Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

[Mojo]

Monza,
- Again, this issue is difficult to parse -- and one issue could be the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy.
- Re the TSF, I do think that I need to show why MY existence makes for a legitimate target, and I have tried to do that in the past.
- Here, I need to show why 2017 is special, and "the likelihood that now would currently be somewhere in the 20th or 21st century," is the best I can do so far re that...

If we were having this conversation in 1317 while painting an unrealistic image of a man on a tablecloth, you could just as easily be amazed that we happened to be in the 14th century. "Now" is always now. There's nothing special about any particular "now".

 

[Mojo]

Mojo,
- That wouldn't quite demonstrate that the odds were 1/6 -- the die could be loaded...
- But, I think that the real answer to your objection is that OOFLam has not been demonstrated.

No, that is irrelevant to the objection.

Read my post again, and then answer the question at the end of it:

But you're doing it by trying to insert something into your calculation of P(E|H) that doesn't belong there. Even if you could demonstrate that H was untrue it would still not belong there.

Here's a simpler example.

Say we have a six-sided die. We throw it, and it comes up as a 3 (event E). I form the hypothesis (H) that all six sides of the die have a 3 on them. The likelihood of the observed event under this hypothesis is 1, right?

You have an alternative hypothesis (let's call it J), that the six sides are numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. The likelihood of the observed event under this hypothesis is 1/6.

Then you pick up the die, and demonstrate that the sides are indeed numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.

What is the likelihood of the the observed event if H is true?

 

[CriticalThanking]

I'm at work and can't post YT links, but I'm reminded of a parody beer commercial showing some Hari Krishna folks in robes. Voice over to the effect of: "You've had a hard day chanting. You only go around 8 or 9 times in life, so go for all the gusto you can. Shlitz!"

Jabba, let me rephrase your "now" argument and you tell me if you agree.
"Since the universe is ~14B years old and I only live ~100 years, the odds of my being alive NOW are less than if I had a lifespan of ~13 billion years. Therefore, despite no one ever having seen evidence of someone living 13 billion years, it is still mathematically more likely I have a lifespan of 13 billion years than my only [ETA]having a lifespan of[/ETA]~100 years."

CT

 

[JesseCuster]

jond,
- If you have more than one finite life, aren't your odds of existing right now greater than if you only have one finite life?

Why? Now is just an arbitrary infinitesimal point in time. Why would the chances that now is 2017, Thursday, May 11th, 4:13pm (the time as of writing this post) be greater if you have more than one finite life?

Can you show your workings?

 

[JayUtah]

Likelihood is relevant. It is part of the equation.

Being part of the equation doesn't make it relevant because you still haven't shown the relevance of the equation.

That someone wins the lottery doesn't mean that the lottery is rigged; but, if the lottery Director's 2nd cousin is the winner, there might be a better answer...

And you would discover that better answer not by jerry-rigging a half-assed probabilistic estimate, but by looking for actual evidence of wrongdoing. The fact that you've chosen a statistical inference as your method for the question of immortality doesn't automatically make it the right method.

 

[JayUtah]

Again, this issue is difficult to parse...

Not at all. You're sitting inside a sample space trying to draw conclusions you say hold outside it. Your difficulty arises in finding new ways to disguise this error.

Re the TSF, I do think that I need to show why MY existence makes for a legitimate target, and I have tried to do that in the past.

You have failed several times to do it, because your explanation always boils down to trying to show the Texas sharpshooter fallacy isn't a fallacy.

 

[JayUtah]

Which part of Spaceballs?

 

[JayUtah]

But, I think that the real answer to your objection is that OOFLam has not been demonstrated.

First, it's the null hypothesis in your model. You have the burden to falsify it. Do not reverse the burden of proof.

Second, we have a vast amount of data on people who are born, live, and die. None of that gargantuan body of evidence suggests anything other than a mortal life. That's a fairly conclusive demonstration.

 

[Belz...]

Argumemnon,
- Likelihood is relevant. It is part of the equation. Another part of the equation is the probability of a different explanation. That someone wins the lottery doesn't mean that the lottery is rigged;

Life isn't a lottery. This has been explained time and time again to you. You don't receive a soul upon birth under H. Your body and brain are the direct result of prior conditions, and so's the resulting "self". There is no lottery or chance involved. Ergo probability is irrelevant.

 

[Belz...]

jond,
- If you have more than one finite life, aren't your odds of existing right now greater than if you only have one finite life?

No. See above: the odds are irrelevant because this isn't a lottery.

- Again, this issue is difficult to parse

It's not difficult for anyone else here.

 

[Pixel42]

Argumemnon,
- Likelihood is relevant. It is part of the equation. Another part of the equation is the probability of a different explanation. That someone wins the lottery doesn't mean that the lottery is rigged; but, if the lottery Director's 2nd cousin is the winner, there might be a better answer; and, the possibility of a better explanation rears its ugly head.

As has been pointed out to you more times than I can count, in this analogy (in so far as it is actually analogous) your existence is not the equivalent of the lottery Director's 2nd cousin winning, it's the equivalent of a random ticket holder winning. So why do you keep bringing up this imaginary cousin?

 

[wea]

I'm claiming that my current existence virtually proves that I have more than one, finite, life because it is so unlikely that I would be here now (out of all time) if I only have one, finite life (at most).

Jabba, let me rephrase your "now" argument and you tell me if you agree.
"Since the universe is ~14B years old and I only live ~100 years, the odds of my being alive NOW are less than if I had a lifespan of ~13 billion years. Therefore, despite no one ever having seen evidence of someone living 13 billion years, it is still mathematically more likely I have a lifespan of 13 billion years than my only [ETA]having a lifespan of[/ETA]~100 years."

CT, you are an eye-opener to me. I've bought a used car, the seller told me it was 4 years old. What are the mathematical odds it has been produced right now, in this decade, out of all time? It has more likely existed forever. Jabba, you agree it's most probably a fraud, can I rely on you as an expert witness?

 

[carlitos]

The beautiful thing is that "now" isn't even the same "now" as when Jabba wrote that.

Or even when you read this.






Or even now, when you read this.

 

[Garrette]

As has been pointed out to you more times than I can count, in this analogy (in so far as it is actually analogous) your existence is not the equivalent of the lottery Director's 2nd cousin winning, it's the equivalent of a random ticket holder winning. So why do you keep bringing up this imaginary cousin?

Isn't it really analogous to there simply being a ticket? Having a lottery winner separate from the thing being won is Jabba's way of continuing to sneak in the soul.

 

[Waterman]

Dice

Mojo,
- That wouldn't quite demonstrate that the odds were 1/6 -- the die could be loaded...
- But, I think that the real answer to your objection is that OOFLam has not been demonstrated.

But Jabba that was not the point of the comment.

The odds of rolling a particular number on a fair die is 1:x where x is the number is sides.

Lets say you roll the die and it is a 2.

Now that you have rolled the die and a number has been selected and read what are the odds it is a 2. 1:1

The current selection of 2 is independent of the prior odds once the event has happened. To claim otherwise is exactly the TSF.

How does the number of sides of the die change the probability that you are CURRENTLY looking at a 2.

 

[Monza]

Monza,
- Which part of Spaceballs?

Colonel Sandurz: Try here. Stop.
Dark Helmet: What the hell am I looking at? When does this happen in the movie?
Colonel Sandurz: Now. You're looking at now, sir. Everything that happens now, is happening now.
Dark Helmet: What happened to then?
Colonel Sandurz: We passed then.
Dark Helmet: When?
Colonel Sandurz: Just now. We're at now now.
Dark Helmet: Go back to then.
Colonel Sandurz: When?
Dark Helmet: Now.
Colonel Sandurz: Now?
Dark Helmet: Now.
Colonel Sandurz: I can't.
Dark Helmet: Why?
Colonel Sandurz: We missed it.
Dark Helmet: When?
Colonel Sandurz: Just now.
Dark Helmet: When will then be now?
Colonel Sandurz: Soon.


Though I hope you got more out of my post than the Spaceballs reference.

 

[Belz...]

Though I hope you got more out of my post than the Spaceballs reference.

You hope, but you know otherwise.

 

[JayUtah]

Isn't it really analogous to there simply being a ticket? Having a lottery winner separate from the thing being won is Jabba's way of continuing to sneak in the soul.

Indeed. When speaking of H, Jabba absolutely must dispossess himself of the notion that the sense of self, being a property of an organism, is not something that can have any sort of operative existence aside from the organism, nor anything that an organism acquires or embodies. There are many reasons to reject the lottery analogy. Its role as a vector for sneaking souls into the argument is just one of them.

 

[Mojo]

But Jabba that was not the point of the comment.

The odds of rolling a particular number on a fair die is 1:x where x is the number is sides.

Lets say you roll the die and it is a 2.

Now that you have rolled the die and a number has been selected and read what are the odds it is a 2. 1:1

The current selection of 2 is independent of the prior odds once the event has happened. To claim otherwise is exactly the TSF.

How does the number of sides of the die change the probability that you are CURRENTLY looking at a 2.

While it is a perfectly valid objection to Jabba's argument, that isn't actually the point I was trying to make.

Let's see if Jabba can answer the question he avoided on the last page.

Jabba, we have a six-sided die that we know to be a fair die. We roll it, and it comes up as a three. I form the hypothesis, H, that it has the number three on each of its sides. The likelihood of the event we have witnessed (rolling a three) is one under this hypothesis, i.e. if H is true.

You pick up the die, and show that the sides are in fact numbered one to six.

What is the likelihood of rolling a three under H?

 

[Belz...]

While it is a perfectly valid objection to Jabba's argument, that isn't actually the point I was trying to make.

Let's see if Jabba can answer the question he avoided on the last page.

Jabba, we have a six-sided die that we know to be a fair die. We roll it, and it comes up as a three. I form the hypothesis, H, that it has the number three on each of its sides. The likelihood of the event we have witnessed (rolling a three) is one under this hypothesis, i.e. if H is true.

You pick up the die, and show that the sides are in fact numbered one to six.

What is the likelihood of rolling a three under H?

Mojo,
- Again, this issue is difficult to parse
- I'll be back