[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Slowvehicle]

In the kind where you don't assume the conclusion that any variance between observed and expected is due to chance alone. If you don't assume that, then the p-value is identical to the truth value of the hypothesis.

What other mechanism are you proposing, and what has it to do with immortality?

 

[Toontown]

One would have to know every variable, which isn't possible at this time (and probably never will be). But we know it's non-zero because we don't know of anything that precludes the Milky Way galaxy forming, or our solar system forming, or life evolving.

So you tell me - how are you getting the expected likelihood that you claim differs from the observed likelihood?

You don't need pinpoint accuracy. I'm not asking for pinpoint accuracy.

I don't have to claim the expected likelihood differs from the observed likelihood. The unique brain assumption implies an expected likelihood, and you've done the same above.

 

[abaddon]

Not an answer to the question posed.

Do you accept that your brain, my brain and anyone else's brain is a random constituent of the universe no different than any other random object in the universe?

If I don't assume that, I both can't do the test, and needn't to the test.

You're not exactly helping whatever you think your case is with these incredibly ignorant questions, so I'm faced with a choice of assuming the obvious or assuming ulterior motive on your part.

Trust me. You really want people to think it's ulterior motive.

Still no answer to the question posed.

Furthermore, abhorrent and baseless accusations as to motive in order to distract from the question posed.

Answer the question posed or admit you have no answer.

 

[godless dave]

You don't need pinpoint accuracy. I'm not asking for pinpoint accuracy.

There are far too many variables to get a useful number. Starting from the beginning of the universe, that number is very small, just as it is for any object in existence 13 billion years later.

I don't have to claim the expected likelihood differs from the observed likelihood.

And yet you've repeatedly done so. What is your justification for this claim?

 

[Toontown]

What other mechanism are you proposing, and what has it to do with immortality?

Ask jt512 what it has to do with immortality. I simply answered a question from jt512.

As I said at the outset of my participation, I have no plans to propose another mechanism, nor do I need to do so to test the existing hypothesis.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9601949#post9601949

If you want a clue, I'll point out that the rejection of H₀ leaves H₁, the alternative to H₀, absent interpretational frills. Figure that out, then you can do your own interpretation.

 

[Toontown]

There are far too many variables to get a useful number. Starting from the beginning of the universe, that number is very small, just as it is for any object in existence 13 billion years later.



And yet you've repeatedly done so. What is your justification for this claim?

Already answered in the part of my response you omitted. I don't need to do so because the hypothesis does it, and you did it too, in your previous post.

You have this odd habit of asking a question immediately after it's answered.

 

[godless dave]

Already answered in the part of my response you omitted.

No, you did not.

I don't need to do so because the hypothesis does it, and you did it too, in your previous post.

No, it does not.

Why do you claim the observed frequency differs from the expected frequency?

 

[jt512]

In the kind where you don't assume the conclusion that any variance between observed and expected is due to chance alone.

The p-value is a probability about data, given that the null hypothesis (H₀) is true. It has the form P(X|H₀). The posterior probability of a hypothesis is a probability about a hypothesis (H) given data. It has the form P(H|X). Those are completely different quantities; they are probabilities of different kinds of things conditioned on different kinds of events. They are not identical under any probabilistic paradigm.

If you don't assume that, then the p-value is identical to the truth value of the hypothesis.

Word salad. A p-value is a real number. A truth value is a boolean.

 

[abaddon]

Answer this question, or admit you can't read: Why can't you see Ive already answered the question?

That would be because you have not answered the question, and continue to dodge for all you are worth.

Answer the question posed, not the one you wish was posed.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Ask jt512 what it has to do with immortality. I simply answered a question from jt512.

As I said at the outset of my participation, I have no plans to propose another mechanism, nor do I need to do so to test the existing hypothesis.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9601949#post9601949

If you want a clue, I'll point out that the rejection of H₀ leaves H₁, the alternative to H₀, absent interpretational frills. Figure that out, then you can do your own interpretation.

Which avoids even pretending to be able to answer either of the questions I asked.

Thanks!

 

[Toontown]

No, you did not.

No, it does not.

Why do you claim the observed frequency differs from the expected frequency?

Same reason you do, dave.

There are far too many variables to get a useful number. Starting from the beginning of the universe, that number is very small, just as it is for any object in existence 13 billion years later.

Because observed frequency and expected frequency are different concepts, by definition. So they aren't the same, by definition.

If you want an observed frequency, you total the number of observations of the class of observation for which you want the frequency, and you divide that by the total number of observations of all classes.

That may be what you keep talking about when you keep implying that the observed frequency is the same as the expected frequency, as nearly as I can tell.

You are, of course, wrong. However, the utility of the observed frequency is that you can use it as the expected frequency for other events of the same class.

 

[godless dave]

The expected frequency is very small. And what we observe is that, out of all the people with brains who could possibly have been born, only a very small number are. And prior to that, out of all the possible ways the universe could have turned out, it turned out only one way.

"Very small" is what we expect and it's what we observe.

So I'm still not seeing any reason why we should reject hypothesis H₀.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Why would I even pretend to do something I never offered to do, in fact specifically declined to do?

Why would you pretend I pretended to do something I never offered to do?
(as if I didn't know)

Why are you on a discussion forum, if not to discuss things?

Why are you on a thread about "proving immortality", if not to discuss immortality?

 

[Pixel42]

The unique brain hypothesis says that every one of the (very large but not infinite) number of potential targets that might be hit is unique. That is all. The target round any particular one that happened to be hit must be drawn after the event.

 

[Toontown]

The unique brain hypothesis says that every one of the (very large but not infinite) number of potential targets that might be hit is unique. That is all. The target round any particular one that happened to be hit must be drawn after the event.

So, the assumption that only 1 of this (very large but not infinite) number of potential targets can be 'you' does not draw the target around the one that can be 'you'?

But noticing that the assumed one and only brain exists is drawing a target around it?

Thank you, Texas sharpshooter. I'll try not to notice that the assumed prerequisite brain exists, or that it has an expected likelihood implied by the assumption that it's the one.

And if I erase the target by rejecting the hypothesis, what fallacy is that?

 

[Pixel42]

So, the assumption that only 1 of this (very large but not infinite) number of potential targets can be 'you' does not draw the target around the one that can be 'you'?

But noticing that the assumed one and only brain exists is drawing a target around it?

The fact that only one of those potential targets is me did not draw a target around it in advance, no. I draw that target only because I exist, i.e. after that particular target has been hit.

 

[godless dave]

You started calling it TSF, when in fact the u-brain requirement is the TS. It draws a target around my brain and says "That was a hit. Everything else would have been a miss.

No, it doesn't. With the unique brain hypothesis, there are many possible hits.

 

[Toontown]

The fact that only one of those potential targets is me did not draw a target around it in advance, no. I draw that target only because I exist, i.e. after that particular target has been hit.

Thank you, Texas sharpshooter.

So what was all that about "this (very large but not infinite) number of potential targets"? Could only one of those potential targets have been 'you', or not?

 

[Toontown]

No, it doesn't. With the unique brain hypothesis, there are many possible hits.

So many possible targets. Yes, dave, that follows.

What are these "possible hits" on?

 

[godless dave]

So, the assumption that only 1 of this (very large but not infinite) number of potential targets can be 'you' does not draw the target around the one that can be 'you'?

Once you specify "you", you are drawing the target. But "you" doesn't exist until after the fact.

But noticing that the assumed one and only brain exists is drawing a target around it?

Yes.