[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

Status
Not open for further replies.
jt512 said:
If the complement of hypothesis H has prior probability P(~H)=.5, then the prior probability of H, P(H)=.5 as well. How could one possibly "accept" either hypothesis over the other, if their probabilities are equal?
Click to expand...

Jabba said:

- Interesting how complicated things are.

- I should have said, "Given that you're likelihood of existing right now is 1/∞, given the hypothesis that you (singular) have but one short life to live (at most), would you accept the complementary hypothesis if the complementary hypothesis had a prior probability of 50%?
- Agreed, that question is a difficult one to wrap one's mind around, and to be able to answer -- but, I do think that it sufficiently defines itself, in order for you to answer it, once you do wrap your mind around it.

- In addition, this is simply a hypothetical kind of question, so I have no need to support the specific numbers (including ∞) that I'm using.
- And, hypothetical questions are quite useful in trying to clearly understand your opponent's position. In addition, hypothetical questions can help your opponent to clearly understand 'his' own position...
Click to expand...
Jay,
- Hopefully, That answers your question.
 
I *think* that Jabba is suggesting that as his scenario is entirely hypothetical, the facts that the hypothesis relies on nonsense and the numbers are imaginary doesn't matter, since it's all some kind of thought experiment. Therefore, he doesn't need to address jt512's question.

Of course, I may be entirely wrong.

I'm going to come up with a hypothesis (A) that the sky is blue, and call the complement of this non-A, without defining whether I mean by non-A that the sky is purple, grey, pink with yellow polka dots or non-existent. Do you accept that the probability of my non-A hypothesis is 50%, Jabba?
 
Agatha said:
I *think* that Jabba is suggesting that as his scenario is entirely hypothetical, the facts that the hypothesis relies on nonsense and the numbers are imaginary doesn't matter, since it's all some kind of thought experiment. Therefore, he doesn't need to address jt512's question.
Click to expand...

I think you're right about this, and I can understand how Jabba might be getting frustrated with people not accepting his unsupported assertions. Seems to be a very long and difficult road between blind faith and objective reasoning that some folks won't even buy the map for, much less take the journey.

Of course, I may be entirely wrong.
Click to expand...

The world may never know.

I'm going to come up with a hypothesis (A) that the sky is blue, and call the complement of this non-A, without defining whether I mean by non-A that the sky is purple, grey, pink with yellow polka dots or non-existent. Do you accept that the probability of my non-A hypothesis is 50%, Jabba?
Click to expand...

I have an uncannily similar hypothesis regarding the mysteries of ladies undergarments. :)
 
Last edited:
tsig said:
One divided by infinity is undefined else:

1/i = 0 then (1/i)*i = 0*i

or 1 = 0*i

since any number multiplied by zero = zero

1 = 0.

IINAMM*

I am not a math major.:)
Click to expand...


You are right. The limit of 1/(infinity) approaches 0.
 
Good Morning, Mr. Savage, and happy Saturday!

I have been thinking about your statement that you have no need to support the specific numbers in a hypothetical, and I have this to offer:

Instead of trying to sell a hypothetical pig in an infinite poke, why not just state your argument? You want to know if we will "accept" a particular number...and then you say the numbers are not important. Why not just explain why you think that number "essentially proves" immortality, whether anyone agrees with the number or not? Set out the heart of the matter--if the heart is sound, we can consider the details. If the heart is not sound, the details truly do not matter.

I am interested in hearing the rest of the argument.
 
jt512 said:
If the complement of hypothesis H has prior probability P(~H)=.5, then the prior probability of H, P(H)=.5 as well. How could one possibly "accept" either hypothesis over the other, if their probabilities are equal?
Click to expand...
Holy cow. That's one of the so-obvious-once-pointed-out-yet-somehow-I-missed-it things. Well done. (Not sure how this post will sound, but it is intended seriously).

Ladewig said:
I have absolutely no evidence with which I can disprove even part of your observation.

..........................
If I may ask, where do you see this thread going? Will page 70 look much different from page 60? Will page 170 look much different from page 60?
Click to expand...
My prognosticativicioiusness seems to have deserted me, so I shall forego my predilection for temporally adjusted observation. Ahem.

That said: Nope; I doubt it will be much different.


Jabba said:
Jay,
- Hopefully, That answers your question.
Click to expand...
As Akhenaten said, Jabba, it did not even remotely address it. This is NOT an attack on you; it is merely pointing out that your post lacked any bearing on the quoted post.


Agatha said:
I *think* that Jabba is suggesting that as his scenario is entirely hypothetical, the facts that the hypothesis relies on nonsense and the numbers are imaginary doesn't matter, since it's all some kind of thought experiment. Therefore, he doesn't need to address jt512's question.

Of course, I may be entirely wrong.
Click to expand...
I don't think you are wrong, and it is something I had considered posting about yesterday. It's not just Jabba; there are any number of sincere people who think they have uncovered the means to overturn the prevailing view but who present no science or even logic to demonstrate it. I think of it as the Einstein Insufficiency. I suspect that most of them know that Einstein famously used thought experiments to formulate his positions on relativity. What most of them fail to grok is that Einstein did not rely on the thought experiments as his proof; they served the dual functions of his starting point and his means of explaining conceptually. Too many, and perhaps Jabba is one of them, think that the thought experiments are the proofs themselves, not realizing they are insufficent. It seems like mule-headedness to them when we don't accept them as such.

Of course, in this case, even the thought experiment is incompletely laid out.

And, Jabba, if you're reading this, it really is not an attack on you; it is a description of the impression that your posts leave.
 
Slowvehicle said:
Good Morning, Mr. Savage, and happy Saturday!

I have been thinking about your statement that you have no need to support the specific numbers in a hypothetical, and I have this to offer:

Instead of trying to sell a hypothetical pig in an infinite poke, why not just state your argument? You want to know if we will "accept" a particular number...and then you say the numbers are not important. Why not just explain why you think that number "essentially proves" immortality, whether anyone agrees with the number or not? Set out the heart of the matter--if the heart is sound, we can consider the details. If the heart is not sound, the details truly do not matter.

I am interested in hearing the rest of the argument.
Click to expand...
I second this, but I would like to point out that the request has been made before and roundly ignored. I made the request long, long ago; I am sure others have, too.
 
Jabba said:
Jay,
- Hopefully, That answers your question.
Click to expand...


It does not. My question (How could one possibly "accept" either hypothesis over the other, if their probabilities are equal?) was rhetorical. The answer is, "You can't (at least rationally, that is)."
 
Last edited:
Slowvehicle said:
I am interested in hearing the rest of the argument.
Click to expand...

Once again, I find myself confused.

To what "rest of the argument" are you referring?
Jabba has carefully laid out every step of his theory. Nothing else is forthcoming.
 
I have a perfect refutation of Jabba's hypothesis, using Jabba's own logic:

There are an infinite number of possible theories of Life, The Universe and Everything. Therefore, the chance that Jabba has come upon a correct theory is 1/inf.
 
Slowvehicle said:
Now, now...sit back and think of England...
Click to expand...

[Ladewig clutches his pearls] Oh my!

.............

I joined this thread not to change Jabba's mind, but rather to get a handle on Jabba's perspective and motivations. I think I have satisfied my curiosity on that point.

Now I am trying to understand everyone else's perspective. Again, I am not trying to change anyone's posting style or content. I just want a better understanding of human nature. I am quite confused at this point. If you folks were snarky or sarcastic, I could understand that. But many posters are writing in a style as if they might expect the thread to be resolved to everyone's satisfaction in a page or two. Am I misreading their perspectives or am I simply not understanding that JREF members have an irrational belief that that almost every issue can be rationally resolved through carefully explained logic. Or something else?


ETA:

Wait. Are you guys being polite ironically?

Because I could understand that.
 
Last edited:
Ladewig said:
[Ladewig clutches his pearls] Oh my!

.............

I joined this thread not to change Jabba's mind, but rather to get a handle on Jabba's perspective and motivations. I think I have satisfied my curiosity on that point.

Now I am trying to understand everyone else's perspective. Again, I am not trying to change anyone's posting style or content. I just want a better understanding of human nature. I am quite confused at this point. If you folks were snarky or sarcastic, I could understand that. But many posters are writing in a style as if they might expect the thread to be resolved to everyone's satisfaction in a page or two. Am I misreading their perspectives or am I simply not understanding that JREF members have an irrational belief that that almost every issue can be rationally resolved through carefully explained logic. Or something else?


ETA:

Wait. Are you guys being polite ironically?

Because I could understand that.
Click to expand...

I cannot speak for others, but my own motivations are a concatenation of these options. If nothing else, I am trying to give Mr. Savage every opportunity to express himself. I confess to a morbid curiosity--maybe the horse will, in fact, sing! Mostly I cannot help but wonder what marvels lie yet to be unearthed...I would love to have "essentially prove" explained to me.

Also, "...to dig, I am too old; to beg I am too proud..."
 
Okay, I'm sure most here have seen this, but I've just re-watched it as an old favourite and thought of this thread. I think it's relevant to the idea that the universe was created for us which is, in a round about way, what Jabba's talking about with his "fine tuning" argument.

So, the video. Please watch this, Jabba, it's less than 3 minutes long:



That should give you some sense of just how incredibly tiny and insignificant we are here on this planet. Does it seem reasonable, given how much of the universe there is that doesn't have human life, that the universe was, in any way, created in order for human life to exist?
 
Ladewig said:
[Ladewig clutches his pearls] Oh my!

.............

I joined this thread not to change Jabba's mind, but rather to get a handle on Jabba's perspective and motivations. I think I have satisfied my curiosity on that point.

Now I am trying to understand everyone else's perspective. Again, I am not trying to change anyone's posting style or content. I just want a better understanding of human nature. I am quite confused at this point. If you folks were snarky or sarcastic, I could understand that. But many posters are writing in a style as if they might expect the thread to be resolved to everyone's satisfaction in a page or two. Am I misreading their perspectives or am I simply not understanding that JREF members have an irrational belief that that almost every issue can be rationally resolved through carefully explained logic. Or something else?


ETA:

Wait. Are you guys being polite ironically?

Because I could understand that.
Click to expand...
It's a fascination of horror. Much like rubbernecking on finding a crash on the motorway.

Jabba keeps on promising but not delivering anything at all. Well, bar mathematical fails.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Does it seem reasonable, given how much of the universe there is that doesn't have human life, that the universe was, in any way, created in order for human life to exist?
Click to expand...
What does waste mean to an omnipotent God? If one was omnipotent/omniscient/etc... wouldn't it be as easy to create the entire universe as to create a blade of grass? How can one judge what is and isn't significant in creation if it is the work of such a being?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom