John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
No. You are supposed to be making your argument, not us.
Proof of Immortality II
- Thread starter Slowvehicle
- Start date
- Status
No. You are supposed to be making your argument, not us.
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
0.
The prior probability is 0. All evidence available suggests that death is final.
What new evidence do you have?
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
No, we "all" think no such thing. Most of us, in fact, gave you a fairly dispositive answer that you have ignored.
Of course not.
First, it's just as speculative for one person to guess at an unknowable probability as it is for some other person to do it. You just don't get the picture. You've tried this same kind of argument here and in the shroud thread, and you evidently paid no attention to attempts to educate you on why it's not workable. You pull a number out of your butt and tell us that quantifies your belief. When challenged, you ask your critics to pull a different number out of their butts. You don't get that the problem is not that you chose the wrong value, but rather the practice of groping for a number -- any number -- in a dark orifice when the aim is to achieve mathematical rigor.
Second, the pseudo-Bayesian method you propose to use is inappropriate. Asking others to simply offer different parameters to a method they don't agree should apply at all to the problem is a red herring. If you have no evidence, then it doesn't matter how excited you get about computing probability. Probability is not evidence.
Where on earth did you conjure that from?
Do you recall that you're supposed to be proving immortality, not asking us to say how unlikely it is?
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
All? I didn't agree with the statement. I put it at at most zero lives (as you mean the term).
...and what zooterkin said.
Only if you provide us with evidence to support ~H. Do you have any such evidence?
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
And not equivocating what it means.
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
To comply with rules, my on-topic honest answer is 'no.'
Furthermore, I'd like to passionately argue in favor of "la-la-la" as being an equally attractive thread topic... or discussion-thingy... or perhaps you can define it for me.
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
My Dear Mr. Savage:
You continue to attempt this dishonest finesse.
I continue to be disturbed by it.
I remain punctiliously yours, &ct.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
- It'll take me a while to find our previous discussion re circumstantial evidenced. Can someone help me?
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
No. If you can't find your own threads by simply scrolling down the page then you're beyond help. Besides, in that thread you admitted you didn't know what circumstantial evidence was, and admitted you couldn't understand what anyone else was saying to you about it. So if that's your answer, then no you don't have any evidence and you have no business demanding everyone keep an "open mind" to your unevidenced conclusions.
Last edited:
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
As of right now, it's on the front page of this forum.
Maurice Ledifficile
Lost in translation
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2010
- Messages
- 2,964
Jabba,
-Click on "user CP"
-Click on "User Control Panel"
-On the left hand side, down the list, find "Subscribed Threads"
-Click on "List Subscriptions"
-Bookmark the page or save as favourite
-Never worry about finding one of your threads again
-It's not a toomah
-Click on "user CP"
-Click on "User Control Panel"
-On the left hand side, down the list, find "Subscribed Threads"
-Click on "List Subscriptions"
-Bookmark the page or save as favourite
-Never worry about finding one of your threads again
-It's not a toomah
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
Stop being preposterous. I'm not going to change your diapers either, in case you were going to ask.
If that's the only sort of 'evidence' that you've got, then there's no way on earth you could have derived any sort of credible numerical value for the probability of your preposterous proposition. You've basically just admitted you have no premise.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Sorry. Don't believe you. You have been caught in so many lies it is almost certain that you do not know who you are at this point.
Apply Bayes to that premise, why not?
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
ComfySlippers
Banned
I Am The Scum
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2010
- Messages
- 5,807
It's on the first page...
- Status