Re: GOD=G_uv BAYESIAN P=99.9 %

From: George Hammond (research137_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 07/29/04 

Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 22:07:29 GMT

"Evgenij Barsukov" <e-barsoukov2_hate_spam@ti.com> wrote in message
news:cebhl4$lnd$1@home.itg.ti.com...
> George Hammond wrote:
>
> > "Evgenij Barsukov" <e-barsoukov2_hate_spam@ti.com> wrote in message
> > news:ceb0n6$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

[Hammond]
"Russian newsgroups" Hey, I'd like to talk to the Russians about
this. Are those newsgroups:

relcom.sci.philosophy
relcom.religion

Russian newsgroups? Are they read in Russia? Are they in
English? ... er, can you post messages in English for those
Russians who are multi-lingual?
  I posted my theory to a German and French newsgroups once, using
a "computer translator"... I had a little trouble communicating
with them though since the translation is only 85% accurate.

====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
====================================

Relevant Pages