Bayesing: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Creating comic page) |
|||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
{{incomplete}} | {{incomplete}} | ||
==Transcript== | ==Transcript== | ||
:I think we should all try to be bayesians. | :I think we should all try to be bayesians. | ||
:What?! Bayesianism can't possibly be true, and the proof is easy. | |||
:What? | :Suppose your prior probability that 0 equals 1 is precisely 0. | ||
:You take a field observation and find that to your surprise | :You take a field observation and find that to your surprise 0 equals 1. | ||
:The probability of that observation, given your prior assumption, is, let's say, 0.5. | :The probability of that observation, given your prior assumption, is, let's say, 0.5. | ||
:Bayesians should update but they can't because the observation that | :Bayesians should update but they can't because the observation that 0 equals 1 would change the mathematics of bayes' theorem directly, making the probability both 0 and 1! | ||
:Your argument is that bayes' theorem can't account for incredibly stupid shit? | :Your argument is that bayes' theorem can't account for incredibly stupid shit? | ||
:And thus cannot be a complete description of our universe! | :And thus cannot be a complete description of our universe! | ||
==Votey Transcript== | ==Votey Transcript== | ||
{{computertranscript}} | {{computertranscript}} | ||
Revision as of 14:47, 11 February 2024
| Bayesing |
 Title text: You can't prove me wrong because your proof requires arithmetic to work. |
Votey
Explanation
|
This explanation is either missing or incomplete. |
Transcript
- I think we should all try to be bayesians.
- What?! Bayesianism can't possibly be true, and the proof is easy.
- Suppose your prior probability that 0 equals 1 is precisely 0.
- You take a field observation and find that to your surprise 0 equals 1.
- The probability of that observation, given your prior assumption, is, let's say, 0.5.
- Bayesians should update but they can't because the observation that 0 equals 1 would change the mathematics of bayes' theorem directly, making the probability both 0 and 1!
- Your argument is that bayes' theorem can't account for incredibly stupid shit?
- And thus cannot be a complete description of our universe!
Votey Transcript
|
This transcript was generated by a bot: The text was scraped using AWS's Textract, which may have errors. Complete transcripts describe what happens in each panel — here are some good examples to get you started (1) (2). |
- [Describe panel here]
- People love relatable humor
- 3
- In
add a comment! ⋅ add a topic (use sparingly)! ⋅ 
refresh comments!
Discussion
"You could be presented with evidence that 0=1, but it will never be persuasive, because the prior is 0. So the Bayesian will always remain absolutely certain that 0≠1 no matter what evidence he is presented with, because thwt’s what a prior of 0 means." https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/bayesing?ht-comment-id=13700759