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.
Closed Thread
Old 23rd September 2016, 11:36 AM   #1
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,820
Proof of Immortality, the IV league

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Cause, if my estimates for the other variables in the formula are roughly correct, P(H|E) is virtually zero.

...and around we go again.

Mod InfoContinued from this thread.
Posted By:zooterkin
__________________
"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

Last edited by zooterkin; 24th September 2016 at 02:41 AM.
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 23rd September 2016, 11:44 AM   #2
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,749
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
That's the opposite of what I'm saying.

The application of Bayesian statistics you're claiming to use is based on contrasting the probability of observing an event given one hypothesis is true with the probability of observing the same event given a different hypothesis is true.

P(E|OOFLam) is based on OOFLam being true.

P(E|~OOFLam) is based on OOFLam not being true.

This is the formula you have been using all along.

If you want to use Bayes in a different way (the more familiar form is: P(H|E)=P(E|H)P(H)/P(E) )then knock yourself out. But that's not the formula you started the thread with.
Dave,
- The formula I've been using all along is
P(H|E) = P(E|H)*P(H)/P(E|H)*(P(H)+P(E|~H)*P(~H)).
- It's the formula for evaluating complementary hypotheses.
__________________
"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
"Et tamen salsus est ratio plerumque recta ad unum." 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 23rd September 2016, 11:49 AM   #3
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,950
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- The formula I've been using all along is
P(H|E) = P(E|H)*P(H)/P(E|H)*(P(H)+P(E|~H)*P(~H)).
- It's the formula for evaluating complementary hypotheses.
So P(E|H) is based on H being true. P(E|~H) is based on ~H being true. The value of P(E|~H) does not change the value of P(E|H), and vice versa.
__________________
"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; 23rd September 2016 at 12:10 PM.
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 23rd September 2016, 12:08 PM   #4
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,633
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
It's the formula for evaluating complementary hypotheses.
True enough, but you seem to have forgotten that you don't have complementary hypotheses. You have a whole bag of hypotheses that you've arbitrarily divided into "one thing" and "everything else."
JayUtah 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 23rd September 2016, 01:00 PM   #5
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,749
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- The formula I've been using all along is
P(H|E) = P(E|H)*P(H)/P(E|H)*(P(H)+P(E|~H)*P(~H)).
- It's the formula for evaluating complementary hypotheses.
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
So P(E|H) is based on H being true. P(E|~H) is based on ~H being true. The value of P(E|~H) does not change the value of P(E|H), and vice versa.
Dave,
- No. But it does change the value of P(H|E).
- Though, I keep misplacing my parentheses. My denominator should read
P(E|H)*P(H)+(P(E|~H)*P(~H)).
__________________
"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
"Et tamen salsus est ratio plerumque recta ad unum." 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 23rd September 2016, 01:06 PM   #6
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,820
E has already happened. It happened before you tried to formulate an expression of how its occurrence would affect the probability of H being true. It doesn't matter where you stick your parentheses; you are 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

Last edited by Mojo; 23rd September 2016 at 01:13 PM.
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 23rd September 2016, 01:12 PM   #7
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,950
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- No. But it does change the value of P(H|E).
We weren't talking about P(H|E). We were talking about P(E|H).
__________________
"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 23rd September 2016, 02:19 PM   #8
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,749
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
So P(E|H) is based on H being true. P(E|~H) is based on ~H being true. The value of P(E|~H) does not change the value of P(E|H), and vice versa.
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- No. But it does change the value of P(H|E).
- Though, I keep misplacing my parentheses. My denominator should read
P(E|H)*P(H)+(P(E|~H)*P(~H)).
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
We weren't talking about P(H|E). We were talking about P(E|H).
Dave,
- You were talking about the right side of the formula -- but, the left side of the formula, and what the formula solves for is P(H|E). And clearly, The values in the right side affect the value in the left side.
__________________
"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
"Et tamen salsus est ratio plerumque recta ad unum." Jabba's Razor

Last edited by Jabba; 23rd September 2016 at 02:20 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 Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2016, 02:52 PM   #9
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 7,299
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
And clearly, The values in the right side affect the value in the left side.
Not if you're just making the numbers up they don't.

Equations only work if the inputted values are meaningful and valid. Yours are not.
__________________
Hemingway once wrote that "The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part.
JoeBentley 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 23rd September 2016, 02:57 PM   #10
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,950
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- You were talking about the right side of the formula -- but, the left side of the formula, and what the formula solves for is P(H|E). And clearly, The values in the right side affect the value in the left side.
So are you actually going to provide some values and provide reasons for how you came up with them? I misread your earlier post - I read P(H|E) as P(E|H). But right before that we were talking about P(E|H) so I didn't, and still don't, understand why you were asking if I think H might be wrong. It doesn't matter what I think. If you show reasoning why ~H is more probable than H, then I'll change my mind. That's how this works.
__________________
"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 24th September 2016, 03:17 AM   #11
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 10,866
Oh no! It's part 4!
__________________
Credibility is not a boomerang. If you throw it away, it's not coming back.
John Jones 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 24th September 2016, 07:52 AM   #12
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
Oh no! It's part 4!
Zooterkin's title deserves SOME kind of notice...

...we could clutch our noses and run screaming into the night...
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle 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 24th September 2016, 08:18 AM   #13
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,749
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
I misread your earlier post - I read P(H|E) as P(E|H). But right before that we were talking about P(E|H) so I didn't, and still don't, understand why you were asking if I think H might be wrong. It doesn't matter what I think. If you show reasoning why ~H is more probable than H, then I'll change my mind. That's how this works.
Dave,
- I've provided that (somewhere, and more than once) already, but for some reason, I haven't been able to find it. I'll keep looking -- but you (and others) can probably find it faster...
__________________
"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
"Et tamen salsus est ratio plerumque recta ad unum." 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 24th September 2016, 08:37 AM   #14
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,633
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- I've provided that (somewhere, and more than once) already
And it has been refuted several times already. If all you can do to answer those refutations is continue repeating it, then you were done a long time ago.
JayUtah 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 24th September 2016, 08:37 AM   #15
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,950
You provided numbers for P(E|~H) but didn't explain where they came from. Your number for P(E|H) was based on E being a soul or "radio self", which you only recently conceded does not exist under H.
__________________
"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 24th September 2016, 09:10 AM   #16
HighRiser
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: High above Indianapolis
Posts: 1,775
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- I've provided that (somewhere, and more than once) already, but for some reason, I haven't been able to find it. I'll keep looking -- but you (and others) can probably find it faster...
You have done no such thing! You've stated unsupported premise and repeatedly restated unsupported premise, but you've never even attempted to use reason to support your premises. I don't expect you to do so now because you can't. You can't reason your way out of a position that you didn't use reason to get into.
__________________
Congratulations, you have successfully failed to model something that you assert "isn't noticeable". -The Man

Science is not hopelessly hobbled just because it knows the difference between fact and imagination. -JayUtah
HighRiser 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 24th September 2016, 11:12 AM   #17
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,749
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
You provided numbers for P(E|~H) but didn't explain where they came from. Your number for P(E|H) was based on E being a soul or "radio self", which you only recently conceded does not exist under H.
Dave,
- The following is #2642 from the previous 'chapter.'

9.1. Re P(E|~H):
9.1.1. The probability (“likelihood”) of E given ~H, involves several specific hypothetical possibilities.
9.1.1.1. That only some of us have but one finite life.
9.1.1.2. That we each have numerous finite lives.
9.1.1.3. That only some of us have numerous finite lives.
9.1.1.4. That we each have an infinity of finite lives.
9.1.1.5. That only some of us have an infinity of finite lives.
9.1.1.6. That we each have an infinite life.
9.1.1.7. That only some of us have an infinite life.
9.1.1.8. That time isn’t what we think it is (to be explained).
9.1.1.9. Some other explanation.

9.1.2. Now I must estimate (roughly) the prior probability (rounded off to 3 decimal places) of each more specific possibility (hypothesis), given ~H.
9.1.2.1. That only some of us have but one finite life: .000
9.1.2.2. That we each have numerous finite lives: .200.
9.1.2.3. That only some of us have numerous finite lives: .000
9.1.2.4. That we each have an infinity of finite lives; .200
9.1.2.5. That only some of us have an infinity of finite lives: .000
9.1.2.6. That we each have an infinite life: .200.
9.1.2.7. That only some of us have an infinite life: .000
9.1.2.8. That time isn’t what we think it is (to be explained): .200
9.1.2.9. Some other explanation: .200

9.1.3. And now, I must estimate the likelihood of my own current existence given the different specific hypotheses under ~H.
9.1.3.1. That only some of us have but one finite life: .10.
9.1.3.2. That we each have numerous finite lives: .10.
9.1.3.3. That only some of us have numerous finite lives: .25.
9.1.3.4. That we each have an infinity of finite lives; 1.00
9.1.3.5. That only some of us have an infinity of finite lives: .50.
9.1.3.6. That we each have an infinite life: 1.00
9.1.3.7. That only some of us have an infinite life: .50
9.1.3.8. That time isn’t what we think it is (to be explained): .50
9.1.3.9. Some other explanation: .50

9.1.4. And now, I must multiply each of the probabilities of ~H above by the likelihoods of my current existence, given each specific hypothesis, and add up their products. And, the total likelihood of my current existence given ~H:
9.1.4.1. P(E|~H) = (0*.5) + (.2*.10) + (0*.25) + (.2*1.0) + (0*.5) + (1*.2) + (0*.5) + (.2*.5) + (.2*.5), or
9.1.4.2. P(E|~H) = 0 + .02 + 0 +.2 + 0 + .2 + 0 + .1 + .1, or
9.1.4.3. P(E|~H) = .62. And,
9.1.5. P(H|E) = 0*.99/(0*.99 + .62*.01) = (0/.0062) = 0.
9.1.6. P(H|E) = 0.

- IOW, given my current existence, the posterior probability that I will have one, finite life is (effectively) zero…

- I think that I got the numbers right this time.


- I assume that you are most interested in how I came up with the different numbers in 9.1.2. ?
__________________
"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
"Et tamen salsus est ratio plerumque recta ad unum." 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 24th September 2016, 11:29 AM   #18
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,820
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- The following is #2642 from the previous 'chapter.'

9.1. Re P(E|~H):
9.1.1. The probability (“likelihood”) of E given ~H, involves several specific hypothetical possibilities.
9.1.1.1. That only some of us have but one finite life.
9.1.1.2. That we each have numerous finite lives.
9.1.1.3. That only some of us have numerous finite lives.
9.1.1.4. That we each have an infinity of finite lives.
9.1.1.5. That only some of us have an infinity of finite lives.
9.1.1.6. That we each have an infinite life.
9.1.1.7. That only some of us have an infinite life.
9.1.1.8. That time isn’t what we think it is (to be explained).
9.1.1.9. Some other explanation.

9.1.2. Now I must estimate (roughly) the prior probability (rounded off to 3 decimal places) of each more specific possibility (hypothesis), given ~H.
9.1.2.1. That only some of us have but one finite life: .000
9.1.2.2. That we each have numerous finite lives: .200.
9.1.2.3. That only some of us have numerous finite lives: .000
9.1.2.4. That we each have an infinity of finite lives; .200
9.1.2.5. That only some of us have an infinity of finite lives: .000
9.1.2.6. That we each have an infinite life: .200.
9.1.2.7. That only some of us have an infinite life: .000
9.1.2.8. That time isn’t what we think it is (to be explained): .200
9.1.2.9. Some other explanation: .200

9.1.3. And now, I must estimate the likelihood of my own current existence given the different specific hypotheses under ~H.
9.1.3.1. That only some of us have but one finite life: .10.
9.1.3.2. That we each have numerous finite lives: .10.
9.1.3.3. That only some of us have numerous finite lives: .25.
9.1.3.4. That we each have an infinity of finite lives; 1.00
9.1.3.5. That only some of us have an infinity of finite lives: .50.
9.1.3.6. That we each have an infinite life: 1.00
9.1.3.7. That only some of us have an infinite life: .50
9.1.3.8. That time isn’t what we think it is (to be explained): .50
9.1.3.9. Some other explanation: .50

9.1.4. And now, I must multiply each of the probabilities of ~H above by the likelihoods of my current existence, given each specific hypothesis, and add up their products. And, the total likelihood of my current existence given ~H:
9.1.4.1. P(E|~H) = (0*.5) + (.2*.10) + (0*.25) + (.2*1.0) + (0*.5) + (1*.2) + (0*.5) + (.2*.5) + (.2*.5), or
9.1.4.2. P(E|~H) = 0 + .02 + 0 +.2 + 0 + .2 + 0 + .1 + .1, or
9.1.4.3. P(E|~H) = .62. And,
9.1.5. P(H|E) = 0*.99/(0*.99 + .62*.01) = (0/.0062) = 0.
9.1.6. P(H|E) = 0.

- IOW, given my current existence, the posterior probability that I will have one, finite life is (effectively) zero…

- I think that I got the numbers right this time.


- I assume that you are most interested in how I came up with the different numbers in 9.1.2. ?

And here is #2643 from that thread:
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
Originally Posted by Jabba
- I think that I got the numbers right this time.
The numbers you made up?

No, you didn't get them right. You made them up.
__________________
"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 24th September 2016, 11:37 AM   #19
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,820
And here's #2646:
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Originally Posted by Jabba
I think that I got the numbers right this time.

NO.

As usual, you just made them up and therefore they have no meaning. And you didn't correct any of the fatal flaws in the structure of your argument. As usual you just ignored everything that was said to you and repeated the claim that hasn't fundamentally changed in over four years.

Fail.
__________________
"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 24th September 2016, 11:39 AM   #20
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,820
There are some other responses there that you also need to address.
__________________
"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 24th September 2016, 11:41 AM   #21
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 15,722
Another fringe reset.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th September 2016, 11:42 AM   #22
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,633
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post

- I assume that you are most interested in how I came up with the different numbers in 9.1.2. ?
We know how you came up with them. We're most interested in your thoughtful and thorough rejoinders to the many objections, already stated, to how you came up with them. If you cannot or will not address your critics, then your claim is refuted.
JayUtah 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 24th September 2016, 11:48 AM   #23
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,950
9.1.2 and 9.1.3.
__________________
"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 24th September 2016, 01:53 PM   #24
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,749
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- The following is #2642 from the previous 'chapter.'

9.1. Re P(E|~H):
9.1.1. The probability (“likelihood”) of E given ~H, involves several specific hypothetical possibilities.
9.1.1.1. That only some of us have but one finite life.
9.1.1.2. That we each have numerous finite lives.
9.1.1.3. That only some of us have numerous finite lives.
9.1.1.4. That we each have an infinity of finite lives.
9.1.1.5. That only some of us have an infinity of finite lives.
9.1.1.6. That we each have an infinite life.
9.1.1.7. That only some of us have an infinite life.
9.1.1.8. That time isn’t what we think it is (to be explained).
9.1.1.9. Some other explanation.

9.1.2. Now I must estimate (roughly) the prior probability (rounded off to 3 decimal places) of each more specific possibility (hypothesis), given ~H.
9.1.2.1. That only some of us have but one finite life: .000
9.1.2.2. That we each have numerous finite lives: .200.
9.1.2.3. That only some of us have numerous finite lives: .000
9.1.2.4. That we each have an infinity of finite lives; .200
9.1.2.5. That only some of us have an infinity of finite lives: .000
9.1.2.6. That we each have an infinite life: .200.
9.1.2.7. That only some of us have an infinite life: .000
9.1.2.8. That time isn’t what we think it is (to be explained): .200
9.1.2.9. Some other explanation: .200

9.1.3. And now, I must estimate the likelihood of my own current existence given the different specific hypotheses under ~H.
9.1.3.1. That only some of us have but one finite life: .10.
9.1.3.2. That we each have numerous finite lives: .10.
9.1.3.3. That only some of us have numerous finite lives: .25.
9.1.3.4. That we each have an infinity of finite lives; 1.00
9.1.3.5. That only some of us have an infinity of finite lives: .50.
9.1.3.6. That we each have an infinite life: 1.00
9.1.3.7. That only some of us have an infinite life: .50
9.1.3.8. That time isn’t what we think it is (to be explained): .50
9.1.3.9. Some other explanation: .50

9.1.4. And now, I must multiply each of the probabilities of ~H above by the likelihoods of my current existence, given each specific hypothesis, and add up their products. And, the total likelihood of my current existence given ~H:
9.1.4.1. P(E|~H) = (0*.5) + (.2*.10) + (0*.25) + (.2*1.0) + (0*.5) + (1*.2) + (0*.5) + (.2*.5) + (.2*.5), or
9.1.4.2. P(E|~H) = 0 + .02 + 0 +.2 + 0 + .2 + 0 + .1 + .1, or
9.1.4.3. P(E|~H) = .62. And,
9.1.5. P(H|E) = 0*.99/(0*.99 + .62*.01) = (0/.0062) = 0.
9.1.6. P(H|E) = 0.

- IOW, given my current existence, the posterior probability that I will have one, finite life is (effectively) zero…

- I think that I got the numbers right this time.


- I assume that you are most interested in how I came up with the different numbers in 9.1.2. ?
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
9.1.2 and 9.1.3.
Dave,
- As for 9.1.2:
9.1.2. Now I must estimate (roughly) the prior probability (rounded off to 3 decimal places) of each more specific possibility (hypothesis), given ~H.
9.1.2.1. That only some of us have but one finite life: .000
9.1.2.2. That we each have numerous finite lives: .200.
9.1.2.3. That only some of us have numerous finite lives: .000
9.1.2.4. That we each have an infinity of finite lives; .200
9.1.2.5. That only some of us have an infinity of finite lives: .000
9.1.2.6. That we each have an infinite life: .200.
9.1.2.7. That only some of us have an infinite life: .000
9.1.2.8. That time isn’t what we think it is (to be explained): .200
9.1.2.9. Some other explanation: .200


- First, I figure that the different possible ways have to add up to 1.00 (for the moment, we're accepting that OOFlam is, in fact, wrong).
- Re #1: It seems to me essentially impossible that only some of us would have only one finite life. Either we all do -- or, we all don't.
- Re #2: That we each have numerous finite lives must be one of the more probable specific possibilities (hypotheses), given ~H.
- Re #3: That, again, that only some of us would have numerous finite lives seems (to me) essentially impossible.
- Re #4: That we each have an infinity of finite lives must be one of the more probable possibilities.
- Re #5: That only some of us would have an infinity of finite lives seems (to me) essentially impossible.
- Re #6: That we each have an infinite life must be one of the more probable possibilities.
- Re #7: That only some of us have an infinite life seems (to me) essentially impossible.
- Re #8: That time isn't what we think it is must be one of the more probable of possibilities that could account for our current existences (keeping relativity, quantum mechanics, Groundhog Day, and one of my unpublished science fiction stories in mind).
- Re #9: That something else (besides OOFLam and the above) explains our current existences seems like one of the more probable possibilities also...
__________________
"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
"Et tamen salsus est ratio plerumque recta ad unum." 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 24th September 2016, 02:32 PM   #25
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 7,299
*Sighs* It's like he's writing a Gish Gallop in COBOL.
__________________
Hemingway once wrote that "The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part.
JoeBentley 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 24th September 2016, 02:41 PM   #26
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,633
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
First,
First, middle, and last = you're simply making up these numbers. You're making them up.

When all your justifications start out "It seems to me that..." then that's how your critics know you're making them up. You have to show reasoning, not just "This is what I think, and here's the arbitrary number I've assigned to it, and I do some pseudo-math and presto! it's now a rigorous computed conclusion." The conditionals have to be facts, not just wild guesses.

You're making up all your numbers.

Last edited by JayUtah; 24th September 2016 at 02:43 PM.
JayUtah 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 24th September 2016, 02:49 PM   #27
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 10,866
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- I've provided that (somewhere, and more than once) already, but for some reason, I haven't been able to find it. I'll keep looking -- but you (and others) can probably find it faster...

That's a lie, and we're fed up with you begging us to do your homework.
__________________
Credibility is not a boomerang. If you throw it away, it's not coming back.
John Jones 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 24th September 2016, 02:59 PM   #28
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 7,299
Jabba it's very simple.

If I have an equation where I just totally make up the values for A, B, and C than....

A+B+C
A+B-C
A(B+C)
A*(C^B)

And any other variation are all meaningless nonsense.
__________________
Hemingway once wrote that "The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part.
JoeBentley 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 24th September 2016, 06:07 PM   #29
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 23,091
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Re #1: It seems to me essentially impossible that only some of us would have only one finite life. Either we all do -- or, we all don't..

Keep reading the above sentence until you find the flaw.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th September 2016, 06:42 AM   #30
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,749
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- As for 9.1.2:
9.1.2. Now I must estimate (roughly) the prior probability (rounded off to 3 decimal places) of each more specific possibility (hypothesis), given ~H.
9.1.2.1. That only some of us have but one finite life: .000
9.1.2.2. That we each have numerous finite lives: .200.
9.1.2.3. That only some of us have numerous finite lives: .000
9.1.2.4. That we each have an infinity of finite lives; .200
9.1.2.5. That only some of us have an infinity of finite lives: .000
9.1.2.6. That we each have an infinite life: .200.
9.1.2.7. That only some of us have an infinite life: .000
9.1.2.8. That time isn’t what we think it is (to be explained): .200
9.1.2.9. Some other explanation: .200


- First, I figure that the different possible ways have to add up to 1.00 (for the moment, we're accepting that OOFlam is, in fact, wrong).
- Re #1: It seems to me essentially impossible that only some of us would have only one finite life. Either we all do -- or, we all don't.
- Re #2: That we each have numerous finite lives must be one of the more probable specific possibilities (hypotheses), given ~H.
- Re #3: That, again, that only some of us would have numerous finite lives seems (to me) essentially impossible.
- Re #4: That we each have an infinity of finite lives must be one of the more probable possibilities.
- Re #5: That only some of us would have an infinity of finite lives seems (to me) essentially impossible.
- Re #6: That we each have an infinite life must be one of the more probable possibilities.
- Re #7: That only some of us have an infinite life seems (to me) essentially impossible.
- Re #8: That time isn't what we think it is must be one of the more probable of possibilities that could account for our current existences (keeping relativity, quantum mechanics, Groundhog Day, and one of my unpublished science fiction stories in mind).
- Re #9: That something else (besides OOFLam and the above) explains our current existences seems like one of the more probable possibilities also...
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
Keep reading the above sentence until you find the flaw.
LL,
- I'm hoping that Dave and some others will agree with my claim. If not, I've got a lot of explaining to do before I can move on. Keep in mind that these are hypotheticals, and, for the moment, we are accepting that OOFLam is wrong.
__________________
"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
"Et tamen salsus est ratio plerumque recta ad unum." 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 25th September 2016, 06:55 AM   #31
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 23,091
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
LL,
- I'm hoping that Dave and some others will agree with my claim. If not, I've got a lot of explaining to do before I can move on. Keep in mind that these are hypotheticals, and, for the moment, we are accepting that OOFLam is wrong.
It doesn't matter. You're trying to divided up an infinite set and, for the win, assign probabilities to each. You're making your positive argument for your preferred type of immortality WITHIN a negative argument against mortality. You can't do that. ~H is indivisible at this stage.

And, just to add to the confusion, you haven't defined the concept of person as regards immortality. What survives? What is a soul? How does it work? Why should I agree that it's impossible for only some people to be immortal without knowing what the concept means?
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th September 2016, 06:56 AM   #32
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 7,299
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I'm hoping that Dave and some others will agree with my claim. If not, I've got a lot of explaining to do before I can move on. Keep in mind that these are hypotheticals, and, for the moment, we are accepting that OOFLam is wrong.
Jabba do you know what a discussion is and how it works?

"Hoping others will agree with me" is not an argument.

Begging people to agree with you before you agree to argue any of your points is not an argument.

And nobody here believes for a second that you have an intention of, ever had intention of, or will ever have any intention of explaining anything or moving on.
__________________
Hemingway once wrote that "The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part.
JoeBentley 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 25th September 2016, 07:17 AM   #33
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,820
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Keep in mind that these are hypotheticals, and, for the moment, we are accepting that OOFLam is wrong.

Hang on, when did anyone accept that? I remember you asking people to accept that it is possible that it (or whatever you were arguing against at the time) is wrong, and then claiming that if it is accepted that there is that possibility then it is certain that it is wrong, but that's not the same thing. Nobody accepted your argument on that point.
__________________
"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 25th September 2016, 08:55 AM   #34
HighRiser
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: High above Indianapolis
Posts: 1,775
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
LL,
- I'm hoping that Dave and some others will agree with my claim. If not, I've got a lot of explaining to do before I can move on. Keep in mind that these are hypotheticals, and, for the moment, we are accepting that OOFLam is wrong.
Horse hockey
__________________
Congratulations, you have successfully failed to model something that you assert "isn't noticeable". -The Man

Science is not hopelessly hobbled just because it knows the difference between fact and imagination. -JayUtah
HighRiser 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 25th September 2016, 09:13 AM   #35
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,633
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Hang on, when did anyone accept that?
P(E|~H) has to be derived under the assumption -- for this purpose only -- that the hypothesis is false. Just as P(E|H) has to be reckoned under the assumption -- again for that purpose only -- that H is true. Jabba seems to making that assumption out to be more than it is. Further, if one's priors are just guesses -- as a Jabba's -- then P(E|H) and P(E|~H) must be essentially self evident and not guesses. Jabba errs by essentially making up all the variable portions of his formula and pretending that it arrives at a useful result. Finally, in Jabba's formulation ~H is not one hypothesis but rather any hypothesis that isn't H. Jabba equivocates whether H is "the scientific hypothesis" or "OOFLam," which defeats his claim. But more importantly, he makes only token efforts to enumerate or characterize the compound hypothesis ~H which is compound no matter which of the two definitions of H Jabba uses. Hence his description of P(E|~H) is ill-formed and useless.
JayUtah 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 25th September 2016, 09:25 AM   #36
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,633
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I'm hoping that Dave and some others will agree with my claim.
We do not.

Further, we have given you the reasons why we do not, and you are utterly disinterested in addressing them. You should note also that even those few who point out flaws in the criticism do not agree with your claim. You should also note that the people to whom you have taken this argument, who are not part of this debate, have also disagreed with it.

An intelligent person would probably notice that all that disagreement cannot possibly have personal animosity or some other cause as its root. The consilient disagreement should inform you that you are simply wrong.

Quote:
If not, I've got a lot of explaining to do before I can move on.
This is just the same stall tactic you used in the Shroud thread. No one is buying it, Jabba. You don't get to bog down the discussion until you obtain a partial or conditional agreement that you can then misrepresent as full agreement. That's just trying to trick people into saying they agree with you, not convincing them that you're right. That's just ego, not knowledge.

Further, you seem unaware of the possibility you may actually be wrong. Dave, I, and many others have shown you several flaws in your argument which are individually fatal. You must correct all of them. While it may be prudent to focus on one for a time, you don't get to perpetuate the debate indefinitely by either doggedly repeating one ad nauseam or shifting rapidly between errors when cornered on one. It has been explained to you why your approach to computing conditionals is wrong. You haven't rehabilitated it in over four years; you keep repeating it as if repetition cured its faults. As such it is a long-standing fatal flaw you cannot overcome.

And as such your argument is dead. You just keep defibrillating the corpse and interpreting its resulting flopping about as signs of life.

Quote:
Keep in mind that these are hypotheticals, and, for the moment, we are accepting that OOFLam is wrong.
You chose your words poorly. To compute P(E|~H) we must reckon the outcome as if OOFLAM is wrong. Ironically your critics are doing a much better job than you of keeping track of when we can assume H or ~H arguendo. "For the moment" indeed lets you reason under the premise that H is false. However you must also learn to reason as if H were true when computing P(E|H). You don't do that.
JayUtah 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 25th September 2016, 10:04 AM   #37
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,820
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
P(E|~H) has to be derived under the assumption -- for this purpose only -- that the hypothesis is false. Just as P(E|H) has to be reckoned under the assumption -- again for that purpose only -- that H is true. Jabba seems to making that assumption out to be more than it is. Further, if one's priors are just guesses -- as a Jabba's -- then P(E|H) and P(E|~H) must be essentially self evident and not guesses. Jabba errs by essentially making up all the variable portions of his formula and pretending that it arrives at a useful result. Finally, in Jabba's formulation ~H is not one hypothesis but rather any hypothesis that isn't H. Jabba equivocates whether H is "the scientific hypothesis" or "OOFLam," which defeats his claim. But more importantly, he makes only token efforts to enumerate or characterize the compound hypothesis ~H which is compound no matter which of the two definitions of H Jabba uses. Hence his description of P(E|~H) is ill-formed and useless.

Thanks. I was mistaking it for an attempt at a bait-and-switch on Jabba's part
__________________
"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 25th September 2016, 10:06 AM   #38
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,820
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Further, we have given you the reasons why we do not, and you are utterly disinterested in addressing them.

I think you mean uninterested. I don't think he is disinterested; the problem is that he is too invested in his desired conclusion.
__________________
"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 25th September 2016, 06:14 PM   #39
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,950
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- As for 9.1.2:
9.1.2. Now I must estimate (roughly) the prior probability (rounded off to 3 decimal places) of each more specific possibility (hypothesis), given ~H.
9.1.2.1. That only some of us have but one finite life: .000
9.1.2.2. That we each have numerous finite lives: .200.
9.1.2.3. That only some of us have numerous finite lives: .000
9.1.2.4. That we each have an infinity of finite lives; .200
9.1.2.5. That only some of us have an infinity of finite lives: .000
9.1.2.6. That we each have an infinite life: .200.
9.1.2.7. That only some of us have an infinite life: .000
9.1.2.8. That time isn’t what we think it is (to be explained): .200
9.1.2.9. Some other explanation: .200


- First, I figure that the different possible ways have to add up to 1.00 (for the moment, we're accepting that OOFlam is, in fact, wrong).
- Re #1: It seems to me essentially impossible that only some of us would have only one finite life. Either we all do -- or, we all don't.
- Re #2: That we each have numerous finite lives must be one of the more probable specific possibilities (hypotheses), given ~H.
- Re #3: That, again, that only some of us would have numerous finite lives seems (to me) essentially impossible.
- Re #4: That we each have an infinity of finite lives must be one of the more probable possibilities.
- Re #5: That only some of us would have an infinity of finite lives seems (to me) essentially impossible.
- Re #6: That we each have an infinite life must be one of the more probable possibilities.
- Re #7: That only some of us have an infinite life seems (to me) essentially impossible.
- Re #8: That time isn't what we think it is must be one of the more probable of possibilities that could account for our current existences (keeping relativity, quantum mechanics, Groundhog Day, and one of my unpublished science fiction stories in mind).
- Re #9: That something else (besides OOFLam and the above) explains our current existences seems like one of the more probable possibilities also...

That really doesn't explain anything.
__________________
"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 26th September 2016, 12:33 AM   #40
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,820
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Re #8: That time isn't what we think it is must be one of the more probable of possibilities that could account for our current existences (keeping relativity, quantum mechanics, Groundhog Day, and one of my unpublished science fiction stories in mind).

The likelihood that now is now is 100%. Oh, and 20 points.
__________________
"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

Last edited by Mojo; 26th September 2016 at 12:34 AM.
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
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 03:40 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

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