Proof of Immortality, VI

[caveman1917]

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.

You can tell me what you want, I tell you it is ******** and such concept is not required.

Who said it's difficult or impossible?

If it's neither required for the argument, nor difficult to solve, then why do you keep going on about it?

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.

Seems like the problem is with the one who asked the question, then. Either way, there are plenty of other possible answers, your personal incredulity notwithstanding.

 

[Belz...]

You can tell me what you want, I tell you it is ******** and such concept is not required.

Beautiful. So you've constructed your own version of Jabba's argument, decided what's required despite the evidence that the item in question is central to it, and you're essentially arguing in your own bubble.

Have fun with that.

Seems like the problem is with the one who asked the question, then.

Yes, it can't possibly Jabba's argument that's ****.

I'm still waiting for my trillion dollars.

 

[caveman1917]

I'm still waiting for my trillion dollars.

It might not have been sufficiently clear, but you actually have to win the bet so as to win the money. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Belz...]

It might not have been sufficiently clear, but you actually have to win the bet so as to win the money.

Well I did, but then you've shown in this thread a nice tendency to redefine reality to suit your purposes, so there's that. I'd pay some real money to see Jabba and yourself argue for a few months, but I probably wouldn't put a trillion on it.

I also love how easy it was to divert you from actually making an argument. Just mentioning that bet made you forget the point of the discussion completely. Easier, I guess, than to make said argument.

 

[caveman1917]

Well I did, but then you've shown in this thread a nice tendency to redefine reality to suit your purposes, so there's that.

I'd pay some real money to see Jabba and yourself argue for a few months, but I probably wouldn't put a trillion on it.

Already tried arguing with him, didn't last long. And why should anyone care what you put a trillion on, since you didn't pay out the last time you did and lost?

I also love how easy it was to divert you from actually making an argument. Just mentioning that bet made you forget the point of the discussion completely. Easier, I guess, than to make said argument.

There's no argument to be made until you show how this "infinite number of potential selves" is required.

 

[Belz...]

And you're doing again. I've shown you why the argument is central, and you've done nothing but hand-wave it away. No wonder you think you've demolished Jay's exhaustive list of flaws in Jabba's argument.

Already tried arguing with him, didn't last long. And why should anyone care what you put a trillion on, since you didn't pay out the last time you did and lost?

And you're doing it again. You just can't admit that you were wrong.

There's no argument to be made until you show how this "infinite number of potential selves" is required.

Jabba has repeatedly explained that it's the central tenet of his argument. Everything flows from it. If it isn't there, he wouldn't even have started this monster of a thread. How you can call it "not required" is a riddle for the ages.

 

[caveman1917]

I've shown you why the argument is central

No you haven't, you've just asserted it.

And you're doing it again. You just can't admit that you were wrong.

I can, I just wasn't.

Jabba has repeatedly explained that it's the central tenet of his argument. Everything flows from it. If it isn't there, he wouldn't even have started this monster of a thread. How you can call it "not required" is a riddle for the ages.

Is everything that Jabba says about his argument true? "He says it is central therefor it is central"? Then why not just take Jabba at his word when he says his argument supports his immortality?

 

[Belz...]

No you haven't, you've just asserted it.

Now you know how I feel.

I can, I just wasn't.

That's a contradiction.

Is everything that Jabba says about his argument true?

No.

But what he says is the core of his thinking on the matter should at least inform you on what the core of his thinking on the matter is. You're pretending that his belief in this pool of selves, which is what informed his idea about the formula, isn't really important, when it's the cause of it.

 

[caveman1917]

That's a contradiction.

I can admit when I'm wrong, I just wasn't wrong.

But what he says is the core of his thinking on the matter should at least inform you on what the core of his thinking on the matter is. You're pretending that his belief in this pool of selves, which is what informed his idea about the formula, isn't really important, when it's the cause of it.

Uhu... Sounds like it belongs in the "********" category rather than the "real problem with the argument" category.

 

[Emily's Cat]

oh dear gods, please let it stop!

Yeah... Given that this thread has somehow made it to 60+ pages, I'm gonna say that the only way to win is not to play.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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

Seconded - coming in this far into the argument, I honestly have no idea what each of those variables is supposed to represent.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yeah, disregard that last post. I'm not playing.

 

[caveman1917]

Seconded - coming in this far into the argument, I honestly have no idea what each of those variables is supposed to represent.

Coming in this far but not coming in far enough to check for a response to that post first.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Yeah... Given that this thread has somehow made it to 60+ pages, I'm gonna say that the only way to win is not to play.

60 pages?

Oh my sweet summer child you have no idea.

 

[Emily's Cat]

60 pages?

Oh my sweet summer child you have no idea.

When winter comes, I head south.

 

[jt512]

Such as?

As I have explained, he is HARKing. Using Jabba's reasoning, you should conclude that every deck of cards in the world has been stacked, because you looked at one deck and the order that the cards were in was 10^68 times more likely under the hypothesis that they had been intentionally set in that order than if they had been randomly shuffled.

Additionally, it it's current incarnation, there's the little problem that P(E, I) > P(E).

 

[Belz...]

I can admit when I'm wrong, I just wasn't wrong.

Yes, I already said that you're contradicting yourself.

Uhu... Sounds like it belongs in the "********" category rather than the "real problem with the argument" category.

See, another fine example.

 

[caveman1917]

As I have explained, he is HARKing. Using Jabba's reasoning, you should conclude that every deck of cards in the world has been stacked, because you looked at one deck and the order that the cards were in was 10^68 times more likely under the hypothesis that they had been intentionally set in that order than if they had been randomly shuffled.

There's a 10^-68 probability that the cards had been randomly shuffled in that order, since there are about 10^68 other orders they could have been randomly shuffled in. There's also a 10^-68 probability that the cards had been intentionally set in that order, since there are about 10^68 other orders they could have been intentionally set to. These numbers are different how?

And "HARKing" is not the problem with the argument, the problem with the argument is, again: P(E|I) > P(E|~I).

Additionally, it it's current incarnation, there's the little problem that P(E, I) > P(E).

What is P(E, I)?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Why are we arguing equations that Jabba has just made up the numbers for?

If the equation is X + Y*Z^2 - 4 where X is the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin, Y is how many roads a man can walk down before you can call him a man and Z is who put the ram in the ramalamadingdon the equation isn't the problem.

We're fighting over an equation that every value for has been pulled out of thin out. I don't think PEMDAS is our issue here.

That's why I disagree with calling Jabba's base assumption a "Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy." It's doesn't even reach that level. It's a Texas Stormtrooper Fallacy.

If Jabba were to shoot 10 shots into the side of a barn, walk up to barn after the fact ant circle a random cluster of 5 or 6 shots and claim that's where he as aiming and that proves he's a sharpshooter... that would be a Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.

What Jabba is doing is shooting 10 shots at the side of a barn, missing every shot, walking up to the barn, circling nothing, and claiming that's where he was aiming and that makes him a sharpshooter... because reasons.

 

[jt512]

There's a 10^-68 probability that the cards had been randomly shuffled in that order, since there are about 10^68 other orders they could have been randomly shuffled in. There's also a 10^-68 probability that the cards had been intentionally set in that order, since there are about 10^68 other orders they could have been intentionally set to.

Jabba's should be reasoning along the lines you state. But he's not; he's committing the fallacy of HARKing. He's reasoning as follows:

P(observed order | cards were stacked in the observed order) >>
P(observed order | card order was random) .

That's the fallacy. It's not just that his numbers are wrong; it's that he is conditioning on the wrong event in the lhs of the above inequality. He's conditioning on "cards were stacked in the observed order" instead of "cards were stacked in some order I hypothesized before I observed their order".

What is P(E, I)?

Per standard mathematical usage, the comma means "and". Therefore P(E, I) means P(E and I), which is the numerator in the rhs of Bayes' Theorem, as written by Jabba a page or two back in the latest iteration of his argument. Kinda' hard for P(E and I) > P(E).