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.
Tags !MOD BOX WARNING!

Closed Thread
Old 13th February 2018, 09:29 AM   #3001
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- This is not a question involving cause and effect. This is about random likelihood.
- It's the same kind of question as, "What is the likelihood of you winning the lottery (given that you won it)?
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
Then your question is flawed, because your existence is the result of cause and effect.
- So is winning the lottery.
__________________
"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 Back to Top
Old 13th February 2018, 09:31 AM   #3002
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 72,392
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- So is winning the lottery.
Which is why the odds of winning once you've won are 1.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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 Back to Top
Old 13th February 2018, 09:38 AM   #3003
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,266
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- So is winning the lottery.
A lottery is specifically engineered so that the drawing of each number is unpredictable, and the drawing of a set of numbers is not influenced by any previous events. All the factors that led to the lottery existing are not included in the odds given for drawing a particular set of numbers. At any particular drawing, the same numbers are available for random selection, with the same odds.

This is not true for your existence. Your existence depends on your parents' existence and behavior, which depends on their parents' existence and behavior, back through time. There is only one time you could have existed. Whether or not you existed at all might not have been a sure thing, but the time you existed was. There is no other time when Jabba could have existed. It was now or not at all.
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm

Last edited by godless dave; 13th February 2018 at 09:40 AM.
godless dave 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 13th February 2018, 09:40 AM   #3004
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
- Ask jt, humots or Caveman about the nature of likelihood. The likelihood in Bayesian inference depends only on the given -- cause and effect is not taken into account.
__________________
"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 Back to Top
Old 13th February 2018, 09:43 AM   #3005
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
A lottery is specifically engineered so that the drawing of each number is unpredictable, and the drawing of a set of numbers is not influenced by any previous events. All the factors that led to the lottery existing are not included in the odds given for drawing a particular set of numbers. At any particular drawing, the same numbers are available for random selection, with the same odds.

This is not true for your existence. Your existence depends on your parents' existence and behavior, which depends on their parents' existence and behavior, back through time. There is only one time you could have existed. Whether or not you existed at all might not have been a sure thing, but the time you existed was. There is no other time when Jabba could have existed. It was now or not at all.
- No. You're wrong. The particular 'ticket' selected depends on physics.
__________________
"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 Back to Top
Old 13th February 2018, 09:45 AM   #3006
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 72,392
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- No. You're wrong. The particular 'ticket' selected depends on physics.
Good. Then given your stated parallel between it and a lottery, you agree that your existence is also a cause-and-effect certainty, with odds of 1.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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 Back to Top
Old 13th February 2018, 09:46 AM   #3007
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,266
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- No. You're wrong. The particular 'ticket' selected depends on physics.
For a lottery? Yes, it does. And they work very carefully to make sure the ticket machines select numbers in an unpredictable way, so that for purposes of calculating odds you can ignore all the details of how ticket numbers are selected or how winning numbers are selected.
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm
godless dave 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 13th February 2018, 10:04 AM   #3008
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 11,872
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Ask jt, humots or Caveman about the nature of likelihood. The likelihood in Bayesian inference depends only on the given -- cause and effect is not taken into account.
Jabba people recognize what you are trying to do.

You're pulling what SMBC calls a "Bayesian Overload."

Take something overwhelmingly likely to the point of practical certainty (You will die) and make up as many inane alternatives and assign them random "probabilities" and compare them to the original.

It's as if I have a standard 6 sided die. I'd say if I roll the die I have a 1 in 6 chance of rolling a 3.

You say nay, nay you say! Sure I could role a 3. Or 1. Or 2. Or 4. Or 5. Or 6. But the die could also quantum tunnel through the table. So it's 1 in 7. Also the die could crack on the table and split in two. So 1 in 8. Or the die could land perfectly balanced on one of it's edges. So that's 12 more possibilities giving us 1 in 20. Or one of it's 8 edges. So I have a 1 in 28 chance of rolling a 3.

And you do this on and on making up more and more outlandish scenarios about what could theologically happen when I roll the die until the "Bayesian Probability" of me rolling a 3 is so unlikely that you slip into the dishonest "Virtually impossible" and claim rolling a 3 is impossible.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en
JoeMorgue 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 13th February 2018, 10:11 AM   #3009
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: 27,110
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- So again, what is the random likelihood of now being during my lifetime -- given OOFLam, the big bang and a lifetime of 100 years?
Defining "now" as "the moment that Jabba is making the statement 'So again, what is the random likelihood of now being during my lifetime -- given OOFLam, the big bang and a lifetime of 100 years?', we can very easily determine that the random likelihood of this moment occurring during Jabba's lifetime as 1.

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 Back to Top
Old 13th February 2018, 10:15 AM   #3010
jond
Illuminator
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,239
Jabba, how does OOFLam impact all the things that had to happen from the Big Bang forward that led to your existence? Even if you have a soul, all those same unlikely events still have to happen.
jond 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 13th February 2018, 10:22 AM   #3011
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,757
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Ask jt, humots or Caveman about the nature of likelihood.
We're asking you to demonstrate expertise in likelihood. You have already admitted you don't understand what these named posters have said. You just glom onto them because they occasionally correct your critics dispelling skepticism is your real goal. Just today one of these authorities has reiterated his conclusion that you simply don't get how the likelihoods work in your model. Are you really sure you want to be invoking someone who just told you that you were wrong?

Quote:
The likelihood in Bayesian inference depends only on the given -- cause and effect is not taken into account.
Causes and effects, if any, are folded into the reckonings of the various terms of the inference. The physics of a lottery ticket are folded into the model for the denominator of the likelihood ratio. The cause-and-effect genetics are folded into the model as well. They may be a probability distribution reckoned over a number of parameters. They may be approximated in some cases by a random variable to within an acceptable margin. But that does not mean that cause and effect do not play into a Bayesian inference.

Again take the Bayesian search, which is a better example for this than lotteries or card drawings. A house consists of 5 rooms: a living room, kitchen, dining room, bedroom, and bathroom. The cat is somewhere in the house and it's your job to find her. Randomly distributing a cat among the five rooms would yield over time an evenly distributed probability of finding the cat in any one of the five rooms. But that's not how cats work. The cat doesn't like the dining room because it's all hard surfaces. She abhors the bathroom because she associates it with baths. She likes the living room and bedroom because they have soft padded surfaces to nap on and windows to stare out of. Based on what we know about the cat, we can adjust the probability distribution accordingly for the priors. This is akin to the example jt512 gave you more than a year ago, where he was able to state the priors of a coin toss based on information about the physics of a coin.

The aim of the Bayesian search is to optimize the search path to find the cat as quickly as possible. The events that drive the likelihood ratio from step to step are the observations that the cat was not found in the room just searched. The posteriors guide the next step of the search given a failed search of some room. The process is Bayesian because our probability distributions are not based on frequentist modeling but rather on knowledge.

Armed with the prior, we search the living room first and fail to find the cat. However, we have to consider false negatives when reckoning the effect of that observation on the probability distribution. The living room is brightly lit, but large and full of places for cats to hide. Conversely the dining room is also brightly lit but has few places for a cat to hide undetected. So in transforming the prior distribution to the posterior distribution, we have to consider the difficulty of searching each room, since that affects whether we get a false negative. Our posterior distribution would then include elements such as "likelihood that the cat is in the dining room given that the cat was not observed in the living room." And that would guide where we search next. But the key is that none of that estimation was based on a random variable. In this case it was based on subjective knowledge of the particular house being searched. In other cases it can be based on discernible cause-and-effect "physics" of the problem, even if those physics are quite complicated. If an operative cause is "the room is dark" or "the room has lots of hiding places," the relevant effect will be that there is a greater probability of a false negative in searching that room. The model must reflect such things if it's to be useful in a Bayesian sense. The utility of Bayes is precisely that it is not bound to frequentist modeling.

Incidentally because our likelihood included the possibility of a false negative, the posterior probability that the cat is in the living room is still non-zero. And that's where it gets interesting, because in this particular example that posterior may still be higher than the ongoing likelihood that the cat will be in the bathroom. At some point our model may even suggest searching the living room again before searching the bathroom just once.

Your problem, Jabba, is that you simply don't understand how these things are model. At the conceptual level. I told you this as Fatal Flaw no. 1. The answer you finally gave for that was simply to quote chapter and verse from some source about what a statistical inference is. Telling us what constitutes a valid inference does not prove you've formulated one.
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 Back to Top
Old 13th February 2018, 10:24 AM   #3012
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Perfection, NV
Posts: 29,222
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- No. You're wrong. The particular 'ticket' selected depends on physics.
Doesn't everything?
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 Back to Top
Old 13th February 2018, 10:25 AM   #3013
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: 27,110
Originally Posted by jond View Post
Jabba, how does OOFLam impact all the things that had to happen from the Big Bang forward that led to your existence? Even if you have a soul, all those same unlikely events still have to happen.
Yes, that's another fatal flaw I've been trying to highlight. It seems to me that the a priori probability of Jabba's existence now given the existence of the immortal soul is the product of the probability of his body existing now, which is the same as the probability of it existing given the nonexistence of the immortal soul, multiplied by the probability of his specific soul existing. In other words, Jabba's committing the conjunction fallacy.

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 Back to Top
Old 13th February 2018, 10:28 AM   #3014
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: 27,110
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Ask jt, humots or Caveman about the nature of likelihood.
"Though all my critics agree that I'm wrong, a small minority of them disagree on a small subset of the ways in which I'm wrong, therefore I could very possibly be right."

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 Back to Top
Old 13th February 2018, 11:01 AM   #3015
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,266
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
I assume at some point your father sat you down and gave you the "birds and the bees" talk, which should have emphasized the cause-and-effect relationship of having sexual intercourse. Your existence is exactly a matter of observable causes and effects.
Maybe Jabba thinks the stork brings babies. Under that hypothesis, you would never know which baby the stork was going to bring to which mother, when.
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm
godless dave 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 13th February 2018, 11:08 AM   #3016
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 72,392
Maybe there's an infinite pool of potential babies that the stork picks them from.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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 Back to Top
Old 13th February 2018, 11:41 AM   #3017
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,821
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
jt,
- I looked through 'chapters' VI and VII and couldn't find anything about P(E|H) = P(E|~H) = 1. I don't understand what you're saying.
Just ignore it, it's wrong anyway and it's already been refuted in an earlier iteration. jt512 is just a bit confused about this, in his logic he's replacing "you haven't supported that P(E|H) is different from P(E|~H)" with "P(E|H) = P(E|~H) = 1" because apparently "the data (you existing) is known before you enter it into the calculation". However if we go by that logic then statistics as a whole is impossible, because the data will always be known before you enter it into the calculation - otherwise you wouldn't be able to enter it into the calculation in the first place. Refer to my examples earlier with the electrical wire and such, if this logic were correct then P(E|L) = P(E|~L) = 1 and I wouldn't have been able to conclude that the wire likely wasn't live based on my existence, yet I clearly can.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin

Last edited by caveman1917; 13th February 2018 at 11:52 AM.
caveman1917 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 13th February 2018, 01:08 PM   #3018
SOdhner
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,715
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Just ignore it, it's wrong anyway and it's already been refuted in an earlier iteration.
I'm not going to get bogged down in this specific part of the conversation, but I think with Jabba's tendency to latch onto anything that sounds remotely like someone is agreeing with him this is a good time for a reminder:

Jabba,

1. caveman1917 thinks your formula is wrong. He doesn't agree with you about you being immortal.
2. He also hasn't been able to figure out whether or not 1/10 is more than 1/100 so I wouldn't put too much weight on anything he says.
3. Your argument still has MULTIPLE fatal flaws even if you could get someone to concede some minor point in a sub-argument.
SOdhner 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 13th February 2018, 01:10 PM   #3019
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 72,392
Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
2. He also hasn't been able to figure out whether or not 1/10 is more than 1/100 so I wouldn't put too much weight on anything he says.
Hell, even Jabba got that right.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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 Back to Top
Old 13th February 2018, 02:28 PM   #3020
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 30,272
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- So is winning the lottery.
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
A lottery is specifically engineered so that the drawing of each number is unpredictable, and the drawing of a set of numbers is not influenced by any previous events. All the factors that led to the lottery existing are not included in the odds given for drawing a particular set of numbers. At any particular drawing, the same numbers are available for random selection, with the same odds.

This is not true for your existence. Your existence depends on your parents' existence and behavior, which depends on their parents' existence and behavior, back through time. There is only one time you could have existed. Whether or not you existed at all might not have been a sure thing, but the time you existed was. There is no other time when Jabba could have existed. It was now or not at all.
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- No. You're wrong. The particular 'ticket' selected depends on physics.
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Good. Then given your stated parallel between it and a lottery, you agree that your existence is also a cause-and-effect certainty, with odds of 1.

I think Jabba may be about to Virtually ProveTM that winning lottery tickets are immortal.
__________________
"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 Back to Top
Old 13th February 2018, 02:36 PM   #3021
Filippo Lippi
Master Poster
 
Filippo Lippi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,883
They laminate them as a keepsake
__________________
"You may not know anything about the issue but I bet you reckon something.
So why not tell us what you reckon? Let us enjoy the full majesty of your uninformed, ad hoc reckon..."
David Mitchell
Filippo Lippi 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 13th February 2018, 02:47 PM   #3022
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 30,272
Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
1. caveman1917 thinks your formula is wrong. He doesn't agree with you about you being immortal.

Ah, but remember: Jabba has his own special rules of evidence, under which anything that disagrees with his opponents' position makes it more likely that Jabba is correct. Even if it explicitly says he's wrong.
__________________
"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 Back to Top
Old 13th February 2018, 03:17 PM   #3023
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
jt,
- I looked through 'chapters' VI and VII and couldn't find anything about P(E|H) = P(E|~H) = 1. I don't understand what you're saying.
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Just ignore it, it's wrong anyway and it's already been refuted in an earlier iteration. jt512 is just a bit confused about this, in his logic he's replacing "you haven't supported that P(E|H) is different from P(E|~H)" with "P(E|H) = P(E|~H) = 1" because apparently "the data (you existing) is known before you enter it into the calculation". However if we go by that logic then statistics as a whole is impossible, because the data will always be known before you enter it into the calculation - otherwise you wouldn't be able to enter it into the calculation in the first place. Refer to my examples earlier with the electrical wire and such, if this logic were correct then P(E|L) = P(E|~L) = 1 and I wouldn't have been able to conclude that the wire likely wasn't live based on my existence, yet I clearly can.
Caveman,
- My thanks will only increase your tsuris, but thanks anyway.
__________________
"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 Back to Top
Old 13th February 2018, 03:22 PM   #3024
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 11,872
Jabba thinks that probability can override facts and reality.

For instance. Right now as I type this there is a grey squirrel running along the fence out back of my house. I'm watching him right now through my back patio door. Both of my cats are also watching him. The kitten is making chittering noises at it.

Now as a matter of pure probability what are the odds that a squirrel is running along my fence right now? I mean there's a nearly infinite number of things that could be on my fence right now, there's a nearly infinite number of objects that could be in my back yard instead of a fence. There's a nearly infinite amount of time in the universe and a squirrel is only going to be running along my fence is a amazingly small fraction of that time.

On the size and time scale of the universe a squirrel running along my fence is an amazingly improbable event.

Ergo, by Jabbian logic, it is impossible that a squirrel is running along my fence. And yet it is, or rather was now it's making a go at my bird feeder. This particular squirrel, or at least one like it I'm not expert on squirrel identification, runs along my fence several times a day at the very least.

By ignoring the concept of "likely-hood" and focusing only on some false idea of "probability" where every inane thing is equally likely, all events become nearly impossible in the eyes of probability.

Even if we take Jabba's "My existence is nearly infinitely improbable" argument at face value it would apply equally to every event, every process, every object, and every conceptual idea in the universe. Jabba's proved nothing is possible as well as he's proved his death is possible.

We've used various lottery metaphors but what Jabba is doing is actually winning the lottery and claiming its impossible because it's so unlikely.

And I should state for clarity this isn't me putting words in Jabba's mouth. He's literally admitted from the start that is what he is doing. He literally thinks he can stop his own death by making up as many alternatives to it as possible until he tips the probability because that's how he thinks statistics works.

In Jabba's world the opening coin toss at the Superbowl couldn't be a team captain calling heads or tails, but would be the two team captains agreeing on who would get first possession if the coin landed on its side, if it quantum tunneled through the Earth, if hit a randomly appearing chunk of anti-matter and destroyed the entire city in an explosion, if a bird swooped in a grabbed the coin out of midair and flew away with it....
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en
JoeMorgue 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 13th February 2018, 03:34 PM   #3025
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,757
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
...but thanks anyway.
Impress us by restating his idea in your own words.
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 Back to Top
Old 14th February 2018, 01:01 AM   #3026
jt512
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,738
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Just ignore it, it's wrong anyway and it's already been refuted in an earlier iteration. jt512 is just a bit confused about this, in his logic he's replacing "you haven't supported that P(E|H) is different from P(E|~H)" with "P(E|H) = P(E|~H) = 1" because apparently "the data (you existing) is known before you enter it into the calculation". However if we go by that logic then statistics as a whole is impossible, because the data will always be known before you enter it into the calculation - otherwise you wouldn't be able to enter it into the calculation in the first place. Refer to my examples earlier with the electrical wire and such, if this logic were correct then P(E|L) = P(E|~L) = 1 and I wouldn't have been able to conclude that the wire likely wasn't live based on my existence, yet I clearly can.
No, I am not confused; and, no, you have not refuted my argument. You have only misunderstood it, which, of course, could by my fault for not communicating it properly. Let me try again.

Jabba observes that he exists, and he believes that his observation that he exists is evidence for the hypothesis he is immortal, H_im, over the hypothesis that he is mortal, H_m. Now, let's assume that H_m is true. What is the probability that Jabba would observe that he exists under H_m? It's 1. Why? Consider the alternative: what is P(Jabba_observes_that_he_doesn't_exist | H_m)? it's 0. Therefore, P(Jabba_observes_that_he_exists| H_m) = 1. And this is true of H_im, as well. Therefore, P(E|H_m) = P(E|H_im) = 1.

The trick Jabba has unconsciously played is misstating E as "Jabba exists," when in fact E is "Jabba observes that Jabba exists." But Jabba could never observe his own nonexistence; therefore, Jabba's observation that he exists is the only outcome that Jabba could ever observe, which is why I've been saying that, for all intents and purposes, Jabba is conditioning his observation on his own existence. To put it another way, Jabba's sample space is E.

Last edited by jt512; 14th February 2018 at 01:11 AM.
jt512 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 14th February 2018, 01:15 AM   #3027
jt512
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,738
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Caveman,
- My thanks will only increase your tsuris, but thanks anyway.
"Tsuris"? Oy. You're Jewish? Since when do Jews believe in immortality?
jt512 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 14th February 2018, 01:18 AM   #3028
jt512
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,738
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
jt,
- I looked through 'chapters' VI and VII and couldn't find anything about P(E|H) = P(E|~H) = 1. I don't understand what you're saying.
Jabba,

I've explained it again here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...0#post12182040
jt512 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 14th February 2018, 06:34 AM   #3029
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 8,777
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
"Tsuris"? Oy. You're Jewish? Since when do Jews believe in immortality?
There are groups of Christians, particularly Gentile ones who are part of or support the "Jews for Jesus" movement, that fetishize aspects of Judaism. For example, they'll refrain from eating pork because of the Old Testament prohibitions. This will not, however, stop them from wearing cotton / polyester blends.

Years ago I read a blog post by a Jewish friend who found themselves in a church where the pastor was showing off the Shofar they had among the nick-knacks on their altar. My friend asked them about how they, as Christians, observed Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. The pastor had NO clue what my Jewish friend was talking about. They just displayed the Shofar they way they would a crucifix.

They also had a menorah, which they lit during Advent using "Convoluted rules the pastor seemed to understand but had nothing to do with Hanukkah." The pastor explained that it had to do with how "Jesus celebrated Hanukkah as a child." The pastor even had a sermon he gave during the children's service about Jesus celebrating Hanukkah as a child. When my friend tried to explain the timeline of Hanukkah, and how Jesus could NOT have celebrated it, the pastor condescendingly tut-tutted his concerns and brushed them off with, "I think I know my own Bible a bit better than you."

That's the level of argument Jabba is offering here. His equation makes about as much sense as a Pastor making up rules about how to light a menorah to commemorate how they think Jesus celebrated Hanukkah as a child.
halleyscomet 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 14th February 2018, 06:58 AM   #3030
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 11,872
Among the eleventy billion question we've begged Jabba to address is how he is defining 'immortality.'

For all the lamb bleating complaining that an exact replica of Jabba "wouldn't beeeeee meeee" and "wouldn't beeeee the saaaaaaaameeee!" he seems perfectly comfortable in accepting that a totally new person that shares no thoughts, memories, characteristics, or continuity would be him via reincarnation or whatever he's on about at the moment.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 14th February 2018 at 07:04 AM.
JoeMorgue 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 14th February 2018, 06:59 AM   #3031
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 72,392
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
No, I am not confused; and, no, you have not refuted my argument. You have only misunderstood it, which, of course, could by my fault for not communicating it properly.
Could be, but isn't.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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 Back to Top
Old 14th February 2018, 08:18 AM   #3032
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- No. You're wrong. The particular 'ticket' selected depends on physics.
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
For a lottery? Yes, it does. And they work very carefully to make sure the ticket machines select numbers in an unpredictable way, so that for purposes of calculating odds you can ignore all the details of how ticket numbers are selected or how winning numbers are selected.
- But, first of all, the lottery is not actually random -- however hard the engineers work on making it unpredictable.
- Science agrees that the particular bodies born are also not random -- just that we don't know nearly enough to predict what body will be born. In that respect, which ticket will be drawn and which body will be born are very similarly unpredictable.

- And then, second of all, what we call "likelihood" is based only on what is given. It isn't based upon anything else.
- In my most recent question, "So again, what is the random likelihood of now being during my lifetime -- given OOFLam, the big bang and a lifetime of 100 years?", we actually have four givens (my current existence is one of them).
- And, given those givens, the likelihood of now being during my lifetime is 1/140,000,000.
- Though, OOFLam should be replaced with OOFL.
__________________
"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 Back to Top
Old 14th February 2018, 08:26 AM   #3033
jond
Illuminator
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,239
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- But, first of all, the lottery is not actually random -- however hard the engineers work on making it unpredictable.
- Science agrees that the particular bodies born are also not random -- just that we don't know nearly enough to predict what body will be born. In that respect, which ticket will be drawn and which body will be born are very similarly unpredictable.

- And then, second of all, what we call "likelihood" is based only on what is given. It isn't based upon anything else.
- In my most recent question, "So again, what is the random likelihood of now being during my lifetime -- given OOFLam, the big bang and a lifetime of 100 years?", we actually have four givens (my current existence is one of them).
- And, given those givens, the likelihood of now being during my lifetime is 1/140,000,000.
- Though, OOFLam should be replaced with OOFL.
- How does OOFLam make any difference to all the things that have to happen for you to exist? You keep ignoring this question. Whether or not you have a soul, all those same things had to happen.
- the only time you could exist is the time that you do. You are the result of your parents having had sex some nine months before you were born.
jond 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 14th February 2018, 08:27 AM   #3034
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,266
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- But, first of all, the lottery is not actually random -- however hard the engineers work on making it unpredictable.
- Science agrees that the particular bodies born are also not random -- just that we don't know nearly enough to predict what body will be born. In that respect, which ticket will be drawn and which body will be born are very similarly unpredictable.

- And then, second of all, what we call "likelihood" is based only on what is given. It isn't based upon anything else.
- In my most recent question, "So again, what is the random likelihood of now being during my lifetime -- given OOFLam, the big bang and a lifetime of 100 years?", we actually have four givens (my current existence is one of them).
- And, given those givens, the likelihood of now being during my lifetime is 1/140,000,000.
- Though, OOFLam should be replaced with OOFL.
Do you understand that this is the only time you could be alive? If you weren't born when you were you wouldn't have been born at all.
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm
godless dave 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 14th February 2018, 08:28 AM   #3035
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
No, I am not confused; and, no, you have not refuted my argument. You have only misunderstood it, which, of course, could by my fault for not communicating it properly. Let me try again.

Jabba observes that he exists, and he believes that his observation that he exists is evidence for the hypothesis he is immortal, H_im, over the hypothesis that he is mortal, H_m. Now, let's assume that H_m is true. What is the probability that Jabba would observe that he exists under H_m? It's 1. Why? Consider the alternative: what is P(Jabba_observes_that_he_doesn't_exist | H_m)? it's 0. Therefore, P(Jabba_observes_that_he_exists| H_m) = 1. And this is true of H_im, as well. Therefore, P(E|H_m) = P(E|H_im) = 1.

The trick Jabba has unconsciously played is misstating E as "Jabba exists," when in fact E is "Jabba observes that Jabba exists." But Jabba could never observe his own nonexistence; therefore, Jabba's observation that he exists is the only outcome that Jabba could ever observe, which is why I've been saying that, for all intents and purposes, Jabba is conditioning his observation on his own existence. To put it another way, Jabba's sample space is E.
jt,
- But "probability" is not what we're looking for -- we're looking for "likelihood."
- (Caveman, I can't help myself.)
__________________
"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 Back to Top
Old 14th February 2018, 08:35 AM   #3036
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
Do you understand that this is the only time you could be alive? If you weren't born when you were you wouldn't have been born at all.
Dave,
- I do understand that (given OOFLam) -- but, that isn't the issue. Likelihood, very often, if not usually, refers to an E that already exists.
__________________
"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 Back to Top
Old 14th February 2018, 08:35 AM   #3037
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,308
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
jt,
- But "probability" is not what we're looking for -- we're looking for "likelihood."
- (Caveman, I can't help myself.)
Explain the difference.

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 Back to Top
Old 14th February 2018, 08:38 AM   #3038
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,266
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- I do understand that (given OOFLam) -- but, that isn't the issue. Likelihood, very often, if not usually, refers to an E that already exists.
Then the answer is 1. There is only one time period that your lifetime could have fallen into.

If you're talking about the likelihood of you existing, period, then that's a different question.
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm
godless dave 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 14th February 2018, 08:54 AM   #3039
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: 27,110
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- In my most recent question, "So again, what is the random likelihood of now being during my lifetime -- given OOFLam, the big bang and a lifetime of 100 years?", we actually have four givens (my current existence is one of them).
We can therefore ignore all the other three givens, and ask: What is the probability that you exist at time T0, given that you exist at time T0? As phrased, the answer can only possibly be 1.

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 Back to Top
Old 14th February 2018, 08:57 AM   #3040
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: 27,110
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- But "probability" is not what we're looking for -- we're looking for "likelihood."
Let's see what the difference is.

Originally Posted by Wiktionary
likelihood (countable and uncountable, plural likelihoods)
1.The probability of a specified outcome; the chance of something happening; probability; the state or degree of being probable. In all likelihood the meeting will be cancelled.The likelihood is that the inflation rate will continue to rise.
2.(statistics) The probability that some fixed outcome was generated by a random distribution with a specific parameter.
3.Likeness, resemblance. "There is no likelihood between pure light and black darkness, or between righteousness and reprobation." (Sir W. Raleigh)
4.(archaic) Appearance, show, sign, expression. "What of his heart perceive you in his face by any likelihood he showed to-day ?" (Shak)
Assuming you're not asking what you look like (definitions 3 and 4), there is no actual distinction between probability and likelihood. Can you please therefore abandon this latest red herring?

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 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 10:38 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.