Not everything can sensibly be assigned probabilities, some things are beyond our ability to verify either way, like say if we are living in a simulation or not, or God.

And yes, I'd say mental health or sanity can be a rational reason for choosing a belief beyond probabilities. We are not machines and have emotional needs... some beliefs concerning identity, free will and the like, possibly are better believing in for your sanity, whether they are true or not.

Not everything can sensibly be assigned probabilities, some things are beyond our ability to verify either way, like say if we are living in a simulation or not, or God.

And yes, I'd say mental health or sanity can be a rational reason for choosing a belief beyond probabilities. We are not machines and have emotional needs... some beliefs concerning identity, free will and the like, possibly are better believing in for your sanity, whether they are true or not. — ChatteringMonkey

The psychological reasons I agree with, but not with that there are things we can't give probabilities for. The idea of a simulation or any given god are both things one can consider probable or improbable. There are many ways to argue for the probability of a god or simulation. They don't have to be absolute beliefs. If you think they have to be or just can't be given sensible probabilities, please demonstrate.

If you think they have to be or just can't be given sensible probabilities, please demonstrate — Qmeri

What are you going to base those probabilities on if you have no possible way of veryfying anything about them? If probabilities are based on nothing, then what's the point of those probabilities?

What are you going to base those probabilities on if you have no possible way of veryfying anything about them? If probabilities are based on nothing, then what's the point of those probabilities? — ChatteringMonkey

We can always start from zero information - a state where every logically possible world is equally possible. We can for example immediately see that in no world a bachelor is married or a thinking being not existing or any other logical necessity. We can also evaluate probabilities. Almost in no possible world do most humans have a golden fist in their ass - therefore even without any information you can say that if you are a random human, you probably don't have a golden fist in your ass. And therefore you can give probabilities to pretty much anything even without information - you just have to be able to consider all logically possible worlds.

Any one god being the only existing god is also extremely unlikely even without any information since there is an infinite number of logically possible gods in logically possible worlds.

We can also evaluate probabilities. Almost in no possible world do most humans have a golden fist in their ass - therefore even without any information you can say that if you are a random human, you probably don't have a golden fist in your ass. — Qmeri

You do not start from zero information there though, you start from an idea of what humans are, and derive the improbability of such a creature having a golden fist up their ass from your information about humans.

Probabilities typically are assigned when you have incomplete information... but you do have some information, and sensible probabilities start from there.

For example when you know the composition of a deck of 52 cards, you can calculate the probably of you drawing two aces from that deck. If I say however, I will deal you two cards from a deck that can be infinitely large (but you do not know how large it is) and has any number of random symboled cards in it, how will you calculate the probability of drawing two aces then? Sure, you can assign probabilities, but they don't mean anything without some prior information.

Likewise with God and simulations, they are not of this universe, and so we know nothing of that place... therefor no sensible probabilities can be made. You need some information to start with.

You do not start from zero information there though, you start from an idea of what humans are, and the improbability of such a creature having a golden fist up their ass. — ChatteringMonkey

I did start with zero information. I said that even without information we can see that most humans in most possible worlds don't have golden fists in their asses. The fact that one can practically use that realization in the case they end up being a random human has no relevance on the the fact that the starting claim is true even with zero information.

Likewise with God and simulations, they are not of this universe, and so we know nothing of that place... therefor no sensible probabilities can be made. You need some information to start with. — ChatteringMonkey

Logic does not care what universe something is from. The whole idea of logically possible worlds is about taking into account every possible universe - and we can derive useful realizations from that. Like: "I think, therefore I am." That is not related to our universe - it is true in all logically possible universes even without any information.

I said that even without information we can see that most humans in most possible worlds don't have golden fists in their asses. — Qmeri

But you cannot even concieve of humans if you have no prior information. And why would any property be more likely if you know nothing about them?

Logic does not care what universe something is from. The whole idea of logically possible worlds is about taking into account every possible universe - and we can derive useful realizations from that. Like: "I think, therefore I am." That is not related to our universe - it is true in all logically possible universes even without any information. — Qmeri

"I think, therefor I am" does not follow in a simulated world, if we take existing to be physical, which we tend to, as we wouldn't typically say pokemon exist.

I don't see how you can derive usefull realizations from them.

Ok, I see we have different definitions of information. For me, information is a limitation of the possible worlds we are in. Like if a number is between one and infinity, we have less information about it than when a number is between one and two. And when we make an empirical observation, that limits off the possible worlds where that observation would not happen. In my definition all my prior claims are correct.

What is your definition of information?

Data about the world, or sense-data if you will.

In my view no new information can be gained by logic alone, that are just tautologies or repackaging of the same information.

Like, Socrates is unmarried, therefor Socrates is a bachelor... no new information is gained, your are just using other words to say the same thing.

Ok, I see we have different definitions of information. For me, information is a limitation of the possible worlds we are in. Like if a number is between one and infinity, we have less information about it than when a number is between one and two. And when we make an empirical observation, that limits off the possible worlds where that observation would not happen. In my definition all my prior claims are correct. — Qmeri

Ok, I still don't see then how you can end up assigning probabilities to God or Living in a simulation then.

You start with zero information... and you end with zero information, because we can do no observations that limits possible worlds. And assigning equal probabilities to all possible world with zero information seems like an baseless assumption. Why are we assigning equal probability to all possible worlds? We just don't know.

In my view no new information can be gained by logic alone, that are just tautologies or repackaging of the same information.

Like, Socrates is unmarried, therefor Socrates is a bachelor... no new information is gained, your are just using other words to say the same thing. — ChatteringMonkey

Then we agree - logic gives no new information. It is just a tool to analyze and understand information. But since there are many unintuitive or philosophically relevant tautologies and logical necessities (like "i think, therefore I am." or that "since there are infinitely many different logically possible gods in logically possible worlds and also worlds with no gods, the probability for any particular god without information is infinitely low.") it is useful to understand even the zero information state with logic.

Assigning equal probabilities to all possible world with zero information seems like an baseless assumption. Why are we assigning equal probability to all possible worlds? We just don't know. — ChatteringMonkey

I kind of agree with this... while we can clearly see in nature in quantum mechanics that there doesn't seem to be any bias towards certain possibilities over others - so it is very well confirmed empirically. But have a hunch this is something that can also be proven logically. Alas, my theory of limitation information is not yet complete, but I will keep working on it.

Right now, the best reason for it is: some possibilities being more probable than others without a reason just doesn't work like we experience the world to work. And also - when we consider every possibility without prior information about its probability we end up with all of them having the same expected probability since we know nothing about everyone of them. Hey! Huzzah! Just solved it logically! Take that Shannon!

Ok fair enough. QM is a bit over my head I'm afraid, and scientists are not sure how to interpret it either at the moment it seems, so I don't have much to add to that.

Good luck, and thx for the conversation.

thx for you too... don't know how long it would have taken me to realize what I just realized without this conversation :)

As a guy who loves probabilities....assigning basically everything probabilities would be pretty absurd/hilarious. I mean how sure are you that, for instance, Abraham Lincoln existed? Like 99.99%+?What would it mean if he didn't actually exist? Think about it... Your entire conception of US history would be blown apart. GEM Anscombe has a fascinating paper on this subject called "Hume and Julius Caesar" that I would recommend.

Going back to Lincoln, it's not just one belief that gets shattered if it somehow turns out that Lincoln didn't exist. It's more like a node of a system has failed and the system can no longer sustain itself. It's like a card removed from one of those houses of cards and the whole structure comes tumbling down including your entire view towards history and it's study.