Proof of Immortality III

Status
Not open for further replies.
each of us that does exist is much more likely to exist given ~H, than given H.
Click to expand...

One problem with this statement is that ~H is just everything that isn't H.

The other problem is that you don't have the math to back it up. The likelihood of one of us existing under H is the likelihood of our physical body existing. Obviously that likelihood will be different depending on what point in time you calculate it.

A reincarnation hypothesis would have to include that likelihood and the likelihood of a particular soul or part of the infinitely divisible bucket of consciousness meeting up with it. Since you haven't specified the mechanism for the latter, how can we estimate the likelihood?
 
Jabba said:
- Next.

- In effect, I'm claiming that we are all "special cases."
- If we're here, we're special cases.

- I think that we're too quick to assign an event to chance and luck, given the existing scientific hypothesis -- even though we generally accept that it's only an hypothesis.
- My claim has been that all we need in order to avoid that conclusion (H) is a reasonably possible alternative hypothesis under which the event is more likely (RPAH(eml)) than it is under the existing hypothesis. Once the RPAH is applied, we have cross-hairs on the target -- whereas before, we had only a straight line that crossed the target.
- I tried to apply that claim to our lottery issue, and found that in my effort to make this claim work, I had unwittingly made E a special case... Which poked a hole in my bucket.

- But now, I'm wondering if the hole was just an illusion -- after all, I have always claimed that this conclusion applies to all of us. Or, in other words, we must all be special cases -- in, that we currently exist...
- And in fact, each of us that does exist is much more likely to exist given ~H, than given H. IOW, the likelihoods of our current existences, given OOFLam and ~OOFLam, should all be appropriate entries into the Bayesian formula, and all yield the same results...

- I must admit that this sounds wrong -- but so far, I can't figure out why.

- Just as a reminder -- if we are in fact reincarnated, in order to account for so many of us now, and so few of us a long time ago, we need that we are all part of an infinitely divisible 'bucket' of consciousness -- and more than one of us was Napoleon in a previous life...

- So, say we had a lottery in which all of the winners turned out to be far-flung relatives of the controller of the lottery (say that happened 10 times, then the controller and winners disappeared). Wouldn't that be analogous to everyone who currently exists being a special case, and the likelihoods of each, given H and ~H, be appropriate entries into our formula?
- If this is not correct logic, hopefully I can figure it out before you guys do...
Click to expand...

Jabba -

I hope you're enjoying time with your family.

You keep saying that a counter-argument to the scientific model must be reasonably possible. What evidence do you have that reincarnation is at all possible? If it is impossible, then it doesn't matter how bad the current model is, it's still better than yours.

How can you test for the reincarnation of the soul - either as a whole or part? What is it that gets reincarnated?

I can say that I think the theory of phlogistan is wrong, but if my counter-proposal is that everything burns according to the collective will of the world's caribou ... nobody would reasonably abandon phlogistan.
 
Jabba said:
But you guys are also.
Click to expand...

The difference is that we use statistical methods correctly to model the problem so as to avoid bias. You simply encode your subjective belief as a number and pretend that statistical methods give it objective validity.

Don't even try to pretend we are somehow "all the same" in this respect. You are wrong. You have been proven wrong. It has been explained to you in substantial detail exactly how you are wrong.
 
Jabba said:
If any of you want me to address more of your posts, try to make them as short as possible, and friendly.
Click to expand...

I am not your friend. I am your critic. You have no excuse for not knowing what kind of response your post would engender. You chose this venue in which to present your claims. If it does not suit you, leave.

My posts are as long as required in order to thoroughly address the points you bring up. If you are not prepared to address the volume of criticism your arguments produce, then you are not suited to this form of debate and you should look elsewhere. Do not attempt to hobble your critics by limiting how much they can argue against you.

Just pretend that you respect me.
Click to expand...

You may demand the respect owed to the extent the Membership Agreement requires. You may earn additional respect through good behavior, such as by promptly, completely, and forthrightly addressing the feedback you ostensibly came here to receive. You are not entitled to any respect you have not earned.

Now knock off the feeble attempts to curry sympathy and get on with fixing your argument.
 
Jabba said:
In effect, I'm claiming that we are all "special cases."
If we're here, we're special cases.
Click to expand...

Asked and answered. This does not resolve the sample space error in your argument.

I think that we're too quick to assign an event to chance and luck...
Click to expand...

Asked and answered. There is no "chance or luck" in the scientific model. You simply apply those words to it in order to attempt to erode faith in it by means other than evidence.

My claim has been that all we need in order to avoid that conclusion (H) is a reasonably possible alternative hypothesis...
Click to expand...

Asked and answered. You have none. You have only an unsubstantiated belief, which you insist everyone consider reasonable.

I had unwittingly made E a special case... Which poked a hole in my bucket.
Click to expand...

This is first of several fatal fallacies in your reasoning. It is not repaired by this latest footwork.

I must admit that this sounds wrong -- but so far, I can't figure out why.
Click to expand...

jt512 and others have already explained it to you several times. Do not keep feigning ignorance.

So, say we had a lottery in which all of the winners turned out to be far-flung relatives of the controller of the lottery...
Click to expand...

Asked and answered. Suspicion doesn't change the probability of the outcome. Drawing only from the sample space of winners does not fix the bias in your sample.

If this is not correct logic, hopefully I can figure it out before you guys do...
Click to expand...

It has already been explained to you several times, by several people. Do not simply perform your predicted fringe reset and pretend this fixes your argument in any way. The same fatal flaws that were there yesterday are still here today. Fix them; do not repeat them.
 
Loss Leader said:
Jabba -

I hope you're enjoying time with your family.

You keep saying that a counter-argument to the scientific model must be reasonably possible. What evidence do you have that reincarnation is at all possible? If it is impossible, then it doesn't matter how bad the current model is, it's still better than yours.

How can you test for the reincarnation of the soul - either as a whole or part? What is it that gets reincarnated?

I can say that I think the theory of phlogistan is wrong, but if my counter-proposal is that everything burns according to the collective will of the world's caribou ... nobody would reasonably abandon phlogistan.
Click to expand...
LL,

- Thanks. Too many people. But, I'm back home.

- If you wish, I'll look up more evidence for reincarnation, but the following should get us started. http://www.16rounds.com/2009/01/evidence-for-reincarnation/
- As you probably know, I only googled "evidence for reincarnation," and this was the first to come up.
- Keep in mind that I'm not trying to prove that any of the possibilities under ~H are real, any real number likelihood is good enough. Also, reincarnation is only one of the possibilities under ~H, and a couple of the possibilities may not require anything immaterial: e.g., time is not absolute and "something else" (multiverse for instance).
 
godless dave said:
One problem with this statement is that ~H is just everything that isn't H.
The other problem is that you don't have the math to back it up. The likelihood of one of us existing under H is the likelihood of our physical body existing. Obviously that likelihood will be different depending on what point in time you calculate it.

A reincarnation hypothesis would have to include that likelihood and the likelihood of a particular soul or part of the infinitely divisible bucket of consciousness meeting up with it. Since you haven't specified the mechanism for the latter, how can we estimate the likelihood?
Click to expand...
Dave,
- I don't understand why that's a problem.
 
Jabba said:
- Keep in mind that I'm not trying to prove that any of the possibilities under ~H are real, any real number likelihood is good enough. Also, reincarnation is only one of the possibilities under ~H, and a couple of the possibilities may not require anything immaterial: e.g., time is not absolute and "something else" (multiverse for instance).
Click to expand...

-Keep in mind that under H you only need to account for the existence of your body. Under ~H you have to account for your body AND whatever else (however unlikely) you wish to throw in.

-It is therefore not possible for ~H to be more likely than H.
 
Jabba said:
I don't understand why that's a problem.
Click to expand...

Why don't you understand it? I've personally explained it at least two previous times.

~H is the disjunction of everything that is not H. It is not meaningful to try to assign one single probability to it.

This is your false dilemma. This is what countless critics have been trying to get you to address.
 
Jabba said:
As you probably know, I only googled "evidence for reincarnation," and this was the first to come up.
Click to expand...

And your prior experience should have told you that none of your critics will accept such shoddy production as evidence. Why do you waste everyone's time by proffering material as evidence which you patently know is not?

Keep in mind that I'm not trying to prove that any of the possibilities under ~H are real
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. You have listed as a premise to your argument that an alternative must exist that is reasonable. You have begged the question of whether there is any reason in your alternative. Naturally your critics are not required to let you do that; they have properly required you to prove your alternative is reasonable.

You cannot. The best you have ever been able to do is Google for random web sites in which people attribute various experiences to reincarnation. Attribution is not proof.

Also, reincarnation is only one of the possibilities under ~H, and a couple of the possibilities may not require anything immaterial...
Click to expand...

This is why you cannot consider ~H a single entity to which one single probability applies. Until you correct this and the other fatal flaws in your formulation, nothing else you say matters.
 
jond said:
But Jay, I don't understand why you think there's something wrong with my argument. /jibberjabba
Click to expand...

It's not as if Jabba's previous special pleading hasn't included exceptionalist claims and attempts to play the victim. It's like watching a bad actor stumble through Richard III.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom