Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

 International Skeptics Forum Proof of Immortality, VII

 User Name Remember Me? Password

 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!

 Today, 10:30 AM #3361 Belz... Fiend God     Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details Posts: 70,720 Originally Posted by Jabba Dave, - For now, at least, I think you're right. And he leaves it at that! Marvelous. __________________ Master of the Shining Darkness
 Today, 10:48 AM #3362 SOdhner Graduate Poster   Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Arizona Posts: 1,348 Originally Posted by Belz... Ten points? That's a weak bet. What happened to that trillion dollars you owe me? If he can't tell the difference between 1/10 and 1/100 then why would you expect him to know the difference between ten points and a trillion dollars?
 Today, 12:22 PM #3363 caveman1917 Philosopher   Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 5,366 Originally Posted by JayUtah Probability is most generally a function of possible outcomes (and other parameters) No, the domain of a probability function is a sigma-algebra, which contains the possible outcomes but is larger than that. More importantly, a probability function does not depend on other parameters. Again, the domain of a probability function is a sigma-algebra. Sometimes interesting classes of probability functions are grouped and indexed by parameters (such as the normal distribution with parameters mean and variance) but the class of such functions is not a probability function itself. Each individual instance of such a class (for example the normal distribution with a specific value for mean and variance) is a probability function, but the class (group) itself isn't. Quote: In our simple examples we typically choose devices that have a discrete uniform probability density, where the density function is 1/N. Which reminds me, since nobody took the bait: 3 points for anyone proving that, given the definitions and assertions in my post: 1. P can not be uniform. 2. That hence the 3rd Venn diagram is actually impossible to draw given the assertion at the start of the post of each pixel representing an outcome, and that I tried to pull a fast one with it. __________________ "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
 Today, 07:29 PM #3364 jt512 Graduate Poster   Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 1,697 Originally Posted by caveman1917 Prove it. Show that it was impossible for Jabba to not have existed, that there does not exist even a single possible alternate history of the universe that wouldn't have resulted in Jabba existing. What is impossible is for Jabba to observe his non-existence, ~E. Since he is doing the observing, his existence, E, is a foregone conclusion whether H is true or ~H is true. Thus his observing E, the only thing he can possibly observe under either H or ~H, provides no evidence for either H or ~H.
 Today, 07:55 PM #3365 caveman1917 Philosopher   Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 5,366 Originally Posted by jt512 Since he is doing the observing 1. Who cares who is doing the observing? 2. Even if we assume that your argument is correct, then why doesn't it apply to my example with the wire? Why does it suddenly stop applying if only I do this: Quote: What is impossible is for Jabba caveman to observe his non-existence, ~E. Since he is doing the observing, his existence, E, is a foregone conclusion whether H L is true or ~H ~L is true. Thus his observing E, the only thing he can possibly observe under either H L or ~H ~L, provides no evidence for either H L or ~H ~L. Answers in spoiler: 1. Nobody cares. As we have seen above, conditioning on an event is asserting a certain predicate to be true on the universe. It doesn't matter who utters the predicate, what matters is that we consider it true and proceed to condition on it. Whether it is Jabba saying "I exist" or someone else saying "Jabba exists" has no bearing on the result. Same probability space, same predicate, same result. 2. It never applies. The complement of "Jabba exists" isn't "Jabba observes his own non-existence" but "Jabba doesn't exist". You've basically stumbled upon the right answer (that the problem is P(E|H) = P(E|~H)) but by incorrect reasoning (arbitrarily declaring that P(E) = 1 and hence trivially P(E|X) = 1 for any X). You probably came up with an argument, checked that you had the right conclusion, but failed to check whether you actually had a right argument. It's basically going "The moon is made of cheese therefor the sky is blue", then checking that the sky is indeed blue, and proceeding to think you've made an insightful argument with the notion of the moon being made of cheese. __________________ "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; Today at 07:57 PM.
 Today, 08:07 PM #3366 Belz... Fiend God     Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details Posts: 70,720 Originally Posted by caveman1917 1. Who cares who is doing the observing? Well, it's a bit important since he couldn't observe anything if he weren't alive, making his question quite silly. __________________ Master of the Shining Darkness
 Today, 08:24 PM #3367 caveman1917 Philosopher   Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 5,366 Originally Posted by caveman1917 No, the domain of a probability function is a sigma-algebra, which contains the possible outcomes but is larger than that. Come to think of it, technically it doesn't even contain any outcomes, it contains sets of outcomes (subsets of the universe). So for any outcome p P(p) isn't defined, but P({p}) is. Huh, outcomes don't have probabilities, funny that __________________ "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; Today at 08:25 PM.
 Today, 08:34 PM #3368 jsfisher ETcorngods survivorModerator     Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 21,516 Originally Posted by caveman1917 1. Who cares who is doing the observing? You are correct. It doesn't matter who is observing Jabba (or anyone else for that matter). The point is, though, that whomever is being observed, the observer should not be surprised that the observed exists. __________________ A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group. "He's the greatest mod that never was!" -- Monketey Ghost
 Today, 08:53 PM #3369 caveman1917 Philosopher   Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 5,366 Originally Posted by jsfisher the observer should not be surprised that the observed exists. Formalize this. You are probably wrong but it depends on what exactly you mean by this. __________________ "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
 Today, 09:16 PM #3370 caveman1917 Philosopher   Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 5,366 Originally Posted by caveman1917 Formalize this. You are probably wrong but it depends on what exactly you mean by this. Here's why you're probably wrong. I'm assuming you're going to come up with some sort of "but it's not surprising that someone exists", in the same vain as "I am the lottery winner" is not surprising since someone is going to win the lottery. Basically that Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy thing. Here's why it's wrong: Let LR be the likelihood ratio: P(E|H) / P(E|~H). As I said earlier to JayUtah, P(E) is irrelevant, what matters is LR. Now let's start varying our E from specific to broad (ie successive E's are supersets of preceding E's). 1. E = "Jabba exists". P(E) is very small, so we should be surprised of E. LR = 1. 2. E = "Some male person exists". P(E) is somewhat larger now, so we shouldn't be all that surprised of E. LR = 1. 3. E = "Some person exists". P(E) is even larger now, so we shouldn't be surprised at all of E. (someone's going to win the lottery). LR = 1. Note how it doesn't matter how we vary E as long as we hold LR constant. Your argument would basically be the assertion that E must be the E in case 3, but you have no basis for demanding that. This was already argued earlier in the thread in terms of getting a specific hand of cards from a deck and comparing "was randomly drawn" with "was drawn on purpose", in a response to jt512. __________________ "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; Today at 09:18 PM.
 Today, 09:21 PM #3371 jt512 Graduate Poster   Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 1,697 Originally Posted by jsfisher You are correct. It doesn't matter who is observing Jabba (or anyone else for that matter). The point is, though, that whomever is being observed, the observer should not be surprised that the observed exists. Originally Posted by caveman1917 Formalize this. You are probably wrong but it depends on what exactly you mean by this. He's correct. And, in fact, when I first started posting about Jabba's fundamental error, I concentrated on cases where the the observer was not the observed, since I thought that was the more straightforward situation. But it is difficult to define what it means to observe that Jeff is my next-door neighbor. Exactly how do we define "Jeff"? It's an unnecessary complication: since Jabba is using his own existence as his data, it suffices to restrict a refutation of his argument to precisely that case.
 Today, 09:42 PM #3372 caveman1917 Philosopher   Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 5,366 Originally Posted by jt512 He's correct. 1. How can you know whether he's correct if his assertion is ambiguous? 2. If you believe it's so correct then why aren't you formalizing the claim and supporting it? Quote: And, in fact, when I first started posting about Jabba's fundamental error, I concentrated on cases where the the observer was not the observed, since I thought that was the more straightforward situation. But it is difficult to define what it means to observe that Jeff is my next-door neighbor. Exactly how do we define "Jeff"? It's an unnecessary complication: since Jabba is using his own existence as his data, it suffices to restrict a refutation of his argument to precisely that case. There's too much to pick apart here[*], but for 5 points: Prove that we don't need an exact definition of "Jeff" or "Jabba" or indeed any such E in this case. A hint in the spoiler costing you 3 points if used: Do we need an exact definition of E or can we use a certain symmetry between the H and ~H half of the universe so that our argument holds true for any suitable definition of E? Add 1 point (so lose only 2) for also making the notion of "suitable" precise. ETA: * well it isn't actually too much, the other thing is basically that those cases aren't distinct and hence there is nothing to restrict your refutation too. Your refutation is simply incorrect, it only happens to stumble on one instance of the refutation (P(E|H) = P(E|~H)) by accident. Only one instance since it only works for the case where P(E) = 1 anyway, and that's the trivial case (since for any X, Y: P(X) = 1 => P(X|Y) = 1 is trivially true). __________________ "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; Today at 10:02 PM.
 Today, 10:05 PM #3373 jt512 Graduate Poster   Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 1,697 Originally Posted by caveman1917 1. How can you know whether he's correct if his assertion is ambiguous? 2. If you believe it's so correct then why aren't you formalizing the claim and supporting it? There's too much to pick apart here[*], but for 5 points: Prove that we don't need an exact definition of "Jeff" or "Jabba" or indeed any such E in this case. A hint in the spoiler costing you 3 points if used: Do we need an exact definition of E or can we use a certain symmetry between the H and ~H half of the universe so that our argument holds true for any suitable definition of E? Add 1 point (so lose only 2) for also making the notion of "suitable" precise. ETA: * well it isn't actually too much, the other thing is basically that those cases aren't distinct and hence there is nothing to restrict your refutation too. Your refutation is simply incorrect, it only happens to stumble on one instance of the refutation (P(E|H) = P(E|~H)) by accident. Only one instance since it only works for the case where P(E) = 1 anyway, and that's the trivial case (since for any X, Y: P(X) = 1 => P(X|Y) = 1 is trivially true). In the unlikely event that you rephrase your questions without your condescending, insufferable poposity, I'll consider actually answering them.
 Today, 10:09 PM #3374 caveman1917 Philosopher   Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 5,366 Originally Posted by jt512 In the unlikely event that you rephrase your questions without your condescending, insufferable poposity, I'll consider actually answering them. No, ain't going to happen. I'll consider your position refuted. __________________ "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
 Today, 10:16 PM #3375 jt512 Graduate Poster   Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 1,697 Originally Posted by caveman1917 No, ain't going to happen. I'll consider your position refuted. Since you're such a stickler for logical rigor, how does your refusal to post in a respectiul manner entail the conclusion that you have refuted something?
 Today, 10:21 PM #3376 caveman1917 Philosopher   Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 5,366 Originally Posted by jt512 Since you're such a stickler for logical rigor, how does your refusal to post in a respectiul manner entail the conclusion that you have refuted something? It doesn't. Pretty obvious, wouldn't you think? ETA: I was already considering your position refuted because of, well, refuting it. I was just open to being shown wrong, but since you refused to argue your case no such change will occur and I will hence keep considering your position refuted (ie "I'll consider your position refuted.") __________________ "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; Today at 10:22 PM.
 Today, 10:22 PM #3377 jt512 Graduate Poster   Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 1,697 Originally Posted by caveman1917 It doesn't. Pretty obvious, wouldn't you think? Thus you have no justification for this statement: "No, ain't going to happen. I'll consider your position refuted."
 Today, 10:23 PM #3378 caveman1917 Philosopher   Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 5,366 Originally Posted by jt512 Thus you have no justification for this statement: "No, ain't going to happen. I'll consider your position refuted." Your arguments from ignorance are unappealing. __________________ "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
 Today, 10:24 PM #3379 The Norseman Meandering fecklessly     Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 7,319 Originally Posted by Dancing David Should we mention that the are 1070 particles in the universe? You probably shouldn't. According to this website at least, there are 3.28 x 1080 particles in the universe. So... close but no cigar!
 Today, 10:38 PM #3380 jt512 Graduate Poster   Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 1,697 Originally Posted by caveman1917 Your arguments from ignorance are unappealing. Caveman, if there is a flaw in my argument, then, honestly, you are the most likely person to detect it. And if I am wrong, I'd really like to know. But I'm not so eager to know that I will put up with your arrogance, pomposity, and condescension to find it out. Last edited by jt512; Today at 11:37 PM.
 Today, 10:52 PM #3381 The Norseman Meandering fecklessly     Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 7,319 Originally Posted by caveman1917 It doesn't. Pretty obvious, wouldn't you think? ETA: I was already considering your position refuted because of, well, refuting it. I was just open to being shown wrong, but since you refused to argue your case no such change will occur and I will hence keep considering your position refuted (ie "I'll consider your position refuted.") Not in this thread. At least, I haven't seen any evidence you are open especially considering several other posters who have taken the time and effort into demonstrating your misapprehensions.

International Skeptics Forum

 Bookmarks Digg del.icio.us StumbleUpon Google Reddit