Cont: Proof of Immortality VIII

[Dave Rogers]

- I'm not talking about two events,

Yes, you are; you just don't know you are, because you don't understand the terminology in use.

and I'm not using that formula.

Yes, you are; you just don't know you are, because you don't understand elementary mathematics well enough to rearrange the terms.

My estimate for P(E|H) is 10^-100.

That's not an estimate, it's a number you've made up without reference to any other information because you think it'll give the answer you want.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

- Where, specifically, am I wrong in the above?

In that you haven't been trying to say what you claim, and you clearly don't understand the distinction between P(E|H) and P(H|E).

Dave

 

[godless dave]

So you took one course in Bayesian statistics, but you think you can use it to prove immortality?

That's like taking a few physics courses and thinking you can disprove special relativity.

 

[Belz...]

My estimate for P(E|H) is 10^-100.

Based on what?

 

[JayUtah]

Where is the hogwash?

The part where you shift blame for your ignorance onto others, claiming it is they who are "mixing [things] up." You're rudely asking other people to indulge your ignorance while you blame them for your having misled them with it.

 

[JayUtah]

I'm not talking about two events...

Yes you are. Bayes' theorem is about events. What we mean by "event" differs from application to application.

Also, I have a lot of excuses for my poor terminology...

And I'm not interested in any of them.

The problem is that you are smugly trying to "teach" people a subject you clearly don't understand -- while they clearly do. It's not just "terminology," although you making up words for things that already have names doesn't help. Your problem is that you don't understand -- at a very basic, fundamental level -- how statistical inference works. This is partly what I was trying to show you by having you address the flaws in your argument broadly, rather than flitting from topic to topic.

It's just unconscionably rude for you to persist in a display of abject ignorance, all the while claiming your critics are too benighted to grasp your genius. Who do you think you're fooling, Jabba?

 

[jond]

- I'm not talking about two events, and I'm not using that formula. I'm talking about the "likelihood" of a particular event -- given a particular hypothesis. The symbols I use for that ingredient are P(E|H). The formula I use to determine the posterior probability of H is P(H|E)=P(E|H)P(H)/(P(E|H)P(H)+P(E|~H)P(~H)). My estimate for P(E|H) is 10^-100

Jabba, does your Current Existence consider your self to be a separate entity from your brain?
- if yes, then you are not discussing the materialist model, and this is all moot.
- if no, then no matter what absurd made up number you put in there, you still have to multiply that number by P(S) to get to immortality. (Because the only way to get to immortality is to add a soul to your body.) It will not be a larger number than P(E|H).

 

[Jabba]

- I'm not talking about two events, and I'm not using that formula. I'm talking about the "likelihood" of a particular event -- given a particular hypothesis. The symbols I use for that ingredient are P(E|H). The formula I use to determine the posterior probability of H is P(H|E)=P(E|H)P(H)/(P(E|H)P(H)+P(E|~H)P(~H)). My estimate for P(E|H) is 10^-100.

- Also, I have a lot of excuses for my poor terminology, but mostly, while I must have taken about 10 courses in Statistics, I only took one in Bayesian Statistics, and that was cut short by the Kent State shooting almost 40 years ago as I was finishing up my course work.

- Sorry. My dating was wrong -- I took the Bayesian course a long time ago, it was near the end of my course work in the late 70s, and it was cut short in response to the Kent State shooting, but the shooting actually occurred in 1970...

 

[Belz...]

- Sorry. My dating was wrong -- I took the Bayesian course a long time ago, it was near the end of my course work in the late 70s, and it was cut short in response to the Kent State shooting, but the shooting actually occurred in 1970...

Stop making excuses and correct your mistakes.




ETA: Especially excuses that require time travel.

 

[JayUtah]

Sorry

It doesn't matter why you're ignorant, Jabba. It only matters that you're doing a very poor job of owning the effect of that ignorance on your proof. Are we going to spend the rest of the day sidetracked on exactly how many decades ago you took your one-and-only relevant course, instead of debating your proof?

 

[RoboTimbo]

- Sorry. My dating was wrong -- I took the Bayesian course a long time ago, it was near the end of my course work in the late 70s, and it was cut short in response to the Kent State shooting, but the shooting actually occurred in 1970...

Your course in the late 70's was cut short in response to the Kent State shootings more than 5 years before in May 1970?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Your course in the late 70's was cut short in response to the Kent State shootings more than 5 years before in May 1970?

I think Jabba's calculated that the Bayesian probability of the course being cut short given that the Kent State shootings occurred was greater than the Bayesian probability of the course being cut short had the Kent State shootings not occurred, and therefore inferred a causal relationship.

Dave

 

[Jabba]

So you took one course in Bayesian statistics, but you think you can use it to prove immortality?

That's like taking a few physics courses and thinking you can disprove special relativity.

- I've become more informed over the last few years -- after I recognized what seemed to me mathematical support for my "epiphany" of 1956.
- And, it isn't that I know very much about Bayesian Statistics, it just seems like no one else that I've found (except maybe Toontown) has recognized this particular implication.
- Given OOFLam, the likelihood of my current existence is virtually zero (Since virtually zero doesn't work in math, I've given it a number -- 10^-100).

 

[theprestige]

- Also, I have a lot of excuses for my poor terminology, but mostly, while I must have taken about 10 courses in Statistics, I only took one in Bayesian Statistics, and that was cut short by the Kent State shooting almost 40 years ago as I was finishing up my course work.

Was that before or after you started wearing an onion on your belt, as was the custom in those days?

 

[Dave Rogers]

- Given OOFLam, the likelihood of my current existence is virtually zero (Since virtually zero doesn't work in math, I've given it a number -- 10^-100.

Which you've extracted from your nether regions. However, we know that, in the hypothesis you're trying to prove, an additional choice - that of what soul is incarnated in your body - is also needed to result in you being you; the likelihood of your current existence must therefore be less than your "estimate" of "virtually zero." So your "proof" cannot possibly be valid.

Dave

 

[jond]

- I've become more informed over the last few years -- after I recognized what seemed to me mathematical support for my "epiphany" of 1956.
- And, it isn't that I know very much about Bayesian Statistics, it just seems like no one else that I've found (except maybe Toontown) has recognized this particular implication.
- Given OOFLam, the likelihood of my current existence is virtually zero (Since virtually zero doesn't work in math, I've given it a number -- 10^-100).

How does adding a soul make your current existence more likely?

 

[Jabba]

Your course in the late 70's was cut short in response to the Kent State shootings more than 5 years before in May 1970?

- Yeah...
- That is certainly my memory of it...
- I'll see if I can get any confirmation from SUNY...

 

[JayUtah]

I've become more informed over the last few years...

Claims of improvement are unconvincing. You still can't demonstrate that you know what you're talking about on even basic concepts, and your competence in mathematics is a premise to your proof. You claim your proof only appears to fail because your critics are too stupid or too dishonest to appreciate it. You don't consider that your proof appears to fail because it is in fact wrong, and that the error leading to its failure is a predictable result of lacking the relevant proficiency.

And, it isn't that I know very much about Bayesian Statistics, it just seems like no one else that I've found (except maybe Toontown) has recognized this particular implication.

You're both wrong. You haven't considered the possibility that the "implication" you're chasing is not actually true, and is instead an error due to your lack of competence in the relevant field. In fact you both commit the same error of trying to elevate subjective feelings to the status of objective facts.

Given OOFLam, the likelihood of my current existence is virtually zero (Since virtually zero doesn't work in math, I've given it a number -- 10^-100.

No. Remember you told us the story. You decided on purely emotional grounds that you were immortal, and you've convinced yourself (apparently out of ego) that you have the knowledge and skill to prove it mathematically. However, the facts show that after several attempts it is the universal conclusion among all who've offered to help you that you have neither the skill to accomplish your proof nor the knowledge and willingness to understand why you cannot. You're literally just making up arbitrary numbers and pretending that applying Bayes' theorem to them somehow conveys a specific meaning that others are bound to respect.

Rather than face the reality of your situation in an mature, introspective way, you have decided to create a fantasy play -- an alternate universe -- in which your proof succeeded. You're recruiting us and others to act in this play, and then becoming rude and abusive when they don't follow your script.

 

[JayUtah]

I'll see if I can get any confirmation from SUNY...

No one is asking for that. They are instead asking you to defend the concepts you insist upon in your proof, given reasonable and well-supported objections to them. Do not constantly sidetrack the discussion in order to avoid responsibility.

 

[godless dave]

- I've become more informed over the last few years -- after I recognized what seemed to me mathematical support for my "epiphany" of 1956.
- And, it isn't that I know very much about Bayesian Statistics, it just seems like no one else that I've found (except maybe Toontown) has recognized this particular implication.

Maybe they know enough about Bayesian statistics to realize that the implication you see isn't real.