[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
http://messiahornot.com/ACT2Scene1.php
http://messiahornot.com/Act2Scene2.php

- In case you have wanted me to provide my whole argument at once, you can check out the links above.

- In regard to the need for Bayesian statistics, those of you doubting that need can go to the first page of the second “scene” above, where you will find, “1. The probability of drawing a particular sample (me) from a particular population (all potential “selves”) has mathematical implications re the probability that a particular sample was, in fact, drawn from that population... You might have to read that again...”
- The point being that I think I agree with you – at least, to some extent. The basic idea (stated above) underlying my claim is simple logic, and I probably could have left it there and avoided Bayes -- and perhaps, a lot of confusion. However, my best guess is that drawing on Bayes was useful…
Click to expand...


At this stage it's 50/50 which is the greater mystery.

Who are you talking to/what are you talking about?
 
xtifr said:
It's confusing because "to one" is already part of the odds. The odds are four to one. Not the [odds to one] are four. And certainly not the [odds to one] are [four to one].
Click to expand...

Would you say "The odds are 3"? Three to what? They could be three to two. Quite often they are, at the racetrack.

dafydd said:
Try going into a bookies and asking what the odds to one are on a particular horse.
Click to expand...

The odds might not be "to 1". Might be 5:2. That's why I specified "to 1" in the infamous example which gave rise to multiple pages of psychological lockjaw.

I'd simply ask what the odds are. The bookie probably wouldn't say 4. He'd probably say "4 to 1".

zooterkin said:
What's special about odds being 'to one'?
Click to expand...

They're distinct from odds to 2.

Go to a race track. Look at the tote board. You will see odds expressed as 3:2, 7:5, 7:2, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and so on. Odds are not invarably expressed as "to 1".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tote_board

I was talking about 1/p-1, not p/(1-p), and so it was that I said I was talking about "odds to 1" in an apparently impossible attempt to communicate that fact.
 
Jabba said:
Adman,
- You've never needed help in communicating an idea?
Click to expand...


As one who has been a frequent recipient of Adman's ideas I'm more than happy to answer on his behalf, "No, not really."


Your ideas, on the other hand, are totally incomprehensible. And the more you attempt to explain them, the worse it gets.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
http://messiahornot.com/ACT2Scene1.php
http://messiahornot.com/Act2Scene2.php

- In case you have wanted me to provide my whole argument at once, you can check out the links above.

- In regard to the need for Bayesian statistics, those of you doubting that need can go to the first page of the second “scene” above, where you will find, “1. The probability of drawing a particular sample (me) from a particular population (all potential “selves”) has mathematical implications re the probability that a particular sample was, in fact, drawn from that population... You might have to read that again...”
- The point being that I think I agree with you – at least, to some extent. The basic idea (stated above) underlying my claim is simple logic, and I probably could have left it there and avoided Bayes -- and perhaps, a lot of confusion. However, my best guess is that drawing on Bayes was useful…
Click to expand...
What does that have to do with immortality which obviously does not exist?
 
dafydd said:
But never 4 odds to one.
Click to expand...

Red herring. I never said 4 odds to one. I said 1/0.2-1 = 4 to 1.

Then jt512 leaped gracefully to the wrong conclusion that I was talking about 0.2/(1-0.2), in spite of my pointed effort to belay any such misunderstanding.

Get it? Not rocket science. Just utter stupidity based on the overblown presumption of my ignorance and ostensible arithmetical incompetence.
 
Last edited:
Toontown said:
Red herring. I never said 4 odds to one. I said 1/0.2-1 = 4 to 1.

Then jt512 leaped gracefully to the wrong conclusion that I was talking about 0.2/(1-0.2), in spite of my pointed effort to belay any such misunderstanding.

Get it? Not rocket science. Just utter stupidity based on the overblown presumption of my ignorance and ostensible arithmetical incompetence.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. It doen't really matter.
 
Jabba said:
- In regard to the need for Bayesian statistics, those of you doubting that need can go to the first page of the second “scene” above, where you will find, “1. The probability of drawing a particular sample (me) from a particular population (all potential “selves”) has mathematical implications re the probability that a particular sample was, in fact, drawn from that population... You might have to read that again...”
- The point being that I think I agree with you – at least, to some extent. The basic idea (stated above) underlying my claim is simple logic, and I probably could have left it there and avoided Bayes -- and perhaps, a lot of confusion. However, my best guess is that drawing on Bayes was useful…
Click to expand...

This is wierd. You're the only one in the thread who understands anything I say.
 
Akhenaten said:
Far be it from me to avoid the obvious rejoinder that you might want to have a bit of a think about that.
Click to expand...

Already have. Jabba understood what I was talking about. No doubt about it.

Do you understand what we were talking about?
 
jt512 said:
Furthermore, if your hypotheses concern the lives of all humans, then how can you justify only considering as data the likelihood of only your life?
Click to expand...

Jabba said:
Jay,
- It seems to me that this is the only significant objection to my argument. I THINK that I have an effective answer to this objection, but like before, it will take me a while to compose.
Click to expand...

Jabba said:
Jay,
- Actually, I either have multiple possible answers – or, multiple parts to the possible answer.
- Whatever, I’ll present these to you, one at a time, one ‘move’ at a time.
- I claim that given the hypothesis that all individual human consciousnesses are finite and single, the probability of me existing now is actually one in infinity (at best).
Click to expand...

Jay,
- That was #1.
- Next move:
2) I think that individual consciousness has enormous implications that we look right through, hardly ever recognize and simply take for granted -- maybe, like a fish does with its water. We are absolute miracles.
- This is one of those ideas that is essentially ineffable, and I have to hope that for someone here, my description will strike a chord...
 
Jabba said:
Jay,
- Trying to make sure that I'm reading you right...
- I think that your basic question is, 'What sets me apart from everyone else?'.
Click to expand...
- I should have stuck this into my last post.
 
- It will probably take me awhile to figure out the best order for my multiple answers.
- Perhaps, my second entry should have been, 'Seven billion over infinity is essentially no greater than one over infinity. So maybe, the fact that there are seven billion of us today instead of just one doesn't make any difference to the proper conclusion here. Though, this probably does deserve more thought.

- I need a nap.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom