Proof of Immortality, VII

[The Sparrow]

... Unless and until you demonstrate that a process can continue after the components that give rise to it stop functioning, all of your messing about with bayesian bollocks is, well, bollocks.

Pretty much sums up the last 5 years.

Jabba, is this going in your "map"?

Do you think we ALL aren't noticing your refusal to address this point?

 

[halleyscomet]

- No, I don't.
- I first estimated the prior probabilities of the different hypotheses included under ~H in 'chapter' II on 3/27/16, #3007
...
11.3.Re P(E|~H):
11.3.1.The probability (“likelihood”) of E given ~H, involves several specific hypothetical possibilities.
11.3.1.1.That only some of us have but one finite life.
11.3.1.2.That we each have numerous finite lives.
11.3.1.3.That only some of us have numerous finite lives.
11.3.1.4.That we each have an infinity of finite lives.
11.3.1.5.That only some of us have an infinity of finite lives.
11.3.1.6.That we each have an infinite life.
11.3.1.7.That only some of us have an infinite life.
11.3.1.8.That time isn’t what we think it is (to be explained).
11.3.1.9.Some other explanation.
11.3.2.Now I must estimate (roughly) the prior probability (rounded off to three decimal places) of each more specific possibility (hypothesis), given ~H.
11.3.2.1.That only some of us have but one finite life: .000
11.3.2.2.That we each have numerous finite lives: .002.
11.3.2.3.That only some of us have numerous finite lives: .000.
11.3.2.4.That we each have an infinity of finite lives; .002
11.3.2.5.That only some of us have an infinity of finite lives: 000.
11.3.2.6.That we each have an infinite life: .002
11.3.2.7.That only some of us have an infinite life: .000
11.3.2.8.That time isn’t what we think it is (to be explained): .002
11.3.2.9.Some other explanation: .002

- Also on 3/27/16, in #3014, I added the likelihoods of my current existence -- given each included hypothesis -- and multiplied them by the prior probabilities of each included hypothesis.
11.3.3.And now, I must estimate the likelihood of my own current existence given the different specific hypotheses under ~Hs.
11.3.3.1.That only some of us have but one finite life: .10.
11.3.3.2.That we each have numerous finite lives: .10.
11.3.3.3.That only some of us have numerous finite lives: .25.
11.3.3.4.That we each have an infinity of finite lives; 1.00
11.3.3.5.That only some of us have an infinity of finite lives: .50.
11.3.3.6.That we each have an infinite life: 1.00
11.3.3.7.That only some of us have an infinite life: .50
11.3.3.8.That time isn’t what we think it is (to be explained): .50
11.3.3.9.Some other explanation: .50
11.3.4.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:
11.3.4.1.P(E|~H) = (0*.5) + (.002*.10) + (0*.25) + (.002*1.0) + (0*.5) + (1*..002) + (0*.5) + (.002*.5) + (.002*.5), or
11.3.4.2.P(E|~H) = 0 + .0002 + 0 +.002 + 0 + .002 + 0 + .001 + .001, or
11.3.4.3.P(E|~H) = .0052. And,
11.3.5.P(H|E) = 0*.99/(0*.99 + .0052*.01) = (0/.000052) = 0.
11.3.6.P(H|E) = 0.
11.3.7.IOW, given my current existence, the posterior probability that I will have one, finite life is zero…

- On 7/21/16, in chapterIII, #2115, jt says
BTW, Jabba, the form of Bayes' Theorem that you are using requires H and ~H to be complementary hypotheses, that is, they must be mutually exclusive and exhaustive. If ~H is a specific hypothesis, and there is more than one alternative to ~H, then H must comprise all the alternatives. The problem with that is how do you come up with a single P(E|H), if H represents a collection of alternative models, each implying a different value of P(E|H)?

- Then,on 7/23/16, in chapter III, #2149, jt says
Alas, after stating that I didn't want to know how you calculated P(E|~H), I read your explanation anyway. Although the following correction doesn't matter, because (1) none of the numbers enters into the calculation of the posterior, since your P(E|H)=0, and thus the 0 probability of your posterior is a foregone conclusion, and (2) all your numbers are just made up, I feel pathologically pedagogically compelled to point out that the prior probabilities 11.3.2.1–11.3.2.9 need to be normalized to sum to 1. After doing so, P(E|~H)=.62 (not .0052). Thus under your pet hypothesis, or ensemble of hypotheses, you had a 62% chance (strangely enough) of having come into existence.
Alternatively, if H and ~H are both specific hypotheses, then they must be the only possible hypotheses in the universe. If, on the other hand, there are more than two possible hypotheses, then you cannot use the form of Bayes' Theorem that you've been using; you must use the odds form of Bayes Theorem instead.

- Then, on 7/23/16, in chapter III, #2156, I accept jt's correction.
jt,
- Showing my ignorance, and lack of recent statistical study, I now agree with .62 rather than .0052.
- I'll have to think more about the need to normalize -- but for now, I agree with you on that also...

Jay,
- As you can see above, I was doing that before jt "instructed" me, but I did accept his correction about normalization.
- Also, having realized that the simple formula doesn't work, I've returned to my earlier, more complicated, formula -- that Dr Horel(sp?) approved.

Are you intentionally lying, or are you REALLY that unaware of the fact that you’re lying?

If you had indeed accepted correction you would alter your claims to reflect that. You have not. You keep returning to the same errors, like a dog to his vomit.

Exactly how stupid do you think we are?

 

[JoeMorgue]

 

[calebprime]

11.3.2.4.5 That only each and every other one of us (and them) could, or might, have at one time or another a full and meaningful soulful life in one or more universes under several assumed names, with full residency of not more than six months.

11.3.2.4.6 That every each and every other one of us (and them) could, or might, have at one time or another a full and meaningful soulful life in one or more universes under several assumed names, with full residency of not more than six months.

 

[JayUtah]

11.3.2.4.5 That only each and every other one of us (and them) could, or might, have at one time or another a full and meaningful soulful life in one or more universes under several assumed names, with full residency of not more than six months.

11.3.2.4.6 That every each and every other one of us (and them) could, or might, have at one time or another a full and meaningful soulful life in one or more universes under several assumed names, with full residency of not more than six months.

11.3.3.9 is where he hides the false dilemma in the wall of screed.

 

[Jabba]

- To help sort out the different assertions. I color my new ones blue.

...
5. Or, it could be that all possible events – given H – are equally unlikely (e.g. a fair lottery) -- if so, the particular event needs to be "set apart" in a way that is relevant to the hypothesis in order to impact the hypothesis...

This correctly describes the strength of Bayesian reasoning, but it does properly describe your approach. Normally in a Bayesian inference, this step would be where we could encode information from sources such as personal knowledge or experience.
When you try to illustrate this in your analogies, you speak of the lottery winner being a relative of the lottery organizer, and of this affecting the probability that he won legitimately because we can quantify a degree of suspicion as grist for the model. That's a rather poor illustration, as we've explained to you repeatedly. But the real problem is that there is no suitable analogue in your model. You want to "set apart" E so that you can jiggle the Bayesian outcome in your favor. But the criteria by which you propose to "set apart" E is no more than that it has been chosen. That method of "setting part" data expressly commits the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. Your lottery analogy doesn't describe your proof. Your proof instead proposes to evaluate P(E|H) as improbable on no stronger a basis than, "Oh, looky, this particular E came up in the data; how improbable was that?"...

- I doubt that I can do any better than I already have, but Caveman does seem to agree with me, e.g.

- Chapter V!.#130, on 6/29/17, by Jay:
Oh, but we already showed that there can be no K that involves incarnation, for which P(K|E) > P(H|E). In fact, we proved that for any K that involves incarnation of a separately-existing soul, P(K) < P(H) necessarily. Just like the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, you seem to just want to set aside the problem and pretend it doesn't exist. I assure you it does.

From chapter VI, #134. 6/29/17, by Caveman:
You proved no such thing. Your pseudo-mathematical musings do not constitute proof of anything. They didn't the first time you made this, nor the second, nor the third, nor the however-many times you've simply repeated this incorrect assertion by now.


- From chapter VI, #2477, 10/12/17, by me:
Dave,
1. I’m back!
2. Can’t help myself.
3. Simple Bayesian formula: P(I|E)=P(E|I)*P(I)/P(E)
4. I: I’m immortal
5. E: I currently exist
6. If I allow for
6.1. a 1% prior probability for my immortality, and
6.2. an unimaginably small number for the prior probability of me currently existing, and
7. If P(E|I) is NOT an example of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy,7.1. P(I|E)=1*.01/.00000000000…1=.9999999…9, and
7.2. I must be immortal.
8. Am I using the formula properly?

- by Caveman, in chapter VI, #2511, on 10/17/17.
Of course it isn't, the TS fallacy has nothing to do with using your own existence in a conditional and there are no such things as "valid targets" or "invalid targets", just ignore all that.
The TS fallacy is the fallacy of switching the conditional.
Let A be "shot the side of the barn such that it counts as a hit"
Let B be "drew a difficult target on the side of the barn"
Then a sharpshooter can be considered as P(sharpshooter) = P(A|B), ie by the probability that you can score a hit given that a difficult target has been drawn. Someone using the TS fallacy would be arguing P(sharpshooter) = P(B|A), ie that they're a sharpshooter because they can draw a difficult target given a shot at the side of the barn that needs to count as a hit.
In your case, if you were making a TS fallacy you'd be arguing "the probability of me being immortal is P(E|I)" and you're making a lot of errors, but you're not making that particular one.
Your actual problem is this assertion: P(E|~H) > P(E|H)

- I must admit that I still don't understand Caveman's explanation, but IMO, he tends to be right...

 

[JayUtah]

Jabba, you are addressing remarks to me, but you seem not have read anything I've written in the past couple of days. I will be happy to address your argument in depth as soon as you address the rebuttal in breadth, a request I have been repeating daily for six months. Please do not rudely just plow ahead with walls of text as if this were your private pulpit.

 

[sackett]

I like that "to be explained" shyly hiding in parentheses. So cute. It was the first time too.

It will be again, in ~6 months or so. And again, and still again, time without end, amen.

So does anybody REALLY want to live forever?

 

[Jabba]

...
6. If – given H – an event is impossible, but does occur, H must be wrong.
7. Otherwise, what we call Bayesian statistics is used to evaluate the effect of a new and relevant event upon the probability of H.

...And for the foregoing reasons, you don't do that correctly. Your problem doesn't fit the Bayesian method of reasoning, so you have to invent a whole bunch of things to make it seem like it fits -- imaginary "pools" of potential entities, etc.

- I'll stick with my previous answers to this objection.
- Also, I'll present only my latest syllogism to my professorial "friends" -- I won't present the arguments against.





Further, do not keep blaming your ongoing failure on the alleged bias of your critics. Your argument fails not because your audience is biased but because it has been appropriately refuted and you decline to address the refutation.[/QUOTE]

 

[Jabba]

Jabba, you are addressing remarks to me, but you seem not have read anything I've written in the past couple of days. I will be happy to address your argument in depth as soon as you address the rebuttal in breadth, a request I have been repeating daily for six months. Please do not rudely just plow ahead with walls of text as if this were your private pulpit.

Jay,
- If you can explain again what you mean by the "rebuttal in breadth," or just direct me back to an appropriate post, I'll try to oblige.

 

[Mojo]

Jay,
- If you can explain again what you mean by the "rebuttal in breadth," or just direct me back to an appropriate post...

Do you mean a post like the one you have repeatedly been directed to but have failed to address?

 

[JayUtah]

Jay,
- If you can explain again what you mean by the "rebuttal in breadth," or just direct me back to an appropriate post, I'll try to oblige.

Are you serious? You're seriously asking me to give you the link to the post I've been linking here on a daily basis for six months? You know full well what that list if fatal flaws is and where to find it. Now quit stalling and do what I ask, and maybe I'll overlook your extreme rudeness.

 

[JayUtah]

Do you mean a post like the one you have repeatedly been directed to but have failed to address?

Indeed, you'd think he'd have run into it several times with all the jumping about he's been doing to mine quotes. As I said, he's not paying any attention to what's being said, and resisting every attempt to drag him away from his retrospective dumps. He can't imagine that this is anything but a pulpit.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Jesus Christ Jabba what do you want us to do? Rub your nose in our counterarguments like you're a dog that crapped on the rug?

READ THE THREAD YOU STARTED AND STOP BEING RUDE AND INTENTIONALLY DENSE.

70% of the this thread is people going "We've already addressed that here" and you have the stones to actually go "Could you please show me where you responded?"

Sod off with that nonsense and stop acting like a child.

"I'll be happy oblige" my left sock.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Jay,
- If you can explain again what you mean by the "rebuttal in breadth," or just direct me back to an appropriate post, I'll try to oblige.

Why explain again when the posts remain there for you to go back and read? Use the same method to find JayUtah's posts that you used to find the others. Do you find the unbelievable depth of dishonesty you've displayed in that post to weigh on your conscience?

Do you also cheat at Solitaire and then tell yourself you won while the people who watched you cheat just shake their heads?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Do you also cheat at Solitaire and then tell yourself you won while the people who watched you cheat just shake their heads?

No he just deals cards into random piles and exclaims "Well what a coincidence! That is exactly the pattern I wanted the cards to be in! I won!"

 

[JimOfAllTrades]

Jay,
- If you can explain again what you mean by the "rebuttal in breadth," or just direct me back to an appropriate post, I'll try to oblige.

Like others, I'm reeling at the rudeness of essentially saying "I can't be bothered to actually read your posts". However, just so you can't say that you do not know what Jay meant, here is my take on "rebuttal in breadth". (And I don't want to speak for JayUtah or anyone else, so if I've overstepped by doing this, or if I have something wrong, the error is mine and no one else's, and I expect to be corrected.)

No, that was not the assignment. Just because you have purposely ignored this list for six months does not make it moot.

(respectful snip)

Now I told you I was finished fooling around with you. You have begged far too much from the patience of honest people whose contributions you have co-opted for your own selfish purposes. For each of the fatal flaws in the post linked above, please provide one or two sentences describing how your final argument, if any, will overcome it.*** This should take you no more than an hour and should comprise a single post. Then when we are convinced you are serious and have a serious argument, we can proceed with the detailed presentation of your claim according to the individual justifications you will have laid out.****

*** Rebuttal in breadth
****Rebuttal in depth

 

[JayUtah]

Gee, JimOfAllTrades, it's almost like you can read and comprehend simple language. [emoji3]

 

[JimOfAllTrades]

Gee, JimOfAllTrades, it's almost like you can read and comprehend simple language. [emoji3]

The beauty of good writing is that it can be clear, concise, and correct without be complicated. Pointing out the obvious in this case was, well, obvious for those exact reasons.

 

[JayUtah]

No he just deals cards into random piles and exclaims "Well what a coincidence! That is exactly the pattern I wanted the cards to be in! I won!"

You especially have to love arguments of the form:
1. I don't understand what X is saying, but
2. X must be right.