Proof of Immortality II

Status
Not open for further replies.
godless dave said:
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.
Click to expand...
- Dave,
- I would say that prediction is not the only way that a specific improbable event gets set apart from its crowd. I'll try to expand upon that tomorrow.
 
Jabba said:
- 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
Click to expand...

The improbability of your existence before the fact is not new information.

The fact that you happened to be the person that exists is not new information.

Jabba said:
- 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. 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.
Click to expand...

But the die didn't come up 7. It came up in the range 1-6. You are not a new face on the die, Jabba.

You are just arguing that whatever number came up is special, because you claim it is.
 
Jabba said:
- Don't wait!
Click to expand...

No, no: you have repeatedly promised in your posts to return to many, many issues in detail, so given that you have promised before I did, and have yet to do it, I think simple politeness would suggest that you go first. Unless you intend to never get to these issues? That of course would change my sense of priority.

By the way: you had mentioned that you agreed with your wife to limit your posts to two a day. Did you renegotiate this limitation with your wife? You appear to be using up more than that, and I want you to be able to present all your arguments and evidence without running into problems if this limitation still applied. In fact you may wish to avoid simply repeating text that you have already posted many times: we can all read the original post and it wastes your self-imposed "space."
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
- Don't wait!
Click to expand...


Giordano's priorities notwithstanding, I think that his approach to a proof is so revolutionary that it needs to be set out in full at the earliest opportunity. I will be back to do just that.
 
Loss Leader said:
Giordano's priorities notwithstanding, I think that his approach to a proof is so revolutionary that it needs to be set out in full at the earliest opportunity. I will be back to do just that.
Click to expand...

I'll be back first! After Jabba, of course.
 
Loss Leader said:
Giordano's priorities notwithstanding, I think that his approach to a proof is so revolutionary that it needs to be set out in full at the earliest opportunity. I will be back to do just that.
Click to expand...

Giordano said:
I'll be back first! After Jabba, of course.
Click to expand...

I'll be back to see which one of you came back first; but first: is either of you Canadian? Is either of you immortal? Is either of you...an Immortal Canadian?

I'll check back.
 
Slowvehicle;10274600 but first: is either of you Canadian? Is either of you immortal? Is either of you...an [I said:
Immortal Canadian[/I]?
Click to expand...

I was, in a previous life. But I am not now (~A because I have had two lives, although only two lives. Running on low now, however).
 
Hey everybody! I got left behind when the Big Forum Changeover happened and just got back in a few days ago. Good to see that, unlike human SOULS, this thread might yet be immortal!
 
I know next-to-nothing about statistics & probability (beyond the fact that I usually lose at blackjack - which is why I rarely play), but one thing is really clear to me:

(Please correct me if I am wrong with any the following statements):

I am sure that after something, anything happens - no matter how improbable it was prior - that means the 'odds' of it is exactly 1/1.

Furthermore, the reason I put odds in quotes just above is because I'm uncomfortable even using the word odds when all I have is a dataset of 1 - ex: there's only 1 of me.

So personally, because I exist - I don't think it's possible to say anything other than 'the odds of me being here now is exactly 1 out of 1', and even that much seems pointless to say.

It seems to me that Jabba is trying to 'logic' something into existing, while my view is such an endeavor is of ultimate pointlessness.

Am I missing anything or have anything wrong with what I said above? (Am always willing to learn).
 
Tinyal said:
I am sure that after something, anything happens - no matter how improbable it was prior - that means the 'odds' of it is exactly 1/1.
Click to expand...

Not exactly, but close.

Once something has happened, no matter how unlikely it was before, the odds of observing it is exactly one.
 
Jabba said:
I'll try to expand upon that tomorrow.
Click to expand...

Jabba said:
- I'll try to develop that further. Maybe, Giordano will do that for me?
Click to expand...

Jabba said:
- I'll be back.
Click to expand...

Jabba said:
- You're right. I'll have to get back to that...
Click to expand...

Jabba said:
- Sure.
- I'm having computer problems. Hopefully, I'll be right back.
Click to expand...

Jabba said:
- I'll probably need to revisit this explanation, and improve upon it...
Click to expand...

Jabba said:
- Does that help? I accept that it probably won't, but just in case... And, it's only a first step.
Click to expand...
A random sprinkling of promises never kept from the last couple of days. Were I to go further back, there would be many more such promises, none fulfilled.

Jabba, if you have some proof that immortality is real, or that reincarnation is real or that the holey tablecloth is real then step up with it.

Jabba said:
- Don't wait!
Click to expand...
A tactic that has not heretofore worked, I am unlikely to deploy it now after all this time. I am forced to conclude that you have no evidence at all.
 
Humots said:
The improbability of your existence before the fact is not new information.

The fact that you happened to be the person that exists is not new information...
Click to expand...
Humots,
- It is new information in the sense that it was not part of the general knowledge used to determine the prior probability of "A."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom