Proof of Immortality, VI

[Dave Rogers]

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

Agreed that that is, in broad terms, the fatal flaw with the argument. However, it hasn't been presented simply as a bare assertion; over the past five years Jabba has advanced a broad selection of arguments whose purpose was to justify the conclusion that P(E|I) >> P(E|~I). Those arguments are also fatally flawed, and have had to be disposed of one by one, because had any of them been valid, then P(E|I) >> P(E|~I) would have been established. So there is a level of error beneath the central flaw of the argument that's been created to try to remedy that flaw, and that lower level of error can't simply be handwaved away by saying its conclusion is wrong.

Dave

 

[caveman1917]

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".

That's not HARKing though, that's just special pleading. This would be fine:

H1 = "cards were stacked in the observed order"
H2 = "cards were randomly shuffled in the observed order"

This would also be fine:

H1 = "cards were stacked"
H2 = "cards were randomly shuffled"

The problem isn't about when you hypothesize relative to when you observe the result, but the special pleading in only adding the constraint "in the observed order" to H1 and not to H2.

Per standard mathematical usage, the comma means "and".

Huh, never seen it used before like that, I've always seen "n" (the set-intersection symbol) used.

 

[caveman1917]

However, it hasn't been presented simply as a bare assertion; over the past five years Jabba has advanced a broad selection of arguments whose purpose was to justify the conclusion that P(E|I) >> P(E|~I).

As far as I've seen (and granted, I've only read a small subset of these discussions) it has been presented as a bare assertion, usually stuck in on the sides, and mostly ignored in the discussion. Can you give some examples of such arguments?

Those arguments are also fatally flawed, and have had to be disposed of one by one, because had any of them been valid, then P(E|I) >> P(E|~I) would have been established.

At least I'm not the only one mixing up "sound" and "valid"

 

[Dave Rogers]

As far as I've seen (and granted, I've only read a small subset of these discussions) it has been presented as a bare assertion, usually stuck in on the sides, and mostly ignored in the discussion. Can you give some examples of such arguments?

That's where you have to go back to Jay Utah's list; it's more or less a catalogue of those arguments and why they are either invalid or just unsound.

At least I'm not the only one mixing up "sound" and "valid"

OK, fair point. None of them were sound, but for the most point I don't remember many of them being valid either.

Dave

 

[caveman1917]

That's where you have to go back to Jay Utah's list; it's more or less a catalogue of those arguments and why they are either invalid or just unsound.

Which one of those is trying to establish P(E|~H) > P(E|H)? Because the only one I can find there which relates to P(E|~H) > P(E|H) calls it an unsupported assertion or something to that effect - ie Jabba wasn't making an argument for it but just asserting it. The rest doesn't even seem to relate to P(E|~H) > P(E|H).

OK, fair point. None of them were sound, but for the most point I don't remember many of them being valid either.

I wasn't really making a point with that, just an observation.

 

[Monza]

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.

I don't know, but I'd like to shake his hand.

As for the equation, you are right. Jabba started with a conclusion and has tried to make up support for it in terms of flawed statistics and made up probabilities.

 

[jt512]

That's not HARKing though, that's just special pleading.

It is indeed HARKing. But whatever you want to call it, it is the fundamental error in Jabba's reasoning.

The problem isn't about when you hypothesize relative to when you observe the result, but the special pleading in only adding the constraint "in the observed order" to H1 and not to H2.symbol) used.

HARKing is essentially formulating a hypothesis to fit an observation.

 

[caveman1917]

It is indeed HARKing. But whatever you want to call it, it is the fundamental error in Jabba's reasoning.

HARKing is essentially formulating a hypothesis to fit an observation.

Then how come the problem is not formulating a hypothesis to fit an observation but failing to do so? Recall your earlier example:

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

I've added the bit in highlight, thereby fixing it. As you can see the bit highlighted is exactly what you call "HARKing". Therefor HARKing is not the problem.

There's no real problem with formulating a hypothesis after the results are known, in some cases it may be all you can do (history, astronomy, ...). You just have to be consistent about it and account for the known result in all your hypotheses (see, again, the highlighted bit above). It's fine to make hypotheses where you don't account for known results, it's also fine to make hypotheses where you do account for known results. What you can't do, though, is have some hypotheses of the former variety mixed in with some hypotheses of the latter variety.

 

[theprestige]

Somehow this thread has become even more of a train wreck without Jabba.

 

[Jabba]

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).

caveman,
- Please stick around. I'm busy reviewing all your comments so far, and would love to have a conversation.

 

[John Jones]

caveman,
- Please stick around. I'm busy reviewing all your comments so far, and would love to have a conversation.

Stand by for another fringe reset in 3...2...1...

Jabba, you could take this to PMs and e-mail. Remember how well that has worked for you in the past?

 

[Jabba]

Stand by for another fringe reset in 3...2...1...

Jabba, you could take this to PMs and e-mail. Remember how well that has worked for you in the past?

John,
- If caveman would prefer either of those, either would be fine with me. Mostly, I think that caveman doesn't think that the likelihood of my current existence given that I'm immortal is greater than the likelihood of my current existence given that I'm not immortal -- and, I either never understood why he doesn't, or simply can't remember why he doesn't...

 

[jsfisher]

John,
- If caveman would prefer either of those, either would be fine with me. Mostly, I think that caveman doesn't think that the likelihood of my current existence given that I'm immortal is greater than the likelihood of my current existence given that I'm not immortal -- and, I either never understood why he doesn't, or simply can't remember why he doesn't...

Have the hypotheses shifted again? H is now that you, Jabba, are not immortal (and ~H, that your are)?

 

[John Jones]

John,
- If caveman would prefer either of those, either would be fine with me. [...]

Most likely he knows you're wrong like everybody else over the last 5 years, and thinks he can score points proving that you're wrong for his own reasons.

Caveman, Jabba allows you to take it to PMs and email.

 

[theprestige]

If Jabba's proof depends on securing the support of a sophistic anarchist, I'm content to grant him his victory, such as it is.

 

[Toontown]

John,
- If caveman would prefer either of those, either would be fine with me. Mostly, I think that caveman doesn't think that the likelihood of my current existence given that I'm immortal is greater than the likelihood of my current existence given that I'm not immortal -- and, I either never understood why he doesn't, or simply can't remember why he doesn't...

The default likelihood that a particular immortal comes into existence is no greater than the default likelihood that a particular mortal comes into existence, in the absence of any modifying information on the likelihoods of one or the other coming into existence.

However, the probability that an immortal would be observed to exist at some random moment is much greater than the probability that a mortal would be observed to exist at some random moment, in the absence of modifying information on the likelihoods of one or the other coming into existence.

Because, IF the immortal comes into existence, he will always be hanging around, whereas If the mortal comes into existence, he won't be around very long.

Therefore, there are many more potential moments during which the immortal might be observed to exist than there are potential moments during which the mortal might be observed to exist.

Except that, from your subjective perspective, the moments during which you observe yourself are not random moments. They are the only moments you could possibly observe. Those moments inform you only of the very interesting fact that you have, in fact, come into existence, against immense initial odds.

But that fact is only interesting from your subjective perspective. No one else has reason to find your existence interesting.

So stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

 

[Mojo]

Therefore, there are many more potential moments during which the immortal might be observed to exist than there are potential moments during which the mortal might be observed to exist.

Jabba's existence can only be observed while his body exists.

 

[Toontown]

Jabba's existence can only be observed while his body exists.

Yes, unless he incarnates into other bodies, which is the only way to be
a meatbag immortal, since it is known that bodies do die.

 

[Monza]

John,
- If caveman would prefer either of those, either would be fine with me. Mostly, I think that caveman doesn't think that the likelihood of my current existence given that I'm immortal is greater than the likelihood of my current existence given that I'm not immortal -- and, I either never understood why he doesn't, or simply can't remember why he doesn't...

Jabba, have you always been immortal? What I mean is, did you exist prior to your conception/birth? I know you were born because you have mentioned it previously. But I don't recall if you have stated that you, Jabba, were alive (i.e. not dead) prior to that. Say, in the 16th century, as an example.

I ask this because if your existence started with your conception/birth, then you don't yet know if you are immortal. Or perhaps it is better to say that the likelihood of your current existence is the same if you are mortal or if you are immortal. However, 150 years from now, if you are still alive, then yes I would agree that your existence at that time is much more likely if you are immortal.

 

[Belz...]

Somehow this thread has become even more of a train wreck without Jabba.