Re: GOD=G_uv BAYESIAN P=99.9 %
From: Evgenij Barsukov (e-barsoukov2_hate_spam_at_ti.com)
Date: 07/29/04
- Next message: Dr_Postman: "Dumbass Jay strikes again (wasRe: MSN shuts down Jamie Eckles aka dr.postman's account"
- Previous message: Sam Wormley: "Re: The Fundamental Flaw of SR"
- In reply to: George Hammond: "Re: GOD=G_uv BAYESIAN P=99.9 %"
- Next in thread: George Hammond: "Re: GOD=G_uv BAYESIAN P=99.9 %"
- Reply: George Hammond: "Re: GOD=G_uv BAYESIAN P=99.9 %"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 14:02:59 -0500
George Hammond wrote:
> "Evgenij Barsukov" <e-barsoukov2_hate_spam@ti.com> wrote in message
> news:ceb0n6$bp1$1@home.itg.ti.com...
>>>
>>>
>>> P(bef) * D
>>>P(aft) = ----------------------------
>>> P(bef) * D + 100 - P(bef)
>>>
>>>where P(bef) = the prior probability (percent)
>>> P(aft) = the posterior probability (decimal)
>>> D = the liklihood ratio
>>
>>The result of calculation depends on completely arbitrary selections
>>of D and P(bef). Set different values, get different probablity. What kind
>>of derivation is that??
>>
>>The true derivation of Probability of God (which by the way was done in
>
> 1998, e.g.
>
>>4 years before Unwin) does not require any subjective parameters input and
>
> therefore
>
>>will give the same result for people, bacteria or eearh-worms. The
>
> resulting
>
>>number for Probability is 1-exp(-1)=0.632121(...). This is where Urwin
>
> probably has got the
>
>>number he has to "fit" parameters in his formula to...
>>
>
>
> <snip>
>
> [Hammond]
> Nice to know some unknown character agrees with Unwin. However, Steve Unwin
> has captured the public attention by publishing a best seller and getting
> a full page review in the July issue of scientific American magazine (page
> 46).
> This puts his credibility head and shoulders above anybody else.
The calculations of probability of God based on "something out of nothing" probability
have been published in Russian news-groups (relcom.sci.philosophy, relcom.religion)
in 1998 and have been widely discussed there that can be easily checked in google
groups archive, so it is basically widely known by Prussian philosophy enthusiasts.
If somebody comes up with a similar number (calculated in riduculosly wrong way,
or should we say, "fitted" to an actual number by adjustment of constants)
after 4 years, makes a book out of it and gets a lot of attention does not
mean that it is not a plagiat. It just makes it a "widely publicised" plagiat.
I wonder how plagiat (or, looking at it optimistically, a not properly done literature
search) can increase anybodies credibility.
Regards,
Evgenij
-- __________________________________________________ *science&fiction*free programs*fine art*phylosophy: http://sudy_zhenja.tripod.com ----------remove hate_spam to answer--------------
- Next message: Dr_Postman: "Dumbass Jay strikes again (wasRe: MSN shuts down Jamie Eckles aka dr.postman's account"
- Previous message: Sam Wormley: "Re: The Fundamental Flaw of SR"
- In reply to: George Hammond: "Re: GOD=G_uv BAYESIAN P=99.9 %"
- Next in thread: George Hammond: "Re: GOD=G_uv BAYESIAN P=99.9 %"
- Reply: George Hammond: "Re: GOD=G_uv BAYESIAN P=99.9 %"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
