Proof of Immortality III

[Loss Leader]

Hans,
- There is probably something wrong with the science that leads to such a conclusion (virtually zero).

"Virtually zero" is not zero. If a million-sided die comes up 363,198, we don't assume the die is broken. We got one of the possible outcomes. If the die were to come up with some number that has great meaning to me, like WIlliamsburg 690 (my mother's childhood phone number), it's still just one of the possible outcomes.

If I were to predict the die would land on 123,456 BEFORE IT WAS ROLLED, and that number did come up, I'd start to question the system.

But your number already has come up. And it was one of the possible numbers on the die. And you didn't call it beforehand.

So why question the system? It produced one of the outputs it had the ability to produce.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Hans,
- There is probably something wrong with the science that leads to such a conclusion (virtually zero).

No.

Hans

 

[zooterkin]

Hans,
- There is probably something wrong with the science that leads to such a conclusion (virtually zero).

Really? Exactly how predictable do you think your specific existence was?

 

[godless dave]

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.

Why does the possibility of immaterial selves allow you to use the a likelihood based on them existing?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Hans,
- There is probably something wrong with the science that leads to such a conclusion (virtually zero).

Believe it or not I don't try to pigeon hole people who I disagree with.

But this weird self feeding loop of "Science is flawed because it disagrees with me Woo, the flaw in science is that it disagrees with my Woo" loop that most Woo Slingers seem stuck in is starting to become almost boring in how predicable it is.

 

[Pixel42]

Hans,
- There is probably something wrong with the science that leads to such a conclusion (virtually zero).

No, there is just something wrong with your understanding of the science that leads to the conclusion. The flaw in your understanding has been explained to you numerous times; if you still don't get it then it's time to do something more productive with your time.

 

[HighRiser]

Hans,
- There is probably something wrong with the science that leads to such a conclusion (virtually zero).

Only one that thinks that there is something about one's existence that was pre-determined at some undetermined time, by an undetermined determinator would determine that probability is worthy of consideration.

 

[JayUtah]

But this weird self feeding loop of "Science is flawed because it disagrees with me Woo, the flaw in science is that it disagrees with my Woo" loop...

It's just a different flavor of the same argument that all the scientists who dismiss the Shroud of Turin must be incompetent and dishonest, and were nevertheless hard to work with.

 

[John Jones]

Jabba,
I guess if you were going to offer proof of immortality or indeed make any constructive contribution to this thread, you would have done it a long time ago.

I'll follow this thread only for the contributions of your interlocutors. I won't waste my time offering replies you won't even read.

 

[Jabba]

Why does the possibility of immaterial selves allow you to use the a likelihood based on them existing?

Dave,
- Again, I don't really understand your question.

- I'll try this.
1) The likelihood of my current existence, given OOFLam, is virtually zero.
2) But, I do exist.
3) Consequently, if there is a reasonable possibility that OOFLam is not correct, it is surely not correct (insert the numbers into the formula).
4) And, if there is a reasonable possibility that there is such a thing as immaterial selves, there is also a reasonable possibility that OOFLam is not correct.
5) Consequently, if there is such a thing as immaterial selves, OOFLam is surely not correct.

 

[Loss Leader]

Dave,
- Again, I don't really understand your question.

- I'll try this.
1) The likelihood of my current existence, given OOFLam, is virtually zero.
2) But, I do exist.
3) Consequently, if there is a reasonable possibility that OOFLam is not correct, it is surely not correct (insert the numbers into the formula).
4) And, if there is a reasonable possibility that there is such a thing as immaterial selves, there is also a reasonable possibility that OOFLam is not correct.
5) Consequently, if there is such a thing as immaterial selves, OOFLam is surely not correct.

So then all you have to do is prove there are immaterial souls. Start on that. I'll wait here.

 

[Mojo]

- I'll try this.
1) The likelihood of my current existence, given OOFLam, is virtually zero.
2) But, I do exist.
3) Consequently, if there is a reasonable possibility that OOFLam is not correct, it is surely not correct (insert the numbers into the formula).
4) And, if there is a reasonable possibility that there is such a thing as immaterial selves, there is also a reasonable possibility that OOFLam is not correct.
5) Consequently, if there is such a thing as immaterial selves, OOFLam is surely not correct.

1) The likelihood of your current existence, given immaterial selves, is virtually zero.
2) But, you do exist.
3) Consequently, if there is a reasonable possibility that immaterial selves do not exist, they surely do not exist (insert the numbers into the formula).
4) And, if there is a reasonable possibility that OOFLam is correct, there is also a reasonable possibility that immaterial selves do not exist.
5) Consequently, if there no such thing as immaterial selves, OOFLam is surely correct.

 

[Mojo]

5) Consequently, if there is such a thing as immaterial selves, OOFLam is surely not correct.

Begging the question and a non sequitur in the same statement.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- Again, I don't really understand your question.

- I'll try this.
1) The likelihood of my current existence, given OOFLam, is virtually zero.

Not if immaterial selves don't exist.

3) Consequently, if there is a reasonable possibility that OOFLam is not correct, it is surely not correct (insert the numbers into the formula).

How does that follow?

 

[JayUtah]

Dave,
- Again, I don't really understand your question.

- I'll try this.
1) The likelihood of my current existence, given OOFLam, is virtually zero.
2) But, I do exist.
3) Consequently, if there is a reasonable possibility that OOFLam is not correct, it is surely not correct (insert the numbers into the formula).
4) And, if there is a reasonable possibility that there is such a thing as immaterial selves, there is also a reasonable possibility that OOFLam is not correct.
5) Consequently, if there is such a thing as immaterial selves, OOFLam is surely not correct.

The umpteenth restatement of Jabba's case, without proving any of it, is brought to you by the memory of Judge James Wilson.

 

[abaddon]

Dave,
- Again, I don't really understand your question.

- I'll try this.
1) The likelihood of my current existence, given OOFLam, is virtually zero.
2) But, I do exist.
3) Consequently, if there is a reasonable possibility that OOFLam is not correct, it is surely not correct (insert the numbers into the formula).
4) And, if there is a reasonable possibility that there is such a thing as immaterial selves, there is also a reasonable possibility that OOFLam is not correct.
5) Consequently, if there is such a thing as immaterial selves, OOFLam is surely not correct.

Why is it that you think that if you frame your failed argument in different words, somehow you will get a different result and your failed argument will be brushed under the carpet?

 

[Loss Leader]

1) The likelihood of my current existence, given OOFLam, is virtually zero.

1) The likelihood of the existence of my current table lamp, given a scientific universe, is virtually zero. Those exact atoms coming together in that exact way? Virtually zero.

2) But, I do exist.

2) But my table lamp does exist.

3) Consequently, if there is a reasonable possibility that OOFLam is not correct, it is surely not correct (insert the numbers into the formula).

3) Consequently, if there is a reasonable possibility that OOFLam is not correct, it is surely not correct (insert the numbers into the formula).

4) And, if there is a reasonable possibility that there is such a thing as immaterial selves, there is also a reasonable possibility that OOFLam is not correct.

4) And, if there is a reasonable possibility that there is such a thing as an immaterial table lamp, there is also a reasonable possibility that the scientific universe is not correct.

5) Consequently, if there is such a thing as immaterial selves, OOFLam is surely not correct.

5) Consequently, if there is such a thing as an immaterial table lamp, the scientific universe is surely not correct.


It seems to me that my table lamp is imbued with an immaterial table lamp spirit. I feel as though it is one continuous table lamp - though bulbs burn out and the shade has been changed twice and a corner got chipped so I had to paint it, and my son wrote his name on the bottom for no reason he's ever been able to articulate. I still perceive it and like to think of it as the very same table lamp.

Since there are an infinite number of possible table lamps, then this table lamp spirit came into being as 1/inf. In other words, by chance alone, my table lamp could not exist with its immaterial table lamp spirit. So the table lamp spirit must be immortal.



This argument makes no sense.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Dave,
- Again, I don't really understand your question.

Jabba at this point I don't think any of us really care. We have held your hand for years now and you haven't given us the tiniest courtesy of even trying to maintain any intellectual or argumentative standards.

 

[Jabba]

Dave,
- Again, I don't really understand your question.

- I'll try this.
1) The likelihood of my current existence, given OOFLam, is virtually zero.
2) But, I do exist.
3) Consequently, if there is a reasonable possibility that OOFLam is not correct, it is surely not correct (insert the numbers into the formula).
4) And, if there is a reasonable possibility that there is such a thing as immaterial selves, there is also a reasonable possibility that OOFLam is not correct.
5) Consequently, if there is such a thing as immaterial selves, OOFLam is surely not correct.

Not if immaterial selves don't exist.
How does that follow?

Dave,
- If I enter my numbers into the formula, I conclude that the posterior probability of OOFLam is virtually zero over a real number.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- If I enter my numbers into the formula, I conclude that the posterior probability of OOFLam is virtually zero over a real number.

I thought you were using the formula to test OOFlam, not the existence of immaterial selves.