Proof of Immortality, VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
(To be continued)
Click to expand...

No, stop it. Stop re-hashing the same claims and definitions and speculations over and over. You've been asked questions and you've all dodged them in order to get into this new pet project of yours. Quit it and answer this:

Argumemnon said:
Jabba said:
One of those reasons is that there are many more selves now than there used to be.
Click to expand...
There are also more cars than 100 years ago. How is this an argument for a pool of potential selves?
Click to expand...
 
Toontown said:
Anyone can subjectively apply the formula to herself.
Click to expand...

Which would seem to mean that there is no difference between you, me, Jabba, or anyone else, and therefore nothing special about our existence as opposed to anyone else's existence.

If a gajillion different outcomes are all equally probable or improbable, but one will definitely happen, then the fact that one does happen doesn't seem to me to be anything out of the ordinary.
 
Dave,
- I now suspect that I was wrong about the Bayesian formulas accounting for the sharpshooter fallacy... Not to say that I won't change my mind (again), but for now I'm thinking that if there's nothing to set me apart from the crowd, the unlikelihood of my current existence, under the hypothesis being evaluated, has no relevance to the posterior probability of that hypothesis -- whoever exists will have that same unlikelihood.
- I know that's what you've been saying all along, but I was beginning to think that I might have a clear savior for my 'targetness' -- the formula itself!

- Anyway, I don't think so anymore...
- Not to worry -- I have a better savior: targetness. A target doesn't need to be pre-selected. More to come.

- But again, a theorist often has a 'feel' for a hypothesis before he/she can express it effectively.
 
Jabba said:
5. For another thing, in many situations, the specific event is only one of NUMEROUS possible results (millions?) -- and for unlikelihood to be of consequence in such a case, the specific result has to be meaningfully set apart from most other possible results.
5.1. You never managed to set apart your existence from any of the other possible results.
5.2. - I don't set apart my existence from any of the possible results. I set apart my existence from most of the possible results.
5.3. And how do you do that?
5.4. - I'm a potential self that currently exists. Most potential selves do not currently exist (under modern science).
5.5. Before you existed, what set your potential self apart from the potential selves that didn't end up existing?
5.6. - Good question.
- I think that what really sets a result apart is there being a reasonable possibility that it wasn't the result of the hypothesis being evaluated -- and here, that applies to everyone who exists.
5.7. That doesn't help you avoid the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.
5.8. - In this case, all he had to do was hit the barn.
5.9. But he hasn't done that, he has just hit something, and painted a target round it.
That is all you have: one of the possible outcomes has occurred (as is inevitable), and you are claiming that it is special because it has occurred. It wasn't prespecified, and nothing sets it apart from all the other possible outcomes othe than the fact that it has occurred.

5.10. - My claim is that to be legitimate, a target does not need to be pre-specified. A legitimate target doesn't need red and white rings around it. Also, there are degrees of "targetness."
- I'm claiming that what makes a target legitimate is a reasonably possible alternative hypothesis to the hypothesis being evaluated -- and, the Bayesian formula accounts for that requirement with its prior probabilities...
- I'm saying that as soon as a result has a reasonably possible alternative explanation, we have a legitimate target.
- I think that's the answer because I can't find anything in the Bayesian instructions that refer to this issue. If you, or anyone else, can refer me to such a statement, I'll happily concede this claim.
- The Bayesian instructions seem to imply that the formula accounts for the Sharpshooter explanation.
5.11. - Can anyone provide a source that discusses the Sharp Shooter fallacy as it relates to any of the Bayesian formulas? Does the Sharp Shooter fallacy need to be considered when determining P(E|H)?
5.12. - I don't think that you ever responded to that claim. Can you provide a source contradicting my claim?
5.13. How about you provide a source supporting it?
5.14. - I can't. But, as I suggest above, the fact that I can't find anyone even talking about this issue suggests that the issue is accounted for by the Bayesian formula.
5.15. - I'm still not sure, but more specifically, this is why I think we don't have to worry about any Texas Sharp Shooter.
- There are 4 variables involved in the Bayesian approach: 2 prior probabilities, and 2 likelihoods.
- In the lottery situation, if the winner can't be set apart from the crowd, we accept that the prior probability of a rigged game is essentially zero, and the fact that the specific winner had just 1 chance in, say, 10 million, doesn't carry any weight.
- In my situation, I'm not limiting my claim to myself; I'm suggesting that we are all in the same boat. Consequently, I don't want to set myself apart from the rest of you guys, and the conclusion rests entirely upon the prior probabilities.
5.16 Just like last time, this does nothing to address the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. Each of our existences is one of many possibilities, all of which were unlikely before they happened.
If you hold several lotteries, and some of them have winners, there is no reason to think any of them are rigged.
5.17. Jabba, to avoid the Texas sharpshooter fallacy here you don't need to set yourself apart from "the rest of us guys", you need to set apart the observed result from all the other possible results that could have occurred.
5.18. Shooting 7 billion bullets at a barn and then circling the bullet holes and saying "what are the odds I would hit these 7 billion targets?" is still the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.
If someone else existed in your place, and presented the same argument in favour of immortality as you are presenting, would their argument be valid?

(To be continued)
Click to expand...
- Unfortunately, I now think that I was wrong about the Bayesian formulas accounting for the Sharpshooter fallacy...
- Not to worry -- I might change my mind again
 
5.10. - My claim is that to be legitimate, a target does not need to be pre-specified.

I absolutely disagree with this statement as it is fundamentally flawed and typifies your failure to understand the TSS.

If it is not specified in advance it is not a target that is sort of the general definition of the word. You can't claim to be 'due perfect' when you chip lands on the green and bounces into the sand trap saying 'I meant to do that' or what are the odds that it would land exactly 1.83 feet from the edge of the trap and not roll down the hill after bouncing TWICE on the green. Am I a good shot or what! I bet you couldn't do that in a million years.
 
Jabba said:
I have a better savior: targetness. A target doesn't need to be pre-selected.
Click to expand...

Yes it does, if the probability of it arising is to have any meaning. Either you really don't understand why the Texas sharpshooter fallacy is a fallacy, or you're hoping your reader doesn't. In either case, do not simply try to find a different way of hiding it in your argument. You must know your critics aren't fooled by that.

Another poster suggested you describe the Texas sharpshooter fallacy in your own words, and explain why it's a fallacy. I tend to think that exercise would do your argument good.

Also, I'm still waiting for an answer to the dozen or so other fatal flaws in your argument. You have suggested that once you eliminate the Texas sharpshooter issue in your argument, it will be essentially proven. That would not be true. You still have the rest of the fatal flaws to contend with, and it doesn't appear that you're interested in them.
 
JimOfAllTrades said:
Which would seem to mean that there is no difference between you, me, Jabba, or anyone else, and therefore nothing special about our existence as opposed to anyone else's existence.

If a gajillion different outcomes are all equally probable or improbable, but one will definitely happen, then the fact that one does happen doesn't seem to me to be anything out of the ordinary.
Click to expand...

Whether or not you find yourself "ordinary" with respect to others of your kind, I say you should be extremely surprised that you, specifically, find yourself, in particular, among the chosen, against the giganogargantuan odds that were stacked against you, in particular, by standard big bang theory in conjunction with Jabba's interpretation of H. Almost every universe that could have come out of the initial quantum shuffle, didn't. The one that did come out is the only one that would have included your specific brain. Sorry, but I can't state my POV any more simply or concisely.

But no other outcome should be surprising, from your subjective perspective. Things had to happen once the bomb detonated.

I say Jabba's formula is valid, but only from a subjective perspective. But if I am correct, that wouldn't mean Jabba's solution is correct.

If you choose to ignore the subjective perspective the formula is specifically set up for, in favor of an objective perspective which requires you to believe you've beaten giganogargantuan odds (assuming you generally accept Jabba's interpretation of H), that's your choice.

But when you do so, you are not actually debunking the formula. You're just defaulting to an alternative paradigm which you happen to favor.

I say the formula is valid. I disagree with Jabba's suggested solution of it.
 
Jabba said:
But again, a theorist often has a 'feel' for a hypothesis before he/she can express it effectively.
Click to expand...

Once again, the problem with your proof is not that you are not expressing it effectively, but instead that it is easily seen to be wrong, no matter how you express it. The concepts are wrong, no matter what new obfuscation you apply. After five years of watching you express the same wrong concepts in a parade of ambiguous and misleading language, your critics have understandably lost patience.

A claimant's "feel" for a hypothesis is exactly why we follow the scientific method. It properly divorces all feeling and devotion to one's beliefs and lets them be tested against reality. When you tell us how emotionally invested you are in having this proof work, we don't have faith in your ability to police your own methods.

Kepler had a "feel" for his nested-solids theory for the spacing of the planets. It appealed to his belief (well, common at the time) that nature had a certain simple harmony. The father of orbital mechanics was a mystic too. Even after he proved that planet orbits were ellipses, not magical celestial spheres separated by Platonic solids, he clung to the notion and wrote about it. It's even worth noting that it almost works for six of the planets, so I'm sure Kepler felt he was on the right track -- somehow. But in the final analysis the theory is very wrong, and Kepler's "feelings" did nothing to change that.

Nobody here has argued with your feelings. You've been told numerous times that if you want to believe you have an immortal soul, you'll be in good company. The problem is that you claim you can transform these feelings into a mathematical proof. The self-assurance in your feelings cannot be part of that proof, and it may blind you to seeing why your proof doesn't work.
 
Toontown said:
Whether or not you find yourself "ordinary" with respect to others of your kind, I say you should be extremely surprised that you, specifically, find yourself, in particular, among the chosen, against the giganogargantuan odds that were stacked against you, in particular, by standard big bang theory in conjunction with Jabba's interpretation of H. Almost every universe that could have come out of the initial quantum shuffle, didn't. The one that did come out is the only one that would have included your specific brain. Sorry, but I can't state my POV any more simply or concisely.

(snip)

I say Jabba's formula is valid, but only from a subjective perspective.
Click to expand...

I see what you're saying, I think. But what is the utility of a formulation that gives different results based on my subjective point of view?

(Upon reflection, this may be going into a derail of the thread. If so, Mods please feel free to not authorize this post.)
 
JayUtah said:
A claimant's "feel" for a hypothesis is exactly why we follow the scientific method. It properly divorces all feeling and devotion to one's beliefs and lets them be tested against reality. When you tell us how emotionally invested you are in having this proof work, we don't have faith in your ability to police your own methods.
Click to expand...


"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." - Richard Feynman.

Jabba is using cargo cult statistics.
 
Jabba said:
A target doesn't need to be pre-selected.
Click to expand...
If you really think that, then I don't think you know what the word target actually means.

Target:
A person, object, or place selected as the aim of an attack.
Select as an object of attention or attack.
An objective or result towards which efforts are directed.
Etc.

The word target loses any meaning if you don't need to declare what you intend to hit or achieve before you try and achieve your objective.

You're doing your utmost best to try and try and make everyone else think you're not guilty of the sharpshooter fallacy, but you're truly doing a lousy job of it. Either you don't actually understand what the sharpshooter fallacy is or you're being disingenuous in trying to sweep it under the carpet.
 
JesseCuster said:
If you really think that, then I don't think you know what the word target actually means.

Target:
A person, object, or place selected as the aim of an attack.
Select as an object of attention or attack.
An objective or result towards which efforts are directed.
Etc.

The word target loses any meaning if you don't need to declare what you intend to hit or achieve before you try and achieve your objective.

You're doing your utmost best to try and try and make everyone else think you're not guilty of the sharpshooter fallacy, but you're truly doing a lousy job of it. Either you don't actually understand what the sharpshooter fallacy is or you're being disingenuous in trying to sweep it under the carpet.
Click to expand...
Jesse,
- You're right. I used the wrong word. I should have said "pre-specified."
 
JimOfAllTrades said:
I see what you're saying, I think. But what is the utility of a formulation that gives different results based on my subjective point of view?
Click to expand...

It might be interesting to see what effect the POV has on the results.

Maybe one POV might turn out to be more informative than another.

Jabba thought his POV could be formalized in a way that would be convincing to some people. Maybe it is convincing to some people. I don't know. Those people haven't had anything to say in this forum.
 
Toontown said:
I say the formula is valid. I disagree with Jabba's suggested solution of it.
Click to expand...
In what way is it valid and how would you suggest it be solved?


Jabba said:
Jesse,
- You're right. I used the wrong word. I should have said "pre-specified."
Click to expand...
Oh for the love of FSM.

Since "pre-specified" is synonymous with "target", how, pray tell, would using "pre-specified" have changed anything?

Is this just another attempt in a long, long, long line of attempts at thinking that if you change just one word, it would mean you aren't committing certain fallacies?

Again, how would using "pre-specified" change anything?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom