Proof of Immortality II

[George]

- You seem to be saying that Bayesian statistics is erroneous (or, something to that effect). <trash taken out>

Or something to that effect? Please expand on this. Jabs you do have a penchant for putting words in peoples mouths dontya know. Stop it, else people may come to the conclusion that you are being less than honest in this debate. What I'm saying is you don't want to give folk the impression this is all an act, you know a troll exercise, and we can't be having that now can we!

 

[Giordano]

Jabba,
Let's just stick to your proposal for a moment: even ignoring your idea of creating new souls for some (which would make the numbers even higher), wouldn't your own proposal require there to be at least 7 billon souls on this planet now? What are the chances that you got your.particular soul under those circumstances? 1 in 7 billion by your own theory, right? Isn't that very, very unlikely and disproves your theory? If not, please show me the math and how it differs from what you proposed for the SM. Thanks.

 

[George]

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

What are you referring to?

 

[Jabba]

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

Or something to that effect? Please expand on this. Jabs you do have a penchant for putting words in peoples mouths dontya know. Stop it, else people may come to the conclusion that you are being less than honest in this debate. What I'm saying is you don't want to give folk the impression this is all an act, you know a troll exercise, and we can't be having that now can we!

George,
- I'm trying to be sure that I understand what discussants are saying. Very often, I'm wrong...

 

[Jabba]

What are you referring to?

- ETA: Unless this is all an elaborate homage to Monty Python's Anne Elk (Miss), in which case, well played, Jabba! Well played!

 

[Giordano]

- ETA: Unless this is all an elaborate homage to Monty Python's Anne Elk (Miss), in which case, well played, Jabba! Well played!

Are you planning to response to my very last post? It had a question for you that asks about how you would apply your very own math to your very own theory. I am very curious how this would work. Thanks!

 

[Jabba]

Jabba,
Let's just stick to your proposal for a moment: even ignoring your idea of creating new souls for some (which would make the numbers even higher), wouldn't your own proposal require there to be at least 7 billon souls on this planet now? What are the chances that you got your.particular soul under those circumstances? 1 in 7 billion by your own theory, right? Isn't that very, very unlikely and disproves your theory? If not, please show me the math and how it differs from what you proposed for the SM. Thanks.

Giordano,
- I'm actually claiming that my likelihood of currently existing, given A, is 7,000,000,000/10^80!*10^80!.

 

[George]

George,
- I'm trying to be sure that I understand what discussants are saying. Very often, I'm wrong ...

The thread situation, he admitted, has developed not necessarily to Jab's advantage.

 

[George]

- ETA: Unless this is all an elaborate homage to Monty Python's Anne Elk (Miss), in which case, well played, Jabba! Well played!

So it was data goblins then?

 

[John Jones]

George,
- I'm trying to be sure that I understand what discussants are saying. Very often, I'm wrong...

You have a history of blatantly putting words in other people's mouths and have been called on it several times before.

 

[Giordano]

Giordano,
- I'm actually claiming that my likelihood of currently existing, given A, is 7,000,000,000/10^80!*10^80!.

No, that is the likelihood of the specific 7 billon people now on this planet existing by the scientific mode using your numbers. It of course doesn't calculate the likelihood of just any 7 billon people being produced by the SM. But you have repeatedly indicated that you are special and a pre-existing target. What is the likelihood of you in particular existing by your model?

 

[Jabba]

- I think that, in a sense at least, the basic claim that I need to support is that my current existence is not analogous to winning the lottery.
- The first part of that argument is my claim that one of the keys to showing that a hypothesis is wrong is to have a somewhat probable, under the circumstances, alternative hypothesis. If my neighbor was to win the lottery, I would not have an alternative to the hypothesis that his winning was random. That’s the Sherlock Holmes principle.
- In the case of my existence, I do have – what seem to me, and probably most humans – somewhat probable alternative hypotheses to A. You guys have dismissed those alternatives as impossible, and are comfortable figuring that you have eliminated all the alternatives, and simply have to accept that you are one of the “lucky” ones.
- I claim that you’re placing too much faith in your own thinking and current, mainstream, science.

 

[Mojo]

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.

Did he exist when he pointed it out?

 

[Mojo]

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.

Would he be able to point it out if he didn't exist?

 

[John Jones]

- I think that, in a sense at least, the basic claim that I need to support is that my current existence is not analogous to winning the lottery.
- The first part of that argument is my claim that one of the keys to showing that a hypothesis is wrong is to have a somewhat probable, under the circumstances, alternative hypothesis. If my neighbor was to win the lottery, I would not have an alternative to the hypothesis that his winning was random. That’s the Sherlock Holmes principle.
- In the case of my existence, I do have – what seem to me, and probably most humans – somewhat probable alternative hypotheses to A. You guys have dismissed those alternatives as impossible, and are comfortable figuring that you have eliminated all the alternatives, and simply have to accept that you are one of the “lucky” ones.
- I claim that you’re placing too much faith in your own thinking and current, mainstream, science.

You have produced no evidence that immortality or souls even exist. You hypothesis has no empirical value. It's not possible to falsify your hypothesis in any way that I can see, so it has no real explanatory value. It has no predictive value either. At least none that is apparent.

It's not enough to overturn a scientific theory by just proposing another one. You hypothesis would have to prove superior to the currently accepted models in terms of the issues I discussed above.

 

[godless dave]

- You seem to be saying that Bayesian statistics is erroneous (or, something to that effect).

No, I'm saying that your interpretation of it is wrong. I'll bold the part below that I think you're wrong about:

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.

 

[godless dave]

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

No. It means I don't have enough data to come up with a probability of it being wrong.

 

[godless dave]

- In the case of my existence, I do have – what seem to me, and probably most humans – somewhat probable alternative hypotheses to A. You guys have dismissed those alternatives as impossible

I've dismissed those alternatives because there is no credible evidence to support them. I don't think they're all impossible, I just don't see any reason to think they are true.

 

[Jabba]

- 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.

No, I'm saying that your interpretation of it is wrong. I'll bold the part below [above] that I think you're wrong about:

Dave,
- I'm not saying that we should trash A. I'm just saying that we have new evidence against A -- and unless we were totally sure about A before gaining this new evidence, we need to apply the new evidence to our prior probability of A in order to determine the post probability of A.

 

[Jabba]

No. It means I don't have enough data to come up with a probability of it being wrong.

- Can you hazard a WAG as to it being below or above 1%?