Home | Community | Message Board

Cannabis Seeds Zamnesia
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next >  [ show all ]
Offlinekoods
Ribbit
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,049
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 27 minutes, 30 seconds
Re: The Federal Reserve [Re: feldman114]
    #26559472 - 03/26/20 04:07 PM (3 years, 9 months ago)

Schrodinger’s geezer


--------------------
NotSheekle said
“if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBrian Jones
Club 27
Male User Gallery


Registered: 12/18/12
Posts: 12,340
Loc: attending Snake Church
Last seen: 5 hours, 56 minutes
Re: The Federal Reserve [Re: Kryptos]
    #26559558 - 03/26/20 04:36 PM (3 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Kryptos said:
Quote:

Brian Jones said:
I disagree completely. The N is still plenty high to not raise the standard deviation perceptively. 

How much expected variance is there in predicting life expectancy at birth vs predicting a 60 year old is going to live twenty more years. When N is sufficiently high, variance is the main issue in statistical forecasting.

I still don't understand the comment you made about people over 100, but I am confident that life expectancy at 60 is at least as accurate as life expectancy at birth.




Maybe I'm being pedantic, but what you are saying is mathematically impossible.

Varience and SD are directly related, as Var = SD^2

N may be "sufficiently high" to predict life expectancy for a current 60 year old, but it is lower than N for life expectancy at birth. This means that life expectancy at any age past birth is inherently less accurate.

And my comment about centenarians serves only to illustrate this fact. The life expectancy of someone that's 100+ is basically a random guess. Very few people die at 100+. The life expectancy of someone that is older that 122.5 years old explodes to infinity, from a mathematical standpoint.




I'll just repeat what I said the last time. There is no issue with N here. We are an old country.

The way that N effects the standard error of the estimate wont be noticeable. When N isn't an issue, variance is the issue. It doesn't matter if you think of variance as the sum of the squared deviations from the mean, or as a descriptive word that is a synonym for variability. There is less or equal variance in life expectancy at 60 than at birth. The small N issues when we get to extreme old age don't have a bearing on what we are debating.


--------------------
"The Rolling Stones will break up over Brian Jones' dead body"    John Lennon

I don't want no commies in my car. No Christians either.

The worst thing about corruption is that it works so well,


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKryptos
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,263
Last seen: 1 hour, 14 minutes
Re: The Federal Reserve [Re: feldman114]
    #26559559 - 03/26/20 04:38 PM (3 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

feldman114 said:
I dun get it.
How can someone be statistically immortal or mortal? :lol:




Because life expectancy depends on the lives of your peers. The oldest person in history has no peers, therefore they are statistically immortal. In other words, they don't have a life expectancy. It's kinda like having the number one player improve their game. How do you get better than first place?

Here's another fun mindfuck, one with more philosophical and religious overtones:

There are IIRC 26 basic physical constants in the universe, which must line up as they do. The slightest variation in any of those constants and the universe as we know it cannot exist. Some might say, this is evidence of intelligent design. How else can those things line up so perfectly?

Well, let's look at the probability of all of those 26 constants lining up as they did. What are the chances? 100%.

Wait, what?

Well, there's only one universe, and as far as we can tell, the physical constants all lined up. Therefore, the probability of the universe popping into existence as we know it by random chance is, 1/1 = 100%.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 4 months, 21 days
Re: The Federal Reserve [Re: Kryptos]
    #26559680 - 03/26/20 05:35 PM (3 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Kryptos said:
...we don't know if someone older than 122.5 can die, because nobody has ever lived that long. Therefore, their life expectancy is infinite. Because life expectancy depends on how long people of that age live.

Of course, logically, someone can die after the age of 122.5, but there is no evidence to support that logic.



:picard:

Let me give another example to show what you're doing here.  Let's say we get all the most powerful golfers in the world together to see if any of them can break the current drive distance record of 515 yards.  What you're saying is that since no one's ever driven a ball that far, if the record is broken, we should expect the ball to travel an infinite distance.  Do you really believe that's the case?


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBrian Jones
Club 27
Male User Gallery


Registered: 12/18/12
Posts: 12,340
Loc: attending Snake Church
Last seen: 5 hours, 56 minutes
Re: The Federal Reserve [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #26559698 - 03/26/20 05:45 PM (3 years, 9 months ago)

I think he means that with the world's oldest person there is no data to predict future outcomes.

But back at the original argument, for 60 to 80 year old's there are millions of data points.


--------------------
"The Rolling Stones will break up over Brian Jones' dead body"    John Lennon

I don't want no commies in my car. No Christians either.

The worst thing about corruption is that it works so well,


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 4 months, 21 days
Re: The Federal Reserve [Re: Brian Jones]
    #26559741 - 03/26/20 06:07 PM (3 years, 9 months ago)

It follows a roughly asymptotic curve (I forgot the exact name).  We don't need data, we can simply estimate based on the shape of the curve.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinemeltdowner
Total Noob
Male


Registered: 09/06/17
Posts: 1,457
Loc: New York City
Last seen: 6 months, 30 days
Re: The Federal Reserve [Re: koods]
    #26560110 - 03/26/20 09:35 PM (3 years, 9 months ago)

This is the funniest thing I've seen you post!


--------------------
I'm a Lightweight.  I like to eat like two caps at a time.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKryptos
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,263
Last seen: 1 hour, 14 minutes
Re: The Federal Reserve [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #26560577 - 03/27/20 06:24 AM (3 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
It follows a roughly asymptotic curve (I forgot the exact name).  We don't need data, we can simply estimate based on the shape of the curve.




...which leads us back to "logically, someone older than 122.5 should be able to die, but we haven't actually seen it happen"

Also, your example is inaccurate. Golf follows the laws of well defined parameters in the form of Newtonian physics. We don't know enough about aging to have the same predictive power. Which is why life expectancy is a data driven extrapolation, and why lacking data, it becomes infinite.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefeldman114
Stragler


Registered: 09/06/19
Posts: 3,365
Loc: Bravos
Last seen: 3 years, 9 months
Re: The Federal Reserve [Re: Kryptos]
    #26560676 - 03/27/20 07:52 AM (3 years, 9 months ago)

You don’t think we have enough predictive power to say every human will eventually die?
I’m pretty sure the case for that can be made statistically.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKryptos
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,263
Last seen: 1 hour, 14 minutes
Re: The Federal Reserve [Re: feldman114]
    #26560859 - 03/27/20 10:10 AM (3 years, 9 months ago)

We do not have the predictive power to state, with certainty, that every human will die. Aging is not very well understood.

The case cannot be made statistically due to lack of evidence.

We can predict where a ball will land based on measurable factors such as speed and energy, combined with external factors such as drag and gravity. This is due to robust theory. Even then, however, there is a certain level of uncertainty in exactly where the ball will land due to quantum effects, which are largely assumed to be negligible as they are inversely related to the mass of the object. We cannot accurately predict when someone will die based on measurable factors, which is why we rely on a statistical evaluation in the form of "life expectancy". However, statistical analysis only works when you have data points to analyze, and the lack of data past age 122.5 means that we cannot use statistics either.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefeldman114
Stragler


Registered: 09/06/19
Posts: 3,365
Loc: Bravos
Last seen: 3 years, 9 months
Re: The Federal Reserve [Re: Kryptos] * 1
    #26560885 - 03/27/20 10:27 AM (3 years, 9 months ago)

Every human that ever lived - billions upon billions - has died.
You’re telling me that’s not basis enough?

In that case, what’s the basis for physics? Didn’t someone preform experiments to get “robust theory”? Well, did they replicate them an infinite amount of times? Cause if not, how do you know the next time someone tries to replicate them, the physics won’t change?


What you’re suggesting makes it seem that statistics is a pseudoscience that has no bearing in reality.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKryptos
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,263
Last seen: 1 hour, 14 minutes
Re: The Federal Reserve [Re: feldman114] * 1
    #26560986 - 03/27/20 11:27 AM (3 years, 9 months ago)

Physics is based on theory and experimentation, with consistent results.

Aging, and death due to old age, can be based on theory and experimentation, but does not produce consistent results. I direct you to the common anecdote of the grandfather that lives to their 90s and smokes every day.

Statistics is a mathematical attempt to create some semblance of order from mostly random data. Statistics itself is not a science, it is a method. You are correct that statistics does not have an exact bearing on reality, as it fundamentally lacks the predictive power of scientific laws.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 4 months, 21 days
Re: The Federal Reserve [Re: Kryptos]
    #26560989 - 03/27/20 11:29 AM (3 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Kryptos said:
...which leads us back to "logically, someone older than 122.5 should be able to die, but we haven't actually seen it happen"



How many world records have you seen broken for the first time, putting us in territory we've never seen before, where something absolutely biblical in nature happens?  Where the golf ball doesn't travel just an extra yard or two, but an extra infinite yards?

Quote:

Kryptos said:
At the risk of sounding like I'm discriminating, I won't accept biblical evidence.



:hmm:


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKryptos
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,263
Last seen: 1 hour, 14 minutes
Re: The Federal Reserve [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #26561016 - 03/27/20 11:44 AM (3 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

Kryptos said:
...which leads us back to "logically, someone older than 122.5 should be able to die, but we haven't actually seen it happen"



How many world records have you seen broken for the first time, putting us in territory we've never seen before, where something absolutely biblical in nature happens?  Where the golf ball doesn't travel just an extra yard or two, but an extra infinite yards?

Quote:

Kryptos said:
At the risk of sounding like I'm discriminating, I won't accept biblical evidence.



:hmm:





The Fosbury Flop comes to mind.

And when I said I won't accept biblical evidence, I meant literally evidence from the bible--some of those geezers in Genesis supposedly lived for thousands of years.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefeldman114
Stragler


Registered: 09/06/19
Posts: 3,365
Loc: Bravos
Last seen: 3 years, 9 months
Re: The Federal Reserve [Re: Kryptos]
    #26561020 - 03/27/20 11:47 AM (3 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Kryptos said:
Physics is based on theory and experimentation, with consistent results.

Aging, and death due to old age, can be based on theory and experimentation, but does not produce consistent results. I direct you to the common anecdote of the grandfather that lives to their 90s and smokes every day.

Statistics is a mathematical attempt to create some semblance of order from mostly random data. Statistics itself is not a science, it is a method. You are correct that statistics does not have an exact bearing on reality, as it fundamentally lacks the predictive power of scientific laws.




In this case, every human life is an experiment. 100% of results from billions of experiments tell us that every human will die. Consistently.

Statistics is not a science? Ok, now you’re just reaching...

Statistics can (correctly) predict that I will die, with more certainty than physics can predict the trajectory of a golf ball.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKryptos
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,263
Last seen: 1 hour, 14 minutes
Re: The Federal Reserve [Re: feldman114]
    #26561042 - 03/27/20 11:56 AM (3 years, 9 months ago)

We will never have 100% results on the mortality of the human race until the human race is extinct. Nothing is exact.

Statistics can't predict that you will die. Statistics can only predict when you will die. And that is based on other people, i.e. data points.

If you leave the group of data points, then there is no basis upon which to use statistics.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBrian Jones
Club 27
Male User Gallery


Registered: 12/18/12
Posts: 12,340
Loc: attending Snake Church
Last seen: 5 hours, 56 minutes
Re: The Federal Reserve [Re: Kryptos]
    #26561072 - 03/27/20 12:06 PM (3 years, 9 months ago)

So back to the original debate. Do you still want to argue that I was wrong about life expectancy at 60 predictions being less accurate than life expectancy at birth?


--------------------
"The Rolling Stones will break up over Brian Jones' dead body"    John Lennon

I don't want no commies in my car. No Christians either.

The worst thing about corruption is that it works so well,


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKryptos
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,263
Last seen: 1 hour, 14 minutes
Re: The Federal Reserve [Re: Brian Jones]
    #26561077 - 03/27/20 12:10 PM (3 years, 9 months ago)

Yes, I still stand by my original argument that life expectancy at birth is a more accurate measure than life expectancy at 60.

However, I will concede that the difference in accuracy can be considered negligible. I'll buy your large N argument.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 4 months, 21 days
Re: The Federal Reserve [Re: Kryptos] * 1
    #26561204 - 03/27/20 01:40 PM (3 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Kryptos said:
Yes, I still stand by my original argument that life expectancy at birth is a more accurate measure than life expectancy at 60.



Nonsense.  Here is the equation for standard deviation:



μ is the average observed value
N is the number of observed values
x is each observed value

Now, let's look at an example where there are only 3 known cases of people whose lives are measured above 110 years (n=3), and 100 known cases of people whose lives are measured from birth (n=100).

In the first example, let's say the 3 people above 110 ended up dying at 110, 111, and 115 (or substitute any such numbers)

In the second example, let's say 5 people died at 10, 15 died at 50, 50 died at 75, 25 died at 80, and 5 died at 110 (or substitute any such numbers, I kept this simple for illustration).

In the first example, μ is 112, n is 3, and x is 110, 111, and 115.  So the standard deviation is only 2.2 years.
In the second example, μ is 71, n is 100, and x is 5x10, 15x50, 50x75, 25x80, and 5x110.  So the standard deviation is 18.9 years.

So you see, you can have a larger N with a larger standard deviation.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKryptos
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,263
Last seen: 1 hour, 14 minutes
Re: The Federal Reserve [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #26561216 - 03/27/20 01:47 PM (3 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
So you see, you can have a larger N with a larger standard deviation.




Yes, and one of those standard deviations is more useful than the other when it comes to confidence intervals, t tests, and f tests. The one with the larger N.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Must Read: History Of The Federal Reserve FrankieJustTrypt 1,946 17 02/15/04 06:48 AM
by Phred
* Federal Reserve Questions... RonoS 1,615 16 09/19/02 07:32 AM
by Anonymous
* Evil Capitalists vs. Enlightened Statists
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Evolving 6,860 63 11/01/02 08:19 AM
by Innvertigo
* An article from April 4, 1999 on the U.S. federal debt RandalFlagg 672 5 01/22/05 09:53 AM
by RandalFlagg
* Interesting thought....
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
RonoS 10,577 98 08/16/03 07:20 AM
by Phred
* Fighting "Federal Communism" on the Reservation luvdemshrooms 1,604 11 03/29/04 11:53 AM
by Evolving
* Fighting "Federal Communism" on the Reservation luvdemshrooms 604 1 03/26/04 02:43 PM
by Baby_Hitler
* "Socialism" Indian Reservations. lonestar2004 1,195 19 12/05/04 03:56 PM
by rezzan1

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
1,302 topic views. 1 members, 5 guests and 6 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.03 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 15 queries.