Proof of Immortality, the IV league

[Jedi]

You've lapsed back into misunderstanding what a conditional probability is.




Again, misunderstanding conditional probability.

read my latest response. it's all about using your subjective assumptions in the data. I'm generally ok with them in the prior.

btw, you keep saying I'm misunderstanding conditional prob. so are you saying that IF God exists and can lead people to water, then the prob they live is 1?? that's like saying if I bench press the moon the prob that I'm strong is 1. the condition has never been shown to be true, so we can condition on any nonsense we want to prove whatever we want. we already know for a fact they lived, so the thing we are trying to show is that the condition is true, that p(God led them to water|live).

again, you are assuming the thing you're trying to show.

 

[Nick Terry]

Annnnoid, Fudbucker, sphenisc, jt512, caveman 1917, Nick Terry, and Dani,
- Is it possible that OOFLam is wrong?
- If none of you guys answer me, I will assume that your answers are, "Yes."

Jabba,

I have no idea what OOFLam is and have no interest in finding out. Do not pretend I support your argument and do not PM me.

 

[Nonpareil]

Sorry I wasn't able to follow the last thousand posts. Did this thread go beyond the use of Bayes for amazement and credulity?

No.

... if you can skip the convulsions while watching it

Ah, but that's what makes it fun.

 

[abaddon]

Jabba,

I have no idea what OOFLam is and have no interest in finding out. Do not pretend I support your argument and do not PM me.

Like that's going to happen.

Pardon me cynicism.

 

[Jedi]

Jabba,

I have no idea what OOFLam is and have no interest in finding out. Do not pretend I support your argument and do not PM me.

I have no idea what OOFlam is and I've been on this thread!

 

[marplots]

I don't see how anyone could participate in this thread honestly and not be aware of the implications of OOFlam.

 

[Dancing David]

What if they believe it really hard?

Belief is the enemy of knowledge

A. Crowley

 

[Nonpareil]

For those keeping score at home: "OOFLam" is Jabba's strange shorthand term for "only one finite lifetime at most" - that is to say, the idea that you don't get reincarnated and there is no afterlife.

Jabba wants to make an argument for the existence of immortal souls. This "argument", thus far, has consisted of saying that his existence is highly unlikely given OOFLam, because, if he is not an eternal, immortal soul, then any one of a functionally infinite number of other people could have existed instead.

But he exists anyway. So, since his existence is guaranteed if he is an immortal soul, but highly unlikely if he is not, he claims that his existence is evidence for immortality.

Of course, as has already been pointed out, "cheating guarantees a royal flush" is not equivalent to "a given royal flush is evidence of cheating", so his entire argument collapses on its face even without getting into all the nitty-gritty that posters like JayUtah have been dealing with - the fact that his "formula" begs the question, his use of special pleading to deal with the issue of infinite souls, and so on.

Everything about near-death experiences and anecdotes is just a sideshow attempt to try and dredge up whatever hopeless "evidence" he can to support the idea of souls. His call for support from other members is just an appeal to popularity.

Yes, it really is that shallow.

Yes, it really is that silly.

Yes, it really has been this exact same thing for the entire run of the thread.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I don't see how anyone could participate in this thread honestly and not be aware of the implications of OOFlam.

Next time, read the chapter before coming to class.

Well, actually 'OOFLam' is a much too generalized concept to really discuss.

Just for instance:

Definition of 'life' depends on whether we assume an afterlife or not.

In a context where we discuss immortality, what does 'finite mean'?

In does "at most" make any sense in the context?

...

Hans

 

[marplots]

Well, actually 'OOFLam' is a much too generalized concept to really discuss.

Just for instance:

Definition of 'life' depends on whether we assume an afterlife or not.

In a context where we discuss immortality, what does 'finite mean'?

In does "at most" make any sense in the context?

...

Hans

There are indeed a lot of "givens" in this particular formulation.

 

[sackett]

Annnnoid, Fudbucker, sphenisc, jt512, caveman 1917, Nick Terry, and Dani,
- For now, I'll assume that you guys agree with me that OOFLam may be wrong. I'll figure that your sense of the prior probability that OOFLam is wrong is at least .001.
- But, even if the prior probability that OOFLam is wrong is no greater than .001, Bayes would have me winning the formula since the likelihood of my current existence, given OOFLam is so much smaller.

For gigglz, I read the above aloud to my gf. Her reaction was polite incredulity.

Well, purty much polite. There may have been a brief reference to word salad with, um, raisins on it.

My head hurt, but I got better.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Jabba wants to make an argument for the existence of immortal souls. This "argument", thus far, has consisted of saying that his existence is highly unlikely given OOFLam, because, if he is not an eternal, immortal soul, then any one of a functionally infinite number of other people could have existed instead.

No, I think his argument is that nobody else would have existed. It's other people that have pointed out that other people could have existed if, for example, a different sperm fertilised his mother's egg.

Yes, it really has been this exact same thing for the entire run of the thread.

...which is to say, the past 4 years.

 

[Loss Leader]

Jabba,

I have no idea what OOFLam is and have no interest in finding out. Do not pretend I support your argument and do not PM me.

Thanks for the new sig line.

 

[Nonpareil]

No, I think his argument is that nobody else would have existed.

If it is, it's even more utterly nonsensical than I thought.

 

[Mojo]

Jabba wants to make an argument for the existence of immortal souls.

No, he is trying to avoid doing that, because he knows full well he can't support it. He wants to argue against a strawman of the opposing viewpoint.

This "argument", thus far, has consisted of saying that his existence is highly unlikely given OOFLam, because, if he is not an eternal, immortal soul, then any one of a functionally infinite number of other people could have existed instead.

No, it's sillier than that. His argument is that because his current existence is infinitely unlikely under "OOFLam" then "OOFLam" must be incorrect. But in order to make his existence infinitely unlikely he introduces the idea that there were an infinite number of potential "selves" competing to occupy his body, and therefore it is infinitely unlikely that his particular "self" would get lucky. That's where he gets the "infinity" in his "seven billion over infinity" (I guess the seven billion is the number of available bodies, but I don't remember him stating that explicitly).

In other words, his strawman of mortality includes "selves", or "souls" that are entities distinct from the body. And, if he wants to avoid the "seven billion over infinity" being factored into an expression of the likelihood of his existence if he is immortal, his version of immortality must not include "selves" that exist independently of the body.

He has the whole thing bass-ackwards.

 

[jt512]

read my latest response. it's all about using your subjective assumptions in the data. I'm generally ok with them in the prior.

btw, you keep saying I'm misunderstanding conditional prob. so are you saying that IF God exists and can lead people to water, then the prob they live is 1?? that's like saying if I bench press the moon the prob that I'm strong is 1. the condition has never been shown to be true, so we can condition on any nonsense we want to prove whatever we want. we already know for a fact they lived, so the thing we are trying to show is that the condition is true, that p(God led them to water|live).

again, you are assuming the thing you're trying to show.

I'm saying that the conditional probability of A given B, P(A|B), is the probability of A under the assumption that B is true.

 

[Jedi]

For those keeping score at home: "OOFLam" is Jabba's strange shorthand term for "only one finite lifetime at most" - that is to say, the idea that you don't get reincarnated and there is no afterlife.

wow. well, it sounds scientific so it must be true

 

[Nick Terry]

Thanks for the new sig line.

Thanks for "introducing" me to Laura Bell Bundy.

Her existence may be better proof of immortality than anything else Jabba has offered so far, although that's probably just the endorphins talking.

 

[Jedi]

jt512-- apologies if I'm missing something, but can you tell me how your argument regarding our "desert/God" disscusion differs from Jabba's argument here?

But, even if the prior probability that OOFLam is wrong is no greater than .001, Bayes would have me winning the formula since the likelihood of my current existence, given OOFLam is so much smaller.

 

[Nick Terry]

No, he is trying to avoid doing that, because he knows full well he can't support it. He wants to argue against a strawman of the opposing viewpoint.

No, it's sillier than that. His argument is that because his current existence is infinitely unlikely under "OOFLam" then "OOFLam" must be incorrect. But in order to make his existence infinitely unlikely he introduces the idea that there were an infinite number of potential "selves" competing to occupy his body, and therefore it is infinitely unlikely that his particular "self" would get lucky. That's where he gets the "infinity" in his "seven billion over infinity" (I guess the seven billion is the number of available bodies, but I don't remember him stating that explicitly).

In other words, his strawman of mortality includes "selves", or "souls" that are entities distinct from the body. And, if he wants to avoid the "seven billion over infinity" being factored into an expression of the likelihood of his existence if he is immortal, his version of immortality must not include "selves" that exist independently of the body.

He has the whole thing bass-ackwards.

This sounds increasingly like the premise of Peter Hamilton's Night's Dawn trilogy. Whose first volume was called, all too appropriately, The Reality Dysfunction.