Proof of Immortality II

[Slowvehicle]

Same MO as in the Holy Tablecloth I, and II threads...

And it has been pointed out to him over and over.

 

[Jabba]

I don't see anything there about using the number of people who hold the belief as the basis for assigning the probability.

- You're right. I'll have to get back to that...

 

[Akhenaten]

- You're right. I'll have to get back to that...

I'd suggest making a list.

 

[godless dave]

- You're right. I'll have to get back to that...

How about skipping that for now, and instead explaining why a low probability outcome occurring casts doubt on a hypothesis that predicts low probability outcomes?

 

[Loss Leader]

How about skipping that for now, and instead explaining why a low probability outcome occurring casts doubt on a hypothesis that predicts low probability outcomes?

Especially when you only have ONE data point.

 

[tsig]

I'd suggest making a list.

Checking it twice.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Hey here's a radical concept. After two threads, two seperate discussion boards, thousands of posts, and 5 flippin' years you finally get around to proving immortality.

 

[Jabba]

That's what you claim.

What is your reason, your basis, your justification, your support for that claim?

How is "the likelihood that I would currently exist would be close to zero" a logical consequence of "each potential “self” has only one finite life to live (at most)"?

Humots,
- Assuming that I understand your question...
- If I have have a 6-sided, and "fair," die and roll it, the likelihood that the top face would be 3 is 1/6.
- Now, imagine a die with 10⁸⁰! faces, and "me" is one of the faces. What is the likelihood that the top face of the die, when rolled, would be "me"?

 

[John Jones]

Humots,
-- Now, imagine a die with 10⁸⁰! faces, and "me" is one of the faces. What is the likelihood that the top face of the die, when rolled, would be "me"?

Jabba,

What is the likelihood that the top face would be somebody? Anybody?

It's one.

 

[Akhenaten]

Humots,
- Assuming that I understand your question...

Obviously you didn't.

- If I have have a 6-sided, and "fair," die and roll it, the likelihood that the top face would be 3 is 1/6.

Yes, however, neither that nor this:

- Now, imagine a die with 10⁸⁰! faces, and "me" is one of the faces. What is the likelihood that the top face of the die, when rolled, would be "me"?

Have anything to do with what you were actually asked.

 

[Jabba]

How about skipping that for now, and instead explaining why a low probability outcome occurring casts doubt on a hypothesis that predicts low probability outcomes?

- Sure.
- I'm having computer problems. Hopefully, I'll be right back.

 

[Akhenaten]

PEBKAC

 

[Jabba]

How about skipping that for now, and instead explaining why a low probability outcome occurring casts doubt on a hypothesis that predicts low probability outcomes?

- Sure. That’s exactly what I wanted to do. See below.

Put a different way, here’s what I think. Maybe this way will communicate. I’ve made a few changes.

1. The proper formula to use in determining the post-probability of “A,” given “me” is
P(A|me) = P(me|A)*P(A)/(P(me|A)*P(A)+P(me|~A)*P(~A)).
1.1. “A”: the hypothesis that any potential “self” has only one, finite, life to live` -- at most.
1.2. “me”: the current existence of my, specific, self.
1.3. “~A”: the hypothesis that “A” is not true.

2. My basic claim is that my own current existence makes the post-probability of “A” teensy-weensy.
3. To reach that conclusion, I claim that the likelihood of my, specific, current existence -- given “A” – P(me|A) -- is, at most, 1/10⁸⁰!.
4. The only real issue here is whether or not I can correctly use that figure as the P(me|A) in this formula … even if I’m right about that figure. 5. In a way, the answer to that question is, “Why, the Hell not?!” Isn’t that the very definition of P(me|A)? 6. Unfortunately (for my side), the answer is, “No -- the word ‘specific,’ in 1.2., may not belong.” 7. We need to show that it does belong. If we can’t, the “plug-in” should be 1.00…
8. If you guys can agree with my analysis so far, I’ll try to show why 1/10⁸⁰! does belong.

 

[Mojo]

Humots,
- Assuming that I understand your question...
- If I have have a 6-sided, and "fair," die and roll it, the likelihood that the top face would be 3 is 1/6.
- Now, imagine a die with 10⁸⁰! faces, and "me" is one of the faces. What is the likelihood that the top face of the die, when rolled, would be "me"?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10268688#post10268688

 

[Mojo]

- Sure. That’s exactly what I wanted to do. See below.

Put a different way, here’s what I think. Maybe this way will communicate. I’ve made a few changes.

1. The proper formula to use in determining the post-probability of “A,” given “me” is
P(A|me) = P(me|A)*P(A)/(P(me|A)*P(A)+P(me|~A)*P(~A)).
1.1. “A”: the hypothesis that any potential “self” has only one, finite, life to live` -- at most.
1.2. “me”: the current existence of my, specific, self.
1.3. “~A”: the hypothesis that “A” is not true.

2. My basic claim is that my own current existence makes the post-probability of “A” teensy-weensy.
3. To reach that conclusion, I claim that the likelihood of my, specific, current existence -- given “A” – P(me|A) -- is, at most, 1/1080!.
4. The only real issue here is whether or not I can correctly use that figure as the P(me|A) in this formula … even if I’m right about that figure. 5. In a way, the answer to that question is, “Why, the Hell not?!” Isn’t that the very definition of P(me|A)? 6. Unfortunately (for my side), the answer is, “No -- the word ‘specific,’ in 1.2., may not belong.” 7. We need to show that it does belong. If we can’t, the “plug-in” should be 1.00…
8. If you guys can agree with my analysis so far, I’ll try to show why 1/1080! does belong.

Jabba, what happens if you define A in your formula as "the hypothesis that any potential self is immortal"?

 

[godless dave]

- Sure. That’s exactly what I wanted to do. See below.

I don't see an explanation there.

 

[godless dave]

Humots,
- Assuming that I understand your question...
- If I have have a 6-sided, and "fair," die and roll it, the likelihood that the top face would be 3 is 1/6.
- Now, imagine a die with 10⁸⁰! faces, and "me" is one of the faces. What is the likelihood that the top face of the die, when rolled, would be "me"?

1/10⁸⁰!

Would that face coming up be a reason to doubt the hypothesis of how the 10⁸⁰!-sided die works?

 

[Giordano]

Humots,
- Assuming that I understand your question...
- If I have have a 6-sided, and "fair," die and roll it, the likelihood that the top face would be 3 is 1/6.
- Now, imagine a die with 10⁸⁰! faces, and "me" is one of the faces. What is the likelihood that the top face of the die, when rolled, would be "me"?

What is the likelihood that that dice would come up a side, any side? Pretty high (ignoring the fact that a real 10⁸⁰! sided die is very close to round, and may therefore stop on an "edge"). That is the question that your math needs to address, but you simply refuse to deal with this repeatedly noted point. Why?

 

[Giordano]

Jabba,

As I very recently posted: what exactly do you intend to ask Dr. Hoeri? If he answers you but the answers are opposite to your "beliefs" then do you plan to simply ignore him in the same way you have simply ignored the corrections of almost all the other posters here? Many of who have very good knowledge of statistics.

If you intend to believe Dr. Hoeri even if he disputes your theories, then why believe him and not the other posters here?

 

[Giordano]

Jabba,

Even before Dr. Hoeri answers you: would you please indicate why your theory of an infinity of potential souls from one large bucket would lead to different math compared to your (incorrect) view of the standard model predicting an infinitely of potential souls from physical brains?

You have used all sorts of numbers for P(me/A) on this forum, even recently, If you want to hide the fact that you are just randomly guessing numbers here (presumably to make your hypothesis look good), you may wish to just pick a number and go with it.