Proof of Immortality III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
Dave,
- Maybe this can clear things up. We aren't talking about the givens (note the s) of OOFLam, we're talking about the likelihood of something when OOFlam is given.
Click to expand...
Your existence is predicted by the model! The universe is working exactly the way we think it does. It's not unusual that somebody occasionally wins the lottery.

Your existence is not new information.

Understand that.
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- I think that the answer is, "That's how Bayesian statistics works."
Click to expand...

After all these years, you have not demonstrated competence in Bayesian statistics or logical discourse.

Maybe you can demonstrate some error in my statement above. That would be a refreshing change of pace.
 
Loss Leader said:
Your existence is predicted by the model! The universe is working exactly the way we think it does. It's not unusual that somebody occasionally wins the lottery.
Click to expand...


I think stating "your existence is predicted by the model" is wrong. Neither his "scientific" model nor his unscientific model predicted specifically his existence. Nobody made a prediction that Jabba would exist, and then stood back and watched whether the prediction came true. Rather Jabba is hypothesizing after the results are known. He observes his own existence, and then manufactures a hypothesis that fits the observation.
 
Last edited:
jt512 said:
I think stating "your existence is predicted by the model" is wrong. Neither his "scientific" model nor his unscientific model predicted specifically his existence. Nobody made a prediction that Jabba would exist, and then stood back and watched whether the prediction came true. Rather Jabba is hypothesizing after the results are known. He observes his own existence, and then manufactures a hypothesis that fits the observation.
Click to expand...


Fine. His existence is consistent with the model. The mere fact of his existence is no more a reason to doubt the scientific universe than the existence of Real Housewives Of Atlanta is to doubt the workings of the television industry.
 
jt512 said:
Neither [Jabba's] "scientific" model nor his unscientific model predicted specifically his existence. Nobody made a prediction that Jabba would exist, and then stood back and watched whether the prediction came true. Rather Jabba is hypothesizing after the results are known. He observes his own existence, and then manufactures a hypothesis that fits the observation.
Click to expand...

Loss Leader said:
Fine. His existence is consistent with the model. The mere fact of his existence is no more a reason to doubt the scientific universe than the existence of Real Housewives Of Atlanta is to doubt the workings of the television industry.
Click to expand...


"Fine," fine. But it's hardly a fine point. It is the zeroth-order error in his reasoning Everything else is angels dancing on the head of a pin. It's amazing to see how many skeptics can do that...and for how long.
 
Last edited:
Given that this argument is nothing but, at best, semantics and word salad I think we can safely start on the assumption that in this particular argument anything said is in reference to a point of pure perfunctory without being called out on it.

Yes we know "X" can actually means something when used in it's proper context. We also all know very well that is not how "X" is being used here.

Tl:dr Just assume there's an unspoken "As Jabba's argument is using the term/argument/thing" on everything at this point.
 
Last edited:
godless dave said:
Right, so when you calculate the likelihood of E occurring if OOFLam is true you do it based on the givens of OOFLam.
Click to expand...

Jabba said:
Dave,
- Maybe this can clear things up. We aren't talking about the givens (note the s) of OOFLam, we're talking about the likelihood of something when OOFlam is given.
Click to expand...

godless dave said:
I was using those to mean the same thing.

If we're talking about the likelihood of something when OOFlam is given, we're basing that likelihood on OOFLam being correct.
Click to expand...
Dave,
- Exactly. We are basing that likelihood on OOFLam being correct.
- We're saying, "IF OOFLam is correct, then..."
- But note that we are not saying that OOFLam is correct; we are asking, "What is the likelihood of E happening IF OOFLam is correct?" Likelihood is based upon a hypothetical.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
But note that we are not saying that OOFLam is correct; we are asking, "What is the likelihood of E happening IF OOFLam is correct?" Likelihood is based upon a hypothetical.
Click to expand...

And your answer comes from applying the conditions that you think would hold if OOFLam were not correct. You don't get to do that if you're assuming hypothetically that OOFLam is correct.
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- Exactly. We are basing that likelihood on OOFLam being correct.
- We're saying, "IF OOFLam is correct, then..."
- But note that we are not saying that OOFLam is correct; we are asking, "What is the likelihood of E happening IF OOFLam is correct?" Likelihood is based upon a hypothetical.
Click to expand...

So, when talking about P(E|OOFLam), why does it matter if I think it's possible OOFLam is wrong?
 
Jabba even for you what possible satisfaction can you get out of basically begging people to agree with you?

At this point you're basically at the level of just asking us to lie to you and pretend we agree with you. Your argument is so dishonest and subversive any agreement you could possibly trick someone into having with you, and make no mistake that is all it would be "tricking someone," would be meaningless.
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- Cause, if my estimates for the other variables in the formula are roughly correct, P(H|E) is virtually zero.
Click to expand...

And yet you do exist. But you keep insisting that somehow it's more likely that you have both a soul and a body, when under OOFLam all you need is a body. Somehow you keep ignoring this fatal flaw.
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- Cause, if my estimates for the other variables in the formula are roughly correct, P(H|E) is virtually zero.
Click to expand...

The variables on the other side of the formula have no bearing on P(H|E). P(H|E) is only based on E. P(H|~E) is only based on ~E. The value of P(H|~E) does not change the value of P(H|E), and vice versa.
 
The Pharoah once called this not just circular reasoning but spherical reasoning. I call it toroidal reasoning: constantly circling an empty place, and never leaving the same old boring surface.

Jabba, are you really & truly satisfied wiyh your 60-year-old brainfart? Still?

Look, I know you're scared of dying; everybody is when the time draws near. But most of us are also afraid of looking foolish.

Donuts aren't good for you.
 
godless dave said:
The variables on the other side of the formula have no bearing on P(H|E). P(H|E) is only based on E. P(H|~E) is only based on ~E. The value of P(H|~E) does not change the value of P(H|E), and vice versa.
Click to expand...
Dave,
- That seems like you're saying that Bayesian statistics doesn't work...
- But then, I doubt that's what you're really saying. Say again?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom