Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

 JREF Forum Moderated: [Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

 Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

 7th December 2012, 07:13 AM #241 Jabba Master Poster     Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Schenectady, NY Posts: 2,249 Originally Posted by Giordano Jabba, there are no good answers for you to formulate and present! The very beginning of your proof is in error. This has been explained to you in multiple ways, but almost all of them focus on one point: the probability of an event that has already occurred is 1. If you start a mathematic proof with 1=1+1, there is no way to justify the rest of the proof. That is what you are doing here. Giordano, - This has not been explained many times -- it's been claimed many times. - We're not questioning the probability that I exist; we're questioning the probability that I exist by chance -- given the scientific hypothesis that I can exist only one, short life in all of "eternity," at most. --- Jabba __________________ "The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski "Most good ideas don't work." Jabba "Tra gli argomenti, colui che ricorre alla meno sarcasmo dovrebbe essere selezionata." Jabba's Razor
 7th December 2012, 07:20 AM #242 shuttlt Illuminator   Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 4,790 I have a proof that I am immortal based on my knowledge of mathematical induction. My proof is superior to Jabba's proof. I will outline my proof in a future post.
 7th December 2012, 07:24 AM #243 dafydd Banned   Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: On the Flanders/Nederland border. Posts: 35,445 Originally Posted by Jabba Giordano, - This has not been explained many times -- it's been claimed many times. - We're not questioning the probability that I exist; we're questioning the probability that I exist by chance -- given the scientific hypothesis that I can exist only one, short life in all of "eternity," at most. --- Jabba So no immortality. Thread over?
 7th December 2012, 07:33 AM #244 shuttlt Illuminator   Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 4,790 Originally Posted by Jabba We're not questioning the probability that I exist; we're questioning the probability that I exist by chance Jabba Isn't your proof in fact a proof of deteminism then, rather than immortality? Or are you claiming determinism => immortality? Last edited by shuttlt; 7th December 2012 at 08:02 AM.
 7th December 2012, 08:04 AM #245 Loss Leader Opinionated JerkModerator     Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: New York Posts: 15,574 Originally Posted by Jabba - We're not questioning the probability that I exist; we're questioning the probability that I exist by chance -- given the scientific hypothesis that I can exist only one, short life in all of "eternity," at most. The probability is 1. You do exist. So, by definition, you probably exist. __________________ "I recognize the problem ... but I was sort of hoping that no one would consider the issue important enough to bring up." Jabba Follow me on Twitter! @LossLeader
 7th December 2012, 08:06 AM #246 Giordano Illuminator   Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 3,364 Originally Posted by Jabba Giordano, - This has not been explained many times -- it's been claimed many times. - We're not questioning the probability that I exist; we're questioning the probability that I exist by chance -- given the scientific hypothesis that I can exist only one, short life in all of "eternity," at most. --- Jabba Thanks for proving that you have no understanding of statistics, even if you have used statistics at times in you life. What people have explained to you isn't a claim- its an inherent aspect of how statistics works. Fundamentally you are starting with the presumption that you are special, much more special than all the other gene combinations that could have arisen from the past million years of matings. Then you are going to use statistics to show how unlikely your one combination would be. Which you will use to show how special you are. Do you see a flaw in that?
 7th December 2012, 08:18 AM #247 shuttlt Illuminator   Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 4,790 Given that I am alive and in good health right now (at time t=t0), the odds that I will be alive and in good health at some point in the future (at time t=t1) can approach as close to 1 as we like for any choice of t1 s.t. t1-t0 < e for some 'e'. If I am alive at some point in time, I can therefore guarantee that I will be alive at some subsequent time. My birth certificate confirms that at some point I was alive. Therefore I am immortal.
 7th December 2012, 09:31 AM #248 Pixel42 Schrödinger's cat     Join Date: May 2004 Location: Wiltshire, UK Posts: 5,922 Originally Posted by Jabba - This has not been explained many times -- it's been claimed many times. No claims are being made, the analogies are just to help you spot the flaw in your own reasoning. Your reasoning is a well known fallacy; you're far from the first to make this particular mistake and I'm sure you won't be the last. __________________ "The correct scientific response to anything that is not understood is always to look harder for the explanation, not give up and assume a supernatural cause". David Attenborough.
 7th December 2012, 10:21 AM #249 Agatha Winking at the Moon     Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: UK Posts: 5,589 Originally Posted by Jabba Giordano, - This has not been explained many times -- it's been claimed many times. - We're not questioning the probability that I exist; we're questioning the probability that I exist by chance -- given the scientific hypothesis that I can exist only one, short life in all of "eternity," at most. --- Jabba No, you really aren't doing that. You've plucked numbers out of the air and used them to calculate the probability that a particular combination of genes will exist at some point perhaps 10,000 years in the future, and use this tiny number to claim that you are special - the hand of aces. You also fail to understand that aces are just ink on card, only valued more than any other card because humans ascribe value to them when playing some games. You haven't even attempted to justify the numbers you have used, nor explained what this calculation is supposed to show about 'chance', existence or immortality. You are not any more or less special than any of the >7 billion people alive today, or any of the >108 billion who have ever lived on this planet. Could you answer the five simple questions I posed on the previous page? __________________ People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually, from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... timey wimey... stuff.
 7th December 2012, 10:39 AM #250 Acleron Master Poster     Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: In a beautifully understandable universe Posts: 2,290 Originally Posted by shuttlt I have a proof that I am immortal based on my knowledge of mathematical induction. My proof is superior to Jabba's proof. I will outline my proof in a future post. No room in the margin?
 7th December 2012, 10:43 AM #251 shuttlt Illuminator   Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 4,790 Originally Posted by Acleron No room in the margin? For the full proof, no... which only goes to show how thorough and complete the proof is.
 7th December 2012, 12:00 PM #252 gabeygoat Muse     Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Philomath, Oregon Posts: 861 Originally Posted by MRC_Hans Listen, Jabba: Calculate the probablility of a given sequence of 100 dice rolls. (It is something to the tune of 1/6E100) Now take a dice and roll it 100 times, noting each result (should not take you more than half an hour). The sequence you got was, a priori, improbable against astronomic odds, still, there it is. Explain it for the dice throws. Hans Yes, but does this not prove then, that dice are immortal?
 7th December 2012, 12:07 PM #253 Helen Implicitly explicit     Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Here. Or very nearly getting there, at least. Posts: 2,144 Originally Posted by shuttlt For the full proof, no... which only goes to show how thorough and complete the proof is. Perhaps you could just start by telling us how you will tell us about the full proof?
 7th December 2012, 12:13 PM #254 Mashuna Ovis ex Machina     Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Welsh Wales Posts: 6,604 Originally Posted by gabeygoat Yes, but does this not prove then, that dice are immortal? No, it proves that anything happening anywhere, ever, is impossible.
 7th December 2012, 12:46 PM #255 carlitos "más divertido"     Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 13,986 Hello, is this thing on? / obfuscation / long division Hello? Jabba? I "nominate" Agatha to speak for "our side" in this debate. 5 simple questions. Go. Originally Posted by Agatha 1) Where did you get your numbers from? 2) Do you agree with Humots that your maths shows the probability of the non-religious hypothesis to be much more likely than the religious hypothesis? 3) Do you understand that you are calculating the probability of 'you' existing in 2012 as if you were performing the calculation 20,000 years ago? 4) Do you understand why this is a foolish thing to do, given that we are in 2012 and all the things that had to happen to produce you (or any of the 7 billion people in the world) have already happened? 5) Do you understand what people are getting at when they give you analogies such as a puddle thinking the hole is made for it, or the wine thinking the glass is made for it? It takes one post to answer those five questions. It takes one post to lay out the rest of the argument (again, you should have put your entire argument into your first post). One post. In the words of Nike, just do it.
 7th December 2012, 03:17 PM #256 abaddon Philosopher     Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 7,131 Try again. Suppose a worldwide lottery is established. One ticket per individual, man, woman and child. 7 billion tickets are issued to the entire population of Earth. What are the odds of you, Jabba, holding the winning ticket? 7 billion to one, obviously. What are the odds of somebody holding the winning ticket? One. You are claiming that given the 7 billion to one odds of you being the winner somehow confers a specialness upon you, even though you are not the winner. __________________ Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
 7th December 2012, 09:40 PM #257 AdMan Philosopher     Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 9,443 Originally Posted by abaddon Try again. Suppose a worldwide lottery is established. One ticket per individual, man, woman and child. 7 billion tickets are issued to the entire population of Earth. What are the odds of you, Jabba, holding the winning ticket? 7 billion to one, obviously. What are the odds of somebody holding the winning ticket? One. You are claiming that given the 7 billion to one odds of you being the winner somehow confers a specialness upon you, even though you are not the winner. This has been explained to Jabba numerous times, in numerous ways. He has yet to address it, let alone demonstrate he understands the concept. How about Agatha's five questions, Jabba? Can you answer those? __________________ It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan
 8th December 2012, 05:48 AM #258 Jabba Master Poster     Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Schenectady, NY Posts: 2,249 Originally Posted by jt512 Jaynes considered the background information fundamental to probabilistic reasoning, but since it appears in every term in Bayes' Theorem, the equation is correct with or without it; so, unless your argument requires that you stress the importance of the background information, you can write Bayes' Theorem without it. Jay Jay, - Is it incorrect to call the "k" implicit in the various probabilities given? --- Jabba __________________ "The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski "Most good ideas don't work." Jabba "Tra gli argomenti, colui che ricorre alla meno sarcasmo dovrebbe essere selezionata." Jabba's Razor
 8th December 2012, 06:05 AM #259 Pixel42 Schrödinger's cat     Join Date: May 2004 Location: Wiltshire, UK Posts: 5,922 Originally Posted by Jabba Jay, - Is it incorrect to call the "k" implicit in the various probabilities given? --- Jabba Whilst you're waiting for Jay to answer your question, why don't you answer Agatha's? __________________ "The correct scientific response to anything that is not understood is always to look harder for the explanation, not give up and assume a supernatural cause". David Attenborough.
 8th December 2012, 09:39 AM #260 Jabba Master Poster     Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Schenectady, NY Posts: 2,249 Originally Posted by zooterkin How about you stop messing around and tell us what the thread's actually about? Where does immortality come in? Zoo, - My basic effort here is to evaluate the scientific hypothesis that -- at most -- we each have but one short life to live. - My basic claim is that my own existence right now is relevant to that evaluation -- strongly weighing against that hypothesis, and therefore suggesting "something like" immortality. - I gave four possible alternative hypotheses (suggestions) along those lines: 1)I am a basic and eternal part of reality; 2) reincarnation; 3) "now" isn't what we think it is; and, 4) We aren't nearly as smart as we think we are (I just added the "nearly"). And, there might be more. - You guys raise at least two objections: 1) since I already exist, the probability of my existence is 1.00 -- which consequently, blows my conclusion out of the water; and 2) every specific event is highly improbable (in the sense that I mean it), but they happen anyway… - Do you agree with my description so far? --- Jabba __________________ "The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski "Most good ideas don't work." Jabba "Tra gli argomenti, colui che ricorre alla meno sarcasmo dovrebbe essere selezionata." Jabba's Razor
 8th December 2012, 12:32 PM #261 tsig a carbon based life-form     Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 33,458 Originally Posted by zooterkin How about you stop messing around and tell us what the thread's actually about? Where does immortality come in? I suspect that you're going to have to be immortal to get an answer to your questions.
 8th December 2012, 01:03 PM #262 abaddon Philosopher     Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 7,131 Originally Posted by Jabba Zoo, - My basic effort here is to evaluate the scientific hypothesis that -- at most -- we each have but one short life to live. I suspect you will get general agreement there. Originally Posted by Jabba - My basic claim is that my own existence right now is relevant to that evaluation Your claim that you are somehow special is toast Originally Posted by Jabba -- strongly weighing against that hypothesis, and therefore suggesting "something like" immortality. And you just made that up. Originally Posted by Jabba - I gave four possible alternative hypotheses (suggestions) along those lines: 1)I am a basic and eternal part of reality; 2) reincarnation; 3) "now" isn't what we think it is; and, 4) We aren't nearly as smart as we think we are (I just added the "nearly"). And, there might be more. And you made that up as well. Originally Posted by Jabba - You guys raise at least two objections: 1) since I already exist, the probability of my existence is 1.00 -- which consequently, blows my conclusion out of the water; and 2) every specific event is highly improbable (in the sense that I mean it), but they happen anyway… Neither of which you addressed, nor the 5 questions Agatha posed. Because you cannot, and so chose to try to brush them under the carpet. Originally Posted by Jabba - Do you agree with my description so far? --- Jabba No. __________________ Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
 8th December 2012, 07:58 PM #263 Loss Leader Opinionated JerkModerator     Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: New York Posts: 15,574 Originally Posted by Jabba Zoo, - My basic effort here is to evaluate the scientific hypothesis that -- at most -- we each have but one short life to live. - My basic claim is that my own existence right now is relevant to that evaluation -- strongly weighing against that hypothesis, and therefore suggesting "something like" immortality. - I gave four possible alternative hypotheses (suggestions) along those lines: 1)I am a basic and eternal part of reality; 2) reincarnation; 3) "now" isn't what we think it is; and, 4) We aren't nearly as smart as we think we are (I just added the "nearly"). And, there might be more. - You guys raise at least two objections: 1) since I already exist, the probability of my existence is 1.00 -- which consequently, blows my conclusion out of the water; and 2) every specific event is highly improbable (in the sense that I mean it), but they happen anyway… - Do you agree with my description so far? --- Jabba Just to be sociable, I would agree with this. I'd like to see where you go with it next. __________________ "I recognize the problem ... but I was sort of hoping that no one would consider the issue important enough to bring up." Jabba Follow me on Twitter! @LossLeader
 8th December 2012, 08:48 PM #264 Giordano Illuminator   Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 3,364 Jabba, Why don't you answer Agatha's questions before you go any further? They are central issues that need to be addressed at the very beginning of your proof to establish whether your approach is legitimate or not. Currently everyone here is convinced that your approach has serious fundamental flaws, for the reasons already discussed. If you want people to be willing to be open minded as to the rest of your proof, you will need to change their minds. Answering Agatha's questions may do that and you may save yourself and everyone else a lot of time.
 8th December 2012, 08:58 PM #265 ehcks Master Poster   Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 2,679 Truth of knowns is Boolean. 1=true, 0=false. Probability gives a range from 0 (false) to 1 (true) for unknowns. If something already is known to be true, its probability is 1. It is known that you are alive. The probability of your existence is 1. __________________ Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
 9th December 2012, 01:54 AM #266 The Norseman Meandering fecklessly     Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Valhalla, one day at a time Posts: 4,842 Originally Posted by Jabba ...and therefore suggesting "something like" immortality... Ah, I see. You could have saved an awful lot of time and energy just by putting that into your thread title: "Something Like Immortality & Something Like Bayesian Statistics". Would have been much more honest. __________________ "It started badly, it tailed off a little in the middle and the less said about the end the better, but apart from that, it was excellent." - Blackadder
 9th December 2012, 07:48 AM #270 Squeegee Beckenheim Philosopher     Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 8,638 Originally Posted by Jabba I can only answer one at a time. 2, 3, 4 and 5 were all yes/no questions. It would have taken less time to answer all 4 of them than it did to type the sentence I've quoted. Quote: - How's that? The question wasn't what numbers did you use, the question was where did you get the numbers from. Your answer seems to indicate that you made them all up.
 9th December 2012, 07:59 AM #271 shuttlt Illuminator   Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 4,790 Originally Posted by Jabba - I use 99% as the probability that the scientific model is true prior to including the fact that I exist right now. My best guess is that most scientists would not propose such a high probability. What do you mean by "the scientific model" and what would it mean to say that that model is "true"?
 9th December 2012, 08:07 AM #272 Agatha Winking at the Moon     Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: UK Posts: 5,589 I suppose a half answer is better than no answer, though not much help. You took a guess at the probability of the non-religious hypothesis (which you haven't defined) as 99%, but you have not explained where you got the 0.05 from which you used for P(me|R). Where did you get that number from, and why did you choose it? Part of the problem here (apart from your apparent unwillingness to engage with the thread you started, or to actually post your full argument) is that you have not defined your terms or justified the numbers you chose. So my five questions still stand, as you've not fully answered the first one. Where did the 0.05 come from and why did you chose those numbers? __________________ People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually, from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... timey wimey... stuff.
 9th December 2012, 01:37 PM #273 MRC_Hans Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Whithin earshot of the North Sea Posts: 17,455 Originally Posted by Jabba Giordano, - This has not been explained many times -- it's been claimed many times. - We're not questioning the probability that I exist; we're questioning the probability that I exist by chance -- given the scientific hypothesis that I can exist only one, short life in all of "eternity," at most. --- Jabba Are you this obtuse, or are you just acting? Hans __________________ Don't. Just don't.
 9th December 2012, 05:46 PM #274 Craig B Philosopher   Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 9,637 Originally Posted by MRC_Hans Are you this obtuse, or are you just acting? Hans I wonder about this. It's all so very odd. But your two categories are not mutually exclusive, remember, and therein may lie the solution to the conundrum.
 10th December 2012, 05:24 AM #275 MRC_Hans Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Whithin earshot of the North Sea Posts: 17,455 OK; sorry, I was just a bit annoyed. I think Jabba's problem lies in that it is too long ago he learned statistics. Statistics is the art of making predictions about the whole reality, based on sample data. Therefore, the probabilites we calculate are not the probability of reality existing, but the probability of our prediction to be accurate. This explains the fact that once we make predictions about the past (such as Jabba being born), we are usually pretty accurate. However, as Jabba correctly points out, if someone had tried to predict it 20,000 years ago, it would be a different matter. Hans __________________ Don't. Just don't.
 10th December 2012, 08:29 AM #277 Jabba Master Poster     Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Schenectady, NY Posts: 2,249 - In the above, I should have included the formula we're using. - P(NR|me) = P(me|NR)P(NR)/(P(me|NR)P(NR)+P(me|R)P(R)). ---Jabba __________________ "The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski "Most good ideas don't work." Jabba "Tra gli argomenti, colui che ricorre alla meno sarcasmo dovrebbe essere selezionata." Jabba's Razor
 10th December 2012, 08:31 AM #278 carlitos "más divertido"     Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 13,986 Originally Posted by Jabba "self" ... "religious" ... "nebulous" ... "low-balling" Who in the hell are you quoting here?
 10th December 2012, 08:34 AM #279 Kwalish Kid Muse   Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 511 Originally Posted by Jabba - This particular probability is a particularly complicated and "nebulous" concept -- but then, I think that I'm significantly "low-balling" it in that for two of the religious hypotheses, my current existence should be pretty much assured. Is it your religious position that every possible conscious being will be created?
 10th December 2012, 09:14 AM #280 Agatha Winking at the Moon     Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: UK Posts: 5,589 It seems to be his position that he's one of 20 possible beings. Unless he means something else entirely by the 0.05 for P(me|R). It's difficult to say because despite asking several times now, we still have no idea how these numbers have been calculated, nor what his religious hypotheses (two, apparently) are. I am not even going to try to work out how any of this ties into immortality until we get some answers from Jabba. __________________ People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually, from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... timey wimey... stuff.

JREF Forum

 Bookmarks Digg del.icio.us StumbleUpon Google Reddit