Proof of Immortality, VII

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
Pixel,
- I claim that if relevant info is not used in estimating the prior probability of a hypothesis, it can be used as new info in estimating a posterior probability of the hypothesis. Do you disagree with that claim?
Click to expand...

Psst, Jabba: The prior probability of ANY event is different from its posterior probability. This, however, is the probability of the event, not of the hypothesis describing the event.

E.G.:

I have a bucket of sand, and I'm going to dump it on the ground. The hypothesis is that this will result in a heap of sand on the ground.

The prior probability of ANY particular composition (positions of each grain of sand) of the expected heap of sand is 1/(some astronomical number). In other words, it is virtually unpredictable.

The posterior probability of the composition of the resulting heap of sand is, obviously, 1.

The hypothesis of your existence is not that YOU will exist. It is that on some planet, somewhere in some universe, a sentient being will exist who is ready to bicker about some nonsense for years on end. (That might seem slim, but the fact is we entertain at least three of the kind on this forum alone.)

That YOU happen to be one of them does not change the probability or the predictability of the hypothesis.

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
Psst, Jabba: The prior probability of ANY event is different from its posterior probability. This, however, is the probability of the event, not of the hypothesis describing the event.
E.G.:

I have a bucket of sand, and I'm going to dump it on the ground. The hypothesis is that this will result in a heap of sand on the ground.

The prior probability of ANY particular composition (positions of each grain of sand) of the expected heap of sand is 1/(some astronomical number). In other words, it is virtually unpredictable.

The posterior probability of the composition of the resulting heap of sand is, obviously, 1.

The hypothesis of your existence is not that YOU will exist. It is that on some planet, somewhere in some universe, a sentient being will exist who is ready to bicker about some nonsense for years on end. (That might seem slim, but the fact is we entertain at least three of the kind on this forum alone.)

That YOU happen to be one of them does not change the probability or the predictability of the hypothesis.

Hans
Click to expand...
Hans,
- Prior and posterior probability refer to a hypothesis, not an event. The hypothesis I'm trying to re-evaluate is OOFLam. Where do we diverge?
 
Jabba said:
Hans,
- Prior and posterior probability refer to a hypothesis, not an event. The hypothesis I'm trying to re-evaluate is OOFLam. Where do we diverge?
Click to expand...
OOFLAM is not a hypothesis. It is one of many consequents of the materialist hypothesis.

Further, the term P(E|H), which is what we're discussing, is the probability of an event.

A concise statement of where you and your critics diverge has been on the table for six months in the form of a dozen or so individually fatal flaws. You know where to find them, and you have been instructed on how your critics expect the answer to appear. You lately claimed (1) that you had addressed them -- false, (2) that they were no longer relevant -- false, and (3) that you would finally address them in the manner requested -- also false. Please stop insulting your critics by insisting that they constantly repeat their objections to you, which have already been amply stated and supported, and which you habitually ignore.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
Pixel,
- I claim that if relevant info is not used in estimating the prior probability of a hypothesis, it can be used as new info in estimating a posterior probability of the hypothesis. Do you disagree with that claim?
Click to expand...
I vehemently disagree with that, as the probability that something will arise ceases to become relevant after the event arises. You cannot retrospectively apply the fact that it did arise, along with all its implications, to the probability that it would arise and have that mean anything in an inferential sense. That is the essence of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.
 
Jabba said:
Hans,
- Prior and posterior probability refer to a hypothesis, not an event. The hypothesis I'm trying to re-evaluate is OOFLam. Where do we diverge?
Click to expand...

Read the last 5+ years of your critics' rebuttals. Your posts become more monotonous with your every reply.

I mostly read now because your critics' rejoinders are enlightening, but yours never improve.

I'm nearing the point of indifference after all these years.
 
JayUtah said:
Jabba, I would.like an explanation for why you have not followed my instructions after I've patiently wait six months for you to become responsive.
Click to expand...

I don't know, I think in his own way he has completed the assignment. You asked him (politely, repeatedly) to simply go down the list and for each item explain how he intended to address the fatal flaw.

He has done that, in that his plan for addressing each item is: ignore it, deny it, and deliberately "misunderstand" it, then repeat.

It's not a GOOD response, but it's an honest one - that really is his whole plan on how to address them. And let's be fair: there is no good answer other than "I can't address them so I have to face reality and admit defeat" and he was never going to do that.
 
Mojo said:
...and yet again Jabba says what he's going to do (but never gets around to) rather than actually doing it, and then restates his initial claim.
Click to expand...
Mojo,
- How about this?
- In regard to the UFC heavyweight title, I give up. Jay is champ. I simply can't keep up...
- But, in the one-or-two-questions/objections-at-a-time ring, I'll happily take on any challenger.
- Give me your best shot...
 
Jabba said:
Mojo,
- How about this?
- In regard to the UFC heavyweight title, I give up. Jay is champ. I simply can't keep up...
- But, in the one-or-two-questions/objections-at-a-time ring, I'll happily take on any challenger.
- Give me your best shot...
Click to expand...

How about this, Jabba. Just go back and read the replies you've already had. All seven threads-worth. Keep doing that until you understand all your proposals have been roundly dispatched. You've tried your best shot, and it failed dismally, every single time.
 
Jabba said:
- In regard to the UFC heavyweight title, I give up. Jay is champ. I simply can't keep up...
- But, in the one-or-two-questions/objections-at-a-time ring, I'll happily take on any challenger.
Click to expand...

"I can't actually address the multiple fatal flaws in my argument if I'm pressed to do that, but if I'm allowed to jump to another part of the conversation every time I'm backed into a corner so that I don't have to actually make any progress or admit to those aforementioned flaws then boy howdy, I can go all day!"

Yeah, that's... pretty much what we've been saying Jabba. You like to just drill down on "one or two" things, but then you either jump to a new one or you say "well let's put a pin in this and agree to disagree without me actually admitting I'm wrong in any way even though I'm incapable of addressing your concerns".
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
Mojo,
- How about this?
- In regard to the UFC heavyweight title, I give up. Jay is champ. I simply can't keep up...
- But, in the one-or-two-questions/objections-at-a-time ring, I'll happily take on any challenger.
- Give me your best shot...
Click to expand...

No. You're not going to pull us down into another Befuddled Old Man "Oh Lordy Me I've Done Gone And Got Myself The Vapors I Just Can't Keep Up" scene.
 
SOdhner said:
"I can't actually address the multiple fatal flaws in my argument if I'm pressed to do that, but if I'm allowed to jump to another part of the conversation every time I'm backed into a corner so that I don't have to actually make any progress or admit to those aforementioned flaws then boy howdy, I can go all day!"

Yeah, that's... pretty much what we've been saying Jabba. You like to just drill down on "one or two" things, but then you either jump to a new one or you say "well let's put a pin in this and agree to disagree without me actually admitting I'm wrong in any way even though I'm incapable of addressing your concerns".
Click to expand...


And remember, Jabba: you are the person who is supposed to be proving something here. As long as you continue to stonewall, you have failed.
 
Jabba said:
Mojo,
- How about this?
- In regard to the UFC heavyweight title, I give up. Jay is champ. I simply can't keep up...
Click to expand...
This is incorrect. It isn't that you can't keep up and we know that because of the innumerable times you've posted walls of bullet numbered texts. You've also taken the time and had the ability to go back and find posts that you think are friendly to your arguments, even when they're in previous iterations of this thread. You're simply lying here.

You would have been honest to say that you simply can't answer.

- But, in the one-or-two-questions/objections-at-a-time ring, I'll happily take on any challenger.
Click to expand...
This is also incorrect. You've gotten hundreds, if not thousands, of one and two at a time objections and you simply ignore the ones you have no answer to. You are free to go back at your leisure and find posts which list your fatal flaws individually and answer them.

- Give me your best shot...
Click to expand...
That's funny. It doesn't even take a "best shot" to point out the fatal flaws in your arguments. You are given permission to go back and review those posts which you think are a "best shot".

Please be honest going forward.
 
zooterkin said:
How about this, Jabba. Just go back and read the replies you've already had. All seven threads-worth. Keep doing that until you understand all your proposals have been roundly dispatched. You've tried your best shot, and it failed dismally, every single time.
Click to expand...
- One punch -- "No."
 
Mojo said:
And remember, Jabba: you are the person who is supposed to be proving something here. As long as you continue to stonewall, you have failed.
Click to expand...
- Tell me one error in my syllogism, and I'll respond.
 
Jabba said:
- I first estimated the prior probabilities of the different hypotheses included under ~H in 'chapter' II on 3/27/16, #3007
Click to expand...

You didn't estimate. You invented out of thin air with no justification.

11.3.1.1. That only some of us have but one finite life.
Click to expand...

None of these concepts mean anything under H. You fail before you're even out of the gate. We're all collections of elementary particles, remember?

11.3.2. Now I must estimate (roughly) the prior probability (rounded off to three decimal places) of each more specific possibility (hypothesis), given ~H.
Click to expand...

First, you must give a reason why you picked each of those probabilities. None of your calculations mean anything until you do.

11.3.7. IOW, given my current existence, the posterior probability that I will have one, finite life is zero…[/I]
Click to expand...

How about if I change the numbers to make it one? It's just as meaningless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom