Proof of Immortality, VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
JayUtah said:
He has, but you have to put on your rhetorical hiking boots to get there.

Jabba's case, as you may know, is the classic reversal that embodies a false dilemma. Many fringe theorists choose not to prove their theory, but instead to falsify the prevailing narrative and hold their theory therefore true (or at least more probably true) by default.

Jabba wants to prove he is immortal. But he can't do it directly, so he wants to falsify the notion that we are mortal. In his words, that we each have at most one finite life. (There are a multitude of problems with just that, but that's how he phrases it.) He calls this H. If he can prove that P(H) is very, very small, then P(~H) must be very, very large since P(H) + P(~H) = 1.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know that. But mathematically speaking, his entire Bayesian argument that P(H) is very small rests entirely on the premise that P(E|~H) >> P(E|H). That's yet another thing he hasn't made a serious attempt to justify.

Dave
 
Jabba,
If I were in your position, I would be asking for written permission (if not absolution) to quote JayUtah. Loss Leader. Godless Dave, Mojo. and many, many others on that abomination of a website you call your 'map'.
You may quote the above.
 
JayUtah said:
Jabba wants to prove he is immortal. But he can't do it directly, so he wants to falsify the notion that we are mortal. In his words, that we each have at most one finite life. (There are a multitude of problems with just that, but that's how he phrases it.) He calls this H. If he can prove that P(H) is very, very small, then P(~H) must be very, very large since P(H) + P(~H) = 1. With H formulated as above, ~H becomes "I am immortal." The unspoken addendum is "...in some way."
Click to expand...

Actually, if H = "We each have at most one finite life," Then ~H ≠ "I am immortal" or, indeed, that anyone is. Rather, ~H = "It is not the case that we each have at most one finite life." Among the infinite collection of hypotheses that this comprises is "Everyone has exactly one life, except for Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has precisely two."
 
jt512 said:
Actually, if H = "We each have at most one finite life," Then ~H ≠ "I am immortal" or, indeed, that anyone is. Rather, ~H = "It is not the case that we each have at most one finite life." Among the infinite collection of hypotheses that this comprises is "Everyone has exactly one life, except for Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has precisely two."
Click to expand...


Indeed, and many posters have pointed out Jabba's use of a false dilemma.
 
jt512 said:
Actually, if H = "We each have at most one finite life," Then ~H ≠ "I am immortal" or, indeed, that anyone is. Rather, ~H = "It is not the case that we each have at most one finite life." Among the infinite collection of hypotheses that this comprises is "Everyone has exactly one life, except for Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has precisely two."
Click to expand...

Yes. That is correct. Jabba has been instructed in this matter an 'almost infinite' number of times the last five years.

Want to guess what his response has always been? Another fringe reset.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
Dave,
- I'll leave this sub-issue to whatever mixed jury we can drum up.
Click to expand...


Except:

1. Logic isn't determined by a jury. It's determined by a strict set of formal rules.

2. There is no jury.

3. Juries need a standard of proof. You have never indicated to what level you believe your proof rises - mathematical, scientific, reasonable doubt, preponderance of the evidence, historical or anything else. Without knowing that, juries cannot function.

4. There is still no jury beyond your interlocutors. People here have been your jury. And the jury almost unanimously rejects your atttempted proof.
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- I'll leave this sub-issue to whatever mixed jury we can drum up.
Click to expand...

What do you mean "we"?

In spite of what you wish, there is no collection of people "working with you" so we can all "find the truth together".

There is you with your unfounded crackpot ideas, everyone else trying to educate you, and you putting you fingers in your ears and skimming posts for a sound bite.
 
In jury trials it's normal for both prosecution and defence to present evidence for their assertions. If the defence not only does so but demonstrates that the prosecution's assertions are false, and the prosecution neither does so nor presents any rebuttal, then the case will be thrown out without needing to trouble a jury. So unless Jabba is finally going to present some evidence, or at least address the numerous fatal errors on which his argument rests, we can dismiss his claims out of hand.
 
Jabba said:
I'll leave this sub-issue...
Click to expand...

It's not a "sub-issue." It's the only source of your Big Denominator, which you told us -- and we agree -- was the crucial element in your argument. You have presented that argument here for review, but you are unwilling to participate in that review. If the linchpin of your argument doesn't merit discussion after five years of you foisting it, then you simply lose the debate forthwith. You are unwilling to support your claims.

...to whatever mixed jury we can drum up.
Click to expand...

There is no "we" in that endeavor. It's consummately rude for you to stall the discussion you started here while you beg for some phantom audience of sympathizers elsewhere. We don't care about your "map." We don't care about your venue shopping or other dishonest tactics. We have presented our objections to your proof and given the reasons behind them. You can either address those here, where you made your claim and where it was addressed, or you can lose the debate.
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- I'll leave this sub-issue to whatever mixed jury we can drum up.
Click to expand...

There's no reason to think that you're going to do anything about the complete lack of supporting evidence, or even convincing argument, for the concept that viable ova and sperm that didn't have the opportunity to come together in space and time somehow managed to come together in some form other than very fine grained organic dust.

Juries can't deliberate over cases that have not been made. Your potential brilliant career as a defense attorney is losing its luster.
 
JoeBentley said:
What jury? What you are talking about? Who are you talking to?
Click to expand...

It's his standard stall. When he gets stuck, he imagines that we cannot proceed until all his foisted ground rules are in place and agreed to. Yes, he imagines (albeit selectively) that we are all his allies in a noble search for truth, and that we have to just find a way of collaborating and congenially getting along.

Oh, it's all just an act. It's a well-worn social engineering technique for defusing criticism. Make your critics think they have to be constructive and work in concert toward some collective goal instead of telling you how you're wrong -- because who doesn't want to be thought of as cooperative?. Other similar techniques include shaming people away from criticism ("Be nice to me, I'm just a befuddled old man" or "It's hard to understand complicated posts") -- because who wants to be seen picking on the weakling?

I say selective because at other times Jabba has made it plain that he doesn't consider his critics ideologically or intellectually worthy to criticize him. Today's distraction is all about finding that "neutral" audience because, you know, skeptics can't be trusted to be fair with their analysis and criticism. Similarly he's told use we're just not able to think in the right mode to appreciate his genius.

If you read all of Jabba's threads, you get the idea he really doesn't know how to actually debate. His arguments are clustered around two apparent goals (1) fudging the ground rules so that he wins before he even starts, and (2) saving face.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom