We start with zero probability of life after death and then see what evidence for it is before us.
The side 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
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 number 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).
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.
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 number 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).
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment