Proof of Immortality III

[JayUtah]

If I enter my numbers into the formula...

...that a number of people have now told you is an inappropriate use of it, including people whom you've specifically consulted to determine that.

I conclude that the posterior probability of OOFLam is virtually zero over a real number.

And if I put my Social Security number into the formula for kinetic energy, I can similarly conclude that my chances of surviving a car crash are virtually zero.

As you failed to do with a number of other fringe beliefs, you can't simply make up numbers that are essentially your desired conclusion and pretend there exists a formula that transforms them into fact. Your pseudo-mathematical shenanigans have been refuted several times at length. Simply invoking them again, repeatedly, without addressing the refutation is tantamount to a bald-faced lie a this point.

 

[I Am The Scum]

There is a 99% chance that Barack Obama is not a Reptilian.
The odds of Barack Obama the non-Reptilian being born are virtually zero if calculated at the Big Bang.
Therefore, Barack Obama is a Reptilian.

 

[Mojo]

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

That's the thing: the way he's set up his argument it will disprove whatever hypothesis he uses it to test. He therefore uses it to test a hypothesis other than "immaterial selves exist" and relies on a false dilemma.

 

[Jabba]

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

Dave,
-I am -- it's just that a bit of induction links the two together. If OOFLam is not correct, there probably is such a thing as immaterial selves -- and, vice versa.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
-I am -- it's just that a bit of induction links the two together. If OOFLam is not correct, there probably is such a thing as immaterial selves -- and, vice versa.

That's not induction, it's circular reasoning. You're using immaterial selves to get a number that you want to use to prove OOFLam incorrect, and then using your conclusion of OOFLam being incorrect as evidence for immaterial selves so you can get a number to use to prove OOFLam incorrect.

 

[JayUtah]

If OOFLam is not correct, there probably is such a thing as immaterial selves

Non sequitur.

-- and, vice versa.

No, that's your false dilemma. Your thesis requires an immortal soul, which you reasonably speculate must be immaterial. You've translated that into thinking that if you can disprove materialism, there must exist such a soul. In fact the best you could accomplish is that there could exist such a soul. You will still be a long way from proving it does exists, or even probably exists.

It's amazing that after we went through this same problem with necessity versus sufficiency in an argument, in your Shroud thread, you would so audaciously attempt the same wrong-headed thinking.

 

[Loss Leader]

Dave,
-I am -- it's just that a bit of induction links the two together. If OOFLam is not correct, there probably is such a thing as immaterial selves -- and, vice versa.

And immaterial table lamps.

 

[JayUtah]

And immaterial table lamps.

And all mountains should look like Mt Ranier.

 

[Mojo]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11367430&postcount=1

This entire thread in a single post.

 

[Jabba]

1599

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

1600

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

1604

Dave,
-I am -- it's just that a bit of induction links the two together. If OOFLam is not correct, there probably is such a thing as immaterial selves -- and, vice versa.

1605

That's not induction, it's circular reasoning. You're using immaterial selves to get a number that you want to use to prove OOFLam incorrect, and then using your conclusion of OOFLam being incorrect as evidence for immaterial selves so you can get a number to use to prove OOFLam incorrect.

Dave,
- That just isn't true -- if my numbers for the likelihood of my current existence -- given OOFLam -- and the prior probability of OOFLam, are roughly accurate, the posterior probability of OOFLam is virtually zero.
- And, if the posterior probability of OOFLam is virtually zero, most likely, there is such a thing as immaterial selves. I am using the likelihood that OOFLam is not correct, to support the existence of immaterial selves -- not the other way around.

 

[godless dave]

But you're using your 7,000,000,000/∞ number to get a posterior probability of OOFLam being virtually zero, and 7,000,000,000/∞ is based on immaterial selves.

 

[JayUtah]

That just isn't true -- if my numbers for the likelihood of my current existence -- given OOFLam -- and the prior probability of OOFLam, are roughly accurate...

They are not and cannot be, because you equivocated the null hypothesis in order to get it.

the posterior probability of OOFLam is virtually zero.

Experts have told you that you cannot use Bayesian inference to solve this problem. Others have explained in detail why.

And, if the posterior probability of OOFLam is virtually zero, most likely, there is such a thing as immaterial selves.

No, that's a false dilemma. Disproving materialism in general does not establish the specific form of immaterialism you need there to be in order for your immortality belief to hold.

I am using the likelihood that OOFLam is not correct, to support the existence of immaterial selves -- not the other way around.

You used the presumption of immaterial selves in order to formulate your prior as a number. That's a circular argument.

You post the same claims every day. You receive the same refutation every day:

1. Your priors are simply made up.
2. Bayesian inference is not appropriate to proving your claim.
3. You rely upon a false dilemma.
4. Your reasoning is circular.

What assurance can you give a reader that you are not simply wasting his time? What assurance can you give that you will not simply continue ignoring your critics?

 

[abaddon]

1599

1600

1604

1605Dave,
- That just isn't true -- if my numbers for the likelihood of my current existence -- given OOFLam -- and the prior probability of OOFLam, are roughly accurate, the posterior probability of OOFLam is virtually zero.
- And, if the posterior probability of OOFLam is virtually zero, most likely, there is such a thing as immaterial selves. I am using the likelihood that OOFLam is not correct, to support the existence of immaterial selves -- not the other way around.

Your canoe of fail is sinking fast. Paddling faster will not save it.

 

[sackett]

Jabba ole pal, your faith in immortality, like your faith in the shred of turin, is sadly weak if you have to prop it up with such flimsy reeds of pseudoscience. (And, god help us, pseudo math, surely the essence of crazy crankism.)

Now why would your faith be so feeble? Why doesn't it sustain you and shield you from your fears as night approaches?

Why, because you don't actually believe at all! And you know you don't! You know perfectly well that in a few years your existence will wink out as completely as if it had never been.

If you'd manage to reflect for even a moment on the awful implications of immortality, you'd be one helluva lot gladder to die.

To die, Jabba. To die.

 

[Jabba]

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.

js,
- I'll have to address your objections one at a time -- starting with that last one.
- I accept that in deductive reasoning, "imply" means "then" -- if A then B. But, in inductive reasoning -- as far as I can tell -- it does mean "strongly suggests."

 

[Jabba]

But you're using your 7,000,000,000/∞ number to get a posterior probability of OOFLam being virtually zero, and 7,000,000,000/∞ is based on immaterial selves.

Dave,
- Why do you say that?

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- Why do you say that?

Because that's what you said:

Dave,
- Seven billion is my estimate of the current human population.
- Re infinity: if there is no pool of potential selves, each new self is brand new -- not even a twinkle. Consequently, there would be no limit on the number of selves possible.

- If you enter the numbers I've estimated into the formula, you get a posterior probability for OOFLam of some real number over infinity (or, over an unimaginably large number).

 

[JayUtah]

...in inductive reasoning -- as far as I can tell -- it does mean "strongly suggests."

But you're not using inductive reasoning. You're using Bayesian inference. Inductive inference requires testable evidence, of which you have none.

 

[JayUtah]

Why do you say that?

Dave has answered for himself. You estimate the human population as 7 billion, which is defensible enough. However what you don't acknowledge, and what Dave hasn't fully elucidated, is that the fraction you derive using 7 billiion as the denominator and one -- you, yourself -- as the numerator embodies the qualitative concept that you are individually unique in a way that gives this fraction the meaning you need for your claim. Specifically, you consider the notion of an immaterial self vital to the reasons for saying your chances of existing in your present form, without it, can be computed 1 in 7 billion.

We haven't gone through the Mt. Ranier analogy in some time, but it still applies to your premise. Specifically, it still refutes your premise.

 

[jsfisher]

js,
- I'll have to address your objections one at a time -- starting with that last one.
- I accept that in deductive reasoning, "imply" means "then" -- if A then B. But, in inductive reasoning -- as far as I can tell -- it does mean "strongly suggests."

Jabba,

You stepped over any point of substance to address minutia. You pushed back on a term I used; I told you what I meant by it. Do we really need to circle on that?

How about addressing the main points I and everyone else have been raising?