Proof of Immortality, the IV league

[abaddon]

Another fringe reset.

 

[JayUtah]

- I assume that you are most interested in how I came up with the different numbers in 9.1.2. ?

We know how you came up with them. We're most interested in your thoughtful and thorough rejoinders to the many objections, already stated, to how you came up with them. If you cannot or will not address your critics, then your claim is refuted.

 

[godless dave]

9.1.2 and 9.1.3.

 

[Jabba]

Dave,
- The following is #2642 from the previous 'chapter.'

9.1. Re P(E|~H):
9.1.1. The probability (“likelihood”) of E given ~H, involves several specific hypothetical possibilities.
9.1.1.1. That only some of us have but one finite life.
9.1.1.2. That we each have numerous finite lives.
9.1.1.3. That only some of us have numerous finite lives.
9.1.1.4. That we each have an infinity of finite lives.
9.1.1.5. That only some of us have an infinity of finite lives.
9.1.1.6. That we each have an infinite life.
9.1.1.7. That only some of us have an infinite life.
9.1.1.8. That time isn’t what we think it is (to be explained).
9.1.1.9. Some other explanation.

9.1.2. Now I must estimate (roughly) the prior probability (rounded off to 3 decimal places) of each more specific possibility (hypothesis), given ~H.
9.1.2.1. That only some of us have but one finite life: .000
9.1.2.2. That we each have numerous finite lives: .200.
9.1.2.3. That only some of us have numerous finite lives: .000
9.1.2.4. That we each have an infinity of finite lives; .200
9.1.2.5. That only some of us have an infinity of finite lives: .000
9.1.2.6. That we each have an infinite life: .200.
9.1.2.7. That only some of us have an infinite life: .000
9.1.2.8. That time isn’t what we think it is (to be explained): .200
9.1.2.9. Some other explanation: .200

9.1.3. And now, I must estimate the likelihood of my own current existence given the different specific hypotheses under ~H.
9.1.3.1. That only some of us have but one finite life: .10.
9.1.3.2. That we each have numerous finite lives: .10.
9.1.3.3. That only some of us have numerous finite lives: .25.
9.1.3.4. That we each have an infinity of finite lives; 1.00
9.1.3.5. That only some of us have an infinity of finite lives: .50.
9.1.3.6. That we each have an infinite life: 1.00
9.1.3.7. That only some of us have an infinite life: .50
9.1.3.8. That time isn’t what we think it is (to be explained): .50
9.1.3.9. Some other explanation: .50

9.1.4. And now, I must multiply each of the probabilities of ~H above by the likelihoods of my current existence, given each specific hypothesis, and add up their products. And, the total likelihood of my current existence given ~H:
9.1.4.1. P(E|~H) = (0*.5) + (.2*.10) + (0*.25) + (.2*1.0) + (0*.5) + (1*.2) + (0*.5) + (.2*.5) + (.2*.5), or
9.1.4.2. P(E|~H) = 0 + .02 + 0 +.2 + 0 + .2 + 0 + .1 + .1, or
9.1.4.3. P(E|~H) = .62. And,
9.1.5. P(H|E) = 0*.99/(0*.99 + .62*.01) = (0/.0062) = 0.
9.1.6. P(H|E) = 0.

- IOW, given my current existence, the posterior probability that I will have one, finite life is (effectively) zero…

- I think that I got the numbers right this time.


- I assume that you are most interested in how I came up with the different numbers in 9.1.2. ?

9.1.2 and 9.1.3.

Dave,
- As for 9.1.2:
9.1.2. Now I must estimate (roughly) the prior probability (rounded off to 3 decimal places) of each more specific possibility (hypothesis), given ~H.
9.1.2.1. That only some of us have but one finite life: .000
9.1.2.2. That we each have numerous finite lives: .200.
9.1.2.3. That only some of us have numerous finite lives: .000
9.1.2.4. That we each have an infinity of finite lives; .200
9.1.2.5. That only some of us have an infinity of finite lives: .000
9.1.2.6. That we each have an infinite life: .200.
9.1.2.7. That only some of us have an infinite life: .000
9.1.2.8. That time isn’t what we think it is (to be explained): .200
9.1.2.9. Some other explanation: .200

- First, I figure that the different possible ways have to add up to 1.00 (for the moment, we're accepting that OOFlam is, in fact, wrong).
- Re #1: It seems to me essentially impossible that only some of us would have only one finite life. Either we all do -- or, we all don't.
- Re #2: That we each have numerous finite lives must be one of the more probable specific possibilities (hypotheses), given ~H.
- Re #3: That, again, that only some of us would have numerous finite lives seems (to me) essentially impossible.
- Re #4: That we each have an infinity of finite lives must be one of the more probable possibilities.
- Re #5: That only some of us would have an infinity of finite lives seems (to me) essentially impossible.
- Re #6: That we each have an infinite life must be one of the more probable possibilities.
- Re #7: That only some of us have an infinite life seems (to me) essentially impossible.
- Re #8: That time isn't what we think it is must be one of the more probable of possibilities that could account for our current existences (keeping relativity, quantum mechanics, Groundhog Day, and one of my unpublished science fiction stories in mind).
- Re #9: That something else (besides OOFLam and the above) explains our current existences seems like one of the more probable possibilities also...

 

[JoeMorgue]

*Sighs* It's like he's writing a Gish Gallop in COBOL.

 

[JayUtah]

First,

First, middle, and last = you're simply making up these numbers. You're making them up.

When all your justifications start out "It seems to me that..." then that's how your critics know you're making them up. You have to show reasoning, not just "This is what I think, and here's the arbitrary number I've assigned to it, and I do some pseudo-math and presto! it's now a rigorous computed conclusion." The conditionals have to be facts, not just wild guesses.

You're making up all your numbers.

 

[John Jones]

Dave,
- I've provided that (somewhere, and more than once) already, but for some reason, I haven't been able to find it. I'll keep looking -- but you (and others) can probably find it faster...

That's a lie, and we're fed up with you begging us to do your homework.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Jabba it's very simple.

If I have an equation where I just totally make up the values for A, B, and C than....

A+B+C
A+B-C
A(B+C)
A*(C^B)

And any other variation are all meaningless nonsense.

 

[Loss Leader]

- Re #1: It seems to me essentially impossible that only some of us would have only one finite life. Either we all do -- or, we all don't..

Keep reading the above sentence until you find the flaw.

 

[Jabba]

Dave,
- As for 9.1.2:
9.1.2. Now I must estimate (roughly) the prior probability (rounded off to 3 decimal places) of each more specific possibility (hypothesis), given ~H.
9.1.2.1. That only some of us have but one finite life: .000
9.1.2.2. That we each have numerous finite lives: .200.
9.1.2.3. That only some of us have numerous finite lives: .000
9.1.2.4. That we each have an infinity of finite lives; .200
9.1.2.5. That only some of us have an infinity of finite lives: .000
9.1.2.6. That we each have an infinite life: .200.
9.1.2.7. That only some of us have an infinite life: .000
9.1.2.8. That time isn’t what we think it is (to be explained): .200
9.1.2.9. Some other explanation: .200

- First, I figure that the different possible ways have to add up to 1.00 (for the moment, we're accepting that OOFlam is, in fact, wrong).
- Re #1: It seems to me essentially impossible that only some of us would have only one finite life. Either we all do -- or, we all don't.
- Re #2: That we each have numerous finite lives must be one of the more probable specific possibilities (hypotheses), given ~H.
- Re #3: That, again, that only some of us would have numerous finite lives seems (to me) essentially impossible.
- Re #4: That we each have an infinity of finite lives must be one of the more probable possibilities.
- Re #5: That only some of us would have an infinity of finite lives seems (to me) essentially impossible.
- Re #6: That we each have an infinite life must be one of the more probable possibilities.
- Re #7: That only some of us have an infinite life seems (to me) essentially impossible.
- Re #8: That time isn't what we think it is must be one of the more probable of possibilities that could account for our current existences (keeping relativity, quantum mechanics, Groundhog Day, and one of my unpublished science fiction stories in mind).
- Re #9: That something else (besides OOFLam and the above) explains our current existences seems like one of the more probable possibilities also...

Keep reading the above sentence until you find the flaw.

LL,
- I'm hoping that Dave and some others will agree with my claim. If not, I've got a lot of explaining to do before I can move on. Keep in mind that these are hypotheticals, and, for the moment, we are accepting that OOFLam is wrong.

 

[Loss Leader]

LL,
- I'm hoping that Dave and some others will agree with my claim. If not, I've got a lot of explaining to do before I can move on. Keep in mind that these are hypotheticals, and, for the moment, we are accepting that OOFLam is wrong.

It doesn't matter. You're trying to divided up an infinite set and, for the win, assign probabilities to each. You're making your positive argument for your preferred type of immortality WITHIN a negative argument against mortality. You can't do that. ~H is indivisible at this stage.

And, just to add to the confusion, you haven't defined the concept of person as regards immortality. What survives? What is a soul? How does it work? Why should I agree that it's impossible for only some people to be immortal without knowing what the concept means?

 

[JoeMorgue]

I'm hoping that Dave and some others will agree with my claim. If not, I've got a lot of explaining to do before I can move on. Keep in mind that these are hypotheticals, and, for the moment, we are accepting that OOFLam is wrong.

Jabba do you know what a discussion is and how it works?

"Hoping others will agree with me" is not an argument.

Begging people to agree with you before you agree to argue any of your points is not an argument.

And nobody here believes for a second that you have an intention of, ever had intention of, or will ever have any intention of explaining anything or moving on.

 

[Mojo]

Keep in mind that these are hypotheticals, and, for the moment, we are accepting that OOFLam is wrong.

Hang on, when did anyone accept that? I remember you asking people to accept that it is possible that it (or whatever you were arguing against at the time) is wrong, and then claiming that if it is accepted that there is that possibility then it is certain that it is wrong, but that's not the same thing. Nobody accepted your argument on that point.

 

[HighRiser]

LL,
- I'm hoping that Dave and some others will agree with my claim. If not, I've got a lot of explaining to do before I can move on. Keep in mind that these are hypotheticals, and, for the moment, we are accepting that OOFLam is wrong.

Horse hockey

 

[JayUtah]

Hang on, when did anyone accept that?

P(E|~H) has to be derived under the assumption -- for this purpose only -- that the hypothesis is false. Just as P(E|H) has to be reckoned under the assumption -- again for that purpose only -- that H is true. Jabba seems to making that assumption out to be more than it is. Further, if one's priors are just guesses -- as a Jabba's -- then P(E|H) and P(E|~H) must be essentially self evident and not guesses. Jabba errs by essentially making up all the variable portions of his formula and pretending that it arrives at a useful result. Finally, in Jabba's formulation ~H is not one hypothesis but rather any hypothesis that isn't H. Jabba equivocates whether H is "the scientific hypothesis" or "OOFLam," which defeats his claim. But more importantly, he makes only token efforts to enumerate or characterize the compound hypothesis ~H which is compound no matter which of the two definitions of H Jabba uses. Hence his description of P(E|~H) is ill-formed and useless.

 

[JayUtah]

I'm hoping that Dave and some others will agree with my claim.

We do not.

Further, we have given you the reasons why we do not, and you are utterly disinterested in addressing them. You should note also that even those few who point out flaws in the criticism do not agree with your claim. You should also note that the people to whom you have taken this argument, who are not part of this debate, have also disagreed with it.

An intelligent person would probably notice that all that disagreement cannot possibly have personal animosity or some other cause as its root. The consilient disagreement should inform you that you are simply wrong.

If not, I've got a lot of explaining to do before I can move on.

This is just the same stall tactic you used in the Shroud thread. No one is buying it, Jabba. You don't get to bog down the discussion until you obtain a partial or conditional agreement that you can then misrepresent as full agreement. That's just trying to trick people into saying they agree with you, not convincing them that you're right. That's just ego, not knowledge.

Further, you seem unaware of the possibility you may actually be wrong. Dave, I, and many others have shown you several flaws in your argument which are individually fatal. You must correct all of them. While it may be prudent to focus on one for a time, you don't get to perpetuate the debate indefinitely by either doggedly repeating one ad nauseam or shifting rapidly between errors when cornered on one. It has been explained to you why your approach to computing conditionals is wrong. You haven't rehabilitated it in over four years; you keep repeating it as if repetition cured its faults. As such it is a long-standing fatal flaw you cannot overcome.

And as such your argument is dead. You just keep defibrillating the corpse and interpreting its resulting flopping about as signs of life.

Keep in mind that these are hypotheticals, and, for the moment, we are accepting that OOFLam is wrong.

You chose your words poorly. To compute P(E|~H) we must reckon the outcome as if OOFLAM is wrong. Ironically your critics are doing a much better job than you of keeping track of when we can assume H or ~H arguendo. "For the moment" indeed lets you reason under the premise that H is false. However you must also learn to reason as if H were true when computing P(E|H). You don't do that.

 

[Mojo]

P(E|~H) has to be derived under the assumption -- for this purpose only -- that the hypothesis is false. Just as P(E|H) has to be reckoned under the assumption -- again for that purpose only -- that H is true. Jabba seems to making that assumption out to be more than it is. Further, if one's priors are just guesses -- as a Jabba's -- then P(E|H) and P(E|~H) must be essentially self evident and not guesses. Jabba errs by essentially making up all the variable portions of his formula and pretending that it arrives at a useful result. Finally, in Jabba's formulation ~H is not one hypothesis but rather any hypothesis that isn't H. Jabba equivocates whether H is "the scientific hypothesis" or "OOFLam," which defeats his claim. But more importantly, he makes only token efforts to enumerate or characterize the compound hypothesis ~H which is compound no matter which of the two definitions of H Jabba uses. Hence his description of P(E|~H) is ill-formed and useless.

Thanks. I was mistaking it for an attempt at a bait-and-switch on Jabba's part

 

[Mojo]

Further, we have given you the reasons why we do not, and you are utterly disinterested in addressing them.

I think you mean uninterested. I don't think he is disinterested; the problem is that he is too invested in his desired conclusion.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- As for 9.1.2:
9.1.2. Now I must estimate (roughly) the prior probability (rounded off to 3 decimal places) of each more specific possibility (hypothesis), given ~H.
9.1.2.1. That only some of us have but one finite life: .000
9.1.2.2. That we each have numerous finite lives: .200.
9.1.2.3. That only some of us have numerous finite lives: .000
9.1.2.4. That we each have an infinity of finite lives; .200
9.1.2.5. That only some of us have an infinity of finite lives: .000
9.1.2.6. That we each have an infinite life: .200.
9.1.2.7. That only some of us have an infinite life: .000
9.1.2.8. That time isn’t what we think it is (to be explained): .200
9.1.2.9. Some other explanation: .200

- First, I figure that the different possible ways have to add up to 1.00 (for the moment, we're accepting that OOFlam is, in fact, wrong).
- Re #1: It seems to me essentially impossible that only some of us would have only one finite life. Either we all do -- or, we all don't.
- Re #2: That we each have numerous finite lives must be one of the more probable specific possibilities (hypotheses), given ~H.
- Re #3: That, again, that only some of us would have numerous finite lives seems (to me) essentially impossible.
- Re #4: That we each have an infinity of finite lives must be one of the more probable possibilities.
- Re #5: That only some of us would have an infinity of finite lives seems (to me) essentially impossible.
- Re #6: That we each have an infinite life must be one of the more probable possibilities.
- Re #7: That only some of us have an infinite life seems (to me) essentially impossible.
- Re #8: That time isn't what we think it is must be one of the more probable of possibilities that could account for our current existences (keeping relativity, quantum mechanics, Groundhog Day, and one of my unpublished science fiction stories in mind).
- Re #9: That something else (besides OOFLam and the above) explains our current existences seems like one of the more probable possibilities also...

That really doesn't explain anything.

 

[Mojo]

- Re #8: That time isn't what we think it is must be one of the more probable of possibilities that could account for our current existences (keeping relativity, quantum mechanics, Groundhog Day, and one of my unpublished science fiction stories in mind).

The likelihood that now is now is 100%. Oh, and 20 points.