set of "potential Jabbas" is huge even in one generation and lifetime.
But it gets worse. The further you extend the picture back in time, the larger the set of "potential Jabbas" will grow.
Now, what is the probability that you, the real Jabba, would be the particular one out of the trillions and trillions of Jabbas in the set of "potential Jabbas"?
Obviously, uncountable trillions of trillions to one, almost impossible odds in fact.
But what are the odds that one member of the set of all "potential Jabbas" exists? One, because here you are.
Last edited:
Humots
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- May 29, 2012
- Messages
- 425
I am still around, and my comment is that your usage of Bayesian statistics is not correct.
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2010
- Messages
- 32,124
Not to be too crude, but the number of "potential Jabbas" is huge even in one ejaculation.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Entirely my point.
The odds of this particular Jabba may be astronomical.
The odds of one member (hur, hur, hur...sorry) of that set of "potential Jabbas" existing remains exactly one.
dlorde
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2007
- Messages
- 6,864
Ah. As I understand it, a scientific hypothesis is proposed as an explanation for some observation(s) of the natural world. I was curious to know what the observation(s) was/were.
I don't really see how you can falsify something by guesswork.
Clearly not. As has been explained multiple times, they're based on a trivial fallacy of probability.
Jabba,
Please read this twice.
Think about it carefully.
Recognize that your proof fails at step one. You can still go on believing that you are immortal for whatever reasons please you. But don't waste your time on a proof based on an erroneous approach. You will not convince anyone and you will embarrass yourself.
They are saying your useage IS wrong because you are applying formulas that are inappropriate for the topic under study, and because you are inserting crucial values based on totally unsupported guesses, These are far more fundamental errors than if you did the multiplication incorrectly.
TheRedWorm
I AM the Red Worm!
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2007
- Messages
- 4,452
Maybe Jabba will understand it this way...
Jabba, the question "What are the odds of me existing/being born?" is the same as asking "what are the odds of peanut butter?" or "what are the odds of green?"
Do you understand why?
Jabba, the question "What are the odds of me existing/being born?" is the same as asking "what are the odds of peanut butter?" or "what are the odds of green?"
Do you understand why?
jt512
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2011
- Messages
- 5,085
I haven't been following the thread carefully, but it seems that some posters are objecting to the use of Bayes' Theorem to calculate probabilities retrospectively. However, that is precisely what Bayes' Theorem is for, that is, to update the probability of something (eg, a hypothesis) based on some data. No data, no Bayesian inference. In odds form, Bayes' Theorem is
P(H₁|D)/P(H₂|D) = P(D|H₁)/P(D|H₂) × P(H₁)/P(H₂) .
D in the above formula is the data, and the first term on the right-hand side of the equation is the relative probability of the data under competing hypotheses, H₁ and H₂. I take it that the data in the present problem is something like "Jabba exists." So if Jabba is estimating the probabilities that he would exist under competing hypotheses and using that information to update the prior probabilities of those hypotheses, then that per se does not violate the rules of Bayesian inference.
Jay
P(H₁|D)/P(H₂|D) = P(D|H₁)/P(D|H₂) × P(H₁)/P(H₂) .
D in the above formula is the data, and the first term on the right-hand side of the equation is the relative probability of the data under competing hypotheses, H₁ and H₂. I take it that the data in the present problem is something like "Jabba exists." So if Jabba is estimating the probabilities that he would exist under competing hypotheses and using that information to update the prior probabilities of those hypotheses, then that per se does not violate the rules of Bayesian inference.
Jay
Last edited:
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2010
- Messages
- 32,124
Yes, exactly. If his great-granddad hadn't met his great-grandma he'd have met someone else and produced children who would have gone on to produce children, etc. So even the "parents happening to meet" thing doesn't make it any more improbable.
Jabba, this is why the lottery analogy is so apt. The chances of you winning the lottery are very small. The chances of someone winning the lottery is 1*.
And let's look at it from a less specific perspective. If you were to win the lottery you'd be saying how incredibly lucky you were. However, when you read in the papers that some random stranger has won the lottery, do you think "wow, what are the chances?" No, because that story is published every week. Someone winning the lottery isn't extraordinary, it's mundane.
Similarly, you say that my existence is so unlikely that it makes me special. But had it been a different sperm which had fertilised my mother's egg - or even had it been me who'd died in utero and not my twin - you'd be saying exactly the same thing to that person. No matter who had won the lottery of my birth, you'd be telling them that the fact it was them is significant.
Or, to put it slightly differently, you're looking at a random number generator which generates a number between 1 and 17 trillion and are then declaring whatever number it comes up with as significant, simply because there are 17 trillion people each holding a different number within that range. Because the number that was generated was held by someone it has to be significant, right? But that's being blind to the fact that every number that could potentially be generated is held by someone.
You really are throwing a dart at a wall and then drawing the bullseye around it.
*In the lottery's case it's possible for there to be no winner in any given week, but for the sake of this illustration we can say that someone wins it every week.
- Status