Proof of Immortality, VII

[caveman1917]

Not quite.

Also, P(E), P(I), P(I|E), and P(E|I) is sufficient for Jabba's purpose.

True, though it's the relative ratio which goes into it (as per the expression a couple of posts above) rather than the individual values themselves. The problem has 2 degrees of freedom, P(I) / P(~I) and P(E|I) / P(E|~I). And the first can be fixed by using the maximum entropy principle and the second is only relevant in as much as it is greater than 1 or not. Sufficient for Jabba's purpose would hence be to support a single bit of information, namely the truth of "P(E|I) > P(E|~I)".

 

[Dave Rogers]

Dave,
- I think that we do have enough data -- and, I've already done my best to explain my reasoning...
- OK. I'll go back to 10^-100.

You can't even keep track of your own made up numbers. You said it was P(you|R)=0.01, which you needed to claim to make your preferred prior larger than the prior probability under materialism. Now you've arbitrarily chosen P(you|R)=10^-100, which in your bizarro world equates to P(you|~H). Since you've already arbitratily chosen P(you|H)=10^-100 and P(~H)=0.01, it's fairly obvious without even doing the calculation that you've now accidentally pulled some numbers out of your nether regions that give a much higher conditional probability for materialism.

You've finally reached the point where even you can't even understand your own fantasies.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Sufficient for Jabba's purpose would hence be to support a single bit of information, namely the truth of "P(E|I) > P(E|~I)".

That, in a nutshell, is the crux of the matter. At present Jabba's argument reduces to "I have no idea what P(E|I) is because it can't conceivably be calculated, so I'm going to choose it to be many orders of magnitude greater than P(E|~I); therefore I am immortal." It's begging the question on steroids.

Dave

 

[Monza]

Jabba,

The other objections notwithstanding, how do you get from your equation...

P(NR|me & k) = P(me|NR)P(NR|k) / (P(me|NR)P(NR|k) + P(me|R)P(R|k))

P(me|R) = .01
P(NR|k) = .99
P(R|k) = .01

P(NR|me&k) = P(me|NR)*.99 / (P(me|NR)*.99 + .01*.01)

...to the following conclusion?

P(NR|me&k) = (1/10100) times .99, divided by .01 times .1 = vanishingly small.

You basically have an equation that states...

P(NR|me&k) = X / (X+.0001)

 

[Jabba]

Jabba,

The other objections notwithstanding, how do you get from your equation...

P(NR|me & k) = P(me|NR)P(NR|k) / (P(me|NR)P(NR|k) + P(me|R)P(R|k))

P(me|R) = .01
P(NR|k) = .99
P(R|k) = .01

P(NR|me&k) = P(me|NR)*.99 / (P(me|NR)*.99 + .01*.01)


...to the following conclusion?

P(NR|me&k) = (1/10100) times .99, divided by .01 times .1 = vanishingly small.

You basically have an equation that states...

P(NR|me&k) = X / (X+.0001)

Monza,
- That was a mistake. (1/10100) should have been (1/10¹⁰⁰).

 

[jond]

Monza,
- That was a mistake. (1/10100) should have been (1/10¹⁰⁰).

Still pretending you haven’t cornered yourself? Denial: it’s not just for rivers...

 

[RoboTimbo]

Monza,
- That was a mistake. (1/10100) should have been (1/10¹⁰⁰).

Have you given up on trying to rebut the fatal flaws in your "logic"? They are still there and still fatal. Nothing you've posted so far has changed that.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

The "mistake" is that you pull numbers out of your arse, feed them into an inappropriate forumla, declare the result as proof of your desired result, and then dishonestly ignore all the myriad of people who point out your nonsense.

HTH

 

[Dave Rogers]

You basically have an equation that states...

P(NR|me&k) = X / (X+.0001)

The idea is that Jabba has decided to make up a very small value for the probability of his existence under materialism and a very much larger value for the probability of his existence under all other possible hypotheses than materialism, which means that the value of this probability is also therefore very small. If someone then points out that he has no reason to suppose that the probability of his existence is vastly greater under his complemetary group of hypotheses - something he himself admits but uses it as a justification for making up a much larger number - then he drops the value of his made up number for the probability of his existence under materialism even more...

Monza,
- That was a mistake. (1/10100) should have been (1/10¹⁰⁰).

...just like that, conveniently ignoring the facts that (a) his number for the prior probability of his existence under materialism is entirely made up, (b) his number for the probability of his existence under the complement of hypotheses is not only entirely made up but cannot possibly be anything but entirely made up, (c) his number for the probability of the materialistic hypothesis being correct is entirely made up, and (d) his complemetary set of hypotheses only includes, rather than being limited to, the set of hypotheses in which he has an immortal soul.

(b) is of course the fatal flaw that gives the greatest comedic value. Jabba has stated that the probability of his existence under ~H cannot be calculated; this alone means that his hypothesis cannot, according to his own definition of the problem, be proven; yet he feels that this is no more than an excuse for him to fabricate whatever value is required to prove his hypothesis. The proof of his hypothesis therefore rests on the premise that his hypothesis is unprovable. It's possibly the most absurd logical fallacy I've ever seen.

Dave

 

[Jabba]

None of which in any way supports the claim that you are more likely to exist (to have been born) if you are immortal than if you are mortal. So I'm concluding that you failed to support your claim, and this is then the end of our debate. Unsurprisingly it didn't last much longer than the previous time.

Caveman,
- I am a currently existing human self. My claim is that this event is more likely if human selves are immortal than if each potential self has only one finite life at most. Do you still disagree?

 

[jond]

Caveman,
- I am a currently existing human self. My claim is that this event is more likely if human selves are immortal than if each potential self has only one finite life at most. Do you still disagree?

How? Your body exists and adding a soul does nothing to change the circumstances under which that happens. Which means, as you are well aware, your existence under materialism is guaranteed to be more likely. Remember that you agreed to this back on May 4?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Caveman,
- I am a currently existing human self. My claim is that this event is more likely if human selves are immortal than if each potential self has only one finite life at most. Do you still disagree?

Jabba,

Some years ago I coined a term, "Unevaluated inequality fallacy," for statements of this kind. You have made it clear that you do not know the probability that you currently exist if each potential self has one finite life at most, by claiming two values to be reasonable for this probability that differed by 900 orders of magnitude. You have also categorically stated that the probability that you currently exist if human selves are immortal not only is not known, but cannot possibly be knowable. What, therefore, is the justification for your claim that a number you do not know to within 900 orders of magnitude must necessarily be less than a number you admit you cannot possibly know?

Dave

 

[jond]

Back on May 4th Jabba said:

- I understand that P(a)*P(b) can't be more than either P(a) or P(b). No problem. If, in our situation, the "a" is the existence of the physical brain (which is what I've been assuming), P(a) is simply 1.00 -- so, P(a)*P(b)=P(b). No problem.
- But, in our situation, the existence of the physical brain is not at issue, is not being questioned. We're wondering if their might be something more than the physical brain.

And then on December 27, Godless Dave asked Jabba:

Do you accept that the materialist model is that the brain generates the process?

To which Jabba replied:

- Yes.

So, Jabba: which is it? You agreed on December 27 that the brain is all that's required to explain your self. Which means you now think the brain is not a given (as you did on May 4th). Which means you also agree, that however unlikely it is, adding an extra unlikely thing (a soul) cannot be more likely. Or is the brain a given? Which means (as Godless Dave pointed out immediately after your May 4 post):

If the existence of the physical brain is not being questioned then P(E|H) is 1, because under H, E is the existence of the physical brain.

 

[zooterkin]

Caveman,
- I am a currently existing human self. My claim is that this event is more likely if human selves are immortal than if each potential self has only one finite life at most.

Exactly what definition of 'immortal' are you using?

 

[JayUtah]

That was a mistake. (1/10100) should have been (1/10¹⁰⁰).

I'm sure it was a typo. The problem is that it wouldn't really matter to your argument if it hadn't been. You're happy to let that value vary by hundreds of orders of magnitude with no rationale whatsoever. It might just as well be 1/10100 for as little rigor as you put into it.

It's clear what you're doing. Your critics rightly won't let you invent private mathematical concepts to make your "mathematical" proof come out the way you predetermined it should. So you're picking random small numbers to approximate your concept of "virtual zero." Picking them at random doesn't help your argument, as this variable then becomes one more unbounded degree of freedom. As you've been told now by two different bodies of statisticians: you can pick your priors arbitrarily, but then the likelihood ratio must be from actual data; or you can set your likelihood ratio arbitrarily and then the priors must be actual data. If neither of those is actual data, your model is underconstrained and therefore useless. Nothing about this criticism has the slightest to do with "holistic" thinking or any other imaginary bias you may want to grasp at. It's just basic mathematics.

 

[John Jones]

Caveman,
- I am a currently existing human self. My claim is that this event is more likely if human selves are immortal than if each potential self has only one finite life at most. Do you still disagree?

Why would he change his stance? You haven't changed your monotonous claims in any substantial way in five years.

In case you weren't paying attention, you've lost your only presumed advocate again.

 

[halleyscomet]

Caveman,
- I am a currently existing human self. My claim is that this event is more likely if human selves are immortal than if each potential self has only one finite life at most. Do you still disagree?

And the last five years of deceptive "answers" and math themed fan-fiction is how you're trying to support that hypothesis????

Seriously?

http://bfy.tw/FsAR

What response are you hoping for here? Surely by now you realize your arguments are rotting garbage with no connection to reality. As I've already demonstrated your math is equally valid for setting the following question:

VS

 

[surreptitious57]

Jabba : no organism can be immortal because that would violate the Second Law Of Thermodynamics. The only thing thought to be
temporally infinite is a photon in vacuum. Human beings are not photons in vacuum. They are however biological packets of energy
that obey the Second Law. Technically it applies to physical systems but it can apply to organisms as well. The principle is the same

 

[halleyscomet]

Caveman,
- I am a currently existing human self. My claim is that this event is more likely if human selves are immortal than if each potential self has only one finite life at most. Do you still disagree?

The secret of the universe belongs to deep knowledge. Therefore Emotional intelligence expresses subtle mortality. Your intuition is in the midst of reckless external reality. The unexplainable meditates on positive energy but awareness opens only subjective creativity.

Wholeness is only possible in the flow of happiness, but deception against the realities of existence leads only to the empty frustration of self deceit! The cosmos arises and subsides in ephemeral phenomena. Only ideas and information have any semblance of immortality. Your corporeal shell and all it contains will die and rot in time. Only what you teach to others has any opportunity to achieve a life beyond your moral coil. You are expending your finite temporarily in making excuses for a reality that exists only in your finite imagination.

 

[abaddon]

Why would he change his stance? You haven't changed your monotonous claims in any substantial way in five years.

In case you weren't paying attention, you've lost your only presumed advocate again.

Uh Oh. Now the LCP role will fall to some other sucker.