Proof of Immortality III

[Jabba]

Which one includes the clockwork universe? H or ~H?

LL,
- Both.

 

[Jabba]

Note that Jabba has redefined E. Previously E was Jabba's current existence, which obviously requires his body. Now it us the current existence of his "self". Now obviously if his "self" exists throughout eternity then the likelihood of it existing at a particular time is one, while if it only exists for around 80 gears true probabity of it existing at a randomly chosen time is small. But this has nothing to do with the relative probability of the two hypotheses. Quite apart from anything else that pesky Texan is still pretending to be a sharpshooter. If Jabba is framing hypotheses and wondering how a new piece of information will affect their likelihood, the probability that he exists is one, we know he exists, and his existence is not a new piece of information.

Mojo,
- I'm claiming that the recognition of the implications in my current existence is new info.

 

[jsfisher]

Dave,
H is OOFLam, which basically implies that the self is entirely physical.

No, it is not a requirement.

And which is it? OOFLam or the scientific model? Keep in mind that scientific models are silent on all things outside of science. It doesn't deny them; it just doesn't find them necessary. Big difference.

 

[Jabba]

Is there such a "scientific hypothesis"? A finite lifetime is implied by materialism, but has it ever been proposed as a testable hypothesis?

Mojo,
- I'll quit calling it a scientific hypothesis -- I'll just call it an hypothesis.

 

[Jabba]

And you are back to the problem that your ~H now includes all hypotheses under which each of us has a finite lifetime other than the "scientific" one.

Mojo,
- Other than OOFLam.

 

[jsfisher]

Mojo,
- I'll quit calling it a scientific hypothesis -- I'll just call it an hypothesis.

Ok, OOFLam it is. Anything you want to add to that to clarify you hypothesis? As is, it may include a lot more than you want. Souls, for example.

 

[Jabba]

In addition to all the issues others have raised, Jabba, please bear in mind that the so-called scientific hypothesis does not exclude a soul (or other equivalent) from the possibilities under H.

js,
- I think that I agree with you. The scientific hypothesis only implies that there is no immaterial aspect to the self.

 

[Jabba]

I started typing but this is all insane.

There's no definition of "soul" or "self." There's no evidence for either. There's no clear distinction between the hypothesis and its negative. The possible universes in either the hypothesis or its negative have not been thoroughly sorted. There is no way to calculate the odds of any of them being the case. There is no reason to focus on the creation of one specific person, unless that person was defined before any universe even began. There is no reason anything other than a "person" would be subject to different odds. Nothing is testable. And even if the idea that people are immortal were true, it gives us no usable information as to how we conduct our lives.

LL,
- Have any of my attempts above helped to define "soul" or "self"?

 

[Jabba]

No, it is not a requirement.

And which is it? OOFLam or the scientific model? Keep in mind that scientific models are silent on all things outside of science. It doesn't deny them; it just doesn't find them necessary. Big difference.

js,
- But, I'm not claiming that immateriality is a requirement of OOFLam.
- Like Trump, I'll "soften" my claim. Here, I should say that OOFLam seems to imply immateriality.

 

[jsfisher]

js,
- I think that I agree with you. The scientific hypothesis only implies that there is no immaterial aspect to the self.

Whatever the hypothesis, what it implies isn't relevant, only what it requires.

 

[Jabba]

Ok, OOFLam it is. Anything you want to add to that to clarify you hypothesis? As is, it may include a lot more than you want. Souls, for example.

js,
- Hopefully, my previous post will clarify.

 

[Jabba]

Whatever the hypothesis, what it implies isn't relevant, only what it requires.

js,
- OK.

 

[Mojo]

Mojo,
- I'll quit calling it a scientific hypothesis -- I'll just call it an hypothesis.

It isn't even that: what you are talking about us something like the scientific consensus model of the universe. Because science relies upon methodological naturalism, it doesn't include immortal souls because immortal souls are undetectable. You are trying to impose a "hypothesis" that is unfalsifiable.

The "hypothesis" you are relying on is nothing more than a strawman.

 

[JayUtah]

Both.

Wrong.

 

[JayUtah]

]Here, I should say that OOFLam seems to imply immateriality.

Wrong.

 

[JayUtah]

Have any of my attempts above helped to define "soul" or "self"?

No. Philosophical definitions do not work in a statistical context. You need to define self in terms of measurable quantities, and tell how those measurements would behave under H and ~H.

 

[JayUtah]

I'll just call it an hypothesis.

Call it the null hypothesis.

 

[JayUtah]

I'm claiming that the recognition of the implications in my current existence is new info.

Wrong. An event for this purpose cannot be open to interpretation regarding whether it happened or what its effect on H and ~H should be.

 

[Mojo]

Mojo,
- Other than OOFLam.

Indeed, and the way you have defined "OOFLam" means that ~H includes scenarios under which we each have only one finite lifetime at most. You have managed to define your terms in such a way that disproving "OOFLam" doesn't disprove OOFLam.

 

[Mojo]

I'll "soften" my claim.

Thus giving yourself room in which to equivocate.