- in the following attempt at a syllogism, Numbers 1, 2 and 3 are the best I can do at expressing why I think that I am special, or that I should be set apart, and deserve such a small likelihood of existing. For now, that's probably the best that I can do.
1. I, in one form or the other (thing, process or illusion), am the only thing that I know exists.
Solopsism for the win! If everything about you is an illusion, maybe you are also an illusion to yourself. Or maybe you are wrong in thinking that you can only know the existence of yourself.
2. Also, I am the only eyes on the universe that I have.
Correct, but irrelevant.
3. Consequently, if I never existed it would be as if nothing ever existed...
No. Incorrect, and irrelevant. If there was never any you to experience the universe, then the only thing you can conclude from this is that there was never any you.
Given your non-existence, there might or might not be a universe. The two existences of "you" and the "universe" are connected in that your existence requires a universe, but the converse - that the universe requires you - is false.
The universe is not consequent or dependent on your existence. If humans had never evolved to have this conversation, that would not impact on the likelihood that the universe would exist or not.
4. Given A, the likelihood of me ever existing is something like 1/1080!.
If you insist.
5. Whereas, the prior probability of A being incorrect is something like 1%, or better.
Made up number?
6. So, in the Bayesian formula, the likelihood of me ever existing, given A, is much smaller than the prior probability of A being incorrect.
And also not in the Bayesian formula, if your numbers are to be believed. Just taking your raw numbers, your existence is less likely than the likelihood that one specific part of the 'scientific model' is incorrect.
7. In other words, I am either unimaginably lucky or A is incorrect.
No. In the first place, you are not comparing like with like. In the second place, this is a false dichotomy as there are many other choices. The most likely one by far, assuming your many prior assumptions are correct, is that "you" are incredibly lucky AND A is correct.
"Your existence" and the "accuracy of the scientific model" are not mutually exclusive, so it does not come down to a choice between one or the other. This is the major mistake you have made throughout this thread.
8. In still other words, given me, it is much more probable that A is incorrect then that A is correct
No.
Consider this analogy:
The hypothesis A is one small, specific part of the 'scientific model' (the scientific model which most people call observable reality). Your A was that we (humans, t-rexes and ants, so far) have one finite life. Your A only looks at the numbers of lives which are lived by organisms which already exist - not at the likelihood of any particular organism's existence.
My A is that egg proteins are irreversibly denatured by heat. It's one small part of observable reality, and it doesn't look at the likelihood of chicken eggs existing or being in my pantry.
Both your A and my A fit with all observable reality, and you suggest that the likelihood of your A being correct is 99%. I will accept this number
arguendo, and assign the same number to my A.
You claim that given A, the likelihood of your existence [as measured prior to your existence] is 1/10
80!
My claim is that given A, the likelihood of my existing
and having coddled eggs for breakfast today is even smaller than 1/10
80! This number is made up of the unlikelihood that I would ever exist given all the things that had to happen to produce me, that I would be alive at this time, that I enjoy coddled eggs, and that I chose to have them (instead of any other breakfast food such as toast, scrambled eggs or even bacon) for breakfast today. Teeny tiny likelihood, way smaller than the likelihood of your or my existence alone.
By your "logic", if you exist then a very unlikely event has happened, and you seem to think this means the part of observable reality which has to do with how many lives "we" will have once we exist is actually wrong.
Also by your "logic", if I had coddled eggs for breakfast this morning (and I did) then this is so unimaginably unlikely then this means the part of observable reality which has to do with heat irreversibly denaturing egg proteins is actually wrong.
But that "logical" step would be wrong, because me having coddled eggs for breakfast is not a competing hypothesis with A, so whether or not I have eggs for breakfast has no bearing on whether heating actually does irreversibly denature egg proteins.
Where you keep going wrong is that your existence is not a competing hypothesis with A, so your existence has no bearing on whether A is correct.
Just because one very unlikely event has happened, this does not mean that a part of observable reality which is only tangentially connected with that event, and
on which the event is not dependent is wrong.
