Proof of Immortality III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Loss Leader said:
VIRTUALLY (adv.) (from latin virtu)
1. In no way whatsoever. I have virtually proven immortality.
2. Having been built in cyberspace out of nothing; having no weight or meaning in reality. I have virtually proven immortality.
Click to expand...
LL,
- We don't seem to be communicating very well (to say the least)... So, let's try to make this simpler, drop the immortality issue and deal only with OOFLam?
 
sackett said:
What is a "virtual proof?" Can you virtually, as in not quite, prove something in math?

If your proof is not definitive, that is, demonstrably correct, can you argue that, "Yeah, well, I almost proved it! Almost is just as good as all the way! You can't say it isn't, and anyhow you're not holistic! Bleah!"

Really, my knowledge stops well short of the different kinds (or styles) of proof in mathematics. Is Jabba's style legitimate?
Click to expand...
sackett,
- Virtual proof has to do with probability -- say 99%?
 
Jabba said:
I assume that these attempts to explain my reasoning will not pass muster...
Click to expand...

They don't pass muster because they're simply wrong.

...but hopefully they can start the process...
Click to expand...

The process has been going on for four years, or about half the time Einstein took to go from special relatively to general relativity. The process is stagnant because you refuse to acknowledge your error.
 
Jabba said:
jThat's just not true.
Click to expand...

It's true by definition. H and ~H are defined as having no overlap or gap. Further, the various proposals that comprise ~H must also be defined without overlap or gap. That's what it means to partition a set, and that's what you must do before you can reason about the probabilities of any hypotheses in H or ~H.

I need to sleep on a good explanation...
Click to expand...

There is no explanation. You're simply as clearly wrong as a person can be on this point.
 
Jabba said:
Virtual proof has to do with probability -- say 99%?
Click to expand...

No. And that's not "no" to the number, that's "no" to your latest made-up concept of a "virtual proof." (ETA) What Loss Leader is attempting to convey to you by the post you found so incomprehensible is that virtually something means almost but not quite something. A virtual proof is almost but not quite a proof. Once again you're trying to soften your target.

Look, it's plain to everyone that your recently confessed emotional entrenchment is really what's propping up your belief in immortality -- not your misplaced confidence in mathematics or your thinly-veiled dislike for skeptics. Full marks for creativity, but none of your inventive scrambling qualifies as a mathematical proof, "virtual" or otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
We don't seem to be communicating very well (to say the least)...
Click to expand...

No. Loss Leader is communicating quite clearly. You're just playing dumb again so that you don't have to address his statements.

So, let's try to make this simpler, drop the immortality issue and deal only with OOFLam?
Click to expand...

The only way you can drop the "immortality issue" is to admit you can't prove it mathematically as you once thought you could. Once you say that, in those words, then perhaps you can start a new thread about proving something else. Otherwise no one is obliged to let you move the goalposts; no one is obliged to allow one of your infamous non-conceding concessions.
 
Jabba said:
LL,
- We don't seem to be communicating very well (to say the least)... So, let's try to make this simpler, drop the immortality issue and deal only with OOFLam?
Click to expand...

Stop trying to force people to communicate their problems with your nonsense in your own terms so you don't have to address it.
 
Jabba said:
2) Even if our universe is deterministic, what is the likelihood (given OOFLam) that the big bang (or singularity, or whatever) would have the necessary ingredients to produce me, and to produce me between 1942 and, say, 2042?
Click to expand...


The likelihood cannot be known because we have no idea how many other universes there have been. It's not like we roll a billion-sided die once and marvel that it comes up with only one number. This may be the billionth roll. We don't know and we can't know. Given a large enough number of universes, your existence in one of them could be all but assured. If you hold enough of them, eventually the Red Sox win the World Series.

You keep trying to calculate the odds of your existence as though this were the only game ever played. There is no was of knowing that.

(And that's granting that your personal existence is the right thing to calculate, which it isn't because: 1) you weren't specified as the target before the universe began; and 2) there is no "you" to begin with.)




Jabba said:
LL,
- We don't seem to be communicating very well (to say the least)... So, let's try to make this simpler, drop the immortality issue and deal only with OOFLam?
Click to expand...


That doesn't help you. You have no idea how many universes git a shot at creating you before this one did. You weren't specified as the target before the universe started. "You" is not a thing that exists, it's an illusion.

Franklly, it seems obvious to me that any universe that starts with an explosion of matter and energy and that ends with either a slow dying off of heat or a big crunch could only have mortals in it. We can't survive the conditions at the beginning and we can't survive whatever they'll be at the end. We have to be mortal.
 
Loss Leader said:
Franklly, it seems obvious to me that any universe that starts with an explosion of matter and energy and that ends with either a slow dying off of heat or a big crunch could only have mortals in it. We can't survive the conditions at the beginning and we can't survive whatever they'll be at the end. We have to be mortal.
Click to expand...

This is actually a good point that hasn't been brought up before and I look forward to Jabba completely ignoring.

Wouldn't an immortal being, regardless of how it is defined or subjectively viewed, require an unending universe?
 
Jabba said:
- That's just not true.
Click to expand...

Correct.

- I'll be back -- I need to sleep on a good explanation...
Click to expand...

I found that giving them a counter-example works best. For instance, in this case, let H = "is an even integer" and ~H = "is an odd integer" then both H and ~H include "is in the Fibonacci sequence".
 
caveman1917 said:
Correct.



I found that giving them a counter-example works best. For instance, in this case, let H = "is an even integer" and ~H = "is an odd integer" then both H and ~H include "is in the Fibonacci sequence".
Click to expand...
Your well partitioned counter example cannot rehabilitate Jabba's argument, which relies on a failure to properly partition H and ~H.
 
caveman1917 said:
I found that giving them a counter-example works best. For instance, in this case, let H = "is an even integer" and ~H = "is an odd integer" then both H and ~H include "is in the Fibonacci sequence".
Click to expand...

Neither your H nor ~H include "is in the Fibonacci sequence". (And your ~H assumes the universe of discourse is the integers, but that's only a minor nit.)
 
caveman1917 said:
Correct.



I found that giving them a counter-example works best. For instance, in this case, let H = "is an even integer" and ~H = "is an odd integer" then both H and ~H include "is in the Fibonacci sequence".
Click to expand...
Caveman,
- Thanks. I think I can show that in my own example of complimentary hypotheses: i.e., H being each of us humans have only one finite life at most, and ~H being, H is not true.
- First, both hypotheses are talking about humans; But further, they both include both men and women. There is no logical reason why they can't both include both deterministic and free universes.
 
Loss Leader said:
The likelihood cannot be known because we have no idea how many other universes there have been...
Click to expand...
LL,
- The possibility of multiverse only decreases the prior probability of OOFLam; it increases the prior probability of ~OOFLam.
 
jsfisher said:
Neither your H nor ~H include "is in the Fibonacci sequence".
Click to expand...

Not include in the sense of "is a superset of" but include in the sense of "has at least one element contained within", ie the sense that Jabba was using it which you responded to.

(And your ~H assumes the universe of discourse is the integers, but that's only a minor nit.)
Click to expand...

It's not a nit at all, I can define the universe to be whatever I please.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom