Proof of Immortality III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
Dave,

- I’m changing my mind again…

- First, I need to re-establish the given re your Mt Rainier question...
- My latest conclusion is that the given in the Rainier case – analogous to the OOFLam in MY case -- would be the group of physical laws governing geology. What we wouldn’t have in the Rainier case is the nature of the matter being governed (worked upon) by the physical laws.
- Not having a clue about the matter being worked upon by the physical laws, the likelihood of Mt Rainier coming out, in every bit of its current grandeur, is also virtually zero (just like ME).

- And, my claim (for the moment at least) is ‘still’ that, the difference between ME and Rainier is that there is no reasonable doubt re the Rainier given; whereas for ME, there is. - Unlikely effects, in the sense that Rainier is unlikely, happen ALL the time with no mathematical implications re the given. Unlikely effects, have mathematical implications re the given only when there is reasonable doubt re the given to begin with.
Click to expand...

godless dave said:
...
I don't understand why there's reasonable doubt or why it makes a difference.
Click to expand...
Dave,
- There are all sorts of reasons to suspect that there might be life after death -- I had suggested some previously, but will look them up if you like. But the main point is that the logic here only requires a tiny bit of doubt in order that OOFLam be overturned.
- When something very unlikely happens, we assume it's luck unless we can think of a more probable explanation -- and, a more probable explanation doesn't have to be very probable when the likelihood of what happened is virtually zero.
 
Jabba said:
- When something very unlikely happens, we assume it's luck unless we can think of a more probable explanation -- and, a more probable explanation doesn't have to be very probable when the likelihood of what happened is virtually zero.
Click to expand...
Do we? I don't assume it's luck, I assume it's chance. To me, luck has a connotation of non-randomness and of direction, which might cause one to feel that something other than chance is responsible for one's existence.
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- There are all sorts of reasons to suspect that there might be life after death -- I had suggested some previously, but will look them up if you like. But the main point is that the logic here only requires a tiny bit of doubt in order that OOFLam be overturned.
- When something very unlikely happens, we assume it's luck unless we can think of a more probable explanation -- and, a more probable explanation doesn't have to be very probable when the likelihood of what happened is virtually zero.
Click to expand...

Who is this 'we', paleface?
 
Agatha said:
Do we? I don't assume it's luck, I assume it's chance. To me, luck has a connotation of non-randomness and of direction, which might cause one to feel that something other than chance is responsible for one's existence.
Click to expand...
Agatha,
- OK. I didn't mean to imply non-randomness, or direction, when I used "luck." In fact, I meant to imply the opposite.
- But "chance" and "random" should serve instead...
 
Jabba said:
Dave,

- I understand your lack of understanding -- again, this stuff is extra difficult to communicate. And, in this particular case, one of the words used is especially ambiguous. "Matter" above is the "M" in "E=MC2."

- Here, I'm trying to answer your question about the likelihood of Mt Rainier. I'm claiming that the likelihood of my current existence, given OOFLam, is virtually zero? But isn't the likelihood of Rainier also virtually zero?
- I kept changing my mind between virtually zero and virtually one. I was doing that because I was reasoning from two different directions.
- In one case, I was considering the probability of each and all the independent events and 'ingredients' that had to be involved over the millennia in order for Rainier to emerge exactly as it currently is. Using that approach I got an unimaginably large number for the denominator, and a likelihood of .00. In this case, I didn't have a clue about the original matter being worked on (or, the environment being worked within). And, that's why I got .00.
- In the other case, I was reasoning from knowing what we had to start with in the beginning -- going that way, I ended with 1.00.

- But, what I needed to do was make sure that the logic I used for Rainier was analogous to the logic I used for ME.
- For ME, I had to reason 'backwards' -- I needed to figure out what had to happen in order for me to be here. So, that's what I needed to do re Rainier -- and reasoning that way, I get .00.

- Now, I think that calculating likelihood in general requires this sort of backward reasoning. We start out with certain givens, and then estimate the probability that the other required necessary events/ingredients occur/get mixed in also.
Click to expand...

Then I don't understand the difference between you an Mt. Rainier. Both are made of matter.
 
- Just to reiterate, I am no longer trying to prove immortality -- currently, I am trying to virtually disprove OOFLam.
 
Jabba said:
There are all sorts of reasons to suspect that there might be life after death...
Click to expand...

But none of them is the mathematical proof you promised.

But the main point is that the logic here only requires a tiny bit of doubt in order that OOFLam be overturned.
Click to expand...

That may be your point, but it's not a proof. No one is buying your formulation, as it simply relies upon elevating to objective unlikelihood something that you've predetermined shouldn't happen.

When something very unlikely happens, we assume it's luck unless we can think of a more probable explanation...
Click to expand...

Speak for yourself. Some of us realize that perceptions of "likely" and "unlikely" are heavily biased by personal expectations that don't hold from case to case. That is, in fact, why the entire science of statistical probability was invented. In a typical twist of irony, you're misusing the science to attempt to justify your intuition.

Let's say I wash my car today, and it rains. While some people raise their hands to heaven in frustration and say, "What are the odds it would have rained today!?" the rest of us realize the odds are just the same whether we washed our cars or not. We have made rain a "special" occurrence -- and therefore decided to pay attention to its probability -- by an unrelated action on our part. Conversely, you have to realize that on every day it rains, some number of people will have just washed their cars regardless of whether you did or not.

The skill in statistical reasoning is not in being able to work the formulas. The skill is in knowing what to count. And yes it's a skill, not just something you can assume you do well. That's the personal you. As you may have gleaned from some of the criticism leveled at you in the various threads, you really have no demonstrable skill at categorical reasoning.
 
Jabba said:
- Just to reiterate, I am no longer trying to prove immortality -- currently, I am trying to virtually disprove OOFLam.
Click to expand...

Just to reiterate, that's the same false dilemma you've employed in every single attempt to prove some woo theory of yours. It's logically invalid. You can't assert immortality by pretending to have disproven some single formulation of mortality.
 
Jabba said:
There are all sorts of reasons to suspect that there might be life after death
Click to expand...

No, there aren't.

Jabba said:
But the main point is that the logic here only requires a tiny bit of doubt in order that OOFLam be overturned.
Click to expand...

You have presented no logic, and any actual logic would require a hell of a lot more than "a tiny bit of doubt" to overturn materialism.

Jabba said:
When something very unlikely happens, we assume it's luck unless we can think of a more probable explanation -- and, a more probable explanation doesn't have to be very probable when the likelihood of what happened is virtually zero.
Click to expand...

Yes, it does.

Rolling a 1 on a 1080! die does not indicate that the die is loaded. Nor would rolling a 7. Or a 10,893. You have to examine the die in order to show that it is rigged - or even that it is "probably" so.

Jabba said:
Is there a reasonable possibility that I am more than matter?
Click to expand...

No.

There is not even an unreasonable possibility that you are more than matter.
 
Jabba said:
- Just to reiterate, I am no longer trying to prove immortality -- currently, I am trying to virtually disprove OOFLam.
Click to expand...


No, you aren't. You're trying to prove that what you have defined as "the standard model" or "the scientific model", or whatever you are calling your current strawman, is wrong.

It has nothing to do with whether or not you are immortal. And in any case, you are failing dismally.
 
Jabba:

Your "my existence is too improbable to have come about by chance" argument, even if it was valid, doesn't lead to the conclusion that you are immortal.

It leads to the conclusion that the universe, including you, is designed. There is no reason to suppose that you would be immortal in a designed universe.

And your argument is not valid, because it relies upon a designer, or some equivalent entity, existing to designate your existence as the desired result. It therefore begs the question.

Your argument fails in multiple ways. Give it up.
 
Why do we keep up this charade? There is nothing strange in our existence. We are nothing special. We are just some random human among others. It proves exactly nothing.

Hans
 
Jabba said:
But the main point is that the logic here only requires a tiny bit of doubt in order that OOFLam be overturned.
- When something very unlikely happens, we assume it's luck unless we can think of a more probable explanation -- and, a more probable explanation doesn't have to be very probable when the likelihood of what happened is virtually zero.
Click to expand...

Jabba,

In two sentences on the same subject, you have two entirely different standards of proof. In the first, you require that explanation A be true beyond even "a tiny bit" of doubt. However you go on to require that explanation B only be more probable than A - not even "very probable" let alone true beyond doubt.

Why does B have to pass such a low threshold while A has such a high one? They're both theories about how you came to exist.

In fact, neither of your standards are scientific. They're not even recognized in law. The highest legal standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. "Reasonable" does not mean the same thing as "any doubt." We don't let criminals go because aliens could have committed the crime and then implanted memories in witnesses. I suppose there's a non-zero chance of this happening, but it's not a reasonable one in our experience.

Set a standard of proof (which I've been asking you to do for years) and then throw both of your origin theories against it. We'll see if either stick.
 
Last edited:
Loss Leader said:
In fact, neither of your standards are scientific. They're not even recognized in law. The highest legal standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. "Reasonable" does not mean the same thing as "any doubt." We don't let criminals go because aliens could have committed the crime and then implanted memories in witnesses. I suppose there's a non-zero chance of this happening, but it's not a reasonable one in our experience.
Click to expand...


"Reasonable doubt" means doubt for which you have a reason. Jabba has provided no such reason.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom