Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Proof of Immortality II
- Thread starter Slowvehicle
- Start date
- Status
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
Truly, I admire your optimism.
xtifr
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2012
- Messages
- 1,299
Your post ended here. Did some of what you intended to post get lost or eaten by data goblins? Or did you simply misstate yourself (to put it politely)? Or do you have a different definition of "now" from the rest of us?
If it's the second case, please stop doing that! It is utterly useless to tell us that you're going to tell us something. Especially when you do it so often that you never get around to telling us what you told us you were going to tell us.
If you're going to tell us something: Please. Just. Tell. Us!
ETA: Unless this is all an elaborate homage to Monty Python's Anne Elk (Miss), in which case, well played, Jabba! Well played!
Last edited:
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
1) You have been deficient in your application or even definition of logic these last 2 years.
2) You continually try to redefine commonly understood terms like 'kind', and 'infinity'
3) You have employed every logical fallacy I have ever heard, and you do so repeatedly. Here are a few of your latest sins:
3.1.1.1 The Appeal to Consequences.
3.1.1.2. The False Dichotomy
3.1.1.3 The Gambler's Fallacy
3.1.1.4 The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy
3.1.1.5 The Appeal to Ignorance
3.1.1.6 The Straw Man Argument
3.1.1.7 The Moralistic Fallacy.
Just look at this site: http://www.logicalfallacies.info/
I could go on and on for two years, but I won't. Everyone who has heard your position understands it and rejects it -- with one possible exception.
Last edited:
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
Toontown
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2010
- Messages
- 6,595
Which means nothing.
You boys would be up against it if you ever needed to probabilistically test a hypothesis. No matter what you observe, well, that happened. Don't mean nothin. If that hadn't happened, then something else would have.
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
People who don't exist don't have the capability of being surprised or not. I'm not talking about my number coming up. I'm talking about a number coming up. It's not "my" number until I already exist. What are the odds of Lou Gehrig getting Lou Gehrig's disease?
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
You can use whatever number you like, it won't make a ha'porth of difference.
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
Sure, why not.
Only if your point is given the big bang, what is the probability that you in particular came to be, assuming we were calculating in advance with you as an special pre-determined target. Given that this probability calculation (I believe) also involves the probability of many billions of years of events before even life existed on this planet (formation of the Milky Way, formation of the right kind of Sun, formation of a watered Earth at the right distance from this Sun, etc.), then your concept of reincarnated souls doesn't help reduce this number much at all. In fact, we don't really know the probability of these events to create an accurate number (how many Earth-like planets are there in the Universe?). Are you proposing that this was all pre-directed consciously by a god so all of these events produced you in particular? When this god could have skipped all this crap and produced you from nothing by a god-like proclamantion in one second on Tuesday.
I don't have the energy to look up if the number you cite includes events before people evolved-sorry. But even if it does not, your proposal that "selfs" can be recycled or created de novo from an infinite number of potential selfs has the same problem, if not worse. The likelihood of Jabba in particular existing, here and now, is very low in your model as well as in the SM. Which you still have failed to address long after this was pointed out to you.
But, this is like the puddle logic flaw joined to the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. Once these early event gave rise to your parents, then the probability of them producing someone from coitus was quite high under the SM. The fact that this someone was you only had special significance as you looked back on it, not before. So given your specialness was only determined after you in particular were born, and not before, the number you cite would not be the right way to do the calculation. You could have been a brother Bob who was never born but would have come from a slower sperm, or Xtrei, a blue gaseous creature on Rigel iX.
Last edited:
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
Wrong. You show surprise because you did not expect your name to come up. This is where the fallacy is as well as expecting number to come up it is similar. This is because in both case you associate a special value sentimentally to that side. Once you realize every side has the same intrinsic value, then your name coming up cease to be surprising, and becomes as banal as side 238727842389423894723897423894728947238947 coming up. They are both as likely to come up. And surprise stops because ONE side has to come up.
Last edited:
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
It is known. We've been telling him the same thing for years.
Boys?
Happy Tree Friends has new competition for the "Least Profound Thing Ever Said" award.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
You can use a banana for all the difference it's likely to make to your claim of an immortal something-or-other.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Dave,
- Are you saying that the likelihood of me ever existing, given A, is greater than the probability of A being wrong?
xtifr
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2012
- Messages
- 1,299
You can, but it seems awfully high, and I thought you were aiming for a low probability. I was suggesting 1/(1080!), which you're also free to use. As I've said multiple times, I, personally, will accept any finite denominator. I don't even need specificity--I would accept "1/unimaginably-big-number".
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
I'm saying the two are unrelated.
I couldn't begin to come up with a probability of A being wrong.
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
You continue to prattle on as though A is some kind of Universal Constant, the value of which has been accepted here as the result of two year's worth of Truly Effective Debate™.
Guess what?
Didn't you tell me in a prior post that likelihood is not the same as probability? And perhaps you can explain how a model that calculates the probability of a future event can be negated by a specific result? For example, the current model of 6-sided die throwing predicts a 1/6 probability of throwing a 2. If I throw a die and see a 3, does that mean my model of die tossing has a 5/6 chance of being incorrect?
Last edited:
- Status