ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics 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.
Closed Thread
Old 7th December 2012, 07:13 AM   #241
Jabba
Master Poster
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,387
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
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
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 07:20 AM   #242
shuttlt
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,802
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.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 07:24 AM   #243
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
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?
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 07:33 AM   #244
shuttlt
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,802
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
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.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 08:04 AM   #245
Loss Leader
Opinionated Jerk
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 16,110
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- 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

What is my Gladiator Profile?
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 08:06 AM   #246
Giordano
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,930
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
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?
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 08:18 AM   #247
shuttlt
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,802
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.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 09:31 AM   #248
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 6,130
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- 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.
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 10:21 AM   #249
Agatha
Winking at the Moon
 
Agatha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,706
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
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.
Agatha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 10:39 AM   #250
Acleron
Master Poster
 
Acleron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,290
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
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?
Acleron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 10:43 AM   #251
shuttlt
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,802
Originally Posted by Acleron View Post
No room in the margin?
For the full proof, no... which only goes to show how thorough and complete the proof is.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 12:00 PM   #252
gabeygoat
Muse
 
gabeygoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 869
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post


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?
gabeygoat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 12:07 PM   #253
Helen
Implicitly explicit
 
Helen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Here. Or very nearly getting there, at least.
Posts: 2,135
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
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?
Helen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 12:13 PM   #254
Mashuna
Ovis ex Machina
 
Mashuna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,599
Originally Posted by gabeygoat View Post
Yes, but does this not prove then, that dice are immortal?
No, it proves that anything happening anywhere, ever, is impossible.
Mashuna is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 12:46 PM   #255
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 14,396
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 View Post
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.
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 03:17 PM   #256
abaddon
Philosopher
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 7,270
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?
abaddon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 09:40 PM   #257
AdMan
Philosopher
 
AdMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 9,578
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
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
AdMan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th December 2012, 05:48 AM   #258
Jabba
Master Poster
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,387
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
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
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th December 2012, 06:05 AM   #259
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 6,130
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
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.
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th December 2012, 09:39 AM   #260
Jabba
Master Poster
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,387
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
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
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th December 2012, 12:32 PM   #261
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
tsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 34,433
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
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.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th December 2012, 01:03 PM   #262
abaddon
Philosopher
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 7,270
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
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 View Post
- 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 View Post
-- strongly weighing against that hypothesis, and therefore suggesting "something like" immortality.
And you just made that up.
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- 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 View Post
- 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 View Post
- Do you agree with my description so far?

--- Jabba
No.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th December 2012, 07:58 PM   #263
Loss Leader
Opinionated Jerk
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 16,110
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
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

What is my Gladiator Profile?
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th December 2012, 08:48 PM   #264
Giordano
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,930
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.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th December 2012, 08:58 PM   #265
ehcks
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,008
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
ehcks is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th December 2012, 01:54 AM   #266
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 5,160
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
...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
The Norseman is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th December 2012, 02:46 AM   #267
AdMan
Philosopher
 
AdMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 9,578
Bumping these up again.

Jabba, will you please answer these questions (bolding mine):

Originally Posted by Agatha View Post
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.
And please, don't tell us how you've read all the posts and you're overwhelmed by the number of questions and comments, and you need to go back and think about them, and you'd like it if we chose one person to ask questions, and you only have an hour a day to spend on this thread, and you've forgotten most of your sources, and you need to try and look them up, etc., etc., etc.

That is just plain evasive BS. Everyone can see that.

Just answer the questions.
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
- Carl Sagan

Last edited by AdMan; 9th December 2012 at 02:54 AM.
AdMan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th December 2012, 03:06 AM   #268
abaddon
Philosopher
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 7,270
Originally Posted by AdMan View Post
Bumping these up again.

Jabba, will you please answer these questions (bolding mine):



And please, don't tell us how you've read all the posts and you're overwhelmed by the number of questions and comments, and you need to go back and think about them, and you'd like it if we chose one person to ask questions, and you only have an hour a day to spend on this thread, and you've forgotten most of your sources, and you need to try and look them up, etc., etc., etc.

That is just plain evasive BS. Everyone can see that.

Just answer the questions.
seconded.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th December 2012, 07:36 AM   #269
Jabba
Master Poster
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,387
Originally Posted by Agatha View Post
In the time you took to tell us that you'd eventually get round to answering the criticisms of your post #215, you could have posted the remainder of your supposed proof of immortality, and also answered some of those criticisms.

Honestly, Jabba, do you have any idea how damaging it is to your credibility that you act like this? It was bad enough that you took two weeks to post what should have been in the first post, but now you are doing what you have done in the shroud thread. Instead of answering people, you waste post upon post in telling us that you intend to answer at some indeterminate time in the future, instead of just answering.

Despite your attempt to inject a little levity, you don't have 2^64 questions to answer. You just have five.

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.
Agatha,
- I was about to attempt an answer to Humot's #232, but at least a few of you guys would like me to attempt answers to your set of five questions instead. I can only answer one at a time.
#1.
- I've told you how I get the probability of me existing right now (or, of a particular "person" (individual consciousness) existing at a particular time), given the "scientific" (non-religious) model.
- 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.
- I naturally use the complement of that -- 1% -- as the probability that the scientific model is not true.
- For the probability of me existing given that one of the alternative models is true, I gave the SWAG of .1% as a very low-ball, yet significant estimate.
- How's that?
--- 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
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th December 2012, 07:48 AM   #270
Squeegee Beckenheim
Philosopher
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 9,388
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
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.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th December 2012, 07:59 AM   #271
shuttlt
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,802
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- 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"?
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th December 2012, 08:07 AM   #272
Agatha
Winking at the Moon
 
Agatha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,706
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.
Agatha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th December 2012, 01:37 PM   #273
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 17,336
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
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.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th December 2012, 05:46 PM   #274
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 10,793
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
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.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th December 2012, 05:24 AM   #275
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 17,336
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.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th December 2012, 08:20 AM   #276
Jabba
Master Poster
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,387
Originally Posted by Agatha View Post
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?
Agatha,

- My mistake. I was thinking that I had used .1% (.001) as P(me|R) rather than .05.

- Keep in mind that the probabilities I'm giving are all estimates, and this particular estimate is the least reliable. Here, I'm estimating the probability that a particular "self" (me) would exist right now given that one of the "religious" hypotheses were correct.
- 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.

- As I see it, the biggest obstacle to our communication here is that in P(me|R), I'm not considering my existence as a given, whereas in P(NR|me), I am. My claim is that this is how it's done. We're "always" trying to judge the possible explanations for something that has already happened, and this is how we do it...

- These are not easy, yes/no, questions -- even though we can phrase them as such. Something like, "Have you quit beating your wife?"
- And it naturally takes me a while to express my take in order to have any chance of effectively conveying it...

--- 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
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th December 2012, 08:29 AM   #277
Jabba
Master Poster
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,387
- 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
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th December 2012, 08:31 AM   #278
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 14,396
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
"self"

...
"religious"

...

"nebulous"

...

"low-balling"
Who in the hell are you quoting here?
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th December 2012, 08:34 AM   #279
Kwalish Kid
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 511
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- 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?
Kwalish Kid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th December 2012, 09:14 AM   #280
Agatha
Winking at the Moon
 
Agatha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,706
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.
Agatha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:24 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.