My best guess is that I'm clearly set apart from those from which I need to be set apart in order to satisfy the logic of Bayes...
But as I noted above, you don't understand the parts of a Bayesian inference and what they do. And we're not the only people who have told you this, so you can't write it off as mere skeptical rhetoric. Further, you don't seem to consider the possibility that a Bayesian inference is not the right way to construct your mathematical proof. You're trying to make the problem fit Bayes, not choose the right tool for the problem.
i.e. I'm set apart from all those others who do not currently exist.
But by what criteria? So far it's simply
that you exist, which doesn't transcend the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. All you're doing is exactly choosing the target after the bullet was fired. You now exist, and you're trying to make that existence retroactively significant to the time before you existed, or in comparison to a case where you don't exist. That's tantamount to trying to make the bullet hole somehow retroactively significant to the time before you fired the bullet. You are committing a textbook example of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.
If you want to escape the Texas sharpshooter fallacy you have to show an actual way, objectively determinable under H, in which you were significant before you existed. If you assume a soul -- which you do -- then that's easy. However, the reason you're calling up this notion of you (and everyone else -- see below) existing, and of an infinity of potential souls, is because this is how you tell us you're reckoning P(E|H). There are no souls in E. There are no souls in H. You can't reckon P(E|H) using things those concepts don't give you.
P(E|H) in your formula is 7,000,000 / ∞, which you go on to wrongly say is "practically zero." But the fatal flaw we're considering in for the moment is not your mathematical illiteracy but rather that you're formulating P(E|H) via a combination of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, a begged question, and a straw man -- all of which employ things not found in either E or H. Your numerator is the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. E is a begged question. And, for completeness, division by infinity is not defined in this case. Where it is defined, it is defined as
exactly zero, not "practically" zero or "virtually" zero.
How you've committed the straw-man fallacy that in the past is to back-door the concept of a soul causing self-awareness into E. That is, you equivocate E to mean not just "I exist and am self-aware," but rather "I exist and am self-aware
, and this self-awareness is some unique soul-like thingy." You absolutely do not get to do that when reckoning P(E|H). It's begging the question of
some kind of soul and trying to make H account for it. Neither E nor H provides any such concept.
I contend that I don't need to be set apart from those who do currently exist -- as they're in the same boat as me.
Yes, but that's just committing the Texas sharpshooter fallacy 6,999,999 more times. It doesn't become somehow more valid the more times you make the mistake.
And, what seals the deal (IMO), is that there is some reasonable doubt as to the truth of OOFLam...
But that's irrelevant to estimating P(E|H), as you've been told so many times. When reckoning P(E|H) you must reason as if H were true, even if you don't believe in H. P(H) is a different part of the formula. As I note above, you are quite unfamiliar with what the
concepts are in a Bayesian inference. You've shown no interest in correcting your ignorance, as the statisticians you consulted informed you.
...there are, in fact, other possibilities that make my current existence much more likely than does OOFLam.
Those possibilities cannot factor into P(E|H)
at all. Those are P(E|~H). You wrongly compute P(E|~H) too, and here you're just begging the question again, but we'll save that for another post.
IMO, the prior probability of OOFLam is no more than .99, whereas the likelihood of my current existence, given OOFlam, is practically zero.
The method by which you compute P(E|H) is pure pseudo-mathematical gibberish. This is a serious answer to your question. The above explains why. You will ignore it. You are not interested in serious answers.
