Thread:TheHumanAmbassador/@comment-26907577-20200128211255/@comment-32182236-20200204223759

..Maybe I should try using this idea on the fake moon landing theory, and see if it gives a reasonably low probability of it being fake. If it would gives something like 20% after looking through all the evidence, then we're definitely doing something wrong. It'll also reveal a few things I probably missed in my explanation.

After that's done, I'll then see if I can come up with an example of three' hypothesis. After all, there's sometimes more than two hypothesis, and it'd be such a shame if we could only calculate probabilities with just two. I'd like to be able to have a general form.

Hypothesis A is that we landed on the moon.

Hypothesis B is that we didn't land on the moon.

We start off by assigning them both prior probability of 50%.

But wait.. We were told that we did. Let's place Hypothesis B into the formula. (I'll be using my later version of the theorem, because it takes less effort to type.)

P=AB/(AB+CD)

P=.5B/(.5B+.5D)

So, what's the probability that they'd SAY they landed on the moon.. if they did?

I'd say very close to 1. I'll give it .99.

P=.5B/(.5B+.99)

And what's the probability that they'd SAY they landed on the moon if they didn't?

...The answer isn't simple. Or, at least, not simple enough to be agreed upon by the masses. (That doesn't mean there is no answer though, or that it's impossible to find!)

...Though I don't really have a way to measure the number of opportunities the government had to fake something, so I can't calculate the probability that they'd want to fake this one.

So, I suppose 50% is the best answer until we find a reason to lower it?

P=.25/1.24

P=.20161290323

So it went down to about 20.16%.

If there was literally just the government saying "Hey, we went to the moon", that's probably a reasonable probability. But we have the live event that actually SHOWS it.

I'm sure if we looked at all of THAT evidence, it would drop to a value so low that it makes it insignificant.

So, what about that weird non-parallel lines that are cited by conspiracy theorists?

Well, they're exactly what we would expect-The perspective would distort the shadows in this exact way. We shouldn't expect parallel lines.

So in that case, D would be equal to 1. Meaning that the probability would not go up from this piece of evidence. At all. (In fact, it might have gone down if there's a chance that a fake landing wouldn't have this effect.)

P=.20161290323/.20161290323+1-.20161290323

P=.20161290323/1

The probability didn't change.

In fact, I have another theorem that derives from this one. I'm sure someone else already discovered it, but I'll share it with you.

P=AB/AB+CD

Set B=1, and D=1.

P=A/A+C

As we know, A+C=1.

P=A/1

P=1

So, in theorem terms.

Given:B=1, D=1

P=A, always.

Given P(E|H)=1, and P(E|¬H)=1, P(H|E)=P(H)

So if we see evidence that's certain no matter what hypothesis is true, the probability doesn't change in the theorem as a result of it.

This is how Bayes' Theorem stops the meaningless kind of "evidence" from corrupting probabilities.