Proof of Immortality, VII

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
...1. New information may affect the probability of an existing hypothesis (H)....
Click to expand...
- Since no one wants to deal with my map, I'll try to address Jay's objections one at a time.

JayUtah said:
...
You compute P(E|H) evaluating E subjectively after the fact. Effectively your proof constructs its evaluation only in a space where E has already been chosen, hence P(E|H) = 1...
Click to expand...


- That just isn't true.
- P(E|H) is the likelihood of my current existence -- given the non-religious hypothesis of only one finite life, at most, for each potential specific self-awareness.
- Likelihood is not an after-the-fact computation. It's a before the fact computation. At the Big Bang, or the beginning of time, what was the probability that I would be here right now?
 
Jabba said:
- Since no one wants to deal with my map, I'll try to address Jay's objections one at a time.
Click to expand...

No, no one wants to deal with your dishonest argumentatives and admitted attempted to farm us for soundbites you can take out of context.



- That just isn't true.
- P(E|H) is the likelihood of my current existence -- given the non-religious hypothesis of only one finite life, at most, for each potential specific self-awareness.
- Likelihood is not an after-the-fact computation. It's a before the fact computation. At the Big Bang, or the beginning of time, what was the probability that I would be here right now?
Click to expand...

This has already been explained to you multiple, multiple times.

This is all the same weasel words and begging the questions. "You" isn't a thing. "You" wasn't defined prior to its existence.

This is an after the fact rationalization. You've already been told this.
 
Jabba said:
- Since no one wants to deal with my map, I'll try to address Jay's objections one at a time.
Click to expand...
No need for any map. Just answer the criticisms and fatal flaws of your arguments here where you are making them and where you are receiving the criticism. Is there any honest reason for not doing that?

- That just isn't true.
- P(E|H) is the likelihood of my current existence -- given the non-religious hypothesis of only one finite life, at most, for each potential specific self-awareness.
- Likelihood is not an after-the-fact computation. It's a before the fact computation. At the Big Bang, or the beginning of time, what was the probability that I would be here right now?
Click to expand...
Or any other particular thing you care to name, like my Volkswagen. The materialist model, which is what you're trying to falsify, treats you the same as the Volkswagen or a mountain. Isn't it the materialist model you're trying to falsify or did you want to refute some made up model of your own?
 
Jabba said:
- Since no one wants to deal with my map, I'll try to address Jay's objections one at a time.




- That just isn't true.
- P(E|H) is the likelihood of my current existence -- given the non-religious hypothesis of only one finite life, at most, for each potential specific self-awareness.
- Likelihood is not an after-the-fact computation. It's a before the fact computation. At the Big Bang, or the beginning of time, what was the probability that I would be here right now?
Click to expand...

What was the probability that Mt Rainier and a particular Volkswagen would be here right now?

So what?

Hans
 
Pixel42 said:
Yes it is. The fact that you still haven't grasped why even after having it explained to you in the simplest possible terms over and over and over again for FIVE YEARS is nobody's fault but yours.
Click to expand...



One wonders if the concepts really do defeat him that completely or if it’s just part of the act to get the quotes he wants. Pretending to be clueless is one way to get people explaining the concepts in increasingly simple terms. Since we know he’s deceptively quote mining for his own “inspired by an actual discussion” fiction he can present such quotes as “proof” of skeptics having simplistic ideas.

Or I could be giving him more credit than he deserves.
 
Jabba said:
- You're referring to the Texas Sharpshooter objection. I'll get to that later.
Click to expand...

No, I'm, referring to the fact that being unpredictable means exactly nothing. Unpredictable stuff is all around. We are part of an unpredictable reality.

Hans
 
Jabba said:
At the Big Bang, or the beginning of time, what was the probability that I would be here right now?
Click to expand...


Jabba -

How many Big Bangs were there?

You're running your odds as though this is the only iteration of the universe. This could be the 4.6 x 109381027 universe. eventually you're going to get one that produces a person who will spend 5 years writing inane nonsense and 0 minutes studying anything.

Why do you keep ignoring this? It's necessary to compute odds but completely undefinable. Choosing the moment of the Big Bang to calculate your odds is as arbitrary as choosing 10 minutes ago.

Understand that. Even if all of your very bad mathematical reasoning were correct, the numbers you've chosen are unsupportable.
 
John Jones said:
Will any of us live long enough to see it?
Click to expand...

Well you see look at all the arguments in the universe. Now what are the odds that any one of those arguments are Jabbas? Something over infinity because of Bayesian Truly Effect Debate.

Ergo Jabba's not only already made the argument, the argument is immortal.

That's just science.
 
Jabba said:
Since no one wants to deal with my map...
Click to expand...

No one is obliged to bless your blatant lies with their attention, here or elsewhere. You are despicable, Jabba. It's not as if you're even trying very hard to disguise your intent to lie to others about this debate and your non-existent qualifications.

I'll try to address Jay's objections one at a time.
Click to expand...

No, we're not getting back on the hamster wheel

Here is a list of all the fatal flaws we have identified so far in your argument, including the post hoc evaluation claim. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11871278&postcount=3198 . You've been terrified of this list for six months. Want to prove you're serious? For each of these fatal flaws, write one or two sentences describing how you will modify your proof to overcome it. This should take you no more than an hour and should comprise a single post. This will take you far less time than your lying "map" has to date, and will amount to a more honest exercise representing your debate here.

Get to it. I'm tired of fooling around with you.
 
Last edited:
Loss Leader said:
Choosing the moment of the Big Bang to calculate your odds is as arbitrary as choosing 10 minutes ago.
Click to expand...

He can choose Big Bang or he can choose ten minutes ago. You're right that it's arbitrary and thus does not support the proffered probability. What else cannot be arbitrary is his choice of what the salient outcome is. It doesn't matter when you deal the cards. It matters that you can prove the hand you were dealt was agreed upon as a salient hand before the deal. Holding up the hand you were dealt and saying it's the winning hand, on no basis other than that it's the hand you received, is exactly to evaluate P(E|H) in a context in which E has already occurred.
 
Jabba said:
- You're referring to the Texas Sharpshooter objection. I'll get to that later.
Click to expand...
Your response to Jay's first point was to simply restate the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. The time to get to it, if you finally had something to say in your defence after five years of simply restating it, was then.
 
Jabba said:
- P(E|H) is the likelihood of my current existence -- given the non-religious hypothesis of only one finite life, at most, for each potential specific self-awareness.
- Likelihood is not an after-the-fact computation. It's a before the fact computation. At the Big Bang, or the beginning of time, what was the probability that I would be here right now?
Click to expand...

Jabba, let me fix this for you. Let's set aside complaints about the "pool of potential selves" existing or not, and just agree that as you've said you are talking about whether or not someone exists that would be really unlikely given all the other people that could have hypothetically existed instead.

I know this relies on the idea that there are WAY more hypothetical people that could have existed than ones that actually do exist. It would be nearly infinite, while our population is less than eight billion (extreme estimating because I can't be bothered).

So let's pick a target! You want to pick yourself, but that's getting into this whole big thing. So let's use a random number generator. Random.org is a good one, though they can't go higher than 1,000,000,000 which is a LONG way from "almost infinite". Still, that just skews the odds in your favor so let's do that. Let's say if I get a 1 it's a person who exists, and if I get anything else it's someone who doesn't. I'll run it 100 times.

Okay. Done. I could post the list here but it's big and ugly and I think people would understandably object so let's just cut to the chase: none of them exist. So then we plug them into your formula and it says...

1. The odds of this specific person existing are really really low under materialism.
2. And, in fact, they don't exist.
3. Therefore all is right with the world and consistent with materialism.

Like I said, I ran it a hundred times* (one click, but a hundred random numbers generated). This is what it looks like to pick a target fairly. So good news, reality is consistent with our expectations and we can be done here.



(*EDIT: I noticed this "again" button at the bottom and clicked it twenty times. So that's 2100 tests with odds WAY better than you were figuring.)
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
No one is obliged to bless your blatant lies with their attention, here or elsewhere. You are despicable, Jabba. It's not as if you're even trying very hard to disguise your intent to lie to others about this debate and your non-existent qualifications.



No, we're not getting back on the hamster wheel

Here is a list of all the fatal flaws we have identified so far in your argument, including the post hoc evaluation claim. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11871278&postcount=3198 . You've been terrified of this list for six months. Want to prove you're serious? For each of these fatal flaws, write one or two sentences describing how you will modify your proof to overcome it. This should take you no more than an hour and should comprise a single post. This will take you far less time than your lying "map" has to date, and will amount to a more honest exercise representing your debate here.

Get to it. I'm tired of fooling around with you.
Click to expand...
Jay,
- That doesn't refer to my "closing statement" -- it refers to my "opening statement." I'll stick with your responses to my closing statement, as I have needed to reword much of my opening statement.
-Above (#827) -- referring to my closing statement -- you claim that P(E|H)=1. In my response (#902), I say:
- That just isn't true.
- P(E|H) is the likelihood of my current existence -- given the non-religious hypothesis of only one finite life, at most, for each potential specific self-awareness.
- Likelihood is not an after-the-fact computation. It's a before the fact computation. At the Big Bang, or the beginning of time, what was the probability that I would be here right now?
- Can you tell me why my response is wrong?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom