Proof of Immortality, the IV league

[wea]

You're making up all your numbers.

OT: in my native language (weird coincidence, the one the original Jabba's razor was supposed to be written in), to make up numbers (dare i numeri) means to go bananas

 

[zooterkin]

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: .0009.1.2.2. That we each have numerous finite lives: .200.
9.1.2.3. That only some of us have numerous finite lives: .0009.1.2.4. 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: .0009.1.2.6. That we each have an infinite life: .200.
9.1.2.7. That only some of us have an infinite life: .0009.1.2.8. That time isn’t what we think it is (to be explained): .200
9.1.2.9. Some other explanation: .200

Please explain how you established the highlighted values.

 

[Sideroxylon]

And here is #2643 from that thread:

Reminds me of the prisoners who having been confined together for so long with the same jokes they incite mirth by simply calling out referring numbers. Would work well here for counter arguments.

 

[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...

That really doesn't explain anything.

Dave,
- Do you accept the preface?

 

[Mojo]

Now I must estimate (roughly) the prior probability (rounded off to 3 decimal places)...

Why?

 

[Jabba]

...
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: .0009.1.2.2. That we each have numerous finite lives: .200.
9.1.2.3. That only some of us have numerous finite lives: .0009.1.2.4. 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: .0009.1.2.6. That we each have an infinite life: .200.
9.1.2.7. That only some of us have an infinite life: .0009.1.2.8. That time isn’t what we think it is (to be explained): .200
9.1.2.9. Some other explanation: .200...

Please explain how you established the highlighted values.

Zoo,
- Good question.
- I assume that you'll want a more elaborate, and more specific, explanation -- but for now (just in case), I just think that any possible variation with "some" in it is very improbable.

 

[zooterkin]

Dave,
- Do you accept the preface?

Which part? That the numbers have to add up to 1 in order to cover all the possibilities? Clearly they do, or you've missed some (not that adding up to 1 ensures that you haven't). That we have to "accept" that OOFlam is wrong? We don't have to accept something is true in order to assign probabilities of how it might turn out if it were (though you have clearly spent very little time in doing so, either in examining what the possibilities are or in assigning probabilities to them).

 

[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...

Why?

Mojo,
- Why not?
- Where would you have me round off to?

 

[Mojo]

Mojo,
- Why not?
- Where would you have me round off to?

How do you justify that degree of precision?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Do you accept the preface?

No.

Stop it! Stop asking to accept things we've already explained to you that we don't accept and why we don't accept them.

 

[Jabba]

How do you justify that degree of precision?

Mojo,
- I'm not being precise. I'm just saying that the probability is less than, or equal to, .000. I'm just saying that such is very improbable.

 

[abaddon]

Mojo,
- I'm not being precise. I'm just saying that the probability is less than, or equal to, .000. I'm just saying that such is very improbable.

You are not being asked to restate it repeatedly, you are being asked to justify it.

"Because that is the number I picked" is in no way a justification for that figure.

 

[theprestige]

Mojo,
- I'm not being precise. I'm just saying that the probability is less than, or equal to, .000. I'm just saying that such is very improbable.

Now we can add mathematical precision to the list of topics you don't understand and misuse.

Every decimal place you add to your number is another degree of precision in the results of your calculation.

When choosing a degree of precision, it's important to explain why that degree is necessary, and to show that your data and calculation are capable of yielding that necessary degree.

It's just as much as mistake to be more precise than necessary, as it is to be less precise than necessary.

So. Mathematically: What justifies calculating your probabilities to three degrees of precision? Why not more? Why not less? Is your data even that precise to begin with? Does it even matter?

 

[Monza]

theprestige is correct. As an engineer I deal with measurements every day. Precision is very important such that 0.2 is not the same as 0.200. I brought this up when Jabba first posted this nonsense but he did not respond.

 

[sackett]

Hey, youz guyz. Jabba's using New Math. (Like you never heard of that? Huh?) He's working to a base zero!

Or a base infinity. Or a base rilly rilly BIG number. Little number? Sumpin like that.

He'll be back.

 

[HighRiser]

Mojo,
- I'm not being precise. I'm just saying that the probability is less than, or equal to, .000. I'm just saying that such is very improbable.

You've been "just saying" and "just thinking" such things since you started posting on this forum. I've noticed that once you've stated that you're "just saying" or "just thinking" that one of your unsupported assertions is to be just accepted without further explanation.

No, thanks, I'm not having any. I have a mind of my own and won't be accepting your unevidenced premise as fact. Not even for the sake of argument will I accept such assertions when you try to support one unsupported statement with another unsupported statement, which is what you're doing.

Your argument boils down to: IF the materialistic worldview is incorrect, IF some metaphysical ideals aren't, and IF we have immortal souls; then MAYBE we're immortal.

Never mind that infinity isn't a number, that immortality is undefined, and that there's no reasonable reason to think that souls are anything but inventions out of the minds of mankind.

Horse hockey!

 

[JayUtah]

but for now (just in case),...

No, just for always. After four years there's no indication you plan to do anything except foist your made-up numbers and beg and cajole people to accept them.

I just think that any possible variation with "some" in it is very improbable.

This is a mathematical proof. it doesn't matter what you "tnink." It matters what you can prove, and you've given no one any insight into how you chose these numbers or why they're so invariable. You just made them up.

Your proof fails. It failed a long time ago, for this and other reasons. Now you're just trying to emotionally rationalize it.

 

[JayUtah]

Do you accept the preface?

The preface doesn't belong to you. The premise comes from Bayesian reasoning. If ~H is a compound hypothesis then it must be in some way enumerated to determine P(E|X) individually for all X in ~H, and that must be reckoned according to the premise arguendo that ~H holds.

Begging people to accept the part you copied from the textbook is disingenuous in this context. People have told you exactly what they find wrong with that paragraph, and it's not the "preface" or whatever you're going to call it. You err subsequently in at least two ways. First, you extend the premise arguendo much farther than it's allowed to go for this exercise. That you can do it while figuring P(E|~H) doesn't mean you can do it anywhere else in your proof. Second, your conditionals are just made up. That's not allowed if your priors are also guesses. And the qualitative aspects of your partitioning of both H and ~H have already been shown in error.

Now quit groveling for tidbits of irrelevant acceptance and either get on it with it or concede your proof.

 

[Jabba]

Which part? That the numbers have to add up to 1 in order to cover all the possibilities? Clearly they do, or you've missed some (not that adding up to 1 ensures that you haven't). That we have to "accept" that OOFlam is wrong? We don't have to accept something is true in order to assign probabilities of how it might turn out if it were (though you have clearly spent very little time in doing so, either in examining what the possibilities are or in assigning probabilities to them).

Zoo,
- Doesn't #9 make sure that it adds up to 1.00?

 

[JayUtah]

theprestige is correct. As an engineer I deal with measurements every day. Precision is very important such that 0.2 is not the same as 0.200. I brought this up when Jabba first posted this nonsense but he did not respond.

Agreed. Precision is not irrelevant. "Rounding off" to some number of decimal places indicates an ability to compute or measure the actual value to at least that decimal place with no jitter or error. He cannot do this since all his numbers are just guesses. But he's using his fabricated "precision" as a trick to fool people into thinking he's done more computation than he actually has, and that his method isn't just pulling numbers out of his orifice.