Proof of Immortality III

[Toontown]

The question is not whether you can see the die, but whether you are there to see it.

A distinction without a difference. Either way, the ludicrous coincidence remains.

And, if another number came up, what someone else seeing the die would think about it.

Utterly, irrevocably false. What someone else would think if they, rather than I, saw the die is hardly a question for me.

Your argument, such as it is, makes exactly as much sense as asking me what I think about someone (else) winning the lottery. And my answer is the same. I don't think anything about someone (else) winning the lottery. It is all but inevitable that someone (else) will win the lottery. But I would think something about myself winning the lottery, for the following painfully obvious reasons:

1. It is almost inevitable that someone (else) will win the lottery.

2. The odds are millions to 1 against me winning it.

What would I think if I, rather than someone else, won the lottery? I would think, "How did I get that ticket? I never buy lottery tickets. But there it was, in my billfold. How odd."

But I wouldn't think the universe is rigged. I would think my understanding of how I got that ticket is insufficient to explain it's existence in my billfold.

Not entirely unlike thinking that your understanding of the universe is inadequate to explain your existence. A fact you have clearly overlooked.

 

[Toontown]

No. I've never heard a scientist describe any aspect of human experience as seeming to be non-physical.

You've never heard of Max Tegmark's mathematical universe? That's just the first one that came to mind.

He proposed that the universe is, fundamentally, a "mathematical object", rather than simply being unreasonably amenable to mathematical modeling.

I'm pretty sure he didn't intend to imply that math is a physical object. I think his intention was to imply that physical objects are, fundamentally, mathematical illusions.

Einstein also said something along a similar line, saying that the universe is fundamentally "an illusion, albeit a persistent one."

 

[JayUtah]

I'm pretty sure he didn't intend to imply that math is a physical object.

Equivocation. Mathematics itself is not a physical object, but physical objects and processes can be described using mathematical terms. Mathematics is descriptive, not generative. It cannot actually produce the things it describes. The study of mathematics didn't produce the universe, but physicists use mathematics to describe it. That's essentially what Tegmark's branch of physics does.

Now if you want to argue that Tegmark claims mathematics or physics is equivalent to an immortal soul, please give me the page from the book where he does that.

I think his intention was to imply that physical objects are, fundamentally, mathematical illusions.

What is a "mathematical illusion?" I can draw the chemical structure of caffeine. Chemistry isn't a physical object, although it can be used to describe physical objects. Is the molecule drawing a "chemical illusion?" Or is it just one of many possible ways I can conceptually describe a physical object? And what does that have to do with the stimulant that's physically in my cup? What does that have to do with the biochemical effects I feel from ingesting it? Is that "non-physical" just because a non-physical conceptual framework such as chemistry or mathematics can provide accurate and useful descriptions of it?

No, your defense here is nonsensical. Googling for where mainstream scientists have used the word "illusion" does not make it applicable to the argument. Nor is there any wisdom in the strained notion of fields of study being non-physical objects as Jabba means.

Einstein also said something along a similar line, saying that the universe is fundamentally "an illusion, albeit a persistent one."

No. He said the separation among past, present, and future was an illusion, albeit a persistent one. It adequately describes the paradigm shift required to understand relativity. It also has absolutely nothing to do with an immortal soul.

 

[Nonpareil]

Your illusory "point" is irrelevant to Jabba's formula. Doesn't even address it.

As explained N times, I don't consider the existence of Jabba's particular brain any more miraculous than the existence of a random grain of sand on Mars. Or yours. Or anyone else's. I don't find anything in the universe out of place or unexpected, except for one thing - the part I should find out of place and unexpected (if your version of materialism is correct on the matter) .

I find the existence of my particular brain the result of a "near miraculous confluence of events" (at least you got that right). You see, I am using the subjective perspective that Jabba's formula requires if you're even going to discuss it at all with any level of comprehension.

...which is the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, as has been explained to you before. You are, explicitly and deliberately, assigning importance to one particular result - yourself - after the die has been cast.

Repeating the same fallacy, and refusing to admit that it is one, is not a particularly convincing form of argumentation.

That doesn't mean you have to agree with the subjective perspective. Nor do you have to accept Jabba's alternatives. But you can't very well argue against the perspective itself if you're not even aware of it. And the fact that none of you have ever acknowledged the perspective or offered up an argument against it suggests you don't grasp it, even after staring at the formula for two years.

No, we fully understand and acknowledge what Jabba and yourself are doing.

You're just wrong.

 

[Mojo]

False.

"Who are you going to believe, me or the evidence of your own eyes?" - Marx.

 

[MRC_Hans]

W

Yes, I am aware of your irrelevant word-bandying. But obviously I am not trying to 'predict' my existence, because, as has been stupidly and irrelevantly pointed out N times, that's already happened. What I am using is something perhaps best described as "prior probability". Which is different from "predictability".

I am also keenly aware of the utter stupidity of claiming that a particular organization of zillions of elementary particles, occurring at particuluar spacetime coordinates, as a long term result of a universe-wide quantum shuffle beginning at t = 10 ^-43, is a confluence of events which can be sensibly described as something for which the chances are "not small".

Uhm, well. But what are you arguing. ... Apart from disagreeing?

Hans

 

[Loss Leader]

False.

I have not concluded that the universe is rigged. I have concluded that your understanding of it's fundamental nature is so lacking that you cannot adequately account for your own existence.

And yet I still have to pay sales tax!

 

[Mojo]

And yet he doesn't know where not to put an apostrophe.

 

[Nonpareil]

Uhm, well. But what are you arguing. ... Apart from disagreeing?

Another Toontown trademark. He refuses to state what it is that he actually believes - and I mean explicitly, outright refuses to do so, not just tap-dancing around the issue - and then berates people for not knowing what his position is.

It has something to do with his fixation on the subjective perspective and presumably includes the idea that his existence is somehow special, but beyond that, he won't say.

 

[Mojo]

Another Toontown trademark. He refuses to state what it is that he actually believes - and I mean explicitly, outright refuses to do so, not just tap-dancing around the issue - and then berates people for not knowing what his position is.

He has also explicitly stated that Jabba is wrong.

 

[Toontown]

...which is the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, as has been explained to you before. You are, explicitly and deliberately, assigning importance to one particular result - yourself - after the die has been cast.

As usual, you have falsely represented my reasoning. Or perhaps you simply don't follow, your protests to the contrary notwithstanding.

There is nothing fallacious about recognizing that a particular observation is inconsistent with a given hypothesis as to the origin or cause of the events in question, while other observations are not inconsistent with the hypothesis. Or vice versa. Detectives and scientists do that often.

Example:

I know (nevermind how, it's only an analogy) that the the following numbers were obtained either by rolling a six sided die or by rolling a trillion sided die.

48887398898
158486874
3
36598746
215478

Would I be committing the Texas sharpshooter fallacy if I concluded, with very high confidence, that the number (3) was rolled with the six sided die?

Stonewalling won't help you here. Reasonable people know what the correct answer is. Any response on your part, be it yes, no, or refusing to answer the way you did with the kidnapper analogy, will serve my purpose here nicely.

Disclaimer: no relation between the analogy above and Jabba's claim is intended. The analogy simply demonstrates that Nonpareil's description of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy is bogus.

 

[Toontown]

Another Toontown trademark. He refuses to state what it is that he actually believes - and I mean explicitly, outright refuses to do so, not just tap-dancing around the issue -

Why would I bother to do that? So I could spend the next 2 years defending my belief against a crew of committed stonewallers?

I prefer to waste only an hour or so of time every couple of weeks or so.

 

[Nonpareil]

There is nothing fallacious about recognizing that a particular observation is inconsistent with a given hypothesis as to the origin or cause of the events in question, while other observations are not inconsistent with the hypothesis.

But you have not done so.

I know (nevermind how, it's only an analogy) that the the following numbers were obtained either by rolling a six sided die or by rolling a trillion sided die.

48887398898
158486874
3
36598746
215478

Would I be committing the Texas sharpshooter fallacy if I concluded, with very high confidence, that the number (3) was rolled with the six sided die?

Stonewalling won't help you here.

Stonewalling is unnecessary. Neither is any sort of change in my position. The answer is the same as it has always been.

Ignoring, for the moment, that your analogy is a false one and bears no relation to the question of the likelihood of your existence, the result of "3" is obviously more likely on a six-sided die than on a trillion-sided one. This has never been in question; one out of six is more likely than one out of a trillion.

But what you have not done, and what you seem to continuously fail to grasp, is establish that the three actually was rolled via six-sided die. It is entirely within the realm of possibility that it was rolled via trillion-sided die. A one in a trillion chance is still a chance, and no amount of refusal to accept that on your part will change anything.

Why would I bother to do that? So I could spend the next 2 years defending my belief against a crew of committed stonewallers?

I prefer to waste only an hour or so of time every couple of weeks or so.

Yes, thank you for repeating yourself. I was not asking. I honestly do not care.

 

[Toontown]

W

Uhm, well. But what are you arguing. ... Apart from disagreeing?

Hans

Why do I need to arguing anything? You're not. None of you are. You're all just disagreeing.

 

[Toontown]

Ignoring, for the moment, that your analogy is a false one and bears no relation to the question of the likelihood of your existence...

As stated in my disclaimer, the analogy was intended only to demonstrate that your simplistic description of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy is bogus.

I deliberately chose that particular analogy because of it's simplicity. Not to prove that the existence of my particular brain is unlikely. I don't even need to prove that. It is painfully obvious.

So you're still batting zero.

But what you have not done, and what you seem to continuously fail to grasp, is establish that the three actually was rolled via six-sided die. It is entirely within the realm of possibility that it was rolled via trillion-sided die. A one in a trillion chance is still a chance, and no amount of refusal to accept that on your part will change anything.

And the part you continuously fail to grasp is:

I don't give a rat's ass about any of that pie-in-the-sky, maybe-it-was-rolled-with-the-trillion-sided-die stuff. If you think that miniscule chance matters so much, then bet that way. I'll even wish you luck, should you choose to take that longshot gamble.

I can live with the exceedingly slim possibility that I could be wrong about how the (3) was obtained. I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. In fact, I wouldn't lose any sleep if it turned out that the (3) was rolled with the trillion sided die. Because I would still have been absolutely correct to bet against that.

In fact, I wish I could bet that the (3) wasn't obtained by rolling a trillion sided die. I'd bet the farm on that. That way, I'd have a few chances in a trillion of losing some sleep. And nearly a trillion chances of doubling up.

And you're still batting zero.

 

[Nonpareil]

As stated in my disclaimer, the analogy was intended only to demonstrate that your simplistic description of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy is bogus.

Cherry-picking random data points to select only those that fit your pet hypothesis is exactly what the Texas sharpshooter fallacy is.

And the part you continuously fail to grasp is:

I don't give a rat's ass about any of that pie-in-the-sky, maybe-it-was-rolled-with-the-trillion-sided-die stuff.

Yes, we know you don't understand the way this works, Toontown. You don't have to keep repeating yourself.

Your problem, again, is that you are failing to differentiate between the probability of rolling any given result on a specific die and the probability that a specific die was rolled. They are not equivalent, and are not tied to one another.

The probability of which die turned up the three is not related to how many sides are on each die. It is related to the probability that whoever is rolling the dice chose that specific one for the roll.

In other words, and at risk of repeating another point which you still don't seem to grasp, you need to examine the system in order to know.

 

[Toontown]

Cherry-picking random data points to select only those that fit your pet hypothesis is exactly what the Texas sharpshooter fallacy is.

1. I didn't choose my data points at all. They chose me.

2. I have not used the data I did not choose to belatedly support my pet hypothesis. Conversely, I use it to rule out a hypothesis not of my making, which fails miserably to account for this sentient experience I seem to be having.

3. My point that there is nothing fallacious about recognizing inconsistent data stands. The fact that one recognizes inconsistent data does not imply that the rest of the data was ignored, or that the inconsistent data was "cherry picked".

The bottom line is that your simplistic definition of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy falsely suggests that a great deal of valid scientific statistical testing is fallacious. It isn't as simple as that. Seeing inconsistent data does not make one a Texas sharpshooter.

The probability of which die turned up the three is not related to how many sides are on each die. It is related to the probability that whoever is rolling the dice chose that specific one for the roll.

A swing and a miss. You got it wrong again. The fact that it is a (3) does massively increase the probability that the roller chose the 6 sided die.

Given the conspicuous absence of any information about how or why the dice were chosen, you use what you know, which is the number of sides on the dice.

Probability was developed for the purpose of reaching probabilistic conclusions in the absence of complete information, using what is known.

And you're still batting zero.

 

[Loss Leader]

I can live with the exceedingly slim possibility that I could be wrong about how the (3) was obtained. I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. In fact, I wouldn't lose any sleep if it turned out that the (3) was rolled with the trillion sided die. Because I would still have been absolutely correct to bet against that.

In fact, I wish I could bet that the (3) wasn't obtained by rolling a trillion sided die. I'd bet the farm on that. That way, I'd have a few chances in a trillion of losing some sleep. And nearly a trillion chances of doubling up.

And what if the die is chosen randomly from a bag containing a trillion trillion-sided dice and one six-sided die? Would that change your bet?

What you consistently refuse to comprehend is that you're making judgments about the chance of something based only on one result and with no information of how large or small the chance really was.

Your dice-rolling hypothetical only pretends to be a solution. In that case, you know exactly how rare or common any roll might be. But all we know about this universe is that we have one data point and no other information. That's the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy, avoid the truth as you will.

 

[Nonpareil]

1. I didn't choose my data points at all. They chose me.

2. I have not used the data I did not choose to belatedly support my pet hypothesis. Conversely, I use it to rule out a hypothesis not of my making, which fails miserably to account for this sentient experience I seem to be having.

Yes you did (when you explicitly assign special importance to your own existence), and yes you did (when you use this assigned importance to try and justify a dismissal of the idea that you exist by chance).

Denying that you have committed a fallacy does not make it go away.

3. My point that there is nothing fallacious about recognizing inconsistent data stands.

You have not produced any inconsistent data.

The bottom line is that your simplistic definition of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy falsely suggests that a great deal of valid scientific statistical testing is fallacious.

No, it doesn't. Because it is the actual definition, and actual statistical testing takes it into account.

A swing and a miss. You got it wrong again. The fact that it is a (3) does massively increase the probability that the roller chose the 6 sided die.

No, it doesn't. Again, you equivocate between the probability of a specific result turning up on a specific die and the probability of the die itself being rolled. They are not equivalent, no matter how hard you wish it were so.

But then, your belief that repetition equals truth has also been pointed out before, and it didn't sink any of the previous times, so I don't know why it should do so now.

 

[Toontown]

And what if the die is chosen randomly from a bag containing a trillion trillion-sided dice and one six-sided die? Would that change your bet?

Of course it would. In that case, I wouldn't bet. But that wasn't the case. It was a hypothetical. My hypothetical. For a specific purpose. Therefore, I determined the parameters. Not you.

What if a seagull crapped on yo head? What if a Dingo ate yo baybee?

Your dice-rolling hypothetical only pretends to be a solution. In that case, you know exactly how rare or common any roll might be. But all we know about this universe is that we have one data point and no other information. That's the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy, avoid the truth as you will.

Your first accusation is false. As explained, the hypothetical was not intended to solve anything, but only to demonstrate that simply recognizing that one data point is significantly different from the others is not a TS fallacy. Nor does it equate to "cherry-picking" the data point. Nor does it equate to ignoring the other data points.

Your second accusation is also false. To have committed the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy, I would have had to cherry-pick the lone data point. But how would one go about cherry-picking a data point from a set of one data point? Obviously, using all the data I have cannot be the TS fallacy.

To have anything approaching an argument, you would have to contend that a single data point is necessarily insufficient information to form a likely conclusion. But even then you'd fall short You'd be wrong about that too.