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

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


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.
Reply
Old 28th February 2018, 10:20 AM   #1
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Proof of Immortality VIII

Mod InfoThis thread continues from Part VII, found here.
Posted By:Loss Leader



Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
That doesn't make sense. The coin may be fair, two-headed or two-tailed, and the probabilities of those three outcomes must sum to 1. Yours sum to 1.5. Show your working, and I'll show you where you've gone wrong.

Dave
Dave,
- I'm not talking about probabilities; I'm talking about likelihoods.
- P(heads|fair) and P(heads|2 headed). P, here, refers to ikelihoods.
__________________
"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
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor

Last edited by Loss Leader; 1st March 2018 at 01:20 PM.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2018, 10:21 AM   #2
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 76,590
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- I'm not talking about probabilities; I'm talking about likelihoods.
Stop using that as a way to avoid answering other posters. It's very rude, and I have it on good authority that we should avoid rude posters.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2018, 10:24 AM   #3
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I'd like to see you demonstrate that, but you won't.



I'd like to see you demonstrate that, but you won't.
Belz,
- If your using a fair coin, what is the probability that it will come up heads? That's the meaning of "likelihood."
__________________
"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
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico probabilmente corretto." 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2018, 10:27 AM   #4
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 28,159
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- I'm not talking about probabilities; I'm talking about likelihoods.
- P(heads|fair) and P(heads|2 headed). P, here, refers to ikelihoods.
Neither of these is the likelihood that the coin is fair or that it's two-headed. They are conditional probabilities that the coin toss results in heads in either instance. And, call it what you want, likelihood or probability; there is no valid calculation that comes up with the result that, if a single coin is flipped once, it is both 50% likely to be fair and 100% likely to be two-headed. The very suggestion is nonsensical. Are you confusing P(heads|fair) with P(fair|heads), and P(heads|2 headed) with P(2 headed|heads)?

Dave

ETA: Just to remind you:

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Mojo,
- Say that we do have a penny -- i.e., the probability that this penny exists is 1. We flip the penny and it comes up heads. What is the Bayesian likelihood that this penny is two headed?
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Yes we do.
- The likelihood of a fair coin is .5 -- the likelihood of a 2 headed coin is 1.
You're confusing the likelihood that a fair coin comes up heads with the likelihood that a coin that comes up heads is fair. If you don't understand the difference between those, then you haven't grasped the fundamentals of conditional probability.
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right

Last edited by Dave Rogers; 28th February 2018 at 10:30 AM.
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2018, 10:28 AM   #5
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 76,590
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Belz,
- If your using a fair coin, what is the probability that it will come up heads? That's the meaning of "likelihood."
That's a semantics point, and you just did exactly what I accused you of doing, which is rude, and I have it on good authority that we should avoid rude posters.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2018, 10:31 AM   #6
JesseCuster
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 835
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Yes we do.
- The likelihood of a fair coin is .5 -- the likelihood of a 2 headed coin is 1.
There's a 50% chance the coin is fair while simultaneously there's a 100% chance the coin has 2 heads?

I don't think you've thought this through at all and/or your grasp of the basics of probability is wonky.
JesseCuster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2018, 10:32 AM   #7
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,388
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
That's the meaning of "likelihood."
So far you haven't demonstrated a working understanding of likelihood. You've just quoted from textbooks and ignored all follow-up questions and requests to demonstrate proficiency. Most egregiously, you've given us an example and told us what you think the answer should be, but you haven't actually worked the problem to show that you are proficient in the means used to get the answer. It is rude for you to lecture others from a position of purported expertise while being unwilling to demonstrate the expertise when asked.

Please work your sample problem and show your work at each step. Don't just declare what you believe the answer should be.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2018, 10:49 AM   #8
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,457
I've never seen a 2-headed penny. As far as I can tell, they're pretty rare. If I have a penny, it's almost certainly a fair one, regardless of whether I toss it or not, and regardless of what side is up after the toss.

"That coin toss came up heads, so probably the coin is two headed," said nobody ever.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2018, 10:53 AM   #9
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,873
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- If there is such a thing as reincarnation, at least most of us would not know that the previous person was "us."
So, and this is the sort of thing an intellectually honest person would address at some point prior to spending 5 years stalling, what exactly is immortality to you Jabba?

If I'm the reincarnation of.... a young Irish man killed in the trenches of WWI during the Battle of the Somme but we don't look the same, have the same names, don't share any personality traits, and I don't have any of his memories then what exactly has been reincarnated?

I noticed the weasel world "most" in there so I'm going to assume some "highly evolved" people such as yourself will be able to remember.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2018, 10:54 AM   #10
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 30,613
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
You're confusing the likelihood that a fair coin comes up heads with the likelihood that a coin that comes up heads is fair. If you don't understand the difference between those, then you haven't grasped the fundamentals of conditional probability.

It's a confusion that is at the heart of his 'proof'.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2018, 11:10 AM   #11
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,631
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
So, and this is the sort of thing an intellectually honest person would address at some point prior to spending 5 years stalling, what exactly is immortality to you Jabba?

If I'm the reincarnation of.... a young Irish man killed in the trenches of WWI during the Battle of the Somme but we don't look the same, have the same names, don't share any personality traits, and I don't have any of his memories then what exactly has been reincarnated?

I noticed the weasel world "most" in there so I'm going to assume some "highly evolved" people such as yourself will be able to remember.
You know...its the "observer" part. The watcher. Though, without memories, how would you know it is the same watcher............ZOMG!!!?
The Sparrow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2018, 11:24 AM   #12
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,388
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
The likelihood of a fair coin is .5 -- the likelihood of a 2 headed coin is 1.
You asked for "Bayesian likelihood," which isn't really a thing. It appears everyone here has assumed you meant to ask what the posterior probability was, the solution of Bayes' theorem for the example. The answers you're giving us suggest that you're thinking only about the likelihood ratio that is a term in Bayes' theorem. There is such a thing as likelihood, obviously, outside the context of Bayes' theorem. And the posterior probabilities for each of two events, given a common event, are directly comparable only if you have normalized the inverted likelihood via Bayes. But the likelihood ratio by itself doesn't mean what you're ascribing to it. Its only use is to scale the prior probabilities of each of those two events, and your example doesn't contain any priors. You're dissecting Bayes in a way that neither produces correct, useful results nor fixes your proof for immortality.

Last edited by JayUtah; 28th February 2018 at 11:34 AM.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2018, 11:28 AM   #13
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 28,159
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
You asked for "Bayesian likelihood," which isn't really a thing. It appears everyone here has assumed you meant to ask what the posterior probability was, the solution of Bayes' theorem for the example. The answers you're giving us suggest that you're thinking only about the likelihood ratio that is a term in Bayes' theorem.
And, Jabba, even if that is what you think you're talking about, you're still getting it wrong; P(heads|2-headed) is not, for any meaning of the terms used, the Bayesian likelihood that a coin that comes up heads is double-headed, which is what you claim it is. You've mixed it up with the likelihood that a double-headed coin comes up heads - unless, that is, you've made some even more bizarre elementary error.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2018, 12:03 PM   #14
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,343
Originally Posted by jsfisher View Post
This creates an interesting conundrum. This thing you want to be immortal has no aspect that you observe. So in all of the cycling between your existence and your sense of self, never are you hitting on evidence of immortality.
yet another self contradiction to throw on the bonfire!
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2018, 01:01 PM   #15
Monza
Alta Viro
 
Monza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,052
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Mojo,
- If there is such a thing as reincarnation, at least most of us would not know that the previous person was "us."
Originally Posted by jsfisher View Post
This creates an interesting conundrum. This thing you want to be immortal has no aspect that you observe. So in all of the cycling between your existence and your sense of self, never are you hitting on evidence of immortality.
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
If the "self" has no memories or personality but the one contained in the brain of whatever body it inhabits, then although the "sense of self" would be the same, it'd have no way to recognise itself! So not only no way to test whether the theory is correct, but also it makes no difference to the individual person.

In a way, I suspect that jabba's sense of self and mine are in many ways identical, like "going 60 mph" is the same for two cars. It's the body that makes the difference.
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
So, and this is the sort of thing an intellectually honest person would address at some point prior to spending 5 years stalling, what exactly is immortality to you Jabba?

If I'm the reincarnation of.... a young Irish man killed in the trenches of WWI during the Battle of the Somme but we don't look the same, have the same names, don't share any personality traits, and I don't have any of his memories then what exactly has been reincarnated?

I noticed the weasel world "most" in there so I'm going to assume some "highly evolved" people such as yourself will be able to remember.

Jabba,

Please explain what is the difference between being immortal and being mortal? From your comments, I tend to agree with the people I have quoted above. There is no discernible difference between a mortal person and an immortal person. For example, you have previously stated that (despite being immortal) you did not exist in the year 1888. I then asked what is the likelihood that you would exist in the year 2119. You didn't answer this one, but I assume it is pretty small... say virtually zero.

If a mortal body lives for about a hundred years, and an immortal being cannot be distinguished from a mortal body, the likelihood of immortality is the same as that for mortality. In other words, immortality cannot be observed or measured. Is it really any different than the materialist model?
Monza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2018, 01:03 PM   #16
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,873
Originally Posted by Monza View Post
Jabba,

Please explain what is the difference between being immortal and being mortal?
We all know he'll do no such thing.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 28th February 2018 at 01:05 PM.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2018, 01:11 PM   #17
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,574
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Belz,
- If your using a fair coin, what is the probability that it will come up heads? That's the meaning of "likelihood."
What has this to do with the discussion at hand?

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2018, 01:30 PM   #18
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,388
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
What has this to do with the discussion at hand?
He's trying to figure out a way to make his critics actually look as ignorant as he seems to believe they are. He's posed an an example he believes demonstrates his purportedly superior understanding of the methods he uses in his proof. Whether through imprecise wording or more egregious error, it's not working the way he expected. But the point was to say, "See, I know likelihoods and you guys don't, so I can therefore dismiss all your statistics rebuttals as unlearned and probably wrong."
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2018, 01:43 PM   #19
jt512
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,740
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
You asked for "Bayesian likelihood," which isn't really a thing. It appears everyone here has assumed you meant to ask what the posterior probability was, the solution of Bayes' theorem for the example. The answers you're giving us suggest that you're thinking only about the likelihood ratio that is a term in Bayes' theorem. There is such a thing as likelihood, obviously, outside the context of Bayes' theorem. And the posterior probabilities for each of two events, given a common event, are directly comparable only if you have normalized the inverted likelihood via Bayes. But the likelihood ratio by itself doesn't mean what you're ascribing to it. Its only use is to scale the prior probabilities of each of those two events, and your example doesn't contain any priors. You're dissecting Bayes in a way that neither produces correct, useful results nor fixes your proof for immortality.

I agree with you that he must have been asking for the likelihoods, not the posterior probabilities.

I have no idea what Jabba was planning to do with the likelihood ratio, but the likelihood ratio by itself is a meaningful quantity in Bayesian inference. The likelihood ratio is sometimes called the "weight of the evidence," and it is independent of the prior odds of the hypotheses. For any prior odds, the likelihood ratio times the prior odds of some hypothesis versus some other hypothesis equals the posterior odds of those hypotheses. So, the likelihood ratio is the amount by which the evidence changes the odds of the hypotheses. In Jabba's example the likelihood ratio was 2 in favor of the 2-headed coin vs a fair coin. So whatever the prior odds were that the coin was 2-headed (vs fair), the posterior odds will be double the prior odds.
jt512 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2018, 01:48 PM   #20
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,388
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
So, the likelihood ratio is the amount by which the evidence changes the odds of the hypotheses.
I'm on board with that. Unless I've grossly misunderstood you, the effect of the likelihood ratio on some other term is the point I was trying to emphasize in the same way you appear to have. I don't disagree with anything you said.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2018, 01:50 PM   #21
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,873
Again Jabba's trying for a "Bayesian overload."

1. Take something that is certain to happen. "You will die."
2. Make up as many alternate events as possible, no matter how unlikely.
3. Every event, no matter how improbable, must have at least some tiny sliver of improbability.
4. Therefore enough improbable alternatives to a probable event will magically tip the scale and make the original event less and less improbable.
5. Repeat until original event is improbable enough to slide "virtually impossible" into.
6. Live forever.

Since we're talking about a guy who doesn't understand that 1 and 2 aren't the same number, death exists, and pronouns don't create reality I'm not holding my breath to be wowed by his intricate grasp of the difference between probability and likelihood.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 28th February 2018 at 01:52 PM.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2018, 03:30 PM   #22
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by Monza View Post
He may not. Jabba recently confirmed to me on this message board that he existed in the year 1888. I assume his parents were born after that.
Originally Posted by Monza View Post
Jabba,

Please explain what is the difference between being immortal and being mortal? From your comments, I tend to agree with the people I have quoted above. There is no discernible difference between a mortal person and an immortal person. For example, you have previously stated that (despite being immortal) you did not exist in the year 1888. I then asked what is the likelihood that you would exist in the year 2119. You didn't answer this one, but I assume it is pretty small... say virtually zero...
Monza
- For some reason, you've made contradictory statements above. If immortality is real -- and I think it is -- I did exist in 1888, and will exist in 2119 (if time gets that far).
__________________
"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
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico probabilmente corretto." 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2018, 03:33 PM   #23
jond
Illuminator
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,252
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Monza
- For some reason, you've made contradictory statements above. If immortality is real -- and I think it is -- I did exist in 1888, and will exist in 2119 (if time gets that far).
But not in the materialist model, which is what you are trying to disprove.

Also: if you have no memory of existing in 1888, and nothing about your self indicates that it existed in 1888, how is it in any way meaningful to say that you did exist in 1888?
jond 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2018, 03:34 PM   #24
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Springwood, NJ
Posts: 29,374
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Monza
- For some reason, you've made contradictory statements above. If immortality is real -- and I think it is -- I did exist in 1888, and will exist in 2119 (if time gets that far).
What do "you" remember about your life in 1888?
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2018, 03:40 PM   #25
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 76,590
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Monza
- For some reason, you've made contradictory statements above.
No, those were your contradictory statements.

Quote:
If immortality is real -- and I think it is -- I did exist in 1888, and will exist in 2119 (if time gets that far).
If you existed in 1888, where are your memories of the events?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2018, 03:50 PM   #26
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Yes we do.
- The likelihood of a fair coin is .5 -- the likelihood of a 2 headed coin is 1.
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
You asked for "Bayesian likelihood," which isn't really a thing. It appears everyone here has assumed you meant to ask what the posterior probability was, the solution of Bayes' theorem for the example. The answers you're giving us suggest that you're thinking only about the likelihood ratio that is a term in Bayes' theorem. There is such a thing as likelihood, obviously, outside the context of Bayes' theorem. And the posterior probabilities for each of two events, given a common event, are directly comparable only if you have normalized the inverted likelihood via Bayes. But the likelihood ratio by itself doesn't mean what you're ascribing to it. Its only use is to scale the prior probabilities of each of those two events, and your example doesn't contain any priors. You're dissecting Bayes in a way that neither produces correct, useful results nor fixes your proof for immortality.
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
I agree with you that he must have been asking for the likelihoods, not the posterior probabilities.

I have no idea what Jabba was planning to do with the likelihood ratio, but the likelihood ratio by itself is a meaningful quantity in Bayesian inference. The likelihood ratio is sometimes called the "weight of the evidence," and it is independent of the prior odds of the hypotheses. For any prior odds, the likelihood ratio times the prior odds of some hypothesis versus some other hypothesis equals the posterior odds of those hypotheses. So, the likelihood ratio is the amount by which the evidence changes the odds of the hypotheses. In Jabba's example the likelihood ratio was 2 in favor of the 2-headed coin vs a fair coin. So whatever the prior odds were that the coin was 2-headed (vs fair), the posterior odds will be double the prior odds.
jt,
- Apparently, I was asking about the likelihood ratio -- I'm just not that familiar with the appropriate terminology...
- In doing that, I was trying to emphasize the difference between probability (both prior and posterior) and the likelihood ratio.
- The likelihood, in the Bayesian sense, of getting heads when flipping a 2 headed coin is 1.
__________________
"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
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico probabilmente corretto." 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2018, 03:52 PM   #27
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,388
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
If immortality is real -- and I think it is -- I did exist in 1888, and will exist in 2119 (if time gets that far).
In what exact form will you exist. What are the attributes of that form? In what way, if any, will that form differ in 2119 from its appearances in 1942 and 1888?

Do you think you existed at the Big Bang? If so, in what exact form?

Do you think you existed before the Big Bang? If so, in what exact form?
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2018, 04:01 PM   #28
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,388
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I'm just not that familiar with the appropriate terminology.
Then kindly stop trying to "explain" things you aren't familiar with to people who are familiar with them. You approach this discussion as if you have some expertise in statistical inference and the relevant modeling. Your admitted and demonstrated unfamiliarity with both the terminology and the concepts indicate that this is not true. Hence when confronted with statements alleging error in your formulation, kindly do not henceforth assume that you have been presented with an opportunity to "educate" others. Instead, try assuming for starters that you might have actually made an error.

Quote:
In doing that, I was trying to emphasize the difference between probability (both prior and posterior) and the likelihood ratio.
No, you're changing horses. The highlighted word is the one you added after your error was pointed out to you. You were trying to draw a distinction between probability and likelihood. You mistakenly invoked a likelihood ratio, which is not the same thing.

Quote:
The likelihood, in the Bayesian sense, of getting heads when flipping a 2 headed coin is 1.
That is almost a true statement, but Bayes has nothing to do with it. The conditional probability of getting heads, given that you have a two-headed coin, is 1. That, however, has nothing to do with the point your critics were trying to make when you posed this example.

Last edited by JayUtah; 28th February 2018 at 04:05 PM.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2018, 04:21 PM   #29
jt512
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,740
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
jt,
- The likelihood, in the Bayesian sense, of getting heads when flipping a 2 headed coin is 1.

There is no "Bayesian sense" of likelihood. Likelihood means the same thing whether you're doing Bayesian or non-Bayesian inference.
jt512 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2018, 06:50 PM   #30
sackett
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 5,316
What if it's a Moebius coin and has only one face? Huh? Have I gotcha or have I gotcha?

Old guys like me & Jabba can be pretty tricky. Try getting up earlier in the morning, skepticks.
__________________
Fill the seats of justice with good men; not so absolute in goodness as to forget what human frailty is. -- Thomas Jefferson

What region of the earth is not filled with our calamities? -- Virgil
sackett 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2018, 07:27 PM   #31
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 76,590
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Apparently, I was asking about the likelihood ratio -- I'm just not that familiar with the appropriate terminology...
So stop trying to school everyone.

Quote:
- The likelihood, in the Bayesian sense, of getting heads when flipping a 2 headed coin is 1.
Which tells you nothing about the reverse.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2018, 09:36 PM   #32
carlitos
"ms divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 18,817
Proof of Immortality, VII

Secure in the knowledge that all of my pennies will have an expected value of 1.5 once flipped, I am going to get a coin roller and move to the Bahamas. Adios, pseudo-skeptics.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2018, 10:26 PM   #33
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,013
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
If you existed in 1888, where are your memories of the events?
Weeelll... I remember very clearly enjoying the famous chocolate that everyone liked and I sure did follow closely that sports team that did really well too! Ah! The good old days! I owned numerous horses that had silly and/or noble names and I even had a family I loved.

How could I possibly forget THEM?
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2018, 02:12 AM   #34
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 28,159
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- The likelihood, in the Bayesian sense, of getting heads when flipping a 2 headed coin is 1.
The likelihood, probability, chance or whatever word you want to use for it, in any sense, of getting heads when flipping a 2-headed coin is 1. So what? The fact that you flipped a coin and it came up heads is still insufficient data to make any calculation, using Bayes' Theroem or any other mathematical tool, of the probability, likelihood, chance or whatever word you want to use for it, that the coin is double-headed. Your fallacy throughout this 5-year debacle is that you believe you can can therefore make up an a priori chance of the coin being double headed, calculate the conditional probability using Bayes' Theorem, and come up with a valid result. Quite simply, you can't.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2018, 03:29 AM   #35
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 76,590
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
How could I possibly forget THEM?
What, the giant ants?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2018, 03:39 AM   #36
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,574
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Monza
- For some reason, you've made contradictory statements above. If immortality is real -- and I think it is -- I did exist in 1888, and will exist in 2119 (if time gets that far).
No. He cited YOU for contradictory statements. Maybe you know the resaon for that.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2018, 06:03 AM   #37
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 22,352
Just because it's good to start the day with a laugh:

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I'm not talking about probabilities; I'm talking about likelihoods.
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Belz,
- If your using a fair coin, what is the probability that it will come up heads? That's the meaning of "likelihood."
So, Jabba is not talking about probabilities, he's talking about likelihoods. What's the definition of "likelihood"? The probability that something happens.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2018, 06:06 AM   #38
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 76,590


It's all a distration anyway, to avoid discussing the problem with his actual claim.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2018, 06:13 AM   #39
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 28,159
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
It's all a distration anyway, to avoid discussing the problem with his actual claim.
In which aim, of course, it's not exactly working, because it's a good example (albeit based on a different scenario) of one of the fatal flaws of his argument, which is that Bayes' Theorem requires sufficient data to reach a conclusion, and sufficient data is not available.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2018, 06:38 AM   #40
JesseCuster
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 835
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- The likelihood, in the Bayesian sense, of getting heads when flipping a 2 headed coin is 1.
No. That's not what you said and there's no way to charitably interpret what you said as meaning that.

The question originally asked (that you asked) was the following:
Originally Posted by Jabba
- Say that we do have a penny -- i.e., the probability that this penny exists is 1. We flip the penny and it comes up heads. What is the Bayesian likelihood that this penny is two headed?
Dave Rogers then told you that you don't have enough information to answer that question. You then claimed that there was enough information to answer the question, and supplied the following answer:

Originally Posted by Jabba
- Yes we do.
- The likelihood of a fair coin is .5 -- the likelihood of a 2 headed coin is 1.
There's only one way to possibly interpret what you said, and that is that you were claiming that if you flip a coin and it comes up heads, there is 100% chance that the coin is two headed. That is, of course, patent nonsense, which you appear to be desperately backtracking from.

Either you are being blatantly dishonest about what it is you're actually claiming here, or your thoughts on the matter are just utterly hopelessly muddled and incoherent.
JesseCuster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

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 08:45 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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.