[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[carlitos]

The Volkswagen Group also produces Audi, Bentley, Bugatti, Lamborghini, Porsche, SEAT, Škoda... If Jabba proves Jesus via the Beetle, could he likewise prove Vishnu or Thor with some of the other marques?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I'm just saying that there are different ways in which outcomes can be limited.

There are. Just so long as you acknowledge that the differences in your example of poker hands and VWs are artefacts of the arbitrary criteria you've assigned to the VWs and poker hands, rather than anything that has any basis in reality. As long as you acknowledge that you could equally apply the criteria you've applied to VWs to poker hands, and vice versa, and end up with equal, but opposite, results for what you are calling their "intrinsic" and "extrinsic" finiteness/infiniteness.

 

[Loss Leader]

I'm just saying that there are different ways in which outcomes can be limited. And Slowvehicle is actually pointing out such different ways in order to show that my attempt at apposition is misguided.

You can keep saying it, but it's not true. It's not what Slowvehicle wrote; it's not what any of the half dozen people who explained it to you wrote. The ways you limited the outcome of the deck of cards are the same ways you could (but choose not to) limit the production of Volkswagens. Limits are limits. Why do you refuse to acknowledge this?

 

[Jabba]

- My latest to Dr. Hoerl:

Roger,

It’s a long story, and even longer due to my poor memory re the proper terminology.
I’ve been going back and forth on the specific Bayes formula I’d like to use -- but for the moment at least, I would like to stick with the formula addressing a binary variable.

P(A|me) = P(me|A) P(A)/(P(me|A) P(A) + P(me|~A) P(~A))
Where
- "A" is the hypothesis that each potential human “self” exists for one finite period of time, at most.
- And, “me” is my current existence.

The numbers I propose to insert:
- P(me|A) = 1/∞
- P(A) = .99
- P(me|~A) = .50 (not sure that makes sense…)
- P(~A) = .01

What do you think?
Not to worry – so far, no one agrees…

Thanks, again.
Rich

 

[Jabba]

There are. Just so long as you acknowledge that the differences in your example of poker hands and VWs are artefacts of the arbitrary criteria you've assigned to the VWs and poker hands, rather than anything that has any basis in reality. As long as you acknowledge that you could equally apply the criteria you've applied to VWs to poker hands, and vice versa, and end up with equal, but opposite, results for what you are calling their "intrinsic" and "extrinsic" finiteness/infiniteness.

- I think I agree that they are "artefacts" -- just that i think that they are meaningful and useful artefacts in our case.

 

[Toontown]

Jabba,

I don't have an objection to your formula or the values you've plugged into it. As long as P(me|A) is infinitely small or giganogargantuanly small, hypothesis A is getting hammered.

Which leaves the alternative(s). That's where you're going to run into a high likelihood of being wrong.

As for your hard-core opponents, they don't care how badly your formula hammers hypothesis A. Probability, particularly conditional probability, means nothing to them. They have no respect for probability. Some of them practically deny the existence of it.* A few tough sessions at a poker table at uncomfortable stakes against competent opponents could teach them some respect, but your formula alone will have no effect on them.

*One just denied the existence of entire pantheons of universes, using their remote locations for an excuse.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

- I think I agree that they are "artefacts" -- just that i think that they are meaningful and useful artefacts in our case.

And you're wrong about that. I could attach the label "bird" to a VolksWagen and the label "light bulb" to a poker hand, but that doesn't make the one able to fly and the other able to produce light.

You're just playing semantic games which have no bearing on reality.

 

[Toontown]

Which would be causally isolated from us, which means they don't exist.

Is there any straw too ridiculous for you to clutch at?

 

[PixyMisa]

:

Is there any straw too ridiculous for you to clutch at?

You do understand that anything outside the observable Universe is causally isolated from us forever, and does not, in any meaningful sense, exist?

 

[Toontown]

You do understand that anything outside the observable Universe is causally isolated from us forever, and does not, in any meaningful sense, exist?

Why? Because You have decreed it?

Conversely, does this universe not exist because it is causally disconnected from the others? Or does your magical incantation only work one way? Is this the 'special' universe, because You are in it?

 

[PixyMisa]

Why? Because You have decreed it?

Because that's the definition of the observable Universe. It is everything with which we have a causal connection.

Conversely, does this universe not exist because it is causally disconnected from the others? Or does your magical incantation only work one way?

It's relative. Since you are in a different location to me, the boundaries of your observable Universe are (infinitesimally) different to mine.

We may live in a multiverse. Our own Universe may be infinite. But the observable Universe is most definitely finite, and that is all that can be meaningfully said to exist. The best we can potentially do is construct mathematical models that elegantly describe our own Universe and also predict the existence of others; we can never, even in principle, verify their existence.

 

[Slowvehicle]

<snip for focus>
- I'm not trying to be appositive. I'm just saying that there are different ways in which outcomes can be limited. And Slowvehicle is actually pointing out such different ways in order to show that my attempt at apposition is misguided.

Good morning, Mr. Savage.

Thank you for demonstrating that you did not, in fact, read, or comprehend, my explanation as to why your scenario is false. Simply false.

I shall try again.

The only difference between your invented "kinds" of limitations is the limitations you, yourself, established.

It is perfectly proper for you to calculate the number of 5-card hands that can be made, given a standard deck of cards.

It is perfectly proper for you to calculate the number of Volkswagens that might theoretically be made, given "infinite" resources.

It is improper, it is false, it is incorrect, for you to pretend that the difference in that number of poker hands, and that number of Volkswagens, represents a difference between poker hands and Volkswagens; when, in fact, what you have done is no more than describe the effect of resource availability.

It is trivially axiomatic that if you postulate theoretically "infinite" resources (time without end, literally endless energy, "infinite" mass, no limit to space), you may then logically assume that you can make an "infinite" number of Volkswagens. That "infinite" number is not the result of a different kind of limit, but of a different degree of limit.

If you have enough resources to make 2 Volkswagens, you are limited to...3 Volkswagens.

If you have ehough resources to make 21 Volkswagens, you are limited to...21 Volkswagens.

If you have enough resources to make 21,525,464 Volkswagens, you are limited to...21,525,464 Volkswagens.

If you postulate enough resources to make "infinite" Volkswagens, you are limited to..."infinite" Volkswagens.

You have not, in fact, described, or defined, or explainied the existence of a different "kind" of number. All you have done is describe the effect of the limit you set upon your resources. The "different ways" in which your outcomes are limited are no more than the amounts of resources you are willing to postulate are available in each scenario.


Do you ever intend to address your rudeness about whining (to a third party, no less) that everyone on JREF thinks you are "crazy or stupid"? Not to put too fine a point on it, there are, in fact, posters here who have never read a post of yours. What makes you think they have an opinion? Further, I have pointed out to you that I do not think, and have never said, that you are "crazy or stupid"--and others have said the same.

You really, really, ought to address your faux pas.

 

[Toontown]

Because that's the definition of the observable Universe. It is everything with which we have a causal connection.


It's relative. Since you are in a different location to me, the boundaries of your observable Universe are (infinitesimally) different to mine.

We may live in a multiverse. Our own Universe may be infinite. But the observable Universe is most definitely finite, and that is all that can be meaningfully said to exist. The best we can potentially do is construct mathematical models that elegantly describe our own Universe and also predict the existence of others; we can never, even in principle, verify their existence.

Speak for yourself. I'm not buying any of that balderdash. If your magical incantation works one way (which it doesn't), then it works both ways. By your pseudo-reasoning, this universe cannot exist, because it is causally disconnected from the parts of itself that are beyond our visible light cone.

 

[PixyMisa]

Speak for yourself.

Look it up.

The observable universe consists of the galaxies and other matter that can, in principle, be observed from Earth in the present day because light and other signals from those objects has had time to reach the Earth since the beginning of the cosmological expansion. Assuming the universe is isotropic, the distance to the edge of the observable universe is roughly the same in every direction. That is, the observable universe is a spherical volume (a ball) centered on the observer, regardless of the shape of the universe as a whole. Every location in the universe has its own observable universe, which may or may not overlap with the one centered on Earth.

...

Both popular and professional research articles in cosmology often use the term "universe" to mean "observable universe". This can be justified on the grounds that we can never know anything by direct experimentation about any part of the universe that is causally disconnected from us, although many credible theories require a total universe much larger than the observable universe.

I'm not buying any of that balderdash.

You're the one who brought it up.

If your magical incantation

Relativity.

works one way

We've certainly established that it works.

(which it doesn't)

I suggest you stop relying on GPS then.

then it works both ways.

It works all ways.

By your pseudo-reasoning, this universe cannot exist, because it is causally disconnected from the parts of itself that are beyond our visible light cone.

That doesn't actually mean anything.

 

[jsfisher]

I don't have an objection to your formula or the values you've plugged into it.

The formula itself has never been at issue. Your lack of an objection to it is not surprising. I find your acceptance of Jabba's values a bit strange, though.

Jabba hasn't nailed down a definition for A, but you accept his P(A)?
Jabba hasn't even considered what ~A must therefore be, but you accept his P(~A)?
Jabba hasn't nailed down a definition for "self", but has set a direction incompatible with what's he's implied for A, but you accept his P(me|A) and P(me|~A)?

You must be a very amiable and trusting individual.

 

[PixyMisa]

The formula itself has never been at issue. Your lack of an objection to it is not surprising. I find your acceptance of Jabba's values a bit strange, though.

Jabba hasn't nailed down a definition for A, but you accept his P(A)?
Jabba hasn't even considered what ~A must therefore be, but you accept his P(~A)?
Jabba hasn't nailed down a definition for "self", but has set a direction incompatible with what's he's implied for A, but you accept his P(me|A) and P(me|~A)?

You must be a very amiable and trusting individual.

Indeed. If - in Jabba's parlance - me ⇒ ~A then of necessity P(me|A) = 0 and P(me|~A) = 1 and nothing in the formula matters at all.

Everything comes down to Jabba's definition of self, which insofar as it has been coherently formulated has no demonstrated connection to reality.

 

[JoeMorgue]

All Woo has to by its very nature retain some continuously ill defined variable "X" in there somewhere to function.

 

[John Jones]

You are mathematically correct about giganogargantuan not equalling infinity. But I'm correct about the difference being practically immaterial.

You are being chased by a pack of ravenous wolves. You've been driven relentlessly to the edge of a cliff. Far below there is water of unknown depth.

If you jump, the odds against your survival are giganogargantuan. But if you don't jump, there are no odds. The wolves will dismember and eat you, probability 1.

Sure, there's a mathematical difference. But get real. The only practical choice you have is how you prefer to die.

I would jump, but that doesn't mean I would have any expectation of surviving. I just don't want to be dismembered by wolves.

That's the only practical difference between giganogargantuan odds and infinite odds.

This thread is about Jabba essentially proving immortality via Bayesian statistics. Please stop with the attempted de-railing.

 

[John Jones]

"Roger?" One email exchange and you call this Professor who is kind enough to afford a complete stranger some time "Roger." And you call us rude.

Even if he invited you to do so, simple respect should preclude it.

It seems presumptuous to me as well.

 

[jt512]

"Roger?" One email exchange and you call this Professor who is kind enough to afford a complete stranger some time "Roger." And you call us rude.

Even if he invited you to do so, simple respect should preclude it.

I would presume that Dr. Hoerl signed an email to Jabba with his first name. When someone does that with me, I usually take it as an invitation to address the person by his first name.