Proof of Immortality II

[abaddon]

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

Agatha?

Is there any evidence otherwise? I have never seen any. Perhaps you have some, but I doubt it. You never do.

And give it up with your attempted badgering and bullying. We all see it for what it is.

Really?

Yup. Reversal of the burden of proof yet again.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Oh I've given up an understanding of the burden of proof.

It's the utter gall of someone that hasn't answered a direct question in half a decade daring to "tsk tsk" someone else over not responding fast enough. There are no words.

 

[zooterkin]

Agatha?

Jabba, you seem to have forgotten to answer this:

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

 

[ComfySlippers]

Agatha?

Seriously?

A bump to the head. There's no other explanation.

 

[John Jones]

Agatha?

Don't you dare hector Agatha.

 

[carlitos]

- And then,

11.3. Re P(E|~H):
11.3.1.
11.3.1.1.
11.3.1.2.
11.3.1.3.
11.3.1.4.
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.

Come on, people. He's not even hiding his contempt for reason at this point.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

I'll just leave this here: an insightful and in my opinion beutiful 17th century song about the inevitability of death.
I am quite certain that the composer and all his contemporaries have since shuffled off their mortal coils, so let's all be thankful for the invention of writing stuff down.

 

[Agatha]

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

1. One finite life is the null hypothesis. It is your claim that immortality/several lives/infinite life is a possibility; it's your burden of proof to demonstrate any evidence supporting your claim. Please don't reverse the burden of proof - if you have evidence, then post it.

2. I asked how you determined that the probability of ~[one finite life] was 0.01. This seems to me to be an important question; your explanation of your assignation of probabilities of 0.002 to five subsets of ~[one finite life] boiled down to merely dividing the 0.01 by five, so it's the 0.01 that needs an explanation.

3. I have been unwell and not online much over Easter. If I don't respond to you in what you consider to be a timely manner, you can always send me a PM.

 

[zooterkin]

2. I asked how you determined that the probability of ~[one finite life] was 0.01. This seems to me to be an important question; your explanation of your assignation of probabilities of 0.002 to five subsets of ~[one finite life] boiled down to merely dividing the 0.01 by five, so it's the 0.01 that needs an explanation.

it certainly does. A one in a hundred chance that we all have more than one finite life seems astonishingly high. Surely no-one would claim this without any evidence at all?

 

[sackett]

Ha ha ha ha ha ha hee hee!

.... Surely no-one would claim this without any evidence at all?

That's what I like about you, zoot! You're never serious!

 

[I Am The Scum]

There's something about Bayes Theorem that invites woo woo people to make up numbers.

 

[Jabba]

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

1. One finite life is the null hypothesis. It is your claim that immortality/several lives/infinite life is a possibility; it's your burden of proof to demonstrate any evidence supporting your claim. Please don't reverse the burden of proof - if you have evidence, then post it...

Agatha,

- Can you show me your source defining the null hypothesis? Briefly, Wikipedia says, In inferential statistics, the term "null hypothesis" usually refers to a general statement or default position that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena, or no difference among groups.
- I can't see how that applies to one, finite, life.

- Re "burden of proof," Wikipedia says, When two parties are in a discussion and one asserts a claim that the other disputes, the one who asserts has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim.[1] An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true.[2][3] This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the proposition.[4]
While certain kinds of arguments, such as logical syllogisms, require mathematical or strictly logical proofs, the standard for evidence to meet the burden of proof is usually determined by context and community standards and conventions.[5][6]
- This is confusing, and I could say that "one, finite, life" is an unproven assumption, and ask someone making that assumption for evidence.
- But for now, I'll accept responsibility for the burden of proof and offer my syllogism and math -- which I did. All I need do now is validate the numbers I inserted into the formula.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Agatha,

- Can you show me your source defining the null hypothesis? Briefly, Wikipedia says, In inferential statistics, the term "null hypothesis" usually refers to a general statement or default position that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena, or no difference among groups.
- I can't see how that applies to one, finite, life.

- Re "burden of proof," Wikipedia says, When two parties are in a discussion and one asserts a claim that the other disputes, the one who asserts has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim.[1] An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true.[2][3] This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the proposition.[4]
While certain kinds of arguments, such as logical syllogisms, require mathematical or strictly logical proofs, the standard for evidence to meet the burden of proof is usually determined by context and community standards and conventions.[5][6]
- This is confusing, and I could say that "one, finite, life" is an unproven assumption, and ask someone making that assumption for evidence.
- But for now, I'll accept responsibility for the burden of proof and offer my syllogism and math -- which I did. All I need do now is validate the numbers I inserted into the formula.

How is it that you plan to deal with the observable fact that people die, and stay dead?

 

[Agatha]

Agatha,

- Can you show me your source defining the null hypothesis? Briefly, Wikipedia says, In inferential statistics, the term "null hypothesis" usually refers to a general statement or default position that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena, or no difference among groups.
- I can't see how that applies to one, finite, life.

I had not realised that your general claim that immortality is possible/probable/real was limited to inferential statistics. Outside of inferential statistics, the null hypothesis is the commonly accepted default position [that we live once and we die], which you are trying to disprove by proposing that you can show immortality.

- Re "burden of proof," Wikipedia says, When two parties are in a discussion and one asserts a claim that the other disputes, the one who asserts has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim.[1] An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true.[2][3] This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the proposition.[4]
While certain kinds of arguments, such as logical syllogisms, require mathematical or strictly logical proofs, the standard for evidence to meet the burden of proof is usually determined by context and community standards and conventions.[5][6]
- This is confusing, and I could say that "one, finite, life" is an unproven assumption, and ask someone making that assumption for evidence.

I think you are shifting the burden of proof, but in order not to get bogged down in a discussion of BoP, my evidence that 'one finite life' is the most likely explanation is as follows:
People are born. Each person born is not a reincarnation of another, previously dead person - they have no memories (outside some strange woo ideas) that belonged to anyone else.
People die. They are either cremated or they rot in the ground, and the life that they had is ended. Some people believe in an afterlife (eg heaven) but no evidence for such has been provided.

- But for now, I'll accept responsibility for the burden of proof and offer my syllogism and math -- which I did. All I need do now is validate the numbers I inserted into the formula.

The highlighted is what I asked you to do when enquiring where the 0.01 came from in your formula. Imagine the bandwidth that could have been saved if you had answered the question I asked!

 

[JoeMorgue]

This is confusing, and I could say that "one, finite, life" is an unproven assumption, and ask someone making that assumption for evidence.

Well there's been ~108 billion people on this planet and currently the death rate for them is holding steady at 100%. So yeah I'd say if you going to make the claim that you have more than one life, you need to be able to back it up.

But for now, I'll accept responsibility for the burden of proof

No you won't.

and offer my syllogism and math -- which I did.

Which are all wrong. And have been proven wrong for half a decade now.

All I need do now is validate the numbers I inserted into the formula.

*Groans* Oh Jesus tapdancing Christ. I think you just gave me a nosebleed.

Is this that existential thing Lovecraft talked about where simply peering at it will drive you mad?

Is this what cavemen felt like when they saw a solar eclipse that looked, to them, like it could only be a monster eating the sun?

 

[abaddon]

All I need do now is validate the numbers I inserted into the formula.

Something you will resplendently fail to do. Ever.

 

[theprestige]

How is it that you plan to deal with the observable fact that people die, and stay dead?

Jesus Christ. Why on earth would you want Jabba to waffle on even longer about what he plans to do?

I couldn't care less about what Jabba plans. I only want to see him actually do it, whatever it is.

 

[abaddon]

Jesus Christ. Why on earth would you want Jabba to waffle on even longer about what he plans to do?

I couldn't care less about what Jabba plans. I only want to see him actually do it, whatever it is.

I don't think even Jabba knows that.

 

[ComfySlippers]

More dishonesty and rudeness.
Sad Jabba. Very sad.

Agatha,

Agatha is not your new toy.
Answer other people also, not just the ones you think you can trick into agreeing with your childish claptrap.

- Can you show me your source defining the null hypothesis?

You know perfectly well what the term means.
You also have a computer and access to Google.

- Re "burden of proof," Wikipedia says
...

You know perfectly well what the term means.
You've had it explained to you hundreds of times over all these years.

- This is confusing
...

No it isn't.
It's so easy a three-year-old could understand it.

Don't you ever feel guilty, playing this "I'm old, busy, and need everything explaining to me" game?
All just so that you can get people to give answers you can misquote and use out of context?

Just so you can prove to yourself that your magic-floaty-man floated back up to magic-floaty-dad?

- But for now, I'll accept responsibility for the burden of proof

No you won't. And you know it.
Why do you treat everyone here as if they are stupid?

 

[Giordano]

More dishonesty and rudeness.
Sad Jabba. Very sad.



Agatha is not your new toy.
Answer other people also, not just the ones you think you can trick into agreeing with your childish claptrap.


You know perfectly well what the term means.
You also have a computer and access to Google.


You know perfectly well what the term means.
You've had it explained to you hundreds of times over all these years.

No it isn't.
It's so easy a three-year-old could understand it.

Don't you ever feel guilty, playing this "I'm old, busy, and need everything explaining to me" game?
All just so that you can get people to give answers you can misquote and use out of context?

Just so you can prove to yourself that your magic-floaty-man floated back up to magic-floaty-dad?

No you won't. And you know it.
Why do you treat everyone here as if they are stupid?

By no means stupid- most of you are far more intelligent than I am. But "you all" seem willing to play with Jabba nonetheless, and he seems to enjoy the interaction. So why should he quit? Particularly when he is the person who is writing the script and stage manager.