Opportunities of having the life. We are just throwing the dice to check whether the chance of having life increases or not. The chance of having a specific side is P, where P is the probability of having the life in a box.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 6:44 pmOpportunities of what? We're just throwing dice.
Anselm’s ontological argument is wrong
Re: Anselm’s ontological argument is wrong
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Anselm’s ontological argument is wrong
Lol--rolling dice has nothing at all to do with that.bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 6:49 pmOpportunities of having the life. We are just throwing the dice to check whether the chance of having life increases or not.
Re: Anselm’s ontological argument is wrong
It has. As I mentioned "The chance of having a specific side is P, where P is the probability of having the life in a box.".Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 7:12 pmLol--rolling dice has nothing at all to do with that.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Anselm’s ontological argument is wrong
You can't just stipulate that. If we're rolling dice, we only have frequentist data on dice rolls. If we're talking about "the probability of having life in a box," in order to have probability data for that, we need to have iterations of the box over x amount of time where we check whether life developed in the box or not.bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 7:13 pmIt has. As I mentioned "The chance of having a specific side is P, where P is the probability of having the life in a box.".Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 7:12 pmLol--rolling dice has nothing at all to do with that.
Re: Anselm’s ontological argument is wrong
We are not interested to calculate P by experimenting. We assume it is nonzero. That is all we need.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 7:17 pmYou can't just stipulate that. If we're rolling dice, we only have frequentist data on dice rolls. If we're talking about "the probability of having life in a box," in order to have probability data for that, we need to have iterations of the box over x amount of time where we check whether life developed in the box or not.bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 7:13 pmIt has. As I mentioned "The chance of having a specific side is P, where P is the probability of having the life in a box.".Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 7:12 pm
Lol--rolling dice has nothing at all to do with that.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Anselm’s ontological argument is wrong
It's not all you need if you actually want to figure a frequentist probability. In that case you need actual iterations. That's the whole gist of frequentist versus Bayesian probability.bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 7:23 pmWe are not interested to calculate P by experimenting. We assume it is nonzero. That is all we need.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 7:17 pmYou can't just stipulate that. If we're rolling dice, we only have frequentist data on dice rolls. If we're talking about "the probability of having life in a box," in order to have probability data for that, we need to have iterations of the box over x amount of time where we check whether life developed in the box or not.
Re: Anselm’s ontological argument is wrong
If you are in a condition to take a trip that you know how much it would cost you. You are offered 1 or 2 million credits. Which one do you pick up? And why?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 8:16 pmIt's not all you need if you actually want to figure a frequentist probability. In that case you need actual iterations. That's the whole gist of frequentist versus Bayesian probability.bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 7:23 pmWe are not interested to calculate P by experimenting. We assume it is nonzero. That is all we need.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 7:17 pm
You can't just stipulate that. If we're rolling dice, we only have frequentist data on dice rolls. If we're talking about "the probability of having life in a box," in order to have probability data for that, we need to have iterations of the box over x amount of time where we check whether life developed in the box or not.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Anselm’s ontological argument is wrong
2 million, obviously. We have data about amounts of money and how it works.bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 10:04 pmIf you are in a condition to take a trip that you know how much it would cost you. You are offered 1 or 2 million credits. Which one do you pick up? And why?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 8:16 pmIt's not all you need if you actually want to figure a frequentist probability. In that case you need actual iterations. That's the whole gist of frequentist versus Bayesian probability.
Re: Anselm’s ontological argument is wrong
In the same manner, I have data for how the amount of volume works for life.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 2:27 pm2 million, obviously. We have data about amounts of money and how it works.bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 10:04 pmIf you are in a condition to take a trip that you know how much it would cost you. You are offered 1 or 2 million credits. Which one do you pick up? And why?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 8:16 pm
It's not all you need if you actually want to figure a frequentist probability. In that case you need actual iterations. That's the whole gist of frequentist versus Bayesian probability.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Anselm’s ontological argument is wrong
Okay, talk about the source of that data a bitbahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 3:19 pmIn the same manner, I have data for how the amount of volume works for life.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 2:27 pm2 million, obviously. We have data about amounts of money and how it works.
Re: Anselm’s ontological argument is wrong
The opportunity for life is volume-dependent. What is the chance of having the life if the volume granted is negligible?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 3:29 pmOkay, talk about the source of that data a bitbahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 3:19 pmIn the same manner, I have data for how the amount of volume works for life.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 2:27 pm
2 million, obviously. We have data about amounts of money and how it works.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Anselm’s ontological argument is wrong
That's nothing about the source of your data. Talk about the source of your data.bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 3:33 pmThe opportunity for life is volume-dependent. What is the chance of having the life if the volume granted is negligible?
Re: Anselm’s ontological argument is wrong
What is the chance of having the life if the volume granted is zero?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 3:35 pmThat's nothing about the source of your data. Talk about the source of your data.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Anselm’s ontological argument is wrong
Hello? The SOURCE OF YOUR DATA.bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 3:39 pmWhat is the chance of having the life if the volume granted is zero?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 3:35 pmThat's nothing about the source of your data. Talk about the source of your data.
That needs to be empirical data. Frequentism is based on actual empirical data.Otherwise we're talking about Bayesian statistics.
Re: Anselm’s ontological argument is wrong
Come on. The chance for having the life in the zero volume is zero.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 3:43 pmHello? The SOURCE OF YOUR DATA.bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 3:39 pmWhat is the chance of having the life if the volume granted is zero?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 3:35 pm
That's nothing about the source of your data. Talk about the source of your data.
That needs to be empirical data. Frequentism is based on actual empirical data.Otherwise we're talking about Bayesian statistics.