Proof of Immortality II

[Giordano]

For a moment let's assume Jabba's model of reincarnated souls must be true, and even ignore that Jabba also claims that new souls can be created in infinite potential numbers de novo. Then there must be 7 billon souls at minimum in the world. So chances of Jabba rolling the right number is 1 in 7 billon even by this scenario. That is a very small number. Almost unimaginably small. So Jabba must be incredibly lucky even under his own theory.

 

[AdMan]

Jabba exists because his target was hit, and only because his target was hit.

Of course, but the only reason why he's now saying he's so special is because he's drawing the bullseye around himself, after the fact that he already exists.

 

[Toontown]

Of course, but the only reason why he's now saying he's so special is because he's drawing the bullseye around himself, after the fact that he already exists.

Well. A target can hardly be hit before it is hit, can it.

You say he's drawing the bullseye. I say he's pointing it out. Points 1 through 4 explain why I say that. Prove me wrong.

 

[AdMan]

Well. A target can hardly be hit before it is hit, can it.

You say he's drawing the bullseye. I say he's pointing it out. Points 1 through 4 explain why I say that. Prove me wrong.

Your points 1-4 are meaningless. All you're saying is that if something is possible it has a probability of happening, which is of course true but doesn't add anything to the discussion. And then you're apparently concluding that Jabba's existence was somehow a predetermined target that was hit. Sure, it was a happening with low probability, but hitting that specific target was no more special than hitting any other. It is just special to you and Jabba who now draw a bullseye around it. Texas sharpshooter.

 

[Toontown]

Your points 1-4 are meaningless. All you're saying is that if something is possible it has a probability of happening, which is of course true but doesn't add anything to the discussion. And then you're apparently concluding that Jabba's existence was somehow a predetermined target that was hit.

How could something indeterminate have a probability of happening? What was the probability on?

 

[AdMan]

How could something indeterminate have a probability of happening? What was the probability on?

When did I say that something indeterminate could have an assigned probability? You are either arguing against a straw man or against yourself.

 

[Toontown]

When did I say that something indeterminate could have an assigned probability? You are either arguing against a straw man or against yourself.

You are contradicting yourself. First you reluctantantly admitted that the possible Jabba had a probability of existing. Then you denied the possible Jabba was predetermined. So what was the probability of existing on?

 

[AdMan]

Wrong. You are contradicting yourself. First you reluctantantly admitted that the possible Jabba had a probability of existing. Then you denied the possible Jabba was predetermined. So what was the probability of existing on?

No. You did not understand what I wrote. Of course Jabba had a probability of existing--the fact he exists proves that the probability existed. But that does nothing to show that his existence was predetermined, just as the fact that someone winning the lottery does nothing to show that that particular person winning was predetermined. Someone was going to win.

Once again, you're drawing the bullseye after the shot has been fired.

 

[John Jones]

You are contradicting yourself. First you reluctantantly admitted that the possible Jabba had a probability of existing. Then you denied the possible Jabba was predetermined. So what was the probability of existing on?

That doesn't even make sense.

 

[Toontown]

No. You did not understand. Of course Jabba had a probability of existing--the fact he exists proves that the probability existed. But that does nothing to show that his existence was predetermined, just as the fact that someone winning the lottery does nothing to show that that particular person winning was predetermined. Someone was going to win.

You don't understand. It was not the existence that was predetermined. That was a 10^80! : 1 longshot, entirely contingent upon the target being hit. It is the target that was predetermined. IF the target is hit, THEN Jabba exists. IF the target is not hit, THEN Jabba does not exist.

I am going to repeat a question. Careful now. Try not to keep getting the target confused with the result of hitting it. The possible Jabba was the target. The existing Jabba is the result of hitting the target.

So. That probability that you reluctantly admitted existed. What was that on?

Once again, you're drawing the bullseye after the shot has been fired.

Keep repeating that. Make a mantra out of it. Never will be true, but you can keep saying it. I don't care.

 

[Mojo]

You don't understand. It was not the existence that was predetermined. That was a 10^80! : 1 longshot, entirely contingent upon the target being hit. It is the target that was predetermined. IF the target is hit, THEN Jabba exists. IF the target is not hit, THEN Jabba does not exist.

The "target" is Jabba's existence. Calling it a target is an analogy. There is no actual target.

 

[AdMan]

The "target" is Jabba's existence. Calling it a target is an analogy. There is no actual target.

I think this is where they're a bit confused and not communicating correctly.

 

[Mojo]

Do you truly, fervently believe you've given sufficient reason for me to unquestioningly believe, with starry-eyed faith, that my specific existence is consistent with a model which lays prior odds of 10^80! : 1 against my specific observed existence?

Yes. That's probably why you feel the need to introduce language like "unquestioningly believe, with starry-eyed faith".

If an outcome is a possible outcome of a model, then that outcome is consistent with that model. To go back to the die example, any of the faces of a die coming up is consistent with the hypothesis that the die is random, no matter how many faces there are. There isn't some number of faces that, if exceeded, would somehow prevent any of the faces coming up. And that is what your agument implies (it also implies that it is a number equal or less than 10^80!, of course).

 

[Pixel42]

Imagine a die with 10^80! sides. Is one of those sides coming up when the die is thrown inconsistent with the hypothesis that the die produces a random result?

1. Why do you equate one specific side with a random one of the sides, as if the probability of the one specific side is equal to the combined probabilities of all the other sides?

What? The probability of one specific side is the same as the probability of any other side.

Read it again, think about the question, and answer it.

 

[Jabba]

Dave,
- Are you saying that the likelihood of me ever existing, given A, is greater than the probability of A being wrong?

I'm saying the two are unrelated...

- You seem to be saying that Bayesian statistics is erroneous (or, something to that effect). The likelihood of me ever existing, given A, and the probability of A being wrong are entirely relevant to each other in the Bayesian model.
- The core of Bayesian stat is that the probability of drawing a particular sample from a particular population has mathematical implications re the probability that a particular sample was, in fact, drawn from that population...
- IOW, the truth value of A is dependent upon the truth of its predictions. If A claims that "b" is impossible, but "b" occurs, we scrap A. If A claims that "b" is extremely unlikely, but we discover "b," we need to reconsider A.

 

[Jabba]

...I couldn't begin to come up with a probability of A being wrong.

Dave,
- That sounds like you're saying that the probability of A being wrong is unimaginably small. Is that what you mean?

 

[Loss Leader]

- You seem to be saying that Bayesian statistics is erroneous (or, something to that effect). The likelihood of me ever existing, given A, and the probability of A being wrong are entirely relevant to each other in the Bayesian model.
- The core of Bayesian stat is that the probability of drawing a particular sample from a particular population has mathematical implications re the probability that a particular sample was, in fact, drawn from that population...
- IOW, the truth value of A is dependent upon the truth of its predictions. If A claims that "b" is impossible, but "b" occurs, we scrap A. If A claims that "b" is extremely unlikely, but we discover "b," we need to reconsider A.

Fascinating. In this particular case, what would you say is b? Is b everything that is not A? Or is b your immortality?

 

[Slowvehicle]

- You seem to be saying that Bayesian statistics is erroneous (or, something to that effect). The likelihood of me ever existing, given A, and the probability of A being wrong are entirely relevant to each other in the Bayesian model.
- The core of Bayesian stat is that the probability of drawing a particular sample from a particular population has mathematical implications re the probability that a particular sample was, in fact, drawn from that population...
- IOW, the truth value of A is dependent upon the truth of its predictions. If A claims that "b" is impossible, but "b" occurs, we scrap A. If A claims that "b" is extremely unlikely, but we discover "b," we need to reconsider A.

...which has...what?...to do with your idea that the "soul" exists, and is "immortal"?

When do you expect to begin to produce your evidence for your idea?

 

[Jabba]

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!

xt,
- Unfortunately, that is not the case...

 

[Jabba]

Fascinating. In this particular case, what would you say is b? Is b everything that is not A? Or is b your immortality?

LL,
- "b" is my current existence.