Proof of Immortality, the IV league

[Dave Rogers]

Dave,
- I'm not quite sure what you're saying, but my best guess so far is that I have other numerical entries that need support. OK?

No, it's that your whole approach is a non-starter.

Dave

 

[Pixel42]

For instance, the controller of the lottery would be a much more obvious target as lottery winner than would be one of his 5th cousins.

Once again: your existence is not analogous to the controller of the lottery winning it, or even to the controller's ninth cousin twice removed winning it. It's analogous to a random ticket buyer winning it. You have been asked many times to justify assuming otherwise and have never even attempted to do so.

- Also, it's my only camera/observer -- and, according to OOFLam, it never existed before, it will never exist again and it never had to exist in the first place. And then, if it didn’t exist, there might as well be nothing; and if it never existed, there might as well have never been anything.

Are you seriously suggesting that the existence of the universe might be contingent on your particular existence?

Something’s wrong here; and, my current existence seems really important. Like a General for a drone strike.

Your existence is not at all important, and what's wrong is your inability to accept this simple fact. If you did not exist the universe would be very little different, as it will be after you cease to exist.

I've several times come across people who were convinced that the world would end in their lifetimes whose delusional belief seemed to be a consequence of their inability to conceive of it continuing to exist after their own existence had ended. Perhaps Jabba has the same problem but has come up with a different solution.

 

[jond]

- Anyway, one thought is that there are "shades" of target-ness.
- For instance, the controller of the lottery would be a much more obvious target as lottery winner than would be one of his 5th cousins.
- And, whereas the likelihood of my current existence may not be obviously appropriate for P(E|H), there are some red flags waving (or maybe, orange lights flashing). For instance:
- The current existence of my "self," whether thing, process or illusion is all that I know for sure. If it's an illusion, it's a real illusion -- everything else could be my imagination. I don't know what I am -- but, I know I am.
- Also, it's my only camera/observer -- and, according to OOFLam, it never existed before, it will never exist again and it never had to exist in the first place. And then, if it didn’t exist, there might as well be nothing; and if it never existed, there might as well have never been anything. Something’s wrong here; and, my current existence seems really important. Like a General for a drone strike.
- I’ll be back.

Jabba, the universe does not revolve around your existence. It really doesn't, and you really aren't that important except to yourself, and a handful of other people. Not to the universe, nor even to the bulk of the human population.

And: the only thing that we can confirm exists is your body. If you have any evidence of souls existing, you would do well to stop playing statistical games and start presenting it.

 

[Jabba]

No, it's that your whole approach is a non-starter.

Dave

OK.

 

[Jabba]

Jabba, the universe does not revolve around your existence. It really doesn't, and you really aren't that important except to yourself, and a handful of other people. Not to the universe, nor even to the bulk of the human population.

And: the only thing that we can confirm exists is your body. If you have any evidence of souls existing, you would do well to stop playing statistical games and start presenting it.

jond,
- You probably don't consider the opinion of credible scientists as evidence, but take a look at what Einstein said about spirituality.
http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/einstein/

 

[jond]

jond,
- You probably don't consider the opinion of credible scientists as evidence, but take a look at what Einstein said about spirituality.
http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/einstein/

Opinions are not evidence, no matter whose opinion it is.

 

[Mojo]

"Some people are on the pitch. They think it's all over."

OK.

 

[Jabba]

Opinions are not evidence, no matter whose opinion it is.

jond,
- I disagree. Credible scientists tend to take seriously the opinion of other credible scientists, and use what each other believe in their algorithmic thinking; especially when the scientists involved are visionaries (like Einstein and Heisenberg).

 

[Mojo]

jond,
- I disagree. Credible scientists tend to take seriously the opinion of other credible scientists, and use what each other believe in their algorithmic thinking; especially when the scientists involved are visionaries (like Einstein and Heisenberg).

Einstein didn't like the implications of quantum mechanics. Other scientists followed the evidence, not his opinion.

 

[jond]

jond,
- I disagree. Credible scientists tend to take seriously the opinion of other credible scientists, and use what each other believe in their algorithmic thinking; especially when the scientists involved are visionaries (like Einstein and Heisenberg).

Mojo answered perfectly. But I'll ask this question: do you think the universe would be different had Einstein not existed? (I don't mean our understanding of the universe, I mean the universe itself.)

 

[Mojo]

jond,
- You probably don't consider the opinion of credible scientists as evidence, but take a look at what Einstein said about spirituality.
http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/einstein/

We can add appeal to inappropriate authority to Jabba's growing list of fallacies. We should have had bingo cards printed up.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I think I might have mentioned it before there's a Night Vale Quote that is oddly perfect for this.

"Death is only the end if you assume the story is about you."

 

[JayUtah]

jond,
- You probably don't consider the opinion of credible scientists as evidence, but take a look at what Einstein said about spirituality.
http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/einstein/

You have a long history of misquoting and misinterpreting scientists. Evey fringe claimant eventually resorts to sound bites from famous theoretical physicists spun to appear to support woo. No, Einstein's offhand musings aren't science or evidence.

 

[JayUtah]

jond,
- I disagree. Credible scientists tend to take seriously the opinion of other credible scientists, and use what each other believe in their algorithmic thinking; especially when the scientists involved are visionaries (like Einstein and Heisenberg).

Hogwash. You don't know a damned thing about physics or physicists. The thing Heisenberg was most famous for is taking his colleagues and the general public to task for exactly the sort of pseudo mystical nonsense you're trying to paste on him and them. Just stop embarrassing yourself. This line of "reasoning" is a non-starter.

 

[John Jones]

jond,
- I disagree. Credible scientists tend to take seriously the opinion of other credible scientists, and use what each other believe in their algorithmic thinking; especially when the scientists involved are visionaries (like Einstein and Heisenberg).

Don't ever presume to speak for scientists. You are not qualified. Besides, you said we scientists were a dishonest and incompetent lot.

 

[JayUtah]

Don't ever presume to speak for scientists. You are not qualified. Besides, you said we scientists were a dishonest and incompetent lot.

And apparently they can only think "algorithmically." Whatever that's supposed to mean.

 

[Pixel42]

jond,
- You probably don't consider the opinion of credible scientists as evidence, but take a look at what Einstein said about spirituality.
http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/einstein/

Instead of throwing out random irrelevant quotes, why not actually address some of the points made in the responses to your latest musings?

 

[Mojo]

Instead of throwing out random irrelevant quotes, why not actually address some of the points made in the responses to your latest musings?

There's a rather obvious answer to that, so I'm guessing it's rhetorical.

 

[JayUtah]

OK.

OK what?

Jabba, does it even enter your head that you might be wrong? You have had a number of clearly qualified professionals tell you your approach is wrong. You have had four years' worth of people explaining the errors in your logic. Yet you just plod along as if the rest of the world didn't exist, content in your belief that you have an immortal soul and that you have proved that belief objectively and rigorously in the face of robust opposition.

Unless you want to be laughed away as the crackpot it increasingly seems you are, you really need to follow up that "OK" with a sincere effort to understand and engage your critics. Otherwise your exercise is just pseudo-intellectual self-gratification.

OK what?

 

[JayUtah]

For instance, the controller of the lottery would be a much more obvious target as lottery winner than would be one of his 5th cousins.

But there's no analogue to the controller in the problem of determining the probability of existence.

Something’s wrong here; and, my current existence seems really important. Like a General for a drone strike.

No, there's no analogue to the general in the problem of determining the probability of existence.

The properties that make you the "target" in the lottery of your existence did not arise prior to your existence. Therefore you're drawing a target around a bullet that already hit the wall. You're drawing a target around one of billions of bullet holes in the barn. Your misleading analogies above are to targets drawn before the shot.

What's really really sad is that you have obviously decided not to recall that this lottery analogy, properly cast, convinced you that you had committed the Texas sharpshooter's fallacy. I don't know how you can sleep at night knowing that you make concessions you have no intention of keeping, and then claiming stalemate. Is it really that easy for you to lie to yourself? Can you give any reason why you deserve grown-up attention when you pull stunts like that?