It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# We Haven't Been Visited? Examining Arguments Against ET Visitation.

page: 5
10
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 10:13 AM

you do not seem to have any sort of grasp on Bayesian statistics/probability. You continuously attempt to make it into something your high school mathematics can explain, and that ain't happening...is it?

Actually, I have been using Bayesian statistics successfully for some time and am quite familiar with it. It is not as mysterious and complex as you make it out to be. There is nothing wrong with the examples I provided as they accurately demonstrate how Bayesian statistics can be applied.

I do not need these "unknowns" you speak of

well then you aren't using anything related to Bayesian statistics. Do you have any examples of how this would work? You said it is the same math so it should be very simple to provide an example.

the probability of you coming up with a working example is zero.

posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 10:13 AM

What Tanka doesn't get is that saying: "There is a 94% chance that there is a planet like the Earth within 10 light years around an M-dwarf star." is far, Far, FAR different from saying "There's a planet like the Earth around Barnard's Star, and there are intelligent aliens from there visiting the Earth on a regular basis."

You completely miss what I'm saying...sigh.

Before you blacken your eye with that knee jerk. PLEASE, input your probabilities into an inference engine and see what "IT" says.

You simple data point of 94%, when used with other data can become nearly 100%, or nearly 0% depending on that other data.

Also, do you really think you would find what you are looking for around a dwarf star? Personally, I would look at main sequence first for advanced life. Though, even your dim and cold class "M" stars will have life, just like the brightest of "B" class stars (I wouldn't hold my breath that those extremes have much better than simple life though).

posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 10:22 AM

ZetaRediculian

Actually, I have been using Bayesian statistics successfully for some time and am quite familiar with it. It is not as mysterious and complex as you make it out to be. There is nothing wrong with the examples I provided as they accurately demonstrate how Bayesian statistics can be applied.

well then you aren't using anything related to Bayesian statistics. Do you have any examples of how this would work? You said it is the same math so it should be very simple to provide an example.

the probability of you coming up with a working example is zero.

I'm sorry...I actually thought that maybe we could have an intelligent discussion, however, you are not taking this seriously, for all you have shown is that you know NOTHING about Bayesian Inference.

You see...there are a few "technical" terms that you should have mentioned, and didn't. These terms would make all the difference in both your demonstration of knowledge of Bayesian probability, and of course the actual calculation.

So, I will leave you to your deck of cards, and your high school mathematics.

To the other readers...go ask a Math professor at your local university. He will know much more than ZR, and prolly me

posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 10:45 AM

just produce an example.

so far the only example you can provide where you don't need known values is one that can't be verrified. The definitions you provided contradict what you state. All the examples you have provided use known outcomes as the sample data which also contradicts your statements.

edit on 4-2-2014 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 11:08 AM

There are as many reasons they could come here, as opposed to why they wouldn't.

Tourist attraction?

A total solar eclipse of the sort visible from Earth must be a great natural rarity; the disc of the Moon is exactly the right size to exactly obscure the solar disc. The resulting view of the corona isn't just spectacular; it's a freak of nature.

Maybe aliens come here to watch eclipses.

(Not my idea, unfortunately; here's the source.)

*

Maybe they'll be wanting to save our souls.

Saving souls for Christ was one of the great drivers of early European imperialism. The power of Islam created a world empire in an eyeblink of history. Perhaps, while you read these words, alien starships are approaching the Solar System, packed to the gunwalels with holographic religious tracts and five-eyed preachers...

You think it unlikely that scientifically and technologically advanced aliens would also be religious fanatics? Consider the United States of America. The most scientifically advanced nation on the planet, and it's full of religious fanatics...

*

Seriously, though, there's another way of looking at this.

Crossing vast interstellar distances demands a lot of energy. Even if this somehow wasn't a problem, such journeys demand a lot of effort. Nobody would do it without good reason. And with all the stars and planets out there to choose from, no alien would be here unless it had a very good reason to be. So you won't be seeing any day trippers.

edit on 4/2/14 by Astyanax because: of excess marbling.

posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 11:11 AM

ZetaRediculian

just produce an example.

perhaps...in time...when I have the time...but not now.

It would help IF you gave a small indication that you actually DID understand Bayesian probability...but you don't seem to even have the proper "Bayesian vocabulary"...so it becomes very difficult to discuss this.

Which is also to say: do you have any knowledge of the equations involved here, or the algorithm to use? I'm betting NO.

So far, it would seem, you have not understood a single thing 've said. AND< have put your own incorrect interpretation on my words, and insisted that's what I said...shame on you.

edit on 4-2-2014 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 11:14 AM

tanka418

ZetaRediculian

just produce an example.

perhaps...in time...when I have the time...but not now.

Why not now? You had time enough to post long explanations of how you are smart and we are not...

Show us.

posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 11:30 AM

tanka418

ZetaRediculian

just produce an example.

perhaps...in time...when I have the time...but not now.

It would help IF you gave a small indication that you actually DID understand Bayesian probability...but you don't seem to even have the proper "Bayesian vocabulary"...so it becomes very difficult to discuss this.

Which is also to say: do you have any knowledge of the equations involved here, or the algorithm to use? I'm betting NO.

I have absolutely nothing to prove to you. I use Bayesian algorithms successfully and have for some time. Its not rocket science. I'm not a mathematician and there is no secret language I need to speak in order to prove anything. There is absolutely no need to discuss the equations. All is needed is the basic concepts and the definition you provided. You are making the claim, you need to prove it.
do you need me to copy and paste a wiki article and then reference my web site like you have done?

posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 11:52 AM

ZetaRediculian

I have absolutely nothing to prove to you. I use Bayesian algorithms successfully and have for some time. Its not rocket science. I'm not a mathematician and there is no secret language I need to speak in order to prove anything. There is absolutely no need to discuss the equations. All is needed is the basic concepts and the definition you provided. You are making the claim, you need to prove it.
do you need me to copy and paste a wiki article and then reference my web site like you have done?

No, no wiki articles. I want you to post the math!

I'll tell ya what...IF you post a real example of Bayesian Inference, I will too. But, you see... I don't believe you know what the equations are, you don't know what the algorithm is, you haven't got a clue what I'm trying to talk about. You have plugged in your high school math and expect it to work...in an instance where it can't. This has been a long time habit of yours, attack somebodies idea, procedure, etc. when it threatens our world, and try to prove your point by frustrating the issue.

You show me that you know enough about Bayesian probability and I will provide you with the content you have requested.

Further; IF you have nothing to prove to me, then I have nothing to prove to you.

edit on 4-2-2014 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 12:32 PM

tanka418

ZetaRediculian

I have absolutely nothing to prove to you. I use Bayesian algorithms successfully and have for some time. Its not rocket science. I'm not a mathematician and there is no secret language I need to speak in order to prove anything. There is absolutely no need to discuss the equations. All is needed is the basic concepts and the definition you provided. You are making the claim, you need to prove it.
do you need me to copy and paste a wiki article and then reference my web site like you have done?

No, no wiki articles. I want you to post the math!

I'll tell ya what...IF you post a real example of Bayesian Inference, I will too. But, you see... I don't believe you know what the equations are, you don't know what the algorithm is, you haven't got a clue what I'm trying to talk about. You have plugged in your high school math and expect it to work...in an instance where it can't. This has been a long time habit of yours, attack somebodies idea, procedure, etc. when it threatens our world, and try to prove your point by frustrating the issue.

You show me that you know enough about Bayesian probability and I will provide you with the content you have requested.

Further; IF you have nothing to prove to me, then I have nothing to prove to you.

edit on 4-2-2014 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)

There's that tone of superiority again, even as you sidestep backing up your claims of mathematical prowess.

We the clueless await education.

posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 01:01 PM

We the clueless await education.

posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 01:05 PM

draknoir2

There's that tone of superiority again, even as you sidestep backing up your claims of mathematical prowess.

We the clueless await education.

And still you misinterpret. I'm not trying to be "superior", and do not feel that I am. However, it seems to me that ZR does not know what I am talking about. I say this because there are certain things he should have mentioned, and didn't. Again, I don't want to sound "superior", but, I don't feel like arguing with someone about something they don't understand.
IF he were to give some small, remote indication he knew anything at all it would be vastly different.

I am prepared to post examples, and links just as soon as ZR posts up the general equations for Bayes Inference and a small but reasonably knowledgeable explanation.

If this does not work for you, then we have nothing to talk about, and I'll thank you to remain out of any discussions I have on probability. By the way: ZR has a probability of 0.0017 of actually knowing anything about this...approximately.

posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 01:23 PM

You show me that you know enough about Bayesian probability and I will provide you with the content you have requested

why? You said you have no need for known outcomes with the way you use this. You provided definitions and examples that show otherwise. The internet is full of examples all of which use known outcomes as their sample data. This has absolutely nothing to do with anything I know or don't know. Anyone can look up any of this information. Its not about me at all. All I said was that I have used it successfully and I am familiar with it. What is so unbelievable about that?

just provide a simple example. That's all.

posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 02:07 PM

ZetaRediculian

why? You said you have no need for known outcomes with the way you use this.

You continue to misinterpret what II said. Bayesian Inference is not unlike any other form of divination...the unknown is inferred from the known. IF you truly did understand Bayesian Inference you would know that One can infer the unknown via the application of Bayes Rule. But, you can't even explain it that far, and have to resort to near fraud to attempt to discredit what you don't like.

As I said, I am prepared with university papers, white papers of my own, computer software, and a couple of those precious examples you so desperately want.

All you have to do is provide us with the general equations for Bayesian Inference and a brief explanation.

posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 02:13 PM

tanka418

draknoir2

There's that tone of superiority again, even as you sidestep backing up your claims of mathematical prowess.

We the clueless await education.

And still you misinterpret. I'm not trying to be "superior", and do not feel that I am. However, it seems to me that ZR does not know what I am talking about. I say this because there are certain things he should have mentioned, and didn't. Again, I don't want to sound "superior", but, I don't feel like arguing with someone about something they don't understand.
IF he were to give some small, remote indication he knew anything at all it would be vastly different.

I am prepared to post examples, and links just as soon as ZR posts up the general equations for Bayes Inference and a small but reasonably knowledgeable explanation.

If this does not work for you, then we have nothing to talk about, and I'll thank you to remain out of any discussions I have on probability. By the way: ZR has a probability of 0.0017 of actually knowing anything about this...approximately.

Nobody will ever be "worthy" of the explanation you cannot give.

posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 02:14 PM

Astyanax

We the clueless await education.

It's a very exclusive class... it excludes all but the "teacher".

posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 02:40 PM

As I said, I am prepared with university papers, white papers of my own, computer software, and a couple of those precious examples you so desperately want.

I really don't care for your credentials. It is really not important. It is a simple request to provide an example of what you claim. I don't care if the example comes from you or any other resource. Its a big internet. Google "bayesian examples" and pick one.

All you have to do is provide us with the general equations for Bayesian Inference and a brief explanation.

why is that a requirement? That is absolutely pointless.

posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 03:02 PM
Well it seems that ZR can't show us anything about Bayesian Inference. so...

Notes on Bayesian Inference -- Carnegie Mellon University

and

Bayesian Updating -- Microsoft Research

What ZR refuses to accept is that we don't [I]need[/I] ET to know that he exists, nor do we need him to use his probabilities in our inference. We can actually substitute the "known" probabilities against ET and we can use other probabilities that have been determined by any of the various sciences in our updating process.

The end result is we have learned something heretofore "unknown". We may even have used previously unknown data in our inference...the point here is that we learn something.

In ZR's world there is no probability for learning, as all things are necessarily, already known.

oops...almost forgot... a method from an application I wrote specifically for Bayesian Inference...

private void infereToolStripMenuItem_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
[

double oodds = 0L;
double Ph = 0L;
double tnum = Math.Truncate(Convert.ToDouble(textBox2.Text));
oodds = Math.Pow(10L, Convert.ToDouble(textBox2.Text) - tnum) - tnum;

// oodds *= Math.Pow(10L, tnum);
textBox1.Text = (1 / oodds).ToString();

double Peh = 1L; // 0.999999999999;
double Pc = 1 / oodds;

if(Phe == 0L)
Ph = 1L; //7E-6;
else
Ph = Phe;

// P(H/E) = (P(E/H) * P(H))/P(E)
// P(E) = (P(E/H) * P(H)) + Pc

Phe = (Peh * Ph) / ((Peh * Ph) + Pc);
label3.Text =Phe.ToString();

subsequent = true;

]

edit on 4-2-2014 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 03:42 PM

waltwillis
It appears to me that you enjoy playing the devils advocate more
then sharing what you do know with others.

I know of no good, verifiable evidence (confirmed by an unbiased consensus) for the actual, physical existence of "aliens," as in creatures sort of like us from other planets. There may be some out there, but statistical probability is not the same as existence.

I thought I made my thoughts on that clear.

posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 04:26 PM

tanka418

We can actually substitute the "known" probabilities against ET and we can use other probabilities that have been determined by any of the various sciences in our updating process.

So what you are doing is speculating. Thanks for clarifying.

Obviously I have to keep you honest

tanka418
You continue to misinterpret what II said. Bayesian Inference is not unlike any other form of divination...the unknown is inferred from the known.

But that is not what you are doing when you substitute the "known". In effect you are filling in your "knowns" with your interpretation of someone else's work. Essentially you are making it up and passing it off as "real" data. There is no other way to interpret this.

So lets be clear. Where there is no data, you fill it in with what you think it should be.

oops...almost forgot... a method from an application I wrote specifically for Bayesian Inference...

...and that proves exactly what? Why do you feel the need to prove anything?

new topics

top topics

10