John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
It's almost like he's gobsmacked that his last nonsensical argument was blow out of the skies.
Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion
- Thread starter Dancing David
- Start date
- Status
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
48 hours.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Almost, but not quite like that, because it's just the same nonsensical argument he's been making for years, and the same blowout he's encountered for years. It's highly unlikely that he's at all surprised, at this point.
He's probably just trying to resist the urge to do another fringe reset as long as he can.
HighRiser
Graduate Poster
I think he's busy wording a considered and concise response to all the unanswered criticisms of his argument.
Much in the same way that the beach is not near shore.
Much in the same way that the beach is not near shore.
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
- Not to worry. I'm back
- I don’t really understand the formula I’ve been using... I just accepted it -- it was in a book -- even though it didn't seem to make sense. I just assumed that I was missing something.
- Could be that you guys were trying to explain this to me and I either wasn't reading, or just wasn't understanding, your explanations. Obviously, I'm not admitting any wrong-doing -- I simply didn't have time to scrutinize nearly all of your posts, and naturally focused on the friendlier ones...
- Anyway, my first problem is that the formula always has the denominator larger than the numerator -- whatever the issue -- and the complementary hypothesis always outweighs the null(?) hypothesis.
- What am I missing, or misunderstanding?
P(H|E) = P(E|H)*P(H)/( P(E|H)*P(H)+P(E|~H)*P(~H)).
- I don’t really understand the formula I’ve been using... I just accepted it -- it was in a book -- even though it didn't seem to make sense. I just assumed that I was missing something.
- Could be that you guys were trying to explain this to me and I either wasn't reading, or just wasn't understanding, your explanations. Obviously, I'm not admitting any wrong-doing -- I simply didn't have time to scrutinize nearly all of your posts, and naturally focused on the friendlier ones...
- Anyway, my first problem is that the formula always has the denominator larger than the numerator -- whatever the issue -- and the complementary hypothesis always outweighs the null(?) hypothesis.
- What am I missing, or misunderstanding?
P(H|E) = P(E|H)*P(H)/( P(E|H)*P(H)+P(E|~H)*P(~H)).
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
What you are "missing" is the utter absence of any evidence for the existence of a "soul", much less for its "immortality".
HighRiser
Graduate Poster
Therefore any numbers Jabba plugs into the formula are not based on anything that can be considered objective in any way, shape, or form.
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
You've been insisting that your formula proves your personal beliefs to be true for four years and you didn't really understand it?
Please, Jabba, have some respect for the people who read this thread. Don't hide your reboot in some question about math. If you really want to understand your mathematical errors, just reread this thread. It's all been explained dozens of times with hundreds of examples.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Everything that has been posted to you.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
You don't say.
You are missing something: a competent understanding of when such a model produces usable results.
No "could be" about it. You've been treated to several in-depth explanations from several different sources -- including myself -- on just how you are misusing this model.
You spent going-on five years ignoring them entirely.
It wasn't a matter of not understanding them. You simply pretended the explanations didn't exist. So put away Befuddled Old Man, because he's never been a credible character. You never sought to understand. You were never motivated to grasp whether your argument has any merit whatsoever. And once again here's Befuddled Old Man trying to disarm criticism; "Gee, guys, I guess I just don't get it. Would you mind running through it all again for my benefit? Maybe this time I'll hit upon the niggling little detail I can debate pointlessly at length for another six months."
That's a euphemistic analysis of what your critics have been telling you all along. You ignore criticism almost entirely and grasp frantically for any semblance of agreement. Your "effective debate" strategy consists of nothing but biding the debate until something comes along that you can snatch up and style as support for your existing beliefs.
Not only are you refusing -- once again -- to conceive that you might possibly be wrong, you're adopting your standard de minimis concession. You still think your argument cannot be as colossally wrong as it is, on as deep a fundamental level as it is. You are still holding out hope that you can just "tweak" the arithmetic and suddenly resolve all the massively wrong-headed thinking your argument entails.
Do not pretend it was anything other than that, and do not pretend that you have now suddenly changed your ways, and do not pretend that this is anything more than your latest attempt at a fringe reset.
If your lament is that you never had time to read all the attempts to instruct and educate you, your penance -- now as it ever was -- is to go back and read them again. There is no legitimate basis for you to insinuate that we're going to need to repeat it all over again for you. Those four-plus years of prior posts haven't gone anywhere. So maybe you can atone for the rudeness with which you've treated your critics over the years by going back and reading what they already wrote and attempt to understand it.
The fact that Bayes' Theorem in no way lets you conjure up fact out of nothing more than numbers you invent. Your problem isn't arithmetical. Your problem is that you fail deeply to understand how to make any sort of statistical model. But that's not even the depth of your problem. Your problem is that you desperately want to pretend there is an objective justification of proof for mysticism, and you project your angst onto your critics upon finding out there isn't any such thing.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Yes. Which is to say, you're pretending that any formula will give you usable results for numbers you just make up. You haven't even remotely considered the possibility that one cannot prove immortality mathematically.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Actually, let's take that post a step ate a while...
Bit of a problem there. You faithfully promised that you were out for good. What conclusion should we draw from that in your opinion?
What? After all of these years of endless posts, NOW you claim to not understand what you were posting? Really?
Tempting but declined as the feeble tactic that it obviously is. Tell me, do you accept that quidditch is a real sport? After all, it is written in a book...
You stated that you were not reading replies many times. How is it anyone else's problem but yours if you decline to read replies?
Why exactly is admitting or not admitting a grievous offence an issue? You simply made that notion up out of whole shroud. Oops, I meant cloth.
No it doesn't. The only way that can happen is if one wilfully makes up numbers out of fat air.
No. The null is the default until sufficient evidence otherwise is provided.
Since you ask, everything.
Oh, great. The formula you state you don't understand. That does not help your case.
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
Among the things you are misunderstanding:
- P(E|H) is not any kind of number over infinity. The likelihood of something existing does not have anything to do with the number of potential things of the same category that could exist over all time.
- H does not include souls. The likelihood of a particular soul existing given H is zero. It's not some number over infinity, it's just zero, because given H, souls don't exist
- "Only One Finite Life At Most" is not a hypothesis. It's a statement that could apply to a variety of hypotheses. "The human sense of self is solely the product of a functioning human brain" is more like a hypothesis.
- It only makes sense to refer to "a hypothesis and its complement" if both hypotheses are mutually exclusive and if they are the only two possible hypotheses. That is, if one is false, the other has to be true, and vice versa.
Last edited:
Mojo
Mostly harmless
CriticalThanking
Designated Hitter
Yes. To my knowledge, there is no formula that lets you predict an untestable hypothesis with unquantifiable inputs. You can certainly put numbers in and get a number out, but it has no usable meaning.
You might as well use fluid dynamics equations to predict the flow rate of souls since you find it deeply comforting to believe a soul has an assumed viscosity and souls travel in a celestial pipe of an assumed diameter and resistance. You can get an answer. What you don't get is a meaningful answer.
[ETA - ninjaed by others as work demands I not spend all day watching this thread. It's small comfort that I really had this all typed out long before the rest of you posted.
]CT
Last edited:
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
As the number of souls build up, the pressure in the pipe increases until the pipe can't contain them. An infinite number of souls would create infinite pressure and burst any pipe of any diameter. Thus, there must be a finite amount of souls. Since there are an infinite possible number of people, the finite number of souls will have to be infinitely recycled. Thus: Immortality.
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
:golf clap:
- Status