Proof of Immortality II

[Akhenaten]

...You have never shown why your immortality is the most likely candidate for anything other than A. You have never shown why it's a candidate that isn't actually inconsistent with observation.

- I think that I agree.

I can't help but thinking that this would be a good reason for Loss Leader to have pause for thought.

- Anyone's immortality would be inconsistent with currently accepted/included observations, and I haven't shown that my immortality would be any different.

This is pretty much a summary of the situation as it's stood for the last two years. Are we supposed to be impressed with this apparent epiphany?

My claim, however, is that the implications of a critical bit of relevant observation (information) has not been included in the logic of that conclusion, and that once that bit of relevant observation is included in that logic, my immortality becomes quite consistent with observation...

Crap that you make up in vain, Jabbacentric hopes of sustaining the fantasy of your own everlastingness does not in any way, shape or form constitute information.

What you're calling "relevant observation" is nothing more than the same wistful musings that have occupied a thousand generations of people when they've found themselves with enough time on their hands to contemplate the fleeting nature of their existence.

Moreover, they sound like the kind of **** we used to rabbit on about in the 70s between listening to Dark Side of the Moon and arguing about whose turn it was to mull up.


viz.

- 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.
2. Also, I am the only eyes on the universe that I have.
3. Consequently, if I never existed it would be as if nothing ever existed...

I lack the MA-compliant words to express how trite, childish and utterly meaningless I find this kind of philosophical navel gazing to be.

- I'm saying that my own current existence is a bit of information that has not been included in the logic here, but should be -- and once included, makes my immortality consistent with observation.

"I exist, therefore I'm immortal"?

Srsly?

And you want us to regard that as logical?

- At this point, I think that I need to wax poetic about 1, 2 & 3, and show why these things set me apart and justify believing in my immortality...

No, at this point, just as at every other point in this forlorn discussion, you need to produce some evidence for immortal souls.

- I'll probably need to revisit this explanation, and improve upon it...

You've been revisiting it every few days for the last two years without even a glimmer of hope that any improvement will ever manifest itself.

Setting aside your poor communication skills, the main reason for this failure is that the nonsense you keep re-re-re-re-re-reproposing isn't explicative of anything beyond your own unshakeable commitment to a logically unsustainable fantasy.

 

[Akhenaten]

You continue to ignore this:

~A does not guarantee immortality

I'm sure he'll get back to it.

 

[Giordano]

- I'll try to develop that further. Maybe, Giordano will do that for me?

Nope, that is not my proof. Yours is clearly wrong.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- Try this.
- If there is a specific characteristic of a particular occurrence that sets this occurrence apart from the other low probability occurrences predicted by a specific hypothesis, and this specific characteristic suggests a better (more probable) explanation (hypothesis), this occurrence would cast doubt upon the original hypothesis that predicts low probability outcomes.

Be so kind as to precisely and specifically identify, and provide evidence for, the "specific characteristic" to which you refer...

 

[Giordano]

Jabba,

Just to be polite: should I wait to get back to my evidence until after you provide yours? You were here first, you know.

 

[Akhenaten]

- After. But, in Bayesian statistics we take new -- but already existing -- info, and calculate to what extent this new info supports, or detracts from, an existing hypothesis

In other words, "already existing" is the new "new".

My head hurts.

- Try this. The hypothesis "A" is that your die only has 6 faces -- 1 thru 6 -- but you roll it, and it comes up 7.

Welcome to the Jabbaverse.

The point is -- we're talking about an hypothesis here, and new info might have a bearing on the probability that the hypothesis is correct.

We're talking about a poorly expressed fantasy based on the existence of immortal souls.

If there's any new information to be presented which might allow this fantasy to be regarded as any kind of hypothesis then you really should give some thought to revealing it.

Hint: "I exist" isn't new information.

 

[Slowvehicle]

<respectful snip>

"I exist, therefore I'm immortal"?

Srsly?

And you want us to regard that as logical?

<respectful snip>

Mighty One (may you post forever!), I submit that the reality is, and has always been, closer to "I am immortal; therefore I am immortal".

 

[Akhenaten]

1/10⁸⁰!

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

Dave,
- I'm not quite sure what you're asking here, but my claim is that my face coming up would be reason to doubt "A."

What you were being asked is "Do you understand that every face of a 10⁸⁰!-sided die has the same chance of coming up?"

Your answer - "No I don't" - tells everyone reading this thread all they'll ever need to know about your "argument".

 

[carlitos]

The hypothesis "A" is that your die only has 6 faces -- 1 thru 6 -- but you roll it, and it comes up 7.

Then the hypothesis is idiotic or the die is not what you claim. You can't roll 7 on a 6-sided die. Haven't you noticed that casinos exist and are large and opulent? They didn't get that way by positing pseudo-intellectual stoned college student nonsense like what you posted. Grow up.

 

[Akhenaten]

Mighty One (may you post forever!), I submit that the reality is, and has always been, closer to "I am immortal; therefore I am immortal".

Graciously conceded.

 

[Akhenaten]

- Try this.
- If there is a specific characteristic of a particular occurrence that sets this occurrence apart from the other low probability occurrences predicted by a specific hypothesis, and this specific characteristic suggests a better (more probable) explanation (hypothesis), this occurrence would cast doubt upon the original hypothesis that predicts low probability outcomes.

OK, I tried it.

It's gibberish.

Now what?

 

[Akhenaten]

Jabba,

I think I just thought of an incredible argument that completely supports your position. My world view is tottering! I will need to explain it in my next post. I'll be back.

Giordano,
- I assume that you're just "pulling my leg" -- but hey, you never know...

Why would you think that promising to supply my proof in a future post would be "pulling your leg?"

- Maybe, I'm naturally paranoid.

You're not from Belgium are you, Jabba?

 

[Akhenaten]

- I'll try to develop that further. Maybe, Giordano will do that for me?

This is about the fourth or fifth time you've reposted your poor-man's "I think therefore I am" rubbish and threatened to develop it further.

Do you really expect anyone to still believe that you'll ever actually do so?

 

[xtifr]

Mojo,
- I'm not trying to prove that I'm immortal. I'm trying to show that "A" is EXTREMELY improbable. If I can do that, I should be able to show that my immortality is extremely probable.

But you haven't shown anything about A's probability. Saying that A is improbable because you're improbable is like saying that a die only has a one in six chance of existing because you rolled a 3, which only had a one in six chance of coming up. It simply doesn't follow.

 

[Mojo]

But you haven't shown anything about A's probability. Saying that A is improbable because you're improbable is like saying that a die only has a one in six chance of existing because you rolled a 3, which only had a one in six chance of coming up. It simply doesn't follow.

I'm still waiting for him to answer the question I asked:

How would your formula look if "A" was defined as "the hypothesis that Jabba is immortal"?

 

[Akhenaten]

How does that set that occurrence apart from the other low probability occurrences predicted by A?

- Yeah. That's the hard part to effectively convey...

A bit like trying to explain why nobody had access to bluuuurd in the Middle Ages, eh?

- Is "A" true and I'm just EXTREMELY lucky? Or, could there be a better explanation than "A"?

None of the above.

- Is "~A" really out of the question?

Only when you attempt to illegitimately create your own definition for it.

In the non-Jabbaverse, the only thing that's out of the question for ~A to be is A.

- I'm claiming that my particular existence does suggest a more probable explanation than "A."

Yes, and you've been doing so every few days for years without producing a scintilla of evidence to substantiate it.

Pretty spammy, I reckon.

 

[godless dave]

Jabba, if you guess at what a die will roll, roll the die, and get the number you guessed, you were "lucky". The more sides the die has, the more lucky your correct guess was (that is, the more unlikely it would be that the number you guessed in advance would come up).

But that's not the situation here. You didn't exist before the die was rolled. You are the number that happened to come up. Nobody guessed it before the roll. The number that came up does not correspond to any number anyone picked before it was rolled. It's not a coincidence, just an incident.

 

[Akhenaten]

Mojo,
- I'm not trying to prove that I'm immortal.

Umm . . .

- I think that I can essentially prove immortality using Bayesian statistics.

I'm trying to show that "A" is EXTREMELY improbable.

Surely the easiest way to do that would be to produce a few examples of things which have lived more than once or which have lived forever.

Why don't you just do that?

If I can do that, I should be able to show that my immortality is extremely probable.

Indeed.

 

[Loss Leader]

Giordano -

Thank you for sharing your proof with me by PM. You're right about it being very convincing. Of course, it's nothing like Jabba's. I want to point out a few things that really stood out for me when I get the time. I'll be back.

 

[Jabba]

Jabba,

Just to be polite: should I wait to get back to my evidence until after you provide yours? You were here first, you know.

- Don't wait!