Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

[caveman1917]

No, Jabba has very carefully defined H as "Only One Finite Lifetime at most", and then included the existence of randomly allocated souls in his expression of the likelihood of his current existence if H is correct.

Well, whatever H may be, the argument is still incorrect. A non-empty set can not be a subset of two distinct sets. That should simply be the end of it.

 

[caveman1917]

(body) and (body + not soul) are the same thing.

body = body + not soul
=> body + soul = body + not soul + soul

Google "contradiction", then go back to that loop I put you in, and this time stay in it for a bit rather than wasting my time.

 

[SOdhner]

in a scenario where a soul is possible but not guaranteed we would treat 'born without a soul' as one of the possible outcomes and it would factor into the probability.

Just a note: I'm sure that's not what he's really suggesting, but it's the only way it would make any sense to dwell on (body + NO SOUL) being a distinct option.

 

[godless dave]

body = body + not soul
=> body + soul = body + not soul + soul

Google "contradiction", then go back to that loop I put you in, and this time stay in it for a bit rather than wasting my time.

"not soul" isn't a thing, it's the absence of a thing.

 

[SOdhner]

body = body + not soul
=> body + soul = body + not soul + soul

Really? Read this again:

I am setting up two totally distinct experiments, in different rooms with different people. They're not the same test.

Experiment 1: I have a bag of wooden blocks. It has an equal number of square and triangular blocks. Someone pulls out a block at random. The likelihood of getting a specific possible outcome is 50% (the block is either square or triangular).

Experiment 2: I have two bags of wooden blocks. One has an equal number of square and triangular blocks. The other has an equal number of red and blue blocks. Someone pulls out a block at random from each bag. The likelihood of getting a specific possible outcome is 25% (the first block is square and the second is red, the first is square and the second is blue, the first is triangular and the second is red, or the first is triangular and the second is blue).

In experiment 1, drawing a colored block is impossible because THERE ARE NO COLORED BLOCKS. But you're staring at it saying "But wait! I didn't get a red block!" as if this is somehow a revelation. You also didn't find a unicorn, or a toy boat, or a half-eaten ham sandwich.

Not getting something in a scenario where that specific something doesn't exist isn't a distinct outcome we need to address.

In a materialistic universe, we don't need to specify no soul, for the same reason that we don't have to specify no magic dragons.

 

[caveman1917]

"not soul" isn't a thing, it's the absence of a thing.

If you think that is relevant: back to the loop you go. In the meantime, I'm going to try a tactic I've seen used around here, big red letters:

A non-empty set can NOT be a subset of two distinct sets.

 

[godless dave]

So is (body) different from (body) + (not ham sandwich)?

 

[HighRiser]

It's not supposed to.

Jabba is claiming to compare two models: one were humans just have bodies, and one where humans have bodies and souls.

I think the internet forum persona, Jabba, has also made an allegation that the experience, E, is experienced by the experiencer's soul, and E couldn't occur otherwise.

Jabba doesn't seem to differentiate body and mind with regard to his oh, so verily miraculous existence. In other words, it matters not that H doesn't have souls in evidence because, in his view, dualism is an undefinable but inherent property of E.

 

[caveman1917]

Really? Read this again:

I've read your thought experiment sufficiently. Define your terms properly and present a mathematical argument.

In a materialistic universe, we don't need to specify no soul, for the same reason that we don't have to specify no magic dragons.

You just did, by saying "in a materialistic universe".

 

[SOdhner]

I've read your thought experiment sufficiently.

Clearly not.

You just did, by saying "in a materialistic universe".

But every time I say materialistic universe you say it "may or may not have souls" and then insist that I claimed that.

 

[caveman1917]

So is (body) different from (body) + (not ham sandwich)?

Yes, assuming all of these are non-empty, (body) is the union of (body) + (not ham sandwich) and (body) + (ham sandwich).

 

[HighRiser]

Yes, assuming all of these are non-empty, (body) is the union of (body) + (not ham sandwich) and (body) + (ham sandwich).

I don't know much about math beyond algebra.

Can you explain what difference that makes to (body) in terms I might understand?

 

[caveman1917]

But every time I say materialistic universe you say it "may or may not have souls" and then insist that I claimed that.

You claimed X are the specific requirements to have this body (DNA etc). You've also claimed Y is X + specific soul. If X includes "has no soul" (ie materialistic universe) then Y = DNA + ... + has no soul + has specific soul, which is an obvious contradiction. Therefor X can not include "has no soul". In fact, X must include "may or may not have soul".

 

[SOdhner]

You claimed X are the specific requirements to have this body (DNA etc). You've also claimed Y is X + specific soul. If X includes "has no soul" (ie materialistic universe) then Y = DNA + ... + has no soul + has specific soul, which is an obvious contradiction. Therefor X can not include "has no soul". In fact, X must include "may or may not have soul".

You're having a reading comprehension problem. X does not include "does not have a soul" as a requirement, any more than it includes "does not have a ham sandwich".

All I was saying (which was made extremely clear in my posts) is that all of the conditions of the materialistic version that are being checked for (that is, specific physical properties) would ALSO be checked for in the non-materialistic version. This is obviously true.

In the example that I gave to make it easy for you to understand, this is the square or triangular blocks. Both versions of the experiment have this part.

While a materialistic universe by definition won't include souls, you're not specifically adding "does not have a soul" as one of the requirements because that would be stupid.

Does that make sense now?

 

[caveman1917]

I don't know much about math beyond algebra.

Can you explain what difference that makes to (body) in terms I might understand?

Let X be the set {1, 2, 3, 4}, let Even be the set {2, 4} and Odd be the set {1, 3} (ie the subsets of even and odd numbers in X). Then the argument being made was: for a number to be in Even it must be in X and be even, which is an extra condition over just "must be in X", therefor there are more numbers in Odd than in Even.

Differently, having a body and a soul does not stop you from having a body. Therefor (body) can not be the same as (body) + (not soul).

 

[abaddon]

No, Jabba has very carefully defined H as "Only One Finite Lifetime at most", and then included the existence of randomly allocated souls in his expression of the likelihood of his current existence if H is correct.

It's a little worse. Jabba has intentionally inserted his desired conclusion into both sides.

Both sides of the equation in the Jabba model contain immortal souls therefore we all must agree immortal souls exist, therefore jebus.

It might be a pertinent question as to why an immortal soul needs insertion anywhere, but that is for jabba to answer

 

[SOdhner]

Then the argument being made was: for a number to be in Even it must be in X and be even, which is an extra condition over just "must be in X", therefor there are more numbers in Odd than in Even.

Wow, no. That's not at all what we said.

 

[theprestige]

Wow, no. That's not at all what we said.

Right?

Argument by analogy never works.

 

[SOdhner]

Argument by analogy never works.

I try so hard to keep the analogies simple and relevant, and... yeah, no, they never work. It feels like people cannot stop and look at the analogy with a blank slate.

For example, I gave caveman1917 a very simple explanation of what was going on:

Experiment 1: I have a bag of wooden blocks. It has an equal number of square and triangular blocks. Someone pulls out a block at random. The likelihood of getting a specific possible outcome is 50% (the block is either square or triangular).

Experiment 2: I have two bags of wooden blocks. One has an equal number of square and triangular blocks. The other has an equal number of red and blue blocks. Someone pulls out a block at random from each bag. The likelihood of getting a specific possible outcome is 25% (the first block is square and the second is red, the first is square and the second is blue, the first is triangular and the second is red, or the first is triangular and the second is blue).

But somehow from that he got that the second set (color, in this example) was somehow ALSO included in the first set (shape) even though I was very specific about these being two distinct qualities selected separately.

 

[caveman1917]

You're having a reading comprehension problem. X does not include "does not have a soul" as a requirement, any more than it includes "does not have a ham sandwich".

I'm not having a reading comprehension problem, you're having a problem with asserting contradictions:

In X, the odds of any soul at all is already zero so trying to take it into account is nonsense.

If you think you are correct (which you are not), present a well-defined mathematical argument rather than simplistic thought experiments.