Proof of Immortality III

[abaddon]

Your response was meaningless. Been meaningless since the first time you did it. Still is.

Analogy: I claim you owe me 50 bucks. You pull out a many sided die, roll it, and reply "So what?"

Why even bother with the die roll? Were you going for dramatic effect? Bottom line, you don't want to pay the fifty bucks and you're not going to. But you do, apparently, want to argue about it for a couple of years.

Go out to your local game store and buy a 20 sided dice. Bring it home and roll it. Let's say you roll a 17, or whatever. What are the chances of that? Why 1/20.

Roll it again. What are the chances that some number comes face up? 100%.

Your die roll and subsequent question didn't even address Jabba's conditional perspective. You're not even taking issue with the validity of the conditional perspective, you simply ignore it. You don't even bother to explain why you ignore it, which suggests you may not even be aware of it.

Jabba's formula relies on his subjective perspective. In probability theory it's called "conditional probability". Therefore, the formula only applies to the user. It can be applied by anyone who has been ceded a similar perspective. But only on themselves. Jabba can't use it on you. You can't use it on Jabba. You can't roll a die, exclaim "so what", and then pretend your dramatic act addresses conditional probability.

Your die roll and question demonstrated that you don't give a dead rat's ass about any of that, but you did ask me to justify my rejection of it, so first I'll need to see if you even know what conditional probability is and how it differs from rolling a die and then exclaiming "so what".

The universe "rolls dice" all the time. It doesn't care. You are not a special snowflake, nor is anyone else. For pete's sake, you are actually claiming that the subjective trumps everything.

Just for starters, users of conditional probability do not simply exclaim "so what" at what their conditional perspective reveals. They actually use it.

Here's an analogy on conditional probability from one of Max Tegmark's books.

A shell game is in progress. 3 people are present: the dealer, his young daughter standing next to him, and 1 player. Both the player and the dealer's rather short daughter have conditionally generated probability distributions on the location of the pea.

The player simply knows the pea is under one of 2 shells. His conditional probability distribution is ( 0.5, 0.5)

The girl saw the pea when the dealer slightly lifted the corner of the concealing shell. Her probability distribution is (1, 0)

According to Tegmark, an accomplished practical and theoretical cosmologist, both conditional perspectives are equally valid, both making full use of the conditional information available. The only difference is, the girl is twice as likely to correctly locate the pea, solely due to the advantage ceded to her by her conditional perspective.

In the shell game, by the time you start turning over shells there is no pea on the table at all. Good grief. That has to be one of the worst analogies ever.

The dealer represents the universe. The girl and the player represent two otherwise equal residents of the universe, looking at the same events from different conditional perspectives.

It doesn't relate directly to Jabba's specific conditional setup. It's just about what conditional probability does.

Nope. It's about your misinterpretation of it.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- Not unless you have a potentially better explanation for the mountain's exact shape.

What if I propose that a powerful, intelligent entity designed it to have precisely that shape?

 

[John Jones]

Toon,
- I still think we agree. The scientific model I rule out is only about human mortality.
- I like your reference to the "quantum stew," and have essentially used it myself, but your wording is more to the point.

How pathetic can you get?
You are claiming support from someone who denies it.

 

[Toontown]

The universe "rolls dice" all the time. It doesn't care. You are not a special snowflake, nor is anyone else. For pete's sake, you are actually claiming that the subjective trumps everything.

You don't have to be a special snowflake to have conditionally dependent information.

Whatever made you think having conditionally dependent information makes one a special snowflake? If it does, then I am a special snowflake, because I'm the only one who knows what number I'm thinking of right now.

Hint: it's not 42

In the shell game, by the time you start turning over shells there is no pea on the table at all. Good grief. That has to be one of the worst analogies ever.

Good grief. You don't know what you're talking about. Which completely rules out knowing what Tegmark was talking about.

 

[Nonpareil]

You don't have to be a special snowflake to have conditionally dependent information.

Neither Jabba nor yourself have any sort of conditionally dependent information relevant to the probability of your own existence or the existence of an afterlife. Beyond that, neither of you have even made the attempt to present any.

The entire argument presented remains "my existence is extremely improbable, and therefore I must possess an immortal soul", which is incredibly silly for a great number of reasons.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Pixel,
- How about 100%?
- But, we accept the scientific explanation anyway, cause we have no potentially better explanation...
- In most cases we accept that the lottery winner is just 'lucky.' We accept that because we have no potentially better explanation. If we found out that the winner was second cousin to whoever controls the lottery, we wouldn't be so sure.

I suspected this would be a problem. How long til the conjunction fallacy^WP becomes too obvious to ignore?

 

[Toontown]

No. At cosmological t=0 you were undefined, and no probability was in play for a 'you.'

Really? I wasn't possible before time began?

In your sudden zeal to shave probabilistic points, you failed to notice that I never mention anything before 10 ^-43 seconds, at which time the quantum stew put every possible outcome in play.

And every possible outcome includes many of the roughly 10 ^80! (that's factorial 80) permutations of the estimated number of atoms within the space of the visible universe, not even counting the parts beyond the light horizon, the magnitude of which no one knows. And when all points in space are included in the permutations, the 10 ^80! begins to look like a gross underestimation.

Nearly all of which didn't happen and never will, their time and place having been overridden by the permutation that did happen due to the random outcome of the universe sized main quantum shuffle beginning at 10 ^-43 seconds.

 

[Toontown]

Neither Jabba nor yourself have any sort of conditionally dependent information relevant to the probability of your own existence...

And don't need any.

And now you've again demonstrated you don't understand the nature of the argument or what is being questioned or tested or anything.

The probability of the emergence of a particular brain is not estimated by any conditionally dependent information. That comes from the standard cosmological model, quantum mechanics, and probability theory.

 

[Nonpareil]

And now you've again demonstrated you don't understand the nature of the argument or what is being questioned or tested or anything.

Well, no. You're quite right. I don't understand your argument. This is because you are doing a very poor job of making it.

Jabba's argument, on the other hand - which is the one that I, and everyone else here, am actually addressing - I understand perfectly well, and the objections that have been raised remain valid, despite your belligerence.

 

[Toontown]

Well, no. You're quite right. I don't understand your argument. This is because you are doing a very poor job of making it.

Jabba's argument, on the other hand - which is the one that I, and everyone else here, am actually addressing - I understand perfectly well, and the objections that have been raised remain valid, despite your belligerence.

False.

I just finished demonstrating that you don't know what you're talking about when I had to explain to you that:

The probability of the emergence of a particular brain is not estimated by any conditionally dependent information. That comes from the standard cosmological model, quantum mechanics, and probability theory.

Which I explained when you said:

Neither Jabba nor yourself have any sort of conditionally dependent information relevant to the probability of your own existence...

So you clearly didn't understand that the probability of the emergence of a particular brain is a scientifically derived premise, not a conditional information derived conclusion. And that's just the point of beginning.

 

[Nonpareil]

So you clearly didn't understand that the probability of the emergence of a particular brain is a scientifically derived premise, not a conditional information derived conclusion.

No, I didn't understand that the above wasn't what you were arguing. I still don't, as I can't see any reason why you would want to bring up conditional probability if you weren't going to use it, but it is becoming increasingly obvious that what you say in any given post isn't particularly well-connected to what you said in any other.

Again, you are doing an exceptionally poor job of communicating whatever point it is you think you have. And you still have utterly failed to provide any actual rebuttal to any of the points that have been raised against Jabba's argument, except to run around in circles making statements that are apparently entirely unrelated to the discussion in hand, then calling other people idiots for not understanding what in the blue blazes you're babbling about.

It's not a particularly compelling form of argumentation.

 

[Toontown]

If you are unwilling to connect the topic of cosmology to the topic of a mathematical proof for immortality then I have to consider that you're trying to derail the discussion of the proof into an irrelevant discussion of cosmology.

You insinuate this is some late obsession of mine. In fact, as has been belabored, you raised the prospect of just such a connection in your post disclaiming any belief in Jabba's model. You volunteered that you had a different model, and suggested your cosmological musings bore on it. This is nothing new.

I'm simply asking you to explain how anything you've said over the past several pages relates to the topic of this thread. Not a hard question, nor an inappropriate one, and not a question I've been alone in asking.

You can't possibly be serious with this, and yet I have this creepy feeling you are. The same creepy feeling I've had since you tried to browbeat me into revealing details of a personal, unprovable hypothesis, in this thread. Only now the feeling is much creepier.

I have no intention of humoring you, but idle curiosity leads me to ask what you think Jabba is talking about when he refers to the "scientific model" and the likelihood of his existence. Do you really think cosmology, quantum mechanics, and probability theory are unrelated to those subjects? Do you think the universe has any relationship to those subjects at all?

If not, then what does?

 

[Toontown]

No, I didn't understand that the above wasn't what you were arguing. I still don't, as I can't see any reason why you would want to bring up conditional probability if you weren't going to use it, but it is becoming increasingly obvious that what you say in any given post isn't particularly well-connected to what you said in any other.

The conditional probability part is where a conclusion is derived from the premises. And this thread is going on two years old now. Somebody needs squirt some WD-40 in their ears.

Perhaps you will be able to recall that I said I'd need some indication from you that you know what conditional probability is and do not simply dismiss it out of hand with a bogus die roll and an exclamation of "so what", before I would get into a tedious discussion with you about it.

That hasn't changed. However, I haven't ruled out posting something about it later, at a time of my choosing.

 

[Nonpareil]

The conditional probability part is where a conclusion is derived from the premises. And this thread is going on two years old now. Somebody needs squirt some WD-40 in their ears.

Perhaps you will be able to recall that I said I'd need some indication from you that you know what conditional probability is and do not simply dismiss it out of hand with a bogus die roll and an exclamation of "so what", before I would get into a tedious discussion with you about it.

That hasn't changed. However, I haven't ruled out posting something about it later, at a time of my choosing.

Right, so. Not feeling like actually participating in the discussion, then, and just going to hang about casting insults at people for not being able to read your mind and figure out what in the hell your non sequiturs are actually supposed to mean. Glad we've cleared that up.

 

[Toontown]

Again, you are doing an exceptionally poor job of communicating whatever point it is you think you have. And you still have utterly failed to provide any actual rebuttal to any of the points that have been raised against Jabba's argument, except to run around in circles making statements that are apparently entirely unrelated to the discussion in hand, then calling other people idiots for not understanding what in the blue blazes you're babbling about.

It's not a particularly compelling form of argumentation.

Am I Jabba's keeper now? The only part of Jabba's presentation I generally agree with is the part where he uses his subjective perspective to test hypothesis H, and I don't entirely agree with that either. And I've stated what think should be tested, and it isn't "H". Obviously you missed that too.

Since you've become a verbose critic of my form of argumentation, I insist that you read all my recent posts. Your critique above does not suggest to me that you've done so.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Am I Jabba's keeper now?

Well, you do seem to be rather annoyed with people misunderstanding Jabba's argument. Would you be wiling to rephrase it in a clearer way, so it can be more easily understood?

Unless you think Jabba has already done a good job explaining himself, but I don't think even Jabba would agree with that.

 

[JayUtah]

You can't possibly be serious with this, and yet I have this creepy feeling you are. The same creepy feeling I've had since you tried to browbeat me into revealing details of a personal, unprovable hypothesis, in this thread. Only now the feeling is much creepier.

I'm simply asking you to draw a connection between your posts and the topic of the thread. Any discomfort you have with that is your fault and your problem. It isn't alleviated by trying to shame me and others away from challenging you.

I have no intention of humoring you, but idle curiosity leads me to ask what you think Jabba is talking about when he refers to the "scientific model" and the likelihood of his existence.

I have no idea what he means by that phrase, and I've asking him about it to no avail.

Do you really think cosmology, quantum mechanics, and probability theory are unrelated to those subjects? Do you think the universe has any relationship to those subjects at all?

Begging the question. I'm asking what you think the connection is.

Yes, I'm serious.

 

[Toontown]

I'm simply asking you to draw a connection between your posts and the topic of the thread. Any discomfort you have with that is your fault and your problem. It isn't alleviated by trying to shame me and others away from challenging you.

Read the posts. What you see is what you get. You're not going to drag me into your armadillo hole.

Gosh, I sure would like to find out how many times I'd have to restate everything in various ways until you finally say you understand and then arbitrarily declare it wrong.

 

[Nonpareil]

Am I Jabba's keeper now?

Since you continuously take it upon yourself to raise objections towards people who disagree with him, it would seem so. But I really don't know, because that would require you to have presented any sort of coherent idea at some point in this thread.

Thus far, the entirety of the discussion has been:

JABBA: My existence is highly unlikely.
ME: So what?
YOU: You're an idiot.
ME: Could you explain?
YOU: It has to do with conditional probability.
ME: How? Conditional probability is entirely unrelated to Jabba's argument.
YOU: You're an idiot.
ME: Could you explain?
YOU: I refuse, because reasons.

And, as I said before, it's not a particularly compelling form of argumentation. You came in to this discussion ostensibly to defend Jabba, raised a point which is apparently entirely unrelated to the discussion in hand, talked about having some hypothesis of your own which you explicitly refuse to share, and accused everyone of being stupid for not being able to read your mind and figure out what this incoherent stew of vitriol and disconnected ideas is supposed to mean.

Why are you here, Toontown?

 

[JayUtah]

Read the posts. What you see is what you get.

The posts are begged questions and insults. That's not enough. Then whining that your critics are in denial for not accepting your claim is just more not enough.

If it were only me wondering what the heck you're trying to say, then you'd have a case for lack of "reading comprehension" or whatever. Instead when all your critics wonder, that's not an epidemic of stupid, as you insinuate. That's you failing to make your point. And if we need confirmation, we have only to look at your incessant complaints about allegedly being "badgered" to make a point you don't want to make.

So I return to my question. Will you lay out your line of reasoning connecting your posts to the topic of this thread?