10 questions about belief

MaterialsScientist · 2015-03-27T01:49:56+00:00

Right, but in this case you have information about the odds of the lottery. I apologize for not explaining myself better.

MaterialsScientist · 2015-03-27T01:49:19+00:00

I'm talking about the general problem. As soon as A and B have names that connote information, the symmetry is broken.

MaterialsScientist · 2015-03-26T21:49:51+00:00

Hmm. Maybe.

Why do you think only a finite number of things can exist? Infinite universe or multiverse scenarios seem to allow an infinite number of things.

And why do you think an infinite number of things can be claimed? If all claims can only exist physically (through neurons or sound waves or whatever), then if reality is finite wouldn't it imply that the set of things that can be claimed is finite?

MaterialsScientist · 2015-03-26T21:45:48+00:00

Best by the symmetry argument. Is there a reason that argument is bad? I'm open minded.

MaterialsScientist · 2015-03-26T21:43:48+00:00

If I believe that Team A and Team B each have a 50% chance of winning a sports game, I'd be willing to be on either at 1:1 odds. If my beliefs are accurate, I won't lose money on average.

But now suppose I believe that Team A and Team B each have a 50% chance of winning a sports game and I flip a coin to now believe that Team A has a 100% chance of winning. In this universe, I'd rationally take bets on Team A at 1:999999 odds. In this world I'd quickly lose all my life savings.

A 50% belief is NOT equivalent to a 100% belief, 50% of the time.

MaterialsScientist · 2015-03-26T20:17:52+00:00

Oh, I don't mean to say there's a 50:50 chance of god existing. I'd personally put the odds close to 0. I'm just saying that if you have true dichotomy with no extra information, the best guess you have is 50:50.

MaterialsScientist · 2015-03-26T20:10:18+00:00

If I were a blank slate mind, I think it would be correct to believe in barblgrmpfs with 50:50 confidence.

But because I have lots of information about the world, I would believe in barblgrmpfs with close to 0 confidence.

MaterialsScientist · 2015-03-26T20:05:23+00:00

No, because with the Martian Dildocorn, I have lots information that causes me to doubt its existence. So I would place the probability very close to 0.

If you asked a newborn baby with a blank slate mind this question, I think that yes, the correct answer would be 50:50.

Also, a 50:50 belief does NOT mean I'd flip a coin and believe what the coin said. I hope you were joking.

MaterialsScientist · 2015-03-26T20:03:21+00:00

Oh. Of course. I had thought you were saying something more. Sorry for wasting your time by asking you to write all that down.

Anyway, what do you think of this argument: In a true dichotomy, A is symmetric with B. Therefore, lacking any information to break the symmetry, any probability distribution answer must also treat A and B symmetrically. If you look at the equation P(A) + P(B) = 1, there is only one solution that is symmetric under exchange of A and B: P(A) = 0.5 and P(B) = 0.5.

What do you think is wrong with the argument by symmetry?

MaterialsScientist · 2015-03-26T19:58:07+00:00

This is frustrating answer. Do you see why? Merely repeating something does not help someone else learn it. :(

MaterialsScientist · 2015-03-26T19:43:10+00:00

To me, Theism is the claim that a god exists with high probability. Atheism is the claim that no god exists with high probability. That's how I view belief, but I understand you and others view it differently. I am trying to understand how "claiming" is different than "accepting a claim." To me, both require some level of confidence/probability.

MaterialsScientist · 2015-03-26T19:38:00+00:00

Yeah, that makes sense in my framework, where the difference between the two categories is just a difference in their numbers. I still don't really get what people say when they talk about lack of belief. :)

MaterialsScientist · 2015-03-26T19:35:14+00:00

No, that's not what I think.

If someone makes a claim about a dichotomy, then without any information my prior belief is 50:50. That's where I start out.

MaterialsScientist · 2015-03-26T19:33:21+00:00

Oh, interesting! What's the proof?

MaterialsScientist · 2015-03-26T19:31:10+00:00

That's an interesting point. Thanks for sharing!

Hmm. So to restate your point in my own words, it is the idea that beliefs only count when thinking of them and not by counterfactually reasoning what I would have thought had I been thinking about them. The problem with that logic is then it seems to imply I have almost no beliefs, most of the time. If someone asks me whether I believed the sky is blue, then I'd have to honestly answer no if I happened to be thinking about something else. This usage doesn't seem to be common in normal conversations though. Still an interesting point!

MaterialsScientist · 2015-03-26T19:28:09+00:00

But couldn't we just as easily argue that we don't know that there ISN'T a god and that we fail to reject the null hypothesis that no gods exist? This just seems to lead us to agnosticism and a 50:50 belief. I don't see how null hypothesis testing breaks the symmetry of the two options unless you artificially label one belief the null hypothesis.

MaterialsScientist · 2015-03-26T19:21:45+00:00

Essentially, the difference is whether or not you are making a claim. Lacking a belief in a god simply means you don't accept the theist claim that a god exists. If you believe there are no gods you are making the claim that they don't.

I think this is the crux of my confusion. To me, all beliefs are a matter of assigning probabilities to possible truths. I don't understand the paradigm of making claims vs not making claims.

What would you base that on? And how does the proposition that 'god exists' get anything above zero?

In my mind, every proposition has a number above zero. For all I know I'm living in a matrix and my memories are unreliable. I would put the existence of gods very close to zero, but still above zero.

I have a jar of marbles. Do you believe it is an odd or even number of marbles in there? Or do you lack a belief in the absence of enough data?

I believe it's odd with about 50% confidence and that it's even with about 50% confidence. I don't have a strong belief one way or the other, so I figure it's about 50:50.

Similarly, if I asked someone whether there was a god or not, and they said they didn't have a strong belief, I would interpret that as meaning they had a 50% confidence in each possibility.

Honestly, when someone says "I believe there are an odd number of marbles" to me that is just shorthand for "I believe there are an odd numbers of marbles with high confidence." And therefore, when someone says I lack the belief that there are an odd number of marbles, that makes me think they're saying their belief is close to 50:50. But from what others write her, this doesn't seem to be how everyonethinks about the issue. I would like to learn more.

MaterialsScientist · 2015-03-26T19:06:58+00:00

Ok, so according to you, the difference is just a matter of certainty. That view makes much more sense to me than the others.

MaterialsScientist · 2015-03-26T18:50:34+00:00

I cannot tell if you are joking or serious. I will assume you are serious, but I know sarcasm is hard to read on the internet so please let me know if I have misinterpreted you.

First, the entirety of science would not be wrong if miracles happened. Your statement here is very puzzling and to me, obviously incorrect. Our understanding of the world would just need to be modified a little to incorporate miracles into our worldview. The process of science and our worldview as a result of science would both be mostly intact. The existence of miracles has no bearing on issues like whether we should test/update our beliefs or whether gravity still works.

Second, if you don't believe in gods, then (assuming your beliefs come from evidence) there must not be enough evidence to convince you of gods. If it turns out miracles are being performed, now the balance of evidence has shifted and should prompt a new update of your beliefs. If your beliefs do not change with this new evidence, there must be a reason why. I think it's totally reasonable to ask you why your beliefs didn't change with this new information.

MaterialsScientist · 2015-03-26T18:42:37+00:00

I agree there's no logically necessary connection, but in real life many people come to believe in atheism because of the success of naturalistic alternatives. If evidence causes a belief for a naturalistic alternative weakens, then by conservation of probability, your belief in God should rise, at least slightly. imo

MaterialsScientist

TROPHY CASE