About Me

!nversed Poignancy!

...I am an eclectic amalgamation of many seemingly paradoxical things. This can be exemplified in both my seemingly endless persistance on many topics and arguments, as well as my careful cautiousness on other topics and arguments. This is largely due to how astute I am of the topic: more knowledge, more persistant; less knowledge, obviously more cautious. I also have times of obsessive compulsions regarding certain things (mostly just my thoughts, however)...

Life and Death

!nversed Poignancy!

Life

An assembly

Possibly impossible

Perfectly interchangeable..

Death

That lives most upright

Beyond the unspoken

Neither a squiggle nor a quibble..

She and Me

!nversed Poignancy!

She

A daffodil

Tyrannizer of me

Breaking the colors of dusk!..

Me

The rising sun

Infringed with violations

The impurity in the salt..

Love and Poetry!

!nversed Poignancy!

Love

A puerile desire

Buried in the heart

Never leaves..

Poetry

Sentimentally melodramatic

Cursively recursive

My thoughts idiotic!

Probablity of life after death..

Scribbled by Bharath C On May 11, 2007

We start with zero probability of life after death and then see what evidence for it is before us.

The above illustration shows us that for us to make the conclusion that there is life after death, only one type of evidence for it has to be true. To conclude that there is no life after death, every one of the different types of evidence have to be false (this makes it even more important to evaluate each of the different types of evidence independently of each other and without bias); and yet we still would not be able to absolutely make the conclusion since there may be another type(s) of evidence we do not know about or that evidence does not necessarily have to be revealed to us for there to be life after death.

Taking the illustration, one step further, we can ask statistically, what are the odds that there is life after death (LAD)?

Probability (as a decimal fraction) there is LAD = 1 - (Probability there is no LAD)

= 1 - (a x b x c x d x e,...etc.)

Where a,b,c,d,e,etc. are independent of each other and represent as fractions the likelihood that each of the various types of evidence for LAD are NOT TRUE. And (a x b x c x d x e,...etc.) are the fractional probabilities multiplied by each other. Let us do a calculation using the LAD Top 11 from above:

"1." = a = 1-0.95 = 0.025

"2." = b = 1-0.95 = 0.05

"3." = c = 1-0.95 = 0.05

.

.

.

"11." = k = 1-0.10 = 0.90

Probability of No LAD = 0.025 x 0.05 x 0.05 x 0.10 x 0.15 x 0.50 x 0.80 x 0.80 x 0.80 x 0.90 x 0.90

= 1.9 x 10-7

= 2 in 10 million

= 1 in 5 million

Probability of LAD = 1 - 1.9 x 10-7

= 0.9999998 = 99.99998 %

Note: I have used values that I personally believe to be representative; though liberal, in my opinion, in favour of no LAD (ie. erring on the side of no LAD). Most of the people who would be considered the worlds leading researchers and scholars in any of these areas would, in private and 'off the record' at least, give a higher probability for their (chosen) area being evidence for survival of consciousness than I have. Therefore, if we were to take a representative sample for each of the 11 evidence types from 11 separate groups of these experts and then do the preceding calculation with the values each group would assign, I would expect the probability of life after death would come out higher than 99.99998%. You, the reader may substitute any numbers from 0 to 1 in the calculation based upon your personal evaluations (to try to ensure independence, input parameter values as if have no knowledge of other types of evidence) and any number of evidence types you believe to be relevant. If I had used more than the eleven types of evidence I did in the calculation, then the odds in favour of LAD would be a bit higher (though not so much that they would be increased by an order of magnitude).

We need to be aware that if there is alien or inter-dimensional being manipulation (no matter how improbable this being the case might be) of the evidence (in whole or in part unless it was for only one evidence type manipulated or fabricated) for an afterlife, then these evidence types would no longer be independent of one another and this probability calculation would no longer hold up.

For curiosity (although it does not tell us the probability of life after death), let us estimate the probability that all of the 11 different evidence types mentioned above are all true:

Probability they are all true = 0.975 x 0.95 x 0.95 x 0.90 x 0.85 x 0.50 x 0.20 x 0.20 x 0.20 x 0.10 x 0.10

= 2.7 x 10-5

= 1 in about 40,000

= Which works out to a very low probability even though with the very same inputs the probability of life after death is extremely high - this is because throughout we have treated each evidence type as being independent of one another.

Anyone who inputs "1" above for any of the evidence types (ie. 100% probability that particular evidence type shows there is life after death) is either bringing some faith into it and/or has some special knowledge in the area which some may potentially have. The same applies even more so for someone entering zero (ie. 0% probability that particular evidence type shows there is life after death) - as it cannot be done scientifically and rationally and would require some sort of special knowledge to do so (I do not see how anyone could be in possession of such for most if not all the evidence types). Entering zero might also be improperly done by individuals who even know nothing or virtually nothing about that particular type of evidence.

Not knowing of this analysis, atheists would simply answer zero for all the evidence types but that is where their irrational bias would be clearly exposed for to do so would require a special knowledge and understanding of these evidence types which no one I can see on earth possessing in the negative. Mere mortals, no matter how dismissive they are of the particular evidences, would still have to input numbers greater than zero (such as 0.01, 0.005, 0.02, etc.; though the odd zero could still be rationally inputed). They may end up with say a 5 to 10% chance of life after death but their atheist belief system would be no longer (mathematically and logically at least).

However if they had read this analysis prior and understood how it worked, one would have to get them to answer to each of these evidence types separately to get their honest opinions (though this probably would not still work) otherwise they would probably be clever (but not honest and objective) and input very small numbers close to zero and some zeros to get their probability of life after death estimate as low as possible and yet rationally still plausible - so as to be as close as possible to zero probability of life after death as they can get away with.

0 Thoughts have been Sprinkled!, Your Take? :

Post a Comment

Bookmark and Share