Proof of Immortality, VI

[caveman1917]

Meh. Seemed like the second clause was tautological, and didn't merit scrutiny.

Claim(s): It's unlikely that anything exists
[subclaim] unless that thing is immortal

Conclusion: I exist, therefore I am immortal

The immortality element of it seemed to be whatever the technical term is for assuming the conclusion to be true, then using that assumed conclusion as part of the argument for why the conclusion is true. There's a term, but I can't recall it.

Pretty much, you don't have to go beyond the assumption that the likelihood of anything existing is really small. That's not even a good assumption, it's obviously incorrect in a pretty dramatic fashion. Nothing beyond that false assumption bears consideration.

No that's not it. The argument is sound, the falsity of a premise is why it fails. And it isn't so much the "it's unlikely that anything exists" one, which you seem to consider the failure point, but the "unless that thing is immortal" one. Here is an example of a valid argument of that form:

Claim: It's unlikely that any living thing exists
[subclaim] unless the universe supports life

Conclusion: I exist, therefor the universe supports life

The only real problem with Jabba's argument is this assertion: P(E|~H) > P(E|H). Or using the new "I" for immortal rather than "H" for, well who really knows: P(E|I) > P(E|~I). That's it, the rest is mostly either a bunch of back-and-forth philosophizing, the result of Jabba or someone else completely messing up basic math, or just plain ********.

ETA: and there's nothing wrong with the assumption that the likelihood of anything existing is really small. In the space of all models for current theories in physics there's only a relatively small space where, indeed, anything exists. Physical constants have to be set fairly specific or you just get things like the universe immediately collapsing into a black hole or stuff like that.

 

[JayUtah]

Hey! Yep, that'd be the one. The name is totally not at all descriptive.

You'd think I coulda dredged that up from the brain-locker, but apparently my hinges need oiling.

There is no one true taxonomy of reasoning. It's less important that you remember the name of some fallacy according to some author than to recognize it when you see it and know why it amounts to unsupportable logic. Circular reasoning is often difficult to spot, and is especially difficult in some cases for the proponent to recognize.

 

[Belz...]

Circulus in demonstrando, aka circular reasoning.

I think in Jabba's case it's Circus in demonstrando.

 

[Belz...]

The only real problem with Jabba's argument is this assertion: P(E|~H) > P(E|H).

No, there's plenty of other things wrong with Jabba's argument.

 

[caveman1917]

No, there's plenty of other things wrong with Jabba's argument.

Such as?

 

[I Am The Scum]

The argument is sound, the falsity of a premise is why it fails.

Then it's not sound.

 

[caveman1917]

Then it's not sound.

Oh right, I always mix those two up. Substitute sound <-> valid in what I wrote.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Such as?

Such as equating ~H with immortality, for a start.

Dave

ETA: Although I see he's stopped doing that now.

 

[caveman1917]

Such as equating ~H with immortality, for a start.

Dave

I count that under

the result of Jabba or someone else completely messing up basic math

It's just messing up the definition. It's clear that the argument is for immortality, so necessarily it should be defined in terms of I and ~I rather than H and ~H. It goes with things like writing 1/0 and such, errors which are not due to the argument per se but due to the bad presentation of it.

 

[Belz...]

Such as?

Jay made quite a list at some point, and linked to it a dozen times at least. You can find it easily.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I count that under


It's just messing up the definition. It's clear that the argument is for immortality, so necessarily it should be defined in terms of I and ~I rather than H and ~H. It goes with things like writing 1/0 and such, errors which are not due to the argument per se but due to the bad presentation of it.

No, I disagree; Jabba clearly made a logical rather than a mathematical or presentational error by equating the materialistic hypothesis with mortality, and the negation of the materialistic hypothesis with immortality. His starting point was that, under the materialistic hypothesis, the probability of his existence was vanishingly small. Even in his revised formulation he continues to make the same error; he's never addressed, for example, a hypothesis in which the Universe has a creator who chose to create him, but that he is mortal, which would have to be a subset both of ~H and of ~I. He's simply replaced H with ~I and ~H with I, and not bothered to consider what possible situations each entails. So he's still making the error of not correctly defining his terms, which is distinct from either an error of presentation or the argumentum ex orificio that's the central fatal flaw of the argument.

Dave

 

[caveman1917]

Jay made quite a list at some point, and linked to it a dozen times at least. You can find it easily.

I know, it's mostly divided between "result of messing up basic math" and ********. Some of which I've already refuted more than once in this very thread series at that. How about this: you provide the single thing you think is most wrong, after accounting for P(E|I) > P(E|~I).

 

[caveman1917]

No, I disagree; Jabba clearly made a logical rather than a mathematical or presentational error by equating the materialistic hypothesis with mortality, and the negation of the materialistic hypothesis with immortality. His starting point was that, under the materialistic hypothesis, the probability of his existence was vanishingly small. Even in his revised formulation he continues to make the same error; he's never addressed, for example, a hypothesis in which the Universe has a creator who chose to create him, but that he is mortal, which would have to be a subset both of ~H and of ~I. He's simply replaced H with ~I and ~H with I, and not bothered to consider what possible situations each entails. So he's still making the error of not correctly defining his terms, which is distinct from either an error of presentation or the argumentum ex orificio that's the central fatal flaw of the argument.

Dave

H was a constantly moving concept, always vaguely defined and the definition changed every couple of pages. What did remain constant was the conclusion, ie immortality. A proper presentation of that argument form with that conclusion would have used immortality as the event, obviously.

Sure it's an error and sure he's making it, but it's an error due to the incompetence of the arguer rather than inherent to the argument. It can be immediately made to go away by presenting the argument properly, which he now seems to be doing anyway using "I" rather than "H".

 

[Belz...]

I know, it's mostly divided between "result of messing up basic math" and ********. Some of which I've already refuted more than once in this very thread series at that. How about this: you provide the single thing you think is most wrong, after accounting for P(E|I) > P(E|~I).

Well I disagree that Jay's list has been debunked. Certainly, calling it ******* (whatever that was) doesn't count.


But here's one of mine: Jabba has not so far explained why he thinks there's an infinite number of potential "selves", which is one of the core concepts of his argument. He's entirely wrong on that, so there.

 

[caveman1917]

Well I disagree that Jay's list has been debunked. Certainly, calling it ******* (whatever that was) doesn't count.

It was the excrement of a bull, ie the third category above, next to "back-and-forth philosophizing" and "the result of Jabba or someone else messing up basic math". For random stuff that doesn't fit the other categories.

But here's one of mine: Jabba has not so far explained why he thinks there's an infinite number of potential "selves", which is one of the core concepts of his argument. He's entirely wrong on that, so there.

Can you point out exactly where you think such a concept is required? For reference, here is the argument:

P(E|I) / P(E|~I) > 1 => P(I|E) / P(~I|E) > P(I) / P(~I)

 

[Belz...]

Can you point out exactly where you think such a concept is required?

Have you read Jabba's arguments? He's been posting here for FIVE YEARS. His idea that there are a number of potential selves to choose from when you begin existing is at the core of his idea for this formula. If you tear the idea down, his entire argument crumbles. No need to deal with the formula, just focus on his belief in souls.

 

[theprestige]

For reference, here is the argument:

P(E|I) / P(E|~I) > 1 => P(I|E) / P(~I|E) > P(I) / P(~I)

Those are just symbols. The argument is whatever those symbols represent.

 

[caveman1917]

Have you read Jabba's arguments? He's been posting here for FIVE YEARS. His idea that there are a number of potential selves to choose from when you begin existing is at the core of his idea for this formula. If you tear the idea down, his entire argument crumbles. No need to deal with the formula, just focus on his belief in souls.

I'll take that as "no requirement for such concept". Great, no need to discuss it then. Anything else?

Besides, it's hardly difficult to define a concept of "potential selves" given that you have a definition for "selves" and to have the set of "potential selves" be infinite.

 

[caveman1917]

Those are just symbols. The argument is whatever those symbols represent.

I = "we are immortal"
E = "I exist"

 

[Belz...]

I'll take that as "no requirement for such concept". Great, no need to discuss it then. Anything else?

That was an interesting bit of dishonesty, there, concluding X from ~X. I tell you that it's central to his argument, and you "take that" as meaning that it's not. That's quite a feat.

Besides, it's hardly difficult to define a concept of "potential selves" given that you have a definition for "selves" and to have the set of "potential selves" be infinite.

Who said it's difficult or impossible? The point is that he's refused to answer the question because he knows that the only possible answer is "I believe in magic", which means he can't possible argue from that position.