Proof of Immortality III

[Nonpareil]

My scenario was not intended to support Jabba. It was intended to counter you - and other thread denizens.

More specifically, It was intended to counter the automated hurling of bogus fallacy charges against anyone who does not agree that a possibility of chance justifies an assumption of chance.

No. Examining the system and finding that it is not rigged does.

The hypothetical rolling of the (1) was intentionally an event which is likely to be preceded by the heat death of the universe.

So is the hypothetical rolling of literally any other number on the die.

Again, I don't consider Nonpareil's existence, or Jabba's, or yours, or anyone else's existence as evidence of anything. I use a subjective, conditional perspective which applies only to myself.

And continually fail to either explain what this perspective is, or give us any indication that you actually understand probability well enough to make use of it.

The fact that you admit that you would argue that doesn't bode well for the possibility of your knowing what you're talking about.

"You don't know what you're talking about" is a common refrain with you, it seems.

So is utterly failing to actually point out any error.

 

[carlitos]

I find it difficult to add you to the list of people who do understand probability

And yet, here I am, a person who does understand probability and statistics. And I'm telling you that you are dead wrong. If you'd like to try and make your point so that I can understand it, feel free. If not, we don't have anything else to talk about.

 

[Loss Leader]

Nevermind the fact that the only number that could have saved your bacon was unlikely to be seen before the extinction of humanity, or the heat death of the universe, unless the game was rigged.

You're right; that's the only number that could have saved my bacon. But there's nothing necessary about my bacon needing to be saved. Had it not been, you would be having this argument with someone else. Indeed, in my several months in the hospital, you actually did have this argument with several someones else.

That I am here is evidence of nothing other than that it is possible I could be here (and that the surgeons and cardiologists at New York Presbyterian can cut hearts like magicians cutting cards, whoop whoop!).

Nonpareil exists

Indeed. And Nonpareil has no equal.

 

[theprestige]

Indeed. And Nonpareil has no equal.

Nonpareil has no peer.

 

[Nonpareil]

You're right; that's the only number that could have saved my bacon. But there's nothing necessary about my bacon needing to be saved. Had it not been, you would be having this argument with someone else. Indeed, in my several months in the hospital, you actually did have this argument with several someones else.

This has also been pointed out.

The inevitable response is that he isn't attempting to model the actual situation the thread is concerned with, but rather presenting a scenario to advance his personal beliefs, which he refuses to elaborate on.

Yes, it is as confusing and pointless as it sounds.

 

[Toontown]

And yet, here I am, a person who does understand probability and statistics. And I'm telling you that you are dead wrong. If you'd like to try and make your point so that I can understand it, feel free. If not, we don't have anything else to talk about.

I've already made my point. I am under no obligation to try to make it so you can understand it.

Here it is again.

I find it difficult to add you to the list of people who do understand probability when you don't understand that any of those other numbers would have quite reasonably killed any suspicion that the game was rigged.

Only the (1), which was the only reason Nonpareil analogically survived long enough to hear the captors' easily answered question, could possibly give rise to a quite reasonable suspicion that the game was rigged.

And yet you of supposedly great understanding of probability are unable to see the difference.

My explanation was adequate. But you are admittedly unable to understand that the (1) is the only number that suggests a rigged game, and that's what makes the (1) different, and that's why the (1) coming up in that scenario would be deeply suspicious to any rational being.

 

[Toontown]

No. Examining the system and finding that it is not rigged does.

And now you're talking about something else in an attempt to obfuscate the fact that you totally botched the analogy.

There was nothing in the analogy about your captors allowing you to examine the system.

However, there was one number, and only one number that would have suggested a rigged game, and that was precisely the number that was sitting in front of you.

And what did you do? You got hung up on the circular reasoning that all the other numbers were equally likely to come up, assuming the game was not rigged. You assumed your default conclusion with contrary evidence sitting right in front of you, and negated the evidence based on your circular reasoning.

 

[Toontown]

Why is that? We're talking about human perception of whether or not a game is rigged. All of which is wholly irrelevant to immortality but as long as we're making arguments about which numbers would make people think a game is rigged I'd say anything close to (1) would make a human go "oh my god, they're just toying with me!"

That's a ridiculously weak argument. I don't care what you are talking about, because whatever you are talking about was never what I was talking about.

I was talking about a scenario in which only one number would have suggested a rigged game, and that was the number that came up.

I did that to point out Nonpareil's faulty reasoning, and to demonstrate how the rest of you would totally botch it as well.

 

[Toontown]

Reasons which you decline to provide.

Why would I?

 

[Nonpareil]

And now you're talking about something else

No.

There was nothing in the analogy about your captors allowing you to examine the system.

I am aware. Thus, there is no evidence that the system is rigged.

This is not complicated.

 

[Toontown]

No.

I am aware. Thus, there is no evidence that the system is rigged.

This is not complicated.

I never suggested your stonewalling to obscure your faulty reasoning is complicated. Obvious, I would suggest. Not complicated.

Nor is it complicated to see how you are playing a semantic game in which you falsely define (in your own mind) the meaning of "evidence" up to a point of absolute certainty, to justify ignoring the 10 ^80! (unrigged) odds against the appearance of the only number that suggests a rigged game.

From Mirriam-Webster:

Simple Definition of evidence
: a visible sign of something

This is not complicated.

 

[pharphis]

I never suggested your stonewalling to obfuscate your faulty reasoning is complicated. Obvious, I would suggest. Not complicated.

Nor is it complicated to see how you are playing a semantic game in which you falsely define (in your own mind) the meaning of "evidence" up to a point of absolute certainty, to justify ignoring the 10 ^80! odds against the appearance of the only number that suggests a rigged game.

From Mirriam-Webster:

Simple Definition of evidence
: a visible sign of something

This is not complicated.

Your hypothetical involves humans which is the only reason anyone should expect it to be "rigged". This is why I argued that any close (but not quite) numbers like (2) or (3) would appear to be rigged as well. As long as we're seeing human agents behind the game then we're going to think it's rigged when an unlikely event follows. Even events as likely as 1/1000 or 1/100, I would wager.

What happens when you remove human agency and interpretation from your scenario? Does it still appear to be rigged?

 

[Toontown]

What happens when you remove human agency and interpretation from your scenario? Does it still appear to be rigged?

Typical.

Quite predictably, you're trying to alter the analogy to try to cover your faulty reasoning vis a vis the actual analogy.

Yes, it would be very convenient for you if the possibility of a loaded die were removed.

But I wouldn't play your little game. If I were to remove human agency I would create an entirely different scenario. And yes, the highly suggestive outcome would still be highly suggestive. For non-human reasons.

 

[Nonpareil]

Your hypothetical involves humans which is the only reason anyone should expect it to be "rigged".

I mentioned this before as well. The only real "evidence" available as to whether or not the system is rigged is the fact that you were asked to guess. This has nothing to do with the results of the die roll indicating that the system is rigged, and is entirely a matter of examining the behavior of your captors.

 

[I Am The Scum]

But I wouldn't play your little game. If I were to remove human agency I would create an entirely different scenario. And yes, the highly suggestive outcome would still be highly suggestive. For non-human reasons.

If you don't think that human agency is analogous to the potentiality of life-favoring conditions in the universe, then I think we're done here.

Or you can keep arguing belligerently. Your call.

 

[pharphis]

If you don't think that human agency is analogous to the potentiality of life-favoring conditions in the universe, then I think we're done here.

Or you can keep arguing belligerently. Your call.

Is this one of those "doesn't creation require a creator!?" arguments? I mean, sure, I can presume intent of some sort behind nature (or a die roll) but how is that anything but circular when one then uses low probability events as evidence intent?

 

[Loss Leader]

Nor is it complicated to see how you are playing a semantic game in which you falsely define (in your own mind) the meaning of "evidence" up to a point of absolute certainty, to justify ignoring the 10 ^80! (unrigged) odds against the appearance of the only number that suggests a rigged game.

From Mirriam-Webster:

Simple Definition of evidence
: a visible sign of something

As a lawyer, I would hate to go to a jury with that case.

A better definition is something that makes an outcome either more or less likely.

There are plenty of visible signs that don't do this. A stain on a hotel sheet is a visible sign. But of what? Sex, murder, a nosebleed, grape jelly? Without more information all we can say is that any of those are possible. Visually observing the stain doesn't make any of those explanations more or less likely than any other.

Same with the fact that I exist. All it shows is that my existence is possible. It says nothing about the likelihood of such an event or whether such an event is in any way special enough to care about. It's just me, being a human stain, existing away with nary an explanation in sight.

 

[Toontown]

If 3 had come up, there'd be a bunch of 12-legged, 6-armed mwaglanjikzoids trying to convince another, rather silly, 12-legged, 6-armed mwaglanjikzoid that 3 wasn't rigged.

You could be right. 12-legged, 6-armed mwaglanjikzoids might be that stupid.

But I wouldn't bet on it. I would be more inclined to bet that 12-legged, 6-armed mwaglanjikzoids wouldn't be foolish enough try to negate evidence by claiming that if the evidence didn't exist, then something else would.

That's the kind of argument that typically only works on Los Angeles juries. And even then, usually only after the race card has been played.

Well, I suppose you did follow suit after a fashion. Those 12-legged, 6-armed mwaglanjikzoids would be a different race.

 

[Toontown]

I mentioned this before as well. The only real "evidence" available as to whether or not the system is rigged is the fact that you were asked to guess. This has nothing to do with the results of the die roll indicating that the system is rigged, and is entirely a matter of examining the behavior of your captors.

That's another place you keep going that I wouldn't.

I would be reluctant to admit that I wouldn't become suspicious of the (1) until I was required to explain it's origin or else.

But then I wouldn't have that problem in the first place. I would become deeply suspicious as soon as I saw the (1). It is, you know, a 10 ^80! - sided die.

 

[Nonpareil]

That's another place you keep going that I wouldn't.

I would be reluctant to admit that I wouldn't become suspicious of the (1) until I was required to explain it's origin or else.

But then I wouldn't have that problem in the first place. I would become deeply suspicious as soon as I saw the (1). It is, you know, a 10 ^80! - sided die.

I'm aware of how you would behave in that situation.

That does not, however, mean you are right.