Proof of Immortality, the IV league

[Mojo]

Dave,
- Cause, if my estimates for the other variables in the formula are roughly correct, P(H|E) is virtually zero.

...and around we go again.

Continued from this thread.

Posted By: zooterkin

 

[Jabba]

That's the opposite of what I'm saying.

The application of Bayesian statistics you're claiming to use is based on contrasting the probability of observing an event given one hypothesis is true with the probability of observing the same event given a different hypothesis is true.

P(E|OOFLam) is based on OOFLam being true.

P(E|~OOFLam) is based on OOFLam not being true.

This is the formula you have been using all along.

If you want to use Bayes in a different way (the more familiar form is: P(H|E)=P(E|H)P(H)/P(E) )then knock yourself out. But that's not the formula you started the thread with.

Dave,
- The formula I've been using all along is
P(H|E) = P(E|H)*P(H)/P(E|H)*(P(H)+P(E|~H)*P(~H)).
- It's the formula for evaluating complementary hypotheses.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- The formula I've been using all along is
P(H|E) = P(E|H)*P(H)/P(E|H)*(P(H)+P(E|~H)*P(~H)).
- It's the formula for evaluating complementary hypotheses.

So P(E|H) is based on H being true. P(E|~H) is based on ~H being true. The value of P(E|~H) does not change the value of P(E|H), and vice versa.

 

[JayUtah]

It's the formula for evaluating complementary hypotheses.

True enough, but you seem to have forgotten that you don't have complementary hypotheses. You have a whole bag of hypotheses that you've arbitrarily divided into "one thing" and "everything else."

 

[Jabba]

Dave,
- The formula I've been using all along is
P(H|E) = P(E|H)*P(H)/P(E|H)*(P(H)+P(E|~H)*P(~H)).
- It's the formula for evaluating complementary hypotheses.

So P(E|H) is based on H being true. P(E|~H) is based on ~H being true. The value of P(E|~H) does not change the value of P(E|H), and vice versa.

Dave,
- No. But it does change the value of P(H|E).
- Though, I keep misplacing my parentheses. My denominator should read
P(E|H)*P(H)+(P(E|~H)*P(~H)).

 

[Mojo]

E has already happened. It happened before you tried to formulate an expression of how its occurrence would affect the probability of H being true. It doesn't matter where you stick your parentheses; you are wrong.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- No. But it does change the value of P(H|E).

We weren't talking about P(H|E). We were talking about P(E|H).

 

[Jabba]

So P(E|H) is based on H being true. P(E|~H) is based on ~H being true. The value of P(E|~H) does not change the value of P(E|H), and vice versa.

Dave,
- No. But it does change the value of P(H|E).
- Though, I keep misplacing my parentheses. My denominator should read
P(E|H)*P(H)+(P(E|~H)*P(~H)).

We weren't talking about P(H|E). We were talking about P(E|H).

Dave,
- You were talking about the right side of the formula -- but, the left side of the formula, and what the formula solves for is P(H|E). And clearly, The values in the right side affect the value in the left side.

 

[JoeMorgue]

And clearly, The values in the right side affect the value in the left side.

Not if you're just making the numbers up they don't.

Equations only work if the inputted values are meaningful and valid. Yours are not.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- You were talking about the right side of the formula -- but, the left side of the formula, and what the formula solves for is P(H|E). And clearly, The values in the right side affect the value in the left side.

So are you actually going to provide some values and provide reasons for how you came up with them? I misread your earlier post - I read P(H|E) as P(E|H). But right before that we were talking about P(E|H) so I didn't, and still don't, understand why you were asking if I think H might be wrong. It doesn't matter what I think. If you show reasoning why ~H is more probable than H, then I'll change my mind. That's how this works.

 

[John Jones]

Oh no! It's part 4!

 

[Slowvehicle]

Oh no! It's part 4!

Zooterkin's title deserves SOME kind of notice...

...we could clutch our noses and run screaming into the night...

 

[Jabba]

I misread your earlier post - I read P(H|E) as P(E|H). But right before that we were talking about P(E|H) so I didn't, and still don't, understand why you were asking if I think H might be wrong. It doesn't matter what I think. If you show reasoning why ~H is more probable than H, then I'll change my mind. That's how this works.

Dave,
- I've provided that (somewhere, and more than once) already, but for some reason, I haven't been able to find it. I'll keep looking -- but you (and others) can probably find it faster...

 

[JayUtah]

Dave,
- I've provided that (somewhere, and more than once) already

And it has been refuted several times already. If all you can do to answer those refutations is continue repeating it, then you were done a long time ago.

 

[godless dave]

You provided numbers for P(E|~H) but didn't explain where they came from. Your number for P(E|H) was based on E being a soul or "radio self", which you only recently conceded does not exist under H.

 

[HighRiser]

Dave,
- I've provided that (somewhere, and more than once) already, but for some reason, I haven't been able to find it. I'll keep looking -- but you (and others) can probably find it faster...

You have done no such thing! You've stated unsupported premise and repeatedly restated unsupported premise, but you've never even attempted to use reason to support your premises. I don't expect you to do so now because you can't. You can't reason your way out of a position that you didn't use reason to get into.

 

[Jabba]

You provided numbers for P(E|~H) but didn't explain where they came from. Your number for P(E|H) was based on E being a soul or "radio self", which you only recently conceded does not exist under H.

Dave,
- The following is #2642 from the previous 'chapter.'

9.1. Re P(E|~H):
9.1.1. The probability (“likelihood”) of E given ~H, involves several specific hypothetical possibilities.
9.1.1.1. That only some of us have but one finite life.
9.1.1.2. That we each have numerous finite lives.
9.1.1.3. That only some of us have numerous finite lives.
9.1.1.4. That we each have an infinity of finite lives.
9.1.1.5. That only some of us have an infinity of finite lives.
9.1.1.6. That we each have an infinite life.
9.1.1.7. That only some of us have an infinite life.
9.1.1.8. That time isn’t what we think it is (to be explained).
9.1.1.9. Some other explanation.

9.1.2. Now I must estimate (roughly) the prior probability (rounded off to 3 decimal places) of each more specific possibility (hypothesis), given ~H.
9.1.2.1. That only some of us have but one finite life: .000
9.1.2.2. That we each have numerous finite lives: .200.
9.1.2.3. That only some of us have numerous finite lives: .000
9.1.2.4. That we each have an infinity of finite lives; .200
9.1.2.5. That only some of us have an infinity of finite lives: .000
9.1.2.6. That we each have an infinite life: .200.
9.1.2.7. That only some of us have an infinite life: .000
9.1.2.8. That time isn’t what we think it is (to be explained): .200
9.1.2.9. Some other explanation: .200

9.1.3. And now, I must estimate the likelihood of my own current existence given the different specific hypotheses under ~H.
9.1.3.1. That only some of us have but one finite life: .10.
9.1.3.2. That we each have numerous finite lives: .10.
9.1.3.3. That only some of us have numerous finite lives: .25.
9.1.3.4. That we each have an infinity of finite lives; 1.00
9.1.3.5. That only some of us have an infinity of finite lives: .50.
9.1.3.6. That we each have an infinite life: 1.00
9.1.3.7. That only some of us have an infinite life: .50
9.1.3.8. That time isn’t what we think it is (to be explained): .50
9.1.3.9. Some other explanation: .50

9.1.4. And now, I must multiply each of the probabilities of ~H above by the likelihoods of my current existence, given each specific hypothesis, and add up their products. And, the total likelihood of my current existence given ~H:
9.1.4.1. P(E|~H) = (0*.5) + (.2*.10) + (0*.25) + (.2*1.0) + (0*.5) + (1*.2) + (0*.5) + (.2*.5) + (.2*.5), or
9.1.4.2. P(E|~H) = 0 + .02 + 0 +.2 + 0 + .2 + 0 + .1 + .1, or
9.1.4.3. P(E|~H) = .62. And,
9.1.5. P(H|E) = 0*.99/(0*.99 + .62*.01) = (0/.0062) = 0.
9.1.6. P(H|E) = 0.

- IOW, given my current existence, the posterior probability that I will have one, finite life is (effectively) zero…

- I think that I got the numbers right this time.


- I assume that you are most interested in how I came up with the different numbers in 9.1.2. ?

 

[Mojo]

Dave,
- The following is #2642 from the previous 'chapter.'

9.1. Re P(E|~H):
9.1.1. The probability (“likelihood”) of E given ~H, involves several specific hypothetical possibilities.
9.1.1.1. That only some of us have but one finite life.
9.1.1.2. That we each have numerous finite lives.
9.1.1.3. That only some of us have numerous finite lives.
9.1.1.4. That we each have an infinity of finite lives.
9.1.1.5. That only some of us have an infinity of finite lives.
9.1.1.6. That we each have an infinite life.
9.1.1.7. That only some of us have an infinite life.
9.1.1.8. That time isn’t what we think it is (to be explained).
9.1.1.9. Some other explanation.

9.1.2. Now I must estimate (roughly) the prior probability (rounded off to 3 decimal places) of each more specific possibility (hypothesis), given ~H.
9.1.2.1. That only some of us have but one finite life: .000
9.1.2.2. That we each have numerous finite lives: .200.
9.1.2.3. That only some of us have numerous finite lives: .000
9.1.2.4. That we each have an infinity of finite lives; .200
9.1.2.5. That only some of us have an infinity of finite lives: .000
9.1.2.6. That we each have an infinite life: .200.
9.1.2.7. That only some of us have an infinite life: .000
9.1.2.8. That time isn’t what we think it is (to be explained): .200
9.1.2.9. Some other explanation: .200

9.1.3. And now, I must estimate the likelihood of my own current existence given the different specific hypotheses under ~H.
9.1.3.1. That only some of us have but one finite life: .10.
9.1.3.2. That we each have numerous finite lives: .10.
9.1.3.3. That only some of us have numerous finite lives: .25.
9.1.3.4. That we each have an infinity of finite lives; 1.00
9.1.3.5. That only some of us have an infinity of finite lives: .50.
9.1.3.6. That we each have an infinite life: 1.00
9.1.3.7. That only some of us have an infinite life: .50
9.1.3.8. That time isn’t what we think it is (to be explained): .50
9.1.3.9. Some other explanation: .50

9.1.4. And now, I must multiply each of the probabilities of ~H above by the likelihoods of my current existence, given each specific hypothesis, and add up their products. And, the total likelihood of my current existence given ~H:
9.1.4.1. P(E|~H) = (0*.5) + (.2*.10) + (0*.25) + (.2*1.0) + (0*.5) + (1*.2) + (0*.5) + (.2*.5) + (.2*.5), or
9.1.4.2. P(E|~H) = 0 + .02 + 0 +.2 + 0 + .2 + 0 + .1 + .1, or
9.1.4.3. P(E|~H) = .62. And,
9.1.5. P(H|E) = 0*.99/(0*.99 + .62*.01) = (0/.0062) = 0.
9.1.6. P(H|E) = 0.

- IOW, given my current existence, the posterior probability that I will have one, finite life is (effectively) zero…

- I think that I got the numbers right this time.


- I assume that you are most interested in how I came up with the different numbers in 9.1.2. ?

And here is #2643 from that thread:

- I think that I got the numbers right this time.

The numbers you made up?

No, you didn't get them right. You made them up.

 

[Mojo]

And here's #2646:

I think that I got the numbers right this time.

NO.

As usual, you just made them up and therefore they have no meaning. And you didn't correct any of the fatal flaws in the structure of your argument. As usual you just ignored everything that was said to you and repeated the claim that hasn't fundamentally changed in over four years.

Fail.

 

[Mojo]

There are some other responses there that you also need to address.