You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 05, 2016, 09:15:40 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Bwa hahahahha  (Read 4540 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ephiral

  • The Firebrand Logica | Gender Ninja | Their Toy
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: In between the lines, outside of the law, underneath the veil
  • Carpe diem per sol delenda.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Bwa hahahahha
« Reply #100 on: July 17, 2013, 04:08:21 PM »
I would like to agree with you on the hope that such a thing would never occur though. Quite honestly, oppression, be it in your favor or against it, is never a good thing and always affects everyone.
Absolutely. That's why I'm A+ myself.

Offline Shjade

Re: Bwa hahahahha
« Reply #101 on: July 18, 2013, 01:38:52 PM »
You're saying it takes more 'faith' to believe that sunflowers are yellow, than it does to believe in Hogwarts? Do you believe in Hogwarts? If so, why not?

No, they're saying it takes as much faith to believe that sunflowers that you cannot see or in any way prove exist or do not exist are yellow as it does to believe in Hogwarts.

In other words, you have as much faith in the non-existence of a force you cannot prove does not exist as others have faith in the existence of a force they cannot prove does exist.

You're not "right." They're not "wrong." You believe different things for your own reasons, and that's okay.

Offline Ephiral

  • The Firebrand Logica | Gender Ninja | Their Toy
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: In between the lines, outside of the law, underneath the veil
  • Carpe diem per sol delenda.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Bwa hahahahha
« Reply #102 on: July 18, 2013, 01:46:22 PM »
I'm sorry, but that's a bullshit false equivalence. Most atheists I know would be happy to believe in God the moment the evidence for outweighs the evidence against. It's just that the evidence for... well, doesn't exist, and the evidence that God is unnecessary and non-explanatory does, so why add this extra entity to the equation? This is, of course, not true of all atheists, because there are people who reason poorly in all groups.

(I'd go a bit further and say evidence against does exist, but that's because I'm a Bayesian. Failing minimum message length - Occam's, in layman's terms - is evidence against a hypothesis.)

Offline Shjade

Re: Bwa hahahahha
« Reply #103 on: July 18, 2013, 01:53:19 PM »
Thinking that something is unnecessary or illogical isn't "evidence." If it were, scientists wouldn't need to test things; they could just assume whatever makes sense or seems necessary is true, since those assumptions are, themselves, evidence of those things being true.

Evidence does not work that way.

Offline Ephiral

  • The Firebrand Logica | Gender Ninja | Their Toy
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: In between the lines, outside of the law, underneath the veil
  • Carpe diem per sol delenda.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Bwa hahahahha
« Reply #104 on: July 18, 2013, 01:56:34 PM »
Thinking that something is unnecessary or illogical isn't "evidence." If it were, scientists wouldn't need to test things; they could just assume whatever makes sense or seems necessary is true, since those assumptions are, themselves, evidence of those things being true.

Evidence does not work that way.
Thinking that something is unnecessary is not evidence. Having a theory which fits the facts at least as well, has at least as much explanatory and predictive power, and does not require that extra element? Absolutely does constitute Bayesian evidence against the extra element. Evidence does, in fact, work that way, which is where we get concepts like Solomonoff induction and minimum message length.

Offline Shjade

Re: Bwa hahahahha
« Reply #105 on: July 18, 2013, 08:21:11 PM »
You'll have to educate me on this "Bayesian evidence." All I can find are Bayes' rule, which relates to odds and probability (read as: not evidence) and Bayesian inference, which are inferences made via the aforementioned rule.

Offline Ephiral

  • The Firebrand Logica | Gender Ninja | Their Toy
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: In between the lines, outside of the law, underneath the veil
  • Carpe diem per sol delenda.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Bwa hahahahha
« Reply #106 on: July 18, 2013, 09:07:23 PM »
You'll have to educate me on this "Bayesian evidence." All I can find are Bayes' rule, which relates to odds and probability (read as: not evidence) and Bayesian inference, which are inferences made via the aforementioned rule.
It's a reference to the rule itself. "Bayesian evidence" would be observed facts about the conditions around us which make one hypothesis more likely than another to be correct. Minimum message length, a Bayesian principle, is a direct consequence of a statistical law: The probability of A+B is equal to the probability of A given B, multiplied by the probability of B on its own. The conjunction of two events or entities is therefore always less probable than the more-probable of the two on its own. Result: The hypothesis with the least elements is the most probable one, given equal fit to facts and equal explanatory power. We have a hypothesis which does not require God to explain the Universe working as we see it, and it fits all observed facts. It is therefore more likely than one that does, unless this new one has additional explanatory power.

Offline meikle

Re: Bwa hahahahha
« Reply #107 on: July 18, 2013, 09:16:14 PM »
"You can't even be sure that sunflowers really exist" sounds like an epistemological argument, and I'm not sure that an argument about probability really addresses it.

Does this MML thing suggest that it is more likely that there is just me and no sunflowers than that there are both me and a sunflower working in collusion to experience the color yellow?
« Last Edit: July 18, 2013, 09:20:41 PM by meikle »

Offline Ephiral

  • The Firebrand Logica | Gender Ninja | Their Toy
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: In between the lines, outside of the law, underneath the veil
  • Carpe diem per sol delenda.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Bwa hahahahha
« Reply #108 on: July 18, 2013, 09:21:55 PM »
"You can't even be sure that sunflowers really exist" sounds like an epistemological argument, and I'm not sure that an argument about probability really addresses it.
Good thing I wasn't trying to; I was trying to address the assertion that all atheists have faith in the non-existence of God.

My rebuttal to that line of reasoning is a simple "So what?" Either the universe exists, or we are unable to do anything. The rest is just verification.

Offline Shjade

Re: Bwa hahahahha
« Reply #109 on: July 18, 2013, 09:26:35 PM »
Good thing I wasn't trying to; I was trying to address the assertion that all atheists have faith in the non-existence of God.
Which you have addressed by confirming that all atheists have faith in the non-existence of God, just that it's a more statistically probable faith than the opposite.

Offline Ephiral

  • The Firebrand Logica | Gender Ninja | Their Toy
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: In between the lines, outside of the law, underneath the veil
  • Carpe diem per sol delenda.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Bwa hahahahha
« Reply #110 on: July 18, 2013, 09:28:31 PM »
Which you have addressed by confirming that all atheists have faith in the non-existence of God, just that it's a more statistically probable faith than the opposite.
...then I am confused. Perhaps you could define "faith"? In my mind, assertion that X is more probable than Y, and adjusting based on presented evidence, does not fit the bill. Is it faith if I say it's not likely that the sun exploded in the last eight minutes?

Offline Kythia

  • Noooo-one Fights like Kythia no-one bites like Kythia
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2012
  • Gender: Female
  • No one chain smokes Marlboro lights like Kythia
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Bwa hahahahha
« Reply #111 on: July 18, 2013, 09:29:59 PM »
I'm sorry, but that's a bullshit false equivalence. Most atheists I know would be happy to believe in God the moment the evidence for outweighs the evidence against. It's just that the evidence for... well, doesn't exist, and the evidence that God is unnecessary and non-explanatory does, so why add this extra entity to the equation? This is, of course, not true of all atheists, because there are people who reason poorly in all groups.

(I'd go a bit further and say evidence against does exist, but that's because I'm a Bayesian. Failing minimum message length - Occam's, in layman's terms - is evidence against a hypothesis.)

That way solipsism lies, surely.  The chances of me alone, making all the rest of you up, is higher than the chances of me AND all you guys existing.  You add no extra explanatory power (because I could just as easily be making you up) and you're unnecessary.

Offline Ephiral

  • The Firebrand Logica | Gender Ninja | Their Toy
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: In between the lines, outside of the law, underneath the veil
  • Carpe diem per sol delenda.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Bwa hahahahha
« Reply #112 on: July 18, 2013, 09:32:41 PM »
That way solipsism lies, surely.  The chances of me alone, making all the rest of you up, is higher than the chances of me AND all you guys existing.  You add no extra explanatory power (because I could just as easily be making you up) and you're unnecessary.
This is true given no other evidence. There is, however, other evidence.

(you're reading some)

Offline Shjade

Re: Bwa hahahahha
« Reply #113 on: July 18, 2013, 09:33:01 PM »
If you have no way of knowing whether the sun has exploded in the last eight minutes, yes. If you have some conclusive reason to believe that, then it's not faith, it's an educated guess.

Given just about any observation could be used to either support the existence or non-existence of God, there's no way to achieve conclusive reasoning on the subject, which means any belief you have on the subject is based on faith, whether it's faith in X religious principle or faith in X scientific/mathematic principle.

As far as I can tell, Bayesian inference doesn't help one way or the other on this subject. It may, however, provide more credence to the theory that, if he exists, God is a dick given the prevalence of shitty things he permits to take place in his name, but that wouldn't do anything toward proving or disproving his existence in the first place so it doesn't really help. (Alternatively: that he doesn't have power to affect human actions, but that would probably conflict with most religions' interpretations of deities.)
« Last Edit: July 18, 2013, 09:34:20 PM by Shjade »

Offline Kythia

  • Noooo-one Fights like Kythia no-one bites like Kythia
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2012
  • Gender: Female
  • No one chain smokes Marlboro lights like Kythia
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Bwa hahahahha
« Reply #114 on: July 18, 2013, 09:35:20 PM »
This is true given no other evidence. There is, however, other evidence.

(you're reading some)

As someone who regularly finds notes to myself I have no memory of writing and, often, no idea why I wrote them (I found a bus ticket with "TTIWWSDT" scrawled on it, in my handwriting, in my pocket the other day.  What the hell did I mean by that?)  I remain unconvinced.

Offline Ephiral

  • The Firebrand Logica | Gender Ninja | Their Toy
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: In between the lines, outside of the law, underneath the veil
  • Carpe diem per sol delenda.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Bwa hahahahha
« Reply #115 on: July 18, 2013, 09:39:58 PM »
If you have no way of knowing whether the sun has exploded in the last eight minutes, yes. If you have some conclusive reason to believe that, then it's not faith, it's an educated guess.
Its prior history, comparison with other main-stage yellow stars, and lack of observed instabilities that would cause a supernova are all evidence, yes.

Given just about any observation could be used to either support the existence or non-existence of God, there's no way to achieve conclusive reasoning on the subject, which means any belief you have on the subject is based on faith, whether it's faith in X religious principle or faith in X scientific/mathematic principle.
Um. That doesn't even begin to hold. Once again, P(A+B) = P(A|B)*P(B). Given only observations that are equally likely with or without God, the not-God theory is more likely than the God theory.

As far as I can tell, Bayesian inference doesn't help one way or the other on this subject. It may, however, provide more credence to the theory that, if he exists, God is a dick given the prevalence of shitty things he permits to take place in his name, but that wouldn't do anything toward proving or disproving his existence in the first place so it doesn't really help.
It doesn't prove anything at all, no, because when people say "prove" they generally mean P=1, and 0 and 1 are infinities that make probability go screwy. It does, however, tell us which propositions are more likely, and therefore more worth treating as true.

As someone who regularly finds notes to myself I have no memory of writing and, often, no idea why I wrote them (I found a bus ticket with "TTIWWSDT" scrawled on it, in my handwriting, in my pocket the other day.  What the hell did I mean by that?)  I remain unconvinced.
Do you own a server capable of hosting E? Are you capable of implementing E?

Offline meikle

Re: Bwa hahahahha
« Reply #116 on: July 18, 2013, 09:43:14 PM »
Do you own a server capable of hosting E? Are you capable of implementing E?
All it takes is a mind capable of imagining E!

Offline Ephiral

  • The Firebrand Logica | Gender Ninja | Their Toy
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: In between the lines, outside of the law, underneath the veil
  • Carpe diem per sol delenda.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Bwa hahahahha
« Reply #117 on: July 18, 2013, 09:45:03 PM »
All it takes is a mind capable of imagining E!
...and delusional enough to confuse that imagining with reality, yes, but we could look for evidence of that sort of delusional state, too.

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Bwa hahahahha
« Reply #118 on: July 18, 2013, 09:45:41 PM »
Now, now, let's not put Descartes before the horse.

Offline Shjade

Re: Bwa hahahahha
« Reply #119 on: July 18, 2013, 09:47:28 PM »
I'm aware of the evidence re: sun exploding, Ephiral. I was just answering your question.

Um. That doesn't even begin to hold. Once again, P(A+B) = P(A|B)*P(B). Given only observations that are equally likely with or without God, the not-God theory is more likely than the God theory.

Which holds with my statement perfectly: "there's no way to achieve conclusive reasoning on the subject"

"more likely" != true (at least not when the subject can't be in any way measured, tested, etc.)

Offline Ephiral

  • The Firebrand Logica | Gender Ninja | Their Toy
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: In between the lines, outside of the law, underneath the veil
  • Carpe diem per sol delenda.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Bwa hahahahha
« Reply #120 on: July 18, 2013, 09:48:31 PM »
I'm aware of the evidence re: sun exploding, Ephiral. I was just answering your question.

Which holds with my statement perfectly: "there's no way to achieve conclusive reasoning on the subject"

"more likely" != true
Then "X is faith" becomes a meaningless statement, because literally any possible statement is faith, because probabilities of 0 and 1 basically don't happen.

Offline Beguile's Mistress

  • Time flies like an arrow ~ Fruit flies like a banana ~ Elliquiy's Fair-E Godmother
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2009
  • Location: Faeleacanvald ~ The Steeler Nation ~ Home of Lord Stanley's Cup 2016 ~ She won't stay throwed! ~ 48\22-5\1\11-5\7
  • Gender: Female
  • Perpetual Notion Machine ~ 'What if...?'
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Bwa hahahahha
« Reply #121 on: July 18, 2013, 09:49:49 PM »
Now, now, let's not put Descartes before the horse.

He doesn't like it behind the horse either.  It's stinky and messy back there. ;D

Offline Kythia

  • Noooo-one Fights like Kythia no-one bites like Kythia
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2012
  • Gender: Female
  • No one chain smokes Marlboro lights like Kythia
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Bwa hahahahha
« Reply #122 on: July 18, 2013, 09:51:07 PM »
Do you own a server capable of hosting E? Are you capable of implementing E?

1) SOMEONE has and does, though.  And I suspect the chances of that someone being me  and having forgotten are higher than the chances of other people existing.  I rarely pay attention to what I say and do, it seems pretty feasible.  I was probably drunk.

or if you prefer

2) Given that I've made you all up, why can I not also have made E up? 

Either works.

The main point is that in a system devoted to multiplying probabilities, your counter examples are just, errrr, speculation unless you provide the probabilities of those counter examples.  Honestly, being as I do stuff all the time and then forget having done it, it seems way more likely to me that E is an example of that.  Why can't I still?  Implement E and host it?  I dunno, maybe I can.  I have a laptop, maybe that can host it.  never actually tried implementing E, maybe it'll all come flooding back to me if I do.  Is either of those less likely than the existence of other people, in objective terms? 

Meh.  I don't really care, tbh.  Just realised.

Offline Shjade

Re: Bwa hahahahha
« Reply #123 on: July 18, 2013, 09:55:29 PM »
Then "X is faith" becomes a meaningless statement, because literally any possible statement is faith, because probabilities of 0 and 1 basically don't happen.

Something doesn't need to be binary to be true or false. Gravity is a theory, but you can test it. It's conclusive, if only likely.

"X doesn't exist because the world is simpler if it doesn't exist" isn't conclusive. It's common sense, maybe, but since when is that a scientific/mathematical proof?

Offline Ephiral

  • The Firebrand Logica | Gender Ninja | Their Toy
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: In between the lines, outside of the law, underneath the veil
  • Carpe diem per sol delenda.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Bwa hahahahha
« Reply #124 on: July 18, 2013, 09:58:14 PM »
1) SOMEONE has and does, though.  And I suspect the chances of that someone being me  and having forgotten are higher than the chances of other people existing.  I rarely pay attention to what I say and do, it seems pretty feasible.  I was probably drunk.

or if you prefer

2) Given that I've made you all up, why can I not also have made E up? 

Either works.

The main point is that in a system devoted to multiplying probabilities, your counter examples are just, errrr, speculation unless you provide the probabilities of those counter examples.  Honestly, being as I do stuff all the time and then forget having done it, it seems way more likely to me that E is an example of that.  Why can't I still?  Implement E and host it?  I dunno, maybe I can.  I have a laptop, maybe that can host it.  never actually tried implementing E, maybe it'll all come flooding back to me if I do.  Is either of those less likely than the existence of other people, in objective terms? 

Meh.  I don't really care, tbh.  Just realised.
Honestly? Yes, yes they are. We know E's requirements, and it is exceedingly unlikely that your laptop fills even the ones it's physically possible for it to. Also, the probability that other people exist has to be measured against the probability that you popped into existence without other people, which is exceedingly low.

Honestly, though, I think I'm just going to say that Bayes has shown to be reliable and at an excellent balance point between speed, evidence required, and accuracy as compared to alternative methods of evaluating our observations.