Anyone who thinks the shroud image is of âphotographic qualityâ (or even of more photographic quality than other pictures of the period) needs their head examined.
But, you see, you are comparing them to the actual image on the âshroudâ. Not to the digitally manipulated ânegativeâ that is usually presented by believers, and which I bet most people think is what actually appears on the cloth.
While looking for âenhancedâ pictures of the shroud I found some-one claiming that the picture on the shroud is so good that not only can you see coins placed on Jesusâs eyes, but you can tell that the coins are Roman and even identify the coins used.
Letâs see. Below is the way I initially defined P(A) Except that P(A) is not the probability that the codex shows the same features that are shown on the shroud, not at all. Rather, it is the probability that the codex displays the 6 features that O.K. is referring to in his piece.
Well. it seems that my formulation was somewhat clumsy, given that neither you nor @Gisteron got it.
So let me try this one:
P(A) is the probability that the codex displays the 6 features that O.K. is referring to in his piece by pure chance, independently of the shroud.
With this new, hopefully better definition, do you now agree that P(A) rises if the codex is based on the shroud but doesnât if the shroud is based on the codex?
By your new definition, A is independent of whether or not the Codex is based on the Shroud. This new definition now explicitly states that P\left(A\right)=P\left(A\,\middle|\,H_1\right)=P\left(A\,\middle|\,H_2\right). This is what âindependentâ means: That the conditional probability for the two events so called are equal to their respective individual probabilities.
Canât speak for Roy, but since you pinged me over this also (in a sentence saying I hadnât gotten your previous description, when I did, and rephrased it for you, and pointed out what was flawed both with your formulation and with what you meant actually), Iâll throw in my humble opinion that, no, this ânew and hopefully better definitionâ of yours now openly conflicts with what you say, instead of merely being an incomplete picture of the situation like before.