Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Dave,
- I agree with you except I would add one word: "possibly." So OOFLam really encompasses two models - one where immaterial selves possibly exist, and one where they don't.
Proof of Immortality III
- Thread starter Humots
- Start date
- Status
- I agree with you except I would add one word: "possibly." So OOFLam really encompasses two models - one where immaterial selves possibly exist, and one where they don't.
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
Yes, that's it. Keep repeating the same exact things over and over. Now you're debating like a pro.
ferd burfle
Graduate Poster
You use modifiers as weasel wording. "Possibly" becomes "probably" becomes "certainty"; but people here have seen this ploy from you half a hundred times and call you on it. It's your way of trying to get the camel's nose under the tent.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Have you tried "I claim that"? It would at least be accurate, but the downside would be that people would expect you to support your claim.
Last edited:
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
No, Jabba, don't bother. As others have said, simply repeating your beliefs over and over again using different words doesn't fix the massive problems with your argument. There is no nuanced equivocation that cures question begging and false dilemmas. You have failed to prove what you set out to prove, and I "strongly suspect" you know this. Just as in the Shroud thread, you've given up the actual argument and are now just hoping against hope that you can get someone to "admit" some minor point that you've disguised in your latest weasel words.
You are not a talented debater.
You are not a logician.
You are not a statistician.
You may be, and likely are, many things. But not any of the things that helps you prove your point.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
He's trying to imply that it is correct in some "technical" sense that doesn't actually have any effect on his argument. He has to try to imply this rather than demonstrate that it is the case because it isn't in fact the case.
See also the quotation from Jabba in Loss Leader's sig: "I recognize the problem ... but I was sort of hoping that no one would consider the issue important enough to bring up."
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
No, it cannot do that. The concept you've graced with an acronym is simply the null hypothesis that arises out of your claim. By definition it must be the converse of the claim, and therefore cannot also incorporate the claim. You are trying to prove the existence of an immortal soul. The null hypothesis, therefore, is that no immortal soul exists.
That's just basic reasoning, a very simple process that you nevertheless can't grasp. You cannot win your argument by equivocating back and forth between your hypothesis and the null. Doing that is the epitome of begging the question.
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
No, it is not. Blue is anywhere along a continuum of colors, all in the general vicinity of 488nm with varying degrees of saturation and intensity. Two things that are each blue can be different colors of blue.
Correct doesn't fall on a continuum. Something is either correct or not. So, when you said I was technically correct, either I was correct or some aspect was incorrect.
Which was it, and if not correct, in what was was I incorrect?
Express it any way you like. You will still be stuck there being no requirement for a soul in your ~H universe.
For that matter, there is no requirement there be no souls in the H universe. Their existence is unnecessary, but not excluded.
You will be hard pressed to establish "most ways". And you still have not dealt with the issue that the probability of your existence under your calculation module doesn't change when souls are included.
"Implies" is a term from logic. It has a fixed and precise meaning. "Strongly suggests" is not a term of logic.
Last edited:
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
This is one of the great differences between science and religion. Science seeks a uniformity of expression in order to achieve maximum clarity. Religion just changes the words around and begs you to believe.
Toontown
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2010
- Messages
- 6,595
I don't know...maybe because you don't want to commit a grouping error? But you don't seem to mind committing a grouping error. So I really don't know why you commit a grouping error leading into a false comparison fallacy.
As I laboriously explained, you shouldn't be surprised that some other lottery winner has won a lottery. Because that posterior probability is 1. And the prior probability that "someone" will win a lottery is very nearly 1.
You should be surprised that you, specifically, have won a lottery. Because that prior probability was, give or take, 0.00000006, depending on the specific lottery odds.
See, those two probabilities are vastly different in both class and magnitude.
No, you shouldn't be surprised about having won the lottery "as opposed to" any irrelevant, extraneous person or event you happen to toss in to cloud the issue, whether it be someone else who plays the lottery or someone whose toe might be lopped off by a micrometeorite. None of that extraneous detritus is remotely relevant to the question of whether you would be correct to be surprised to have won a lottery. Leave it out.
If you can't work it out for yourself, just trust me on this. You should be surprised. You should also be surprised if your toe is lopped off by a micrometeorite. But relatively small stuff like winning lotteries and getting a toe lopped off by a micrometeorite pale to insignificance when compared to the giganogartantuan prior odds against the existence of your specific brain. So, if you have no other possible explanation to your current momentary flicker of sentience in the midst of eternity or aternity, be surprised. Be very surprised.
And I am compelled by experience to preemptively add that the time to be surprised at the occurrence of an event is after it happens. Mainly because that is the only time you can be surprised at the occurrence of an event.
Bitter experience also compels me to caution you against looking stupid by proclaiming that the posterior probability of an event is 1, therefore surprise at the occurrence of an event is always too late.
I plead not guilty and accuse you of comitting a grouping error.
I am not a member of the group of (other individuals who have won a lottery), and never will be.
If I were to win a lottery, I still wouldn't be a member of the group of (other individuals who have won a lottery). I would become the sole member of a unique class consisting of (myself, having won a lottery)
There would only be one me that has won a lottery. All these other people you keep wanting to bring in are irrelevant. They do not belong in the class that determines whether I would be correct to be surprised at having won a lottery.
I didn't buy a ticket to the life lottery. So, by your own admission, yeah. It is very suspicious (to me) that I exist. But I can't really say I'm surprised, because I don't automatically subscribe to your premises as to the fundamental nature of reality.
But suspicion at my existence should not extend to you. Keep your classes straight.
.gif "What was that? :wwt")
Why do you ask? You haven't.
It's not a diatribe. it's the cold, hard facts. For the Nth time.
The universe had one chance to make Jabba's specific brain (or yours). That specific brain had to be one specific organization of mass/energy, occurring at one specific set of spacetime coordinates (x,y,z,t). Any similar brain occurring at any other spacetime coordinates would be another, identical brain. In science, the spacetime location of different objects plays a critical role in differentiating between different objects, especially identical objects.
Therefore, the size, age or number of universes have absolutely no bearing on the prior probability that Jabba's specific brain would emerge from the universe-wide quantum shuffle beginning at 10 -43 seconds. Any identical brain occurring at any other spacetime coordinates would be another brain.
If you're arguing that another, identical brain would be the same Jabba, then you've inadvertently slipped and fallen face-first into Jabba's side of the argument.
Which I've already explained N times during the existence of this thread.
I will add that I find it suspiciously surprising that I was called upon to explain this to you again, after so many of you spent so many posts deriding Jabba about his lack of understanding of the difference between identical but different objects.
Last edited:
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
It was wrong when you said it the first time. It's wrong every other time you said it. Again, there are plenty of treatises by mathematicians explaining this particular common fallacy. Avail yourself of one.
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
Nobody called on him. He just showed up and started saying the wrong things. It's as if we said "Beetlejuice" three times and Michael Keaton showed up dressed as Mr. Mom.
Rosencrantz
Is Dead
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2002
- Messages
- 363
More like Constable Dogberry.
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
Yeah, right. And so what?
The predictability of you (or Jabba, or me) is virtually zero.
Still we exist. And from that we can conclude exactly what?
Hans
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Hans,
- There is probably something wrong with the science that leads to such a conclusion (virtually zero).
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
Well to be fair to Jabba, it nearly(*) worked for the last , what, 3 or 5 years on this forum ? So he'll continue with the same tactic.
(Ü) no, not really. Never.
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
That is probably one of your biggest hubris to date.
Or maybe there were other I only look at this thread to see if it moved.
Definitively not.
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
How would you know? Failing to deliver the answers you want dos not make science a failed way of looking at the world.
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
Oh? Since you use exactly that argument, can we conclude that there is something wrong with your argumentation, then?
Hans
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
If there is, then it's your burden to prove it. But you haven't shouldered that burden. You've simply declared that science cannot refute you, and refused to go any further than that. This is why people point and laugh at you: not because you believe a mystical thing, but because you have deluded yourself into thinking your blatantly begged questions and wishful thinking constitute some proof of your mysticism that others should be bound to accept.
Rather than all of science being wrong, consider that your dilemma results from your lack of understanding the relevant quantitative argument. As I mentioned above, chaos theory goes into some depth looking at the effects of nonlinearity and wrestling with the dichotomy between determinism and predictability. You want to look at predictability as a proxy for determinism. It isn't, and science most certainly has not simply thrown up its hands in despair over the difference.
You freely admit that experts whom you've chosen and consulted have told you that your quantitative approach is wrong. Yet when people here can give you the detailed reasons why it's wrong, you still grasp at straws and declare that science must "somehow" still be in error. This is tantamount to your simply declaring your intent to keep believing what you want despite everything that our best knowledge tells us. You said you believed you could prove immortality, but in fact your behavior is exactly the opposite of proof. It's faith. You hold your belief in spite of fact.
Let me say that again. Once you cross over into holding a belief in spite of fact, you're outside the realm of proof and squarely standing on faith.
- Status