Proof of Immortality, VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
jabba,

For you convenience, I have taken your list of 17 things (I thought Effective Debate demanded you present only one at a time, but maybe not) and struck-through just the ones for which there are objections. This would be a wonderful time to begin with the first on the list of objected-to items and engage in a discussion of the objections.

Don't you agree?

Here's the full list:
  1. According to modern science, we each should have only one finite life to live, at most -- "OOFLam."
  2. The "we each" to which I refer is the sense of self that we all, apparently, have.
  3. Most scientists would include "at most" because they don't think that any of us ever had to exist.
  4. Under that hypothesis, my current existence is EXTREMELY unlikely.
  5. But here I am!
  6. Given the "right" conditions, the fact that I do currently exist is EXTREMELY strong evidence that OOFLam is wrong.
  7. Often, however, all of the alternative possible results/events produced by the particular situation are extremely unlikely -- in such a case, the unlikelihood of the particular event produced is not evidence against the hypothesis.
  8. In such a case, in order to be evidence against the hypothesis, the particular event needs to be "set apart" from most of the other possible results in a way that is meaningful to the particular hypothesis. A good example is when a lottery is won by the second cousin of the lottery controller.
  9. Consequently, in order for my current existence to be evidence against OOFLam, I need to be set apart in a way meaningful to OOFLam.
  10. That is the case.
  11. To formally re-evaluate OOFLam, we can use the following formula from Bayesian statistics: P(H|E)=P(E|H)*P(H)/(P(E|H)*P(H)+P(E|~H)*P(~H)).
  12. There are 3 variables in that formula -- we've already discussed P(E|H), the likelihood of the event occurring, given H (OOFLam).
  13. Another variable is the prior probability of H (and ~H).
  14. There is a reasonable probability of at least 1% for ~H -- and therefore, no more than 99% for H.
  15. The remaining variable is P(E|~H), the likelihood of the event occurring, given ~H. For now, I'll suggest 99%.
  16. Inserting the numbers, we get that the posterior probability of H, after adding E to the evidence is: P(H|E)=10-100*.99/(10-100*.99+.99*.01). And rounding off, we get P(H|E)=0/.099, or zero.
  17. So, by adding this new info to the evidence for H and rounding off, we get that the probability of H being true is zero.
​
 
zooterkin said:
Come again?
Click to expand...

jabba is so busy copying old posts to complete the fringe reset that he's not paying attention to what's actually copied at all. The "10-100" was supposed to be "10-100", but why let typography interfere when the number is fictitious to begin with.
 
jsfisher said:
jabba,

For you convenience, I have taken your list of 17 things (I thought Effective Debate demanded you present only one at a time, but maybe not) and struck-through just the ones for which there are objections. This would be a wonderful time to begin with the first on the list of objected-to items and engage in a discussion of the objections.

Don't you agree?

Here's the full list:
  1. According to modern science, we each should have only one finite life to live, at most -- "OOFLam."
  2. The "we each" to which I refer is the sense of self that we all, apparently, have.
  3. Most scientists would include "at most" because they don't think that any of us ever had to exist.
  4. Under that hypothesis, my current existence is EXTREMELY unlikely.
  5. But here I am!
  6. Given the "right" conditions, the fact that I do currently exist is EXTREMELY strong evidence that OOFLam is wrong.
  7. Often, however, all of the alternative possible results/events produced by the particular situation are extremely unlikely -- in such a case, the unlikelihood of the particular event produced is not evidence against the hypothesis.
  8. In such a case, in order to be evidence against the hypothesis, the particular event needs to be "set apart" from most of the other possible results in a way that is meaningful to the particular hypothesis. A good example is when a lottery is won by the second cousin of the lottery controller.
  9. Consequently, in order for my current existence to be evidence against OOFLam, I need to be set apart in a way meaningful to OOFLam.
  10. That is the case.
  11. To formally re-evaluate OOFLam, we can use the following formula from Bayesian statistics: P(H|E)=P(E|H)*P(H)/(P(E|H)*P(H)+P(E|~H)*P(~H)).
  12. There are 3 variables in that formula -- we've already discussed P(E|H), the likelihood of the event occurring, given H (OOFLam).
  13. Another variable is the prior probability of H (and ~H).
  14. There is a reasonable probability of at least 1% for ~H -- and therefore, no more than 99% for H.
  15. The remaining variable is P(E|~H), the likelihood of the event occurring, given ~H. For now, I'll suggest 99%.
  16. Inserting the numbers, we get that the posterior probability of H, after adding E to the evidence is: P(H|E)=10-100*.99/(10-100*.99+.99*.01). And rounding off, we get P(H|E)=0/.099, or zero.
  17. So, by adding this new info to the evidence for H and rounding off, we get that the probability of H being true is zero.
​
Click to expand...

Jabba, this is a post you might find worth addressing.
 
jsfisher said:
jabba is so busy copying old posts to complete the fringe reset that he's not paying attention to what's actually copied at all. The "10-100" was supposed to be "10-100", but why let typography interfere when the number is fictitious to begin with.
Click to expand...

Yes, I did wonder about the actual numbers, too, but, you know, just one issue at a time. ;) Jabba seems to think that very small is the same as zero, and very big is the same as infinity. He doesn't seem to realise quite how big the universe is.
 
1- pull numbers out of your ass
3.5 multiply them together and don't bother with error bars
5.1 - ???
1.2 - prophet


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
godless dave said:
Jabba, you seem to be implying that this:
The 'thing' that recognizes or experiences existence. Whatever it is that is aware.
suggests this:
that which would be looking out two sets of eyes if it were actually duplicated.

Can you explain why the one suggests the other to you?
Click to expand...
Dave,
- I probably can't do any better than before -- but by duplicating 'me,' it would be as if I were a computer with a camera, and you're really just duplicating my camera. In this analogy, my "self" is the receiver of the info being gathered by the camera.
 
jsfisher said:
jabba is so busy copying old posts to complete the fringe reset that he's not paying attention to what's actually copied at all. The "10-100" was supposed to be "10-100", but why let typography interfere when the number is fictitious to begin with.
Click to expand...
js,
- Thanks for the correction.
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- I probably can't do any better than before -- but by duplicating 'me,' it would be as if I were a computer with a camera, and you're really just duplicating my camera. In this analogy, my "self" is the receiver of the info being gathered by the camera.
Click to expand...

Not under H.
 
Jabba said:
I probably can't do any better than before...
Click to expand...

Then you don't win the debate, Jabba. Get it? If you do your best and you are refuted and you have no rejoinder, you lose. That's how a debate works.

but by duplicating 'me,' it would be as if I were a computer with a camera, and you're really just duplicating my camera. In this analogy, my "self" is the receiver of the info being gathered by the camera.
Click to expand...

That's dualism, not materialism. You simply lose, Jabba. You can't refute materialism without trying paste onto it all sorts of things it doesn't have.
 
Jabba said:
Thanks for the correction.
Click to expand...

You missed the point. You're not progressing the discussion, you're just copypasting what you've already said without any further thought. This is not effective debate. The stuff you're copying has already been refuted. As such it has no value unless you are willing to go beyond it, which you have clearly expressed you are not willing to do. Simply repeating your claims over and over again is rude and pointless.
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- I probably can't do any better than before -- but by duplicating 'me,' it would be as if I were a computer with a camera, and you're really just duplicating my camera. In this analogy, my "self" is the receiver of the info being gathered by the camera.
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't it be possible to duplicate the receiver as well as the camera?
 
Jabba said:
we've already discussed P(E|H), the likelihood of the event occurring, given H (OOFLam).
Click to expand...

No. You simply presented a lot of pseudo-mathematical and pseudo-philosophical gibberish in an attempt to argue this number must be very small -- a tenet you freely confessed was something you decided ahead of time had to be true. You abjectly refuse to discuss what's wrong with it. You simply wave your hands and declare a bunch of meaningless philosophy-sounding generalities to be facts that defeat materialism.

No, Jabba, we have "already discussed it" only in the sense that we have listened to you once again try to peddle the same nonsense that no one else in the entire solar system has bought. Keep in mind we know how you fared elsewhere, you don't get to gaslight your critics into thinking they're just to dense to grasp your genius.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom