Poll: At what X do you find religion
10 percent certain
20 percent certain
30 percent certain
40 percent certain
50 percent certain
60 percent certain
70 percent certain
80 percent certain
90 percent certain
100 percent certain
I would rather go to hell then convert
[Show Results]
 
How much certainty do you need to find religion?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-09-2013, 01:53 PM
RE: How much certainty do you need to find religion?
(21-09-2013 01:44 PM)Anjele Wrote:  Wow...badass on board.

Never waste a good chance to post a funny picture! Big Grin

[Image: 3owykd.jpg]

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2013, 02:27 PM (This post was last modified: 21-09-2013 02:33 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: How much certainty do you need to find religion?
(21-09-2013 01:39 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Maybe, but this isn't a thread about the number of members of a religion correlating with the likelihood of that religion being the one true religion. If you want to talk about that, go start that thread about that topic and maybe I will participate in it.

Really? You used the damn argument, then you say it's not allowed.

(21-09-2013 01:29 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Perhaps the number of people practicing a religion should factor into your decision about how likely that religion is to be true, but that is the subject of another thread.

Troll
So BlowJob doesn't get the answers he thought he'd get for this inane thread, so he tries Plan B to engineer a different outcome.
Dodgy

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2013, 02:55 PM
RE: How much certainty do you need to find religion?
(21-09-2013 01:14 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(21-09-2013 08:43 AM)Slowminded Wrote:  Certainty is very bad choice of word to ask a question like this, but just for the sake of argument, I would think that 51% is enough. That is the point where u believe more then u doubt, and if u have to make a choice , it is only rational to go with the option that u find is more likely to be true, even if u find it to be just slightly more likely to be true. I guess. Unsure

Its not always most rational to go with the option that you find more likely to be true because of the consequences you face when you are wrong.

If you are at 50% and don't convert, you got to figure that there is a 50% chance you're going to hell. If you are at 25%, and don't convert, you got to figure you're going to hell about 25% of the time. How much risk of going to WBC hell are you willing to take on to avoid giving up your current belief system?
Pascal's wager?

Impressive Bowing

Big Grin

So u are saying that it is rational to convert to the religion that has the scariest version of hell ? If some religion has some kind of ultimate hell, you would have to convert to that religion by default, because the consequences of getting it wrong are worst then making any other choice.

. . . ................................ ......................................... . [Image: 2dsmnow.gif] Eat at Joe's
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Slowminded's post
21-09-2013, 02:59 PM
RE: How much certainty do you need to find religion?
You can't hate a man for bein' a derpy twerp Bucky Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2013, 04:37 PM
RE: How much certainty do you need to find religion?
(21-09-2013 02:59 PM)morondog Wrote:  You can't hate a man for bein' a derpy twerp Bucky Tongue

I guess those born with weird brain structures can't be blamed for their disabilities.
http://critical-thinker.net/?p=1074

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2013, 05:08 PM
RE: How much certainty do you need to find religion?
(21-09-2013 04:37 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(21-09-2013 02:59 PM)morondog Wrote:  You can't hate a man for bein' a derpy twerp Bucky Tongue

I guess those born with weird brain structures can't be blamed for their disabilities.
http://critical-thinker.net/?p=1074

Blamed? No, but we can still hold them accountable. Drinking Beverage

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2013, 05:30 PM (This post was last modified: 21-09-2013 05:58 PM by Reltzik.)
RE: How much certainty do you need to find religion?
(20-09-2013 09:40 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Well, since we know hell was cooked up to scare children, and had absolutely no part of the Hebrew origins of Christianity, and we know Yahweh (the Babylonian war god/god of the armies) was the 70th son of the Babylonian chief god El Elyon, and we know Jebus was (if he existed) one of the many wandering apocalyptic preachers who made the mistake that the end-times were immanent, (however interesting historically), there isn't a snowball's chance in Haedes/Sheol that any of that crap is actually true, there is no "certainty" number which could be applied to this, except maybe Girly, or one of the mathematicians, knows about an irrational number, that might apply. Otherwise, it -100%.
The same as the 1957 Chevy orbiting Pluto. There exists no applicable rational number which would convince me that the old farts that cook up this nonsense are either correct, or have sincere intentions.

Actually, Bayesian probability ca-

(20-09-2013 11:01 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  I do not intend to get pulled into a conversation on this topic.

... nevermind, forget I said anything.

Actua-

(20-09-2013 11:01 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  I do not intend to get pulled into a conversation on this topic.

....

(21-09-2013 03:47 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Sucky Balls, this is more of a game theory question, not religious studies question or a debate on whether or not the WBC god exists.

.....

....

Do you even math, bro? Do you eve-

(20-09-2013 11:01 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  I do not intend to get pulled into a conversation on this topic.

....

.....

Shocking

....

Fuck me.

.... okay. Where'd I put my mathematician's hat?

Oh, right, my head. I never take it off.

First, some beginning game theory. This is NOT a game theory question. This is an expected value question. You can model that with game theory, but you'd never want to. Game theory is too complicated to deploy on a question where simpler fields of mathematics (such as elementary probability) is sufficient. It's like inventing a fly-swatting device to swat a fly, rather than just grabbing a newspaper. Game theory is only a good choice of tool when you've got multiple players prepared to modify their strategies in anticipation of what strategies the other players may adopt.

But okay, let's make it a game theory problem. Brace yourself. This will require us to ratchet our game theory up from "Beginner" to "Novice-Intermediate", because we we cannot properly appreciate the consequences of the various outcomes or the "other player's" valuation of those outcomes. This makes the math harder. If God exists, does that mean damnation for, say, everyone who ever worked on a Sunday? Just the really nasty people like genocidal maniacs? Anyone who converts, even the genocidal maniacs? Even assuming that God exists as a hypothetical, there is sufficient debate over these points that we must model them. Moreover, we can't really appreciate what God values in this scenario. Does God value the damnation of sinners in its own right? Those who are hypocrites, but not those of honest disbelief? Or is this a compassionate God propping up a paper tiger of Hell to help ensure good behavior (leaving aside whether the behavior being encouraged is actually good), a threat he will never carry through because he doesn't really want to do it and no one can really check up on it. This leaves us unable to anticipate God's motivations, and thus unable to anticipate God's strategies in formulating our own, and thus unable to employ game theory. We certainly can't just assume that a 25% certainty of God's existence equates to 25% certainty of damnation for nonbelievers, without also assuming that God would always, under any circumstances, damn an unbeliever.

Game theory deals with this by switching the model around. Rather than playing with another player -- God -- the other player is randomized. There are now quite a many other Gods we might be in the game with: the harsh Old Testament kind, the Mormon kind, Jerry Falwell's God, MLKJ's God... and, of course, the possibility of no God at all. You can think of this like a deck of cards, and we get dealt a random card as our mutual player after picking our strategy... except that the metaphor of a deck suggests the same odds of each card, and that's not necessarily the case here.Now the problem is simply identifying the probability of each card. We do this through Bayesian probability. This transforms the game with incomplete information into a totally equivalent one that DOES have complete information, but instead suffers from imperfect information. Going from incomplete information to imperfect information makes the math POSSIBLE, but having imperfect information makes the math harder.

Of course, we also have to consider some sort of blending. To put it in VERY crude (and thus somewhat inaccurate) terms, for the sake of the metaphor, what if God's on a spectrum between MLKJ's and Falwell's? Not fully either but say, halfway between? 80% towards MLKJ's and 20% Falwell's? This also makes the math harder. We can't discuss this in terms of discrete probability, so we have to generate a probability distribution curve instead. This also makes the math harder. If there's a second dense, independent axis of uncertainty (and there is), it becomes a surface. I'd say there's far more than we can count, perhaps infinite. I strongly doubt this can be mapped onto a finite set of variables, meaning we'd have to use a sigma algebra instead. This also makes the math harder.

But wait, there are more cards to add to the deck, because the Christian God versus no god aren't the only options. There's the moderate's Allah and the jihadist's Allah. There's Zeus and Hermes and Thor and Anubis and Vishnu and the Kotoamatsukami and... well, everything that humanity has ever come up with. And since we're talking about polytheisms, we have to figure the odds of multiple cards being dealt rather than just mutually exclusive cards. The sigma algebra is extremely complicated. This makes the math utterly horrific.

Notice, by the way, that we STILL haven't moved beyond expected value to game theory. But we're about to, because this model, horrific as it may be, is still far to simplistic. We need to bring in signalling as well. Any notion of revelation, inspiration, the Bible being authored by God, or for that matter one person witnessing to another, ANY of that, requires signalling. We'd have to break down the kind of signals that could be made by all players. We'd also need to have the REST OF THE WORLD take a seat at the game, because signals could be repeated second or third or fifth hand, and build reasonable appreciations of the rest of humanity's motivations and values. This can be simplified somewhat by treating humanity as a dense rather than discrete population, but chaos theory suggests that such a simplification would be disastrous in a chaotic system, and there are few systems more chaotic than human society. Besides, to properly model the propogation of repeated signals we'd need to draw up a reasonable network model of human interactions, and I suspect the granularity would be significant on that basis alone.

This makes the math harder.

At this point, game theory (with the help of others to set up the problem) is the only field that can handle this analysis. If you want to make this about game theory, this is the kind of analysis you have to do.

Please show your work if you want anyone to take it seriously. You don't need to compress it into a game matrix. Extended form will be fine.

EDIT: As anyone with a decent understanding of game theory will tell you, this is far from a complete model. For that, we'd need to turn the dial up to "Advanced". Let me know if you feel up to that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Reltzik's post
21-09-2013, 05:40 PM
RE: How much certainty do you need to find religion?
(21-09-2013 05:30 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  
(20-09-2013 09:40 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Well, since we know hell was cooked up to scare children, and had absolutely no part of the Hebrew origins of Christianity, and we know Yahweh (the Babylonian war god/god of the armies) was the 70th son of the Babylonian chief god El Elyon, and we know Jebus was (if he existed) one of the many wandering apocalyptic preachers who made the mistake that the end-times were immanent, (however interesting historically), there isn't a snowball's chance in Haedes/Sheol that any of that crap is actually true, there is no "certainty" number which could be applied to this, except maybe Girly, or one of the mathematicians, knows about an irrational number, that might apply. Otherwise, it -100%.
The same as the 1957 Chevy orbiting Pluto. There exists no applicable rational number which would convince me that the old farts that cook up this nonsense are either correct, or have sincere intentions.

Actually, Bayesian probability ca-

(20-09-2013 11:01 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  I do not intend to get pulled into a conversation on this topic.

... nevermind, forget I said anything.

Actua-

(20-09-2013 11:01 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  I do not intend to get pulled into a conversation on this topic.

....

(21-09-2013 03:47 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Sucky Balls, this is more of a game theory question, not religious studies question or a debate on whether or not the WBC god exists.

.....

....

Do you even math, bro? Do you eve-

(20-09-2013 11:01 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  I do not intend to get pulled into a conversation on this topic.

....

.....

Shocking

....

Fuck me.

.... okay. Where'd I put my mathematician's hat?

Oh, right, my head. I never take it off.

First, some beginning game theory. This is NOT a game theory question. This is an expected value question. You can model that with game theory, but you'd never want to. Game theory is too complicated to deploy on a question where simpler fields of mathematics (such as elementary probability) is sufficient. It's like inventing a fly-swatting device to swat a fly, rather than just grabbing a newspaper. Game theory is only a good choice of tool when you've got multiple players prepared to modify their strategies in anticipation of what strategies the other players may adopt.

But okay, let's make it a game theory problem. Brace yourself. This will require us to ratchet our game theory up from "Beginner" to "Novice-Intermediate", because we we cannot properly appreciate the consequences of the various outcomes or the "other player's" valuation of those outcomes. This makes the math harder. If God exists, does that mean damnation for, say, everyone who ever worked on a Sunday? Just the really nasty people like genocidal maniacs? Anyone who converts, even the genocidal maniacs? Even assuming that God exists as a hypothetical, there is sufficient debate over these points that we must model them. Moreover, we can't really appreciate what God values in this scenario. Does God value the damnation of sinners in its own right? Those who are hypocrites, but not those of honest disbelief? Or is this a compassionate God propping up a paper tiger of Hell to help ensure good behavior (leaving aside whether the behavior being encouraged is actually good), a threat he will never carry through because he doesn't really want to do it and no one can really check up on it. This leaves us unable to anticipate God's motivations, and thus unable to anticipate God's strategies in formulating our own, and thus unable to employ game theory. We certainly can't just assume that a 25% certainty of God's existence equates to 25% certainty of damnation for nonbelievers, without also assuming that God would always, under any circumstances, damn an unbeliever.

Game theory deals with this by switching the model around. Rather than playing with another player -- God -- the other player is randomized. There are now quite a many other Gods we might be in the game with: the harsh Old Testament kind, the Mormon kind, Jerry Falwell's God, MLKJ's God... and, of course, the possibility of no God at all. You can think of this like a deck of cards, and we get dealt a random card as our mutual player after picking our strategy... except that the metaphor of a deck suggests the same odds of each card, and that's not necessarily the case here.Now the problem is simply identifying the probability of each card. We do this through Bayesian probability. This transforms the game with incomplete information into a totally equivalent one that DOES have complete information, but instead suffers from imperfect information. Going from incomplete information to imperfect information makes the math POSSIBLE, but having imperfect information makes the game harder.

Of course, we also have to consider some sort of blending. To put it in VERY crude (and thus somewhat inaccurate) terms, for the sake of the metaphor, what if God's on a spectrum between MLKJ's and Falwell's? Not fully either but say, halfway between? 80% towards MLKJ's and 20% Falwell's? This also makes the math harder. We can't discuss this in terms of discrete probability, so we have to generate a probability distribution curve instead. This also makes the math harder. If there's a second dense, independent axis of uncertainty (and there is), it becomes a surface. I'd say there's far more than we can count, perhaps infinite. I strongly doubt this can be mapped onto a finite set of variables, meaning we'd have to use a sigma algebra instead. This also makes the math harder.

But wait, there are more cards to add to the deck, because the Christian God versus no god aren't the only options. There's the moderate's Allah and the jihadist's Allah. There's Zeus and Hermes and Thor and Anubis and Vishnu and the Kotoamatsukami and... well, everything that humanity has ever come up with. And since we're talking about polytheisms, we have to figure the odds of multiple cards being dealt rather than just mutually exclusive cards. The sigma algebra is extremely complicated. This makes the math utterly horrific.

Notice, by the way, that we STILL haven't moved beyond expected value to game theory. But we're about to, because this model, horrific as it may be, is still far to simplistic. We need to bring in signalling as well. Any notion of revelation, inspiration, the Bible being authored by God, or for that matter one person witnessing to another, ANY of that, requires signalling. We'd have to break down the kind of signals that could by all players. We'd also need to have the REST OF THE WORLD take a seat at the game, because signals could be repeated second or third or fifth hand, and build reasonable appreciations of the rest of humanity's motivations and values. This can be simplified somewhat by treating humanity as a dense rather than discrete population, but chaos theory suggests that such a simplification would be disastrous in a chaotic system, and there are few systems more chaotic than human society. Besides, to properly model the propogation of repeated signals we'd need to draw up a reasonable network model of human interactions, and I suspect the granularity would be significant on that basis alone.

This makes the math harder.

At this point, game theory (with the help of others to set up the problem) is the only field that can handle this analysis. If you want to make this about game theory, this is the kind of analysis you have to do.

Please show your work if you want anyone to take it seriously. You don't need to compress it into a game matrix. Extended form will be fine.

EDIT: As anyone with a decent understanding of game theory will tell you, this is far from a complete model. For that, we'd need to turn the dial up to "Advanced". Let me know if you feel up to that.

Well, I learned something new today! Thumbsup

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2013, 06:09 PM
RE: How much certainty do you need to find religion?
I learned I shouldn't leave the house without sunscreen

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2013, 06:41 PM (This post was last modified: 21-09-2013 07:31 PM by Reltzik.)
RE: How much certainty do you need to find religion?
I learned that when I was 6 years old.

Frigging redhead genes.

(Yes, yes, I know. White people problems.)

"If I ignore the alternatives, the only option is God; I ignore them; therefore God." -- The Syllogism of Fail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Reltzik's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: