Proof of Immortality, VII

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
- In Bayesian statistics...
Click to expand...

You mean that think you admitted you really didn't know much about, when jsfisher was quizzing you on it?

...probability and likelihood are not the same.
Click to expand...

Probably are likelihood are not the same whether Bayes is involved or not. But some formulations of a problem that can be solved using Bayesian methods produce likelihoods that devolve to probabilities because the independent parameter is discrete or does not apply. This is the case in your formulation, as jt512 pointed out.

You are not the teacher.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
From what I currently know...
Click to expand...

You mean "now".

If I learn tomorrow that I have a dangerous heart condition...
Click to expand...

...which will be a whole different value for "now." Are you starting to get the point? Properly defining your terms matters.

Monza posed a simple question, and he phrased it in a way that can be answered as a probability, not a likelihood, the same as in your proof. jt512 pointed that out, and you asked him to explain because you didn't understand it. What's worse, your own source gives the answer. Did you actually read and comprehend it? Or did you just quote-mine it to try to claw your way out of the semblance of ignorance?
 
Last edited:
Mojo said:
Damnit you gave the game away. Assuming Jabba notices...
Click to expand...

Jabba has already publicly admitted he can't answer my questions. That means he has to keep pretending I don't exist. It's a terribly empowering position. I can reveal all Jabba's childish tricks and he will blunder on as if nothing happened.
 
Jabba said:
- Not in Bayesian inference.
Click to expand...

Yes, especially in Bayesian inference. The conditioned event is assumed true whatever that event might be and whatever else it might have been. You have never understood this. This is why you figure the numerator of your likelihood ratio incorrectly. You figure it as if the probability of the event arising at all has something to do with the ability of a hypothesis to explain the event once it has occurred.

This is why you can't describe the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. This is why every statistician who has reviewed your proof has rejected it and told you that you don't know what you're talking about. Every statistician, Jabba. This is a fact.
 
Last edited:
godless dave said:
In any statistical system, the likelihood of the present time being the present time is 1.
Click to expand...
Dave,
- In Bayes, the likelihood of something is the probability of something -- given a particular hypothesis. Do you disagree with that?
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- In Bayes, the likelihood of something is the probability of something -- given a particular hypothesis. Do you disagree with that?
Click to expand...
Jabba, what is the likelihood P(A|A)?

You're doing what you always do. You're asking people to agree with trivially true or false statements as if those were the questions that actually applied to your argument. We know you can quote web sites and textbooks chapter and verse. What's unclear is whether you can formulate correct and accurate models according to those principles.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
Dave,
- In Bayes, the likelihood of something is the probability of something -- given a particular hypothesis. Do you disagree with that?
Click to expand...

No but that's irrelevant to what we're talking about here. The present time is itself. Now is now. Those are just how the words are defined. There is no possibility of now being anything other than now.
 
godless dave said:
In any statistical system, the likelihood of the present time being the present time is 1.
Click to expand...

Jabba said:
Dave,
- In Bayes, the likelihood of something is the probability of something -- given a particular hypothesis. Do you disagree with that?
Click to expand...

JayUtah said:
Jabba, what is the likelihood P(A|A)? You're doing what you always do. You're asking people to agree with trivially true or false statements as if those were the questions that actually applied to your argument. We know you can quote web sites and textbooks chapter and verse. What's unclear is whether you can formulate correct and accurate models according to those principles.
Click to expand...
Jay,
- You seem to be suggesting that the hypothesis was that now (the present time) is the present time. Is that what you mean?
 
godless dave said:
In any statistical system, the likelihood of the present time being the present time is 1.
Click to expand...

Jabba said:
Dave,
- In Bayes, the likelihood of something is the probability of something -- given a particular hypothesis. Do you disagree with that?
Click to expand...

godless dave said:
No but that's irrelevant to what we're talking about here. The present time is itself. Now is now. Those are just how the words are defined. There is no possibility of now being anything other than now.
Click to expand...
- What is the hypothesis in your first claim above?
 
Jabba said:
- What is the hypothesis in your first claim above?
Click to expand...

You're way too hung up on one web site's terminology, and you clearly have no inherent understanding yourself. This is leading you to draw distinctions that don't exist. Bayes' theorem is about two events. With that understanding, go revisit all your silly attempts today to entrap people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom