Proof of Immortality II

[Purple Pangolin]

<snip for focus>
11.3.2. Now I must estimate (roughly) the prior probability (rounded off to three decimal places) of each more specific possibility (hypothesis), given ~H.
11.3.2.1. That only some of us have but one finite life: .000
11.3.2.2. That we each have numerous finite lives: .002.
11.3.2.3. That only some of us have numerous finite lives: .000.
11.3.2.4. That we each have an infinity of finite lives; .002
11.3.2.5. That only some of us have an infinity of finite lives: 000.
11.3.2.6. That we each have an infinite life: .002
11.3.2.7. That only some of us have an infinite life: .000
11.3.2.8. That time isn’t what we think it is (to be explained): .002
11.3.2.9. Some other explanation: .002

Jabba, how did you arrive at these estimates? Could you please show us your work?

 

[fibbermcgee]

I'm sure he got the numbers from the same place he got the numbers for his take on bayesian statistics in the shroud thread. Which is to say he pulled them out of thin air.

 

[pharphis]

Interesting, I skimmed a few pages of the thread about 1.5 years ago and it doesn't look like anything has changed, except for some actual numbers. I too am curious if Jabba ever met with that professor guy he emailed a few times.

 

[Mojo]

11.1. Re P(E|H):According to science, I would never exist if
11.1.1. My parents had never met…
11.1.2. They had never had intercourse.

Are you claiming that this would not be necessary for your current existence if you were immortal?

 

[godless dave]

I see we're celebrating the resurrection of Jesus by resurrecting threads.

- I'd like to open a new thread, but one related to an old one -- "Immortality and Bayesian Statistics" (or, something like that). I would have continued the old one, but I haven't been able to find it -- and, this one does have a significantly different conclusion...

- The following is an introduction.

- I think that
1. I can virtually prove that the consensus scientific hypothesis about human mortality is incorrect.
2. That hypothesis is that we each have but one, finite life to live.
3. The likelihood of my current existence -- given that scientific hypothesis -- is about 7 billion over infinity, or essentially zero…

No, it isn't.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I'm sure he got the numbers from the same place he got the numbers for his take on bayesian statistics in the shroud thread. Which is to say he pulled them out of thin air.

Or someplace darker.....
Hans

 

[Jabba]

Interesting, I skimmed a few pages of the thread about 1.5 years ago and it doesn't look like anything has changed, except for some actual numbers. I too am curious if Jabba ever met with that professor guy he emailed a few times.

pharphis,
- I never met with him personally, but I have corresponded with him several times. He kept saying that he would get to it, but was still too busy.
- We emailed again last Tuesday. He said that he was going on vacation, but would get to my argument when he got back...
- We'll see.

 

[JayUtah]

pharphis,
- I never met with him personally, but I have corresponded with him several times. He kept saying that he would get to it, but was still too busy.
- We emailed again last Tuesday. He said that he was going on vacation, but would get to my argument when he got back...
- We'll see.

So, "no" but with more words.

 

[theprestige]

I find it hilariously ironic that when Jabba sets out to consult an authority, that authority exhibits exactly the same stalling behavior as Jabba himself. I bet he even said, "I'll be back".

 

[jsfisher]

pharphis,
- I never met with him personally, but I have corresponded with him several times. He kept saying that he would get to it, but was still too busy.
- We emailed again last Tuesday. He said that he was going on vacation, but would get to my argument when he got back...
- We'll see.

Jabba,
--Two years ago (!!) you said you wanted to discuss things with Dr. Hoerl over lunch.
--You have done nothing in two whole years to bring that about.

May I suggest you send an email to him like the following:

Hello again Dr. Hoerl,

Discussing my ideas via email isn't a very productive way to communicate. May I buy you lunch? I hear good things about Memphis Kings. Perhaps there next Wednesday?​

If you want something different in the way of cuisine, may I suggest this link.

 

[John Jones]

pharphis,
- I never met with him personally, but I have corresponded with him several times. He kept saying that he would get to it, but was still too busy.
- We emailed again last Tuesday. He said that he was going on vacation, but would get to my argument when he got back...
- We'll see.

Now you see how we feel.

 

[Jabba]

- And then,

11.3. Re P(E|~H):
11.3.2. Now I must estimate (roughly) the prior probability (rounded off to three decimal places) of each more specific possibility (hypothesis), given ~H.
11.3.2.1. That only some of us have but one finite life: .000
11.3.2.2. That we each have numerous finite lives: .002.
11.3.2.3. That only some of us have numerous finite lives: .000.
11.3.2.4. That we each have an infinity of finite lives; .002
11.3.2.5. That only some of us have an infinity of finite lives: 000.
11.3.2.6. That we each have an infinite life: .002
11.3.2.7. That only some of us have an infinite life: .000
11.3.2.8. That time isn’t what we think it is (to be explained): .002
11.3.2.9. Some other explanation: .002

Jabba, how did you arrive at these estimates? Could you please show us your work?

Purple Pangolin,
- Yeah.
- The formula and terms I use are drawn from Bayesian statistics. The numbers I offer above are "prior probabilities."
- But first, note that I have stricken "given ~H" from the premise -- "given ~H" was a mistake. Prior probabilities do not include the new info, so the more specific probabilities under the general prior probability of ~H have to add up to the total prior probability of ~H, which is .01...

- If it is not true that each of us has but one, finite, life, there are several other possibilities. Those given above are all I could think of. If you can think of more, feel free to add them. As to

11.3.2.1. That only some of us have but one finite life: .000.
-It just seems extremely unlikely that we aren't all the same re this issue.

11.3.2.2. That we each have numerous finite lives: .002.
- Again, this is so small because altogether, the probabilities need to add to .01.

11.3.2.3. That only some of us have numerous finite lives: .000.
- Again, it just seems extremely unlikely that we aren't all the same re this issue.

11.3.2.4. That we each have an infinity of finite lives; .002
- Again, this is so small because altogether, the probabilities need to add to .01.

11.3.2.5. That only some of us have an infinity of finite lives: 000.
- Again, it just seems extremely unlikely that we aren't all the same re this issue.

11.3.2.6. That we each have an infinite life: .002.
- Again, this is so small because altogether, the probabilities need to add to .01.

11.3.2.7. That only some of us have an infinite life: .000.
- Again, it just seems extremely unlikely that we aren't all the same re this issue.

11.3.2.8. That time isn’t what we think it is (to be explained): .002.
- Again, this is so small because altogether, the probabilities need to add to .01.

11.3.2.9. Some other explanation: .002
- Again, this is so small because altogether, the probabilities need to add to .01


- To me, this is extremely complicated and almost impossible to wrap my head around. My fellows on this thread figure that such doesn't take much. Whatever, I hope it's easier for you.

 

[Agatha]

None of that explains why you have assigned a probability of 0.01 to something that has no evidence supporting it whatsoever.

 

[godless dave]

The numbers I offer above are "prior probabilities."

How did you arrive at those numbers?

 

[Purple Pangolin]

<snip for focus>

- If it is not true that each of us has but one, finite, life, there are several other possibilities. Those given above are all I could think of. If you can think of more, feel free to add them. As to

11.3.2.1. That only some of us have but one finite life: .000.
-It just seems extremely unlikely that we aren't all the same re this issue.

11.3.2.2. That we each have numerous finite lives: .002.
- Again, this is so small because altogether, the probabilities need to add to .01.

11.3.2.3. That only some of us have numerous finite lives: .000.
- Again, it just seems extremely unlikely that we aren't all the same re this issue.

11.3.2.4. That we each have an infinity of finite lives; .002
- Again, this is so small because altogether, the probabilities need to add to .01.

11.3.2.5. That only some of us have an infinity of finite lives: 000.
- Again, it just seems extremely unlikely that we aren't all the same re this issue.

11.3.2.6. That we each have an infinite life: .002.
- Again, this is so small because altogether, the probabilities need to add to .01.

11.3.2.7. That only some of us have an infinite life: .000.
- Again, it just seems extremely unlikely that we aren't all the same re this issue.

11.3.2.8. That time isn’t what we think it is (to be explained): .002.
- Again, this is so small because altogether, the probabilities need to add to .01.

11.3.2.9. Some other explanation: .002
- Again, this is so small because altogether, the probabilities need to add to .01

Thank you, but that wasn't what I was looking for. I was hoping to see some work, or at least some reasoning, behind your numbers.

Also, I would very much like an explanation for 11.3.2.8 and why that is in its own separate category. I'm asking because it looks like a case of one of these things is not like the others.

In your own time.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

Purple Pangolin,
- Yeah.
- The formula and terms I use are drawn from Bayesian statistics. The numbers I offer above are "prior probabilities."
- But first, note that I have stricken "given ~H" from the premise -- "given ~H" was a mistake. Prior probabilities do not include the new info, so the more specific probabilities under the general prior probability of ~H have to add up to the total prior probability of ~H, which is .01...

- If it is not true that each of us has but one, finite, life, there are several other possibilities. Those given above are all I could think of. If you can think of more, feel free to add them. As to

11.3.2.1. That only some of us have but one finite life: .000.-It just seems extremely unlikely that we aren't all the same re this issue.

11.3.2.2. That we each have numerous finite lives: .000..
- Again, this is so small because altogether, the probabilities need to add to .01.

11.3.2.3. That only some of us have numerous finite lives: .000..
- Again, it just seems extremely unlikely that we aren't all the same re this issue.

11.3.2.4. That we each have an infinity of finite lives; .000.- Again, this is so small because altogether, the probabilities need to add to .01.

11.3.2.5. That only some of us have an infinity of finite lives: 000..
- Again, it just seems extremely unlikely that we aren't all the same re this issue.

11.3.2.6. That we each have an infinite life: .000..
- Again, this is so small because altogether, the probabilities need to add to .01.

11.3.2.7. That only some of us have an infinite life: .000..
- Again, it just seems extremely unlikely that we aren't all the same re this issue.

11.3.2.8. That time isn’t what we think it is (to be explained): .?.
- Again, this is so small because altogether, the probabilities need to add to .01.

11.3.2.9. Some other explanation: .?- Again, this is so small because altogether, the probabilities need to add to .01


- To me, this is extremely complicated and almost impossible to wrap my head around. My fellows on this thread figure that such doesn't take much. Whatever, I hope it's easier for you.

Try those numbers.

 

[JayUtah]

The formula and terms I use are drawn from Bayesian statistics. The numbers I offer above are "prior probabilities."

No. You make vague allusions to Bayesian methods without being able to demonstrate even the smallest degree of understanding for what those methods are meant to accomplish. In no way whatsoever do they serendipitously convert your wild guesses into anything but yet another wild guess. Pulling numbers out of your nether orifice and applying any formula to it does not suddenly create facts or data.

To me, this is extremely complicated and almost impossible to wrap my head around. My fellows on this thread figure that such doesn't take much. Whatever, I hope it's easier for you.

It's very easy. The answer is you can't statistically compute your way into or out of some metaphysical belief. Conditional probability is actually quite a very simple body of arithmetic, but it does require careful understanding of exactly what properties the numbers you use are meant to represent. Bayesian methodology is not especially complicated; it requires only relaxing certain things taken as "given" in classical statistics.

So no, the argument "It's complicated for me, so it must be complicated for everyone and therefore no one can refute me," doesn't fly here. Have you heard the saying, "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight?" Well, you're standing there with a spatula.

 

[The Sparrow]

When you die you die. Its all over, all gone. You are worm food. Your consciousness ends forever. Deal with it. Accepting that fact will help you make better decisions about what to do with the time you have left. Like Martha in WHo's afraid of virginia Wolfe. Let out that scream of agony as the truth sinks in, then move on and build a life with what you have left.

 

[fibbermcgee]

Jabba, I thought you were a Christian not a Hindu. Your immortality is to be found in Heaven at the feet of your Lord and his son Jesus. A question, if someone was reincarnated would they know who they used to be? If not what's the purpose. Jabba would still be dead.

 

[Jabba]

None of that explains why you have assigned a probability of 0.01 to something that has no evidence supporting it whatsoever.

Agatha,
- What is your evidence that we have but one, finite, life?