Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-fv566 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T08:55:15.852Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

No One Knows the Date or the Hour: An Unorthodox Application of Rev. Bayes's Theorem

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Paul Bartha  and
Christopher Hitchcock
Paul Bartha*
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia
Christopher Hitchcock
Affiliation:
Rice University
*
†Bartha: Department of Philosophy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, V6T 1Z1; Hitchcock: Division of Humanities and Social Sciences 101–40, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Carter and Leslie (1996) have argued, using Bayes's theorem, that our being alive now supports the hypothesis of an early ‘Doomsday’. Unlike some critics (Eckhardt 1997), we accept their argument in part: given that we exist, our existence now indeed favors ‘Doom sooner’ over ‘Doom later’. The very fact of our existence, however, favors ‘Doom later’. In simple cases, a hypothetical approach to the problem of ‘old evidence’ shows that these two effects cancel out: our existence now yields no information about the coming of Doom. More complex cases suggest a move from countably additive to non-standard probability measures.

Type
Probability and Statistical Inference
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 66 , Issue S3: Supplement. Proceedings of the 1998 Biennial Meetings of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part I: Contributed Papers Sep., 1999 , 1999 , pp. S339 - S353
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 by the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bartha, P. and Hitchcock, C. (1999), “The Shooting-Room Paradox and Conditionalizing on ‘Measurably Challenged’ Sets,” Forthcoming in Synthese.Google Scholar
de Finetti, B. (1975), Theory of Probability, vols. 1 and 2. Translated by Machí, Antonio and Smith, Adrian. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Eckhardt, W. (1997), “A Shooting-Room View of Doomsday,” Journal of Philosophy XCIII (5), 244–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitelson, B. (1999). The Plurality of Bayesian Measures of Confirmation and the Problem of Measure Sensitivity. Philosophy of Science 66:3 (Supplement), (this issue).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howson, C. and Urbach, P. (1989), Scientific Reasoning: the Bayesian Approach. La Salle: Open Court Press.Google Scholar
Leslie, J. (1996), The End of the World. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1980), “A Subjectivist's Guide to Objective Chance,” in Jeffrey, R. C. (ed.), Studies in Inductive Logic and Probability. Berkeley: University of California Press, 263–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar