Proof of Immortality, VI

[sackett]

Enjoying this, are you Jabba? You're easily amused.

Eternity should be a blast for you, then: infinite games of Idiot's Delight, infinitely repeated forever and forever.

 

[Jabba]

OK I'm glad we have that clarified now.

That means P(E|H) is the likelihood of my physical body existing and being alive. If we were to estimate this from the very beginning of the universe, that would be a very small number, but so would the likelihood of anything else eventually existing.

Dave,
- Does that mean that if I could meaningfully set myself apart from the rest, and could also present a credible and supportive figure for P(E|~H), you would agree with me about OOFLam?

 

[jond]

Dave,
- Does that mean that if I could meaningfully set myself apart from the rest and could also present a credible and supportive figure for P(E|~H), you would agree with me about OOFLam?

How are you going to get around the fact that it is impossible for your inclusion of a self as a separate entity to be more likely than H?

 

[JayUtah]

Dave,
- Does that mean that if I could meaningfully set myself apart from the rest and could also present a credible and supportive figure for P(E|~H), you would agree with me about OOFLam?

No, because there are all the other problems with your proof. Do not simply grovel for incessantly for agreement. The "if I had a valid argument, would you agree that I had a valid argument?" question is rude and evasive. You have been told what's wrong with your argument. It's not a quick fix.

 

[Belz...]

Dave,
- Does that mean that if I could meaningfully set myself apart from the rest, and could also present a credible and supportive figure for P(E|~H), you would agree with me about OOFLam?

Get on with it.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- Does that mean that if I could meaningfully set myself apart from the rest, and could also present a credible and supportive figure for P(E|~H), you would agree with me about OOFLam?

There's really no reason to ask this since we already know you can't do either of those things.

Let's take things one step at a time. Try to do this first:

meaningfully set myself apart from the rest

 

[JoeMorgue]

Dave,
- Does that mean that if I could meaningfully set myself apart from the rest, and could also present a credible and supportive figure for P(E|~H), you would agree with me about OOFLam?

Sure whatever Jabba. And I agree that if you prove 2 is really 3 than 2+2=6.

Please for the love of the Crimean War stop this pathetic lamb bleating begging for agreements to claims that you'l never support.

Nobody here is stupid and gullible enough to agree, sight unseen, to a starting point you can turn around and beg a conclusion from.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Dave,
- Does that mean that if I could meaningfully set myself apart from the rest, and could also present a credible and supportive figure for P(E|~H), you would agree with me about OOFLam?

Explain the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy to me again for the first time. I want to understand it like you do.

 

[jt512]

And the likelihood of Jabba's living body and his soul both existing, which is required for Jabba's current existence under his preferred hypothesis, cannot be greater than P(E|H).

That's not true. H and ~H are separate conditional universes. P(X, Y|~H) > P(X|H), for some events X, Y is possible.

 

[Hokulele]

That's not true. H and ~H are separate conditional universes. P(X, Y|~H) > P(X|H), for some events X, Y is possible.

I don't believe that applies in this case. Jabba has already admitted that his soul must occupy his specific body. This isn't really P(X, Y|~H), as much as P(P(X)P(X|Y)|~H). I think.

Do want LaTex....

 

[Jabba]

Dave,
- Does that mean that if I could meaningfully set myself apart from the rest, and could also present a credible and supportive figure for P(E|~H), you would agree with me about OOFLam?

There's really no reason to ask this since we already know you can't do either of those things.
Let's take things one step at a time. Try to do this first:
meaningfully set myself apart from the rest

Dave,
- I still think that I can present a credible and supportive figure for P(E|~H). I'll put this off for the moment.
- As noted before, I tend to agree with you about not being able to better convey my 'apartness' to you and your colleagues than I already have -- though, I still do believe it myself, do have some more ideas as to how to strengthen my case and do believe that a less skeptical audience would tend to "see what I mean."
- I'll be back.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I still think that I can present a credible and supportive figure for P(E|~H). I'll put this off for the moment.

WHY? WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR?!

As noted before, I tend to agree with you about not being able to better convey my 'apartness' to you and your colleagues than I already have -- though, I still do believe it myself, do have some more ideas as to how to strengthen my case and do believe that a less skeptical audience would tend to "see what I mean."

Oh horse-hockey. You can't convey our argument because you don't have one.

I'll be back.

Are you doing that to be funny at this point?

 

[Loss Leader]

- OK.
- Another hypothetical: if I were able to solve the TSS problem, what more would I need to solve?

Excluded Middle.

Any actual proof that your presumptions are true.

Appeal to probability.

Affirming the consequent.

Argument from ignorance.

Argument from incredulity.

Argument from repetition.

Begging the question.

Shifting the burden of proof.

Divine fallacy.

Ecological fallacy.

False dilemma.

Gambler's fallacy

Kettle logic

Ludic fallacy

Special pleading.

Just all of them, really.

 

[John Jones]

Dave,
- I still think that I can present a credible and supportive figure for P(E|~H). I'll put this off for the moment.

JabbaSpeak translation: "I'll be back".

- As noted before, I tend to agree with you about not being able to better convey my 'apartness' to you and your colleagues than I already have -- though, I still do believe it myself, do have some more ideas as to how to strengthen my case and do believe that a less skeptical audience would tend to "see what I mean."
- I'll be back.

Then go ahead and post it on that blog of yours that you won't let anyone see.

After 5 years of this, don't tell us again what you're going to do. Just do it!

You've thrown away your credibility here and everywhere else you're tried to peddle this nonsense.

 

[JayUtah]

I still think that I can present a credible and supportive figure for P(E|~H). I'll put this off for the moment.

Before putting it off, tell us why you think you can present a credible argument for it. It's either because you have done enough of the proof to suspect it will succeed, or it's because you're bluffing and you have no clue how you're going to do it. If the former, present the sketch so we know there actually is more to come. If the latter, just concede and apologize for wasting everyone's time.

As noted before, I tend to agree with you about not being able to better convey my 'apartness' to you and your colleagues than I already have --

No, you're not "agreeing" with him. Dave flatly said he knows you can't do it, and he's right. You have tried several times to do it, which is to say you've presented the same refuted argument several times. The problem is not that you're failing to convey your argument, such that the solution would be to keep repeating it. The problem is that your argument is provably wrong. So kindly stop trying to shove various mistaken forms of agreement into your critics' mouths and address what they actually say.

...though, I still do believe it myself

Yes, we know. In fact, you confessed that it was a strong emotional belief, and that you would be emotionally devastated if you couldn't prove it to be mathematically true. Your critics have simply take you at that word: they don't believe you believe in your proof, but you can't bear to admit that you're wrong.

I do have some more ideas as to how to strengthen my case...

No, you don't. You never present any new ideas. Under the pretense that you're merely having "communication problems" (as opposed to a wholesale flight from reason) you just try different words to present the same broken concepts. It's not the language that's the problem, Jabba. It's the whole idea of your proof. I gave you a list of all the things that are wrong with your proof. None of them is fixed by simply changing the words you use to write the proof.

...and do believe that a less skeptical audience would tend to "see what I mean."

No. We saw how you fared with the other audience, the one not composed of skeptics. You pulled the same stunts there as here, and got your head handed to you there as here. Further, they also drew the same conclusions about your refractory attitude to refutation and discussion.

Stop insulting your critics by suggesting your failure is their fault.

I'll be back.

With the same hogwash you've been unsuccessfully peddling for years.

 

[Hokulele]

- As noted before, I tend to agree with you about not being able to better convey my 'apartness' to you and your colleagues than I already have -- though, I still do believe it myself, do have some more ideas as to how to strengthen my case and do believe that a less skeptical audience would tend to "see what I mean."

We all see what you mean. It is just begging the question. It's not a hard concept you are trying to sell, it is simply a wrong one.

 

[jt512]

That's not true. H and ~H are separate conditional universes. P(X, Y|~H) > P(X|H), for some events X, Y is possible.

I don't believe that applies in this case. Jabba has already admitted that his soul must occupy his specific body. This isn't really P(X, Y|~H), as much as P(P(X)P(X|Y)|~H). I think.

But his soul only exists under ~H, not under H. So if X is the event that his body exists, and Y is the event his soul exits, then it could be, for instance, that

P(X|~H) = 1 and P(Y|~H) = 1, and thus P(X,Y|~H) = 1 .

Therefore P(X,Y|~H) >> P(X|H) ,

which I think is exactly what he believes.

Of course, he has to exist to believe anything at all, which, as I have attempted many times to explain, makes his argument fallacious.

 

[John Jones]

But his soul only exists under ~H, not under H. So if X is the event that his body exists, and Y is the event his soul exits, then it could be, for instance, that

P(X|~H) = 1 and P(Y|~H) = 1, and thus P(X,Y|~H) = 1 .

Therefore P(X,Y|~H) >> P(X|H) ,

[...]

IIRC, Jabba claims that souls exist under his OOFLam as well - they're just not immortal. I could be wrong, but Jabba is liable to make any damn fool claim at all and reverse himself the next week.

 

[jt512]

But his soul only exists under ~H, not under H. So if X is the event that his body exists, and Y is the event his soul exits, then it could be, for instance, that

P(X|~H) = 1 and P(Y|~H) = 1, and thus P(X,Y|~H) = 1 .

Therefore P(X,Y|~H) >> P(X|H) ,

which I think is exactly what he believes.

Of course, he has to exist to believe anything at all, which, as I have attempted many times to explain, makes his argument fallacious.

IIRC, Jabba claims that souls exist under his OOFLam as well - they're just not immortal. I could be wrong, but Jabba is liable to make any damn fool claim at all and reverse himself the next week.

OK, so instead, we have this:

P(X|~H) = 1 and P(Y|~H) = 1, and thus P(X,Y|~H) = 1 .

Therefore P(X,Y|~H) >> P(X,Y|H) ,

I'm sure I don't understand the details of Jabba's hypotheses H and ~H. Because of his central probabilistic fallacy, his argument is invalid regardless of the details of the hypotheses. I'm not worried about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, especially when they don't even have a pin to dance on.

 

[Hokulele]

OK, so instead, we have this:

P(X|~H) = 1 and P(Y|~H) = 1, and thus P(X,Y|~H) = 1 .

Therefore P(X,Y|~H) >> P(X,Y|H) ,

I'm sure I don't understand the details of Jabba's hypotheses H and ~H. Because of his central probabilistic fallacy, his argument is invalid regardless of the details of the hypotheses. I'm not worried about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, especially when they don't even have a pin to dance on.

I don't think Jabba understands the details of H and ~H, as they seem to change about every 4th post.