I am beginning to understand that a die with hundreds of sides which landed when thrown and showed any one of them on top would lead to a natural suspicion that it was not a fair die. If it was a fair die, it would just float in the air when thrown.
Proof of Immortality II
- Thread starter Slowvehicle
- Start date
- Status
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
I'm auditing this class (Nonsense 101), so be gentle:
Q: Since the die didn't float in the air, some agency must have made it come-up Jabba, therefore immortal souls. Is this an axiom?
Nonpareil
The Terrible Trivium
That's pretty much the extent of it, yep.
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
Jabba, I'll be back later to read your 'splanation, if at long-last you finally produce one.
Remember that this has been dragging-on for 2 years without you producing any evidence of immortality.
Remember that this has been dragging-on for 2 years without you producing any evidence of immortality.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Nonsense.
Why would you claim this when the results of every exam taken in the history of education have shown that there will always be a range of results?
Notwithstanding that "at least one of two alternative hypotheses" is virtually meaningless, you've left out 1080! other possibilities.
- What if Ms Smith was the teacher who set the exam and, whether consciously or unconsciously, taught her students nothing more than what she knew they would need to achieve a good score? Those students might in fact have less knowledge than those in the other four classes.
- How do we know that the teachers and students were the only variables? What if Ms Smith's class was the only one conducted in a modern, well-equipped school, the others being taught in dirt-floored shacks without access to text books and other learning materials?
- What if a clerical error resulted in four of the classes only receiving notification of the exam the day before it was scheduled, while Ms Smith's class was advised two weeks prior to the event.
- What if four of the classes were suffering from the effects of influenza which they'd all caught from each other, while Ms Smith's class were all in good health?
- What if one of Ms Smith's students had obtained a copy of the exam in advance and shared it with his/her friends?
There are 1080! - 5 other possibilities. I'll be back.
That's unpossible.
It involves something more like making up a conclusion and attempting (poorly) to form premises which will lead to it.
Where have we seen that before?
The principle of not having thought things through properly, heavily influenced by the Dunning-Kruger effect with non-sequitur tendencies and a strong leaning towards hubris.
The principle of different things being different.
And it's not our formula.
Doesn't bode well for Truly Effective Debate™, does it?
You want other people to present your argument for you?
As it happens, Loss Leader and Giordano have already been doing just that. They'll be back.
Of course you do, but only because you were finally convinced that 1080! at least has the advantage of being a real number as opposed to your previous attempts to use ∞.
In any case, it's irrelevant.
The real problem is that it's your value of "me" that's borked.
The only way your claim can succeed is if "me" includes the as-yet-to-be demonstrated "immortal soul" component.
If you were to do that then the whole Bayes thing would become irrelevant.
Not that it isn't already.
You keep saying that like it's a good thing.
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
Q: What set the side of the die that came up apart from the other sides of the die before the die was thrown?
A: Nothing
Q: What sets the side of the die that came up apart from the other sides of the die after the die is thrown?
A: Only the fact that it was the side that happened to come up
Q: What set the combination of sperm and egg that would produce me apart from all the other possible combinations of sperm and egg immediately before I was conceived?
A: Nothing
Q: What sets the combination of sperm and egg that would produce me apart from all those other possible combinations of sperm and egg now?
A: Only the fact that it was the one that happened to occur
Q: What set my consciousness apart from all the possible consciousnesses that might arise when the universe began?
A: Nothing
Q: What sets my consciousness apart from all those other possible consciousnesses now?
A: Only the fact that mine is one of the ones that happened to arise.
Last edited:
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
- Yeah... So far, at least, I can't effectively verbalize my answer. I accept that such could mean that there is no good answer -- but so far, at least, I still think that there is.
- I know that you guys don't think much of the Anthropic Principle -- but I do, and would point out that my argument is something of a variation on that principle. The AP claims that what sets our universe apart from any other potential universes is that ours supports observers. The "Me Principle" claims that what sets me apart from other potential selves is that if I never existed, there "might as well be" no observers -- and therefore nothing -- forever.
- I would ask you to forget the "intelligent design" claim for now, and just focus on whether or not the math actually supports there being something wrong with the current naturalistic worldview.
- I'm currently very busy trying to study your suggestions re the foolishness of the AP. I.e.,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tu...nter_arguments
http://www.talkreason.org/index.cfm?category=15
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI301.html
http://www.anthropic-principle.com/?...inciple/primer
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.p...uning_argument
http://butdoesitfloat.com/Puddle-thinking
http://home.olemiss.edu/~namanson/Fi...20argument.pdf
http://www.strongatheism.net/library...f_fine_tuning/
- I'll be back.
Last edited:
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
No, it does not.
We have been. It doesn't. How about you focus on explaining why you think it does?
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
The Anthropic Principle doesn't say anything about our universe being set apart, it just says that a universe that supports life is the only kind of universe we're capable of observing, because it's the only kind of universe that we're capable of existing in.
Similarly, a person who actually exists is the only kind of person capable of pondering the likelihood of her own existence.
Similarly, a person who actually exists is the only kind of person capable of pondering the likelihood of her own existence.
Last edited:
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
- Just to make sure that you aren't including intelligent design as part of my claim. My claim is only that my current existence makes the current naturalistic worldview extremely improbable.
No, actually you are claiming that you were a pre-determined target before you were born (only one method of which, by the way, is to have a limited number of reincarnated souls from which to "animate" you). This is the only way your argument would work, however poor it is for other reasons (see below for one). Any specialness (three arms?) that you might have is irrelevant to your math. You need to be a pre-existing target to make your math work: the universe has a reason to produce Jabba in particular before you were conceived (i.e. there was a Jabba soul among a limited number looking around for a body). Even the fact that there are people who I might argue are special (Nobel prize winners, Prime Minister's of major countries) doesn't make your math work for this very reason. Even if you were the only person left living on Earth, this "specialness" doesn't mean you were a pre-existing target.
Even more so, if you are special to you based on the reasons in your repeated posts, then everyone is special to themselves for the same reasons and even your argument of being unique falls apart. Do you think your argument would not apply if you were your brother or neighbor, or anyone else?
But more simply, perhaps you would explain: if you believe that different "selfs/souls" can be potentially infinite because your own theory proposes that in addition to some souls who are reincarnated, many are produced de novo from a bucket o' souls, doesn't this make the likelihood of you being "you" in particular even less than the scientific model, which doesn't predict an infinity of potential souls?
Last edited:
George
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2004
- Messages
- 397
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
That's the claim I disagree with.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Does it ever occur to you, on any level, that the reason for your inability to express yourself effectively isn't solely the result of your poor communication skills but is rather an adjunct of the content of your propositions being utter claptrap?
You know nothing of what us guys think. Your presumption in this regard is nothing short of offensive.
That's why it's regarded by critical thinkers as nothing more than philosophical navel gazing.
So why are you arguing with us? We don't even exist in the Jabbaverse.
What?
When the hell did any intelligent design claims enter into the discussion?
In any case, your directive is meaningless. What "math" are you talking about? What do you mean by naturalistic worldview?
And I'm currently engrossed in an analysis of the square root of a jam jar.
Guess who's likely to be first one to produce a meaningful result.
Hint: Not you.
You know how sometimes people are laughing with you?
Are you aware of that other thing where they're not?
George
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2004
- Messages
- 397
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Probably because it's the plain, simple and obvious truth.
Mind you, having just typed that it occurs to me that my working definition of "obvious" might be in need of revision since "apparent to everyone capable of tying their own shoelaces" was a tad optimistic.
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
The devil you say! Where does the AP makes this claim?
- Status