Proof of Immortality, VII

[Loss Leader]

- Sure. But how likely is it that time would happen to be at the point that a particular raindrop fell?

100%

If you don't understand that, you have no business arguing statistics.

 

[halleyscomet]

 

[Dave Rogers]

But how likely is it that time would happen to be at the point that a particular raindrop fell?

Let's torture that analogy a bit further. It's possible, with the correct equipment, to photograph a raindrop. But what is the probability that the raindrop in the photograph happens to exist at the particular time that the photograph is taken? Well, in fact, it's a certainty, because in photographing it you've detected its presence. It's no longer a question of probability, because there is no unknown quantity left.

So let's apply that to the probability that Jabba happens to be alive at the particular moment that Jabba dreams up his proof of immortality. What is that probability? Obviously, it's again a certainty, under any hypothesis concerning the nature of reality. If Jabba didn't come into existence for another million years and only continued to exist for another ninety, then he would dream up his proof some time in that ninety-year window.

And that's what Jay means when he says that the fact of Jabba's existence at this particular time is not a new piece of information. Jabba is discussing his supposed proof at this particular time; it may be deduced from this that he exists at this particular time. There is no additional information from which to draw any Bayesian inference.

Stated in the third person, because there is no prospect of Jabba actually taking any notice of this post.

Dave

 

[Jabba]

1. If something occurs that is unlikely to occur -- given a particular hypothesis -- the event is evidence against the hypothesis.

No. This is expressly what statistical inference is not. One applies a statistical inference to predict an as-yet unknown outcome so as to rationally inform decisions that must be made prior to knowing the outcome. The outcome, once known, is a fact. That it was previously deemed unlikely casts no doubt on the causality that produced it.

Fatal flaw 2: You err in your understanding of the probative nature of a statistical inference.

- Again, the above comes from an early attempt (6/6/17) to summarize my argument. I replaced that with

...
- New information may affect the probability of an existing hypothesis (H).

- In addition, Bayesian inference usually looks for the likelihood -- given a particular hypothesis -- of something that has already happened.

 

[Jabba]

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?

We all agree that this seems to be your claim. The part of us that does not include you agree that you have yet to present even a shred of evidence for this notion.

Hans

Hans,
- My evidence is made up of premises.
1. I am a currently existing human self
2. Under the hypothesis that human selves are immortal, the likelihood of my current existence is 1.00.
3. Under the hypothesis that we are mortal (only one life per self), the likelihood of my current existence is less than 10^-100.
- Where do you disagree?

 

[John Jones]

- Again, the above comes from an early attempt (6/6/17) to summarize my argument. I replaced that with
- In addition, Bayesian inference usually looks for the likelihood -- given a particular hypothesis -- of something that has already happened.

What the hell are you doing?

Jay specifically said to combine all your brief rejoinders to his rebuttal of your claims into one post.

You think people are going to keep getting in that hamster wheel for your amusement?

 

[John Jones]

Hans,
- My evidence is made up of premises.
1. I am a currently existing human self
2. Under the hypothesis that human selves are immortal, the likelihood of my current existence is 1.00.
3. Under the hypothesis that we are mortal (only one life per self), the likelihood of my current existence is less than 10^-100.
- Where do you disagree?

Ooh! I know!
NONE OF THAT IS EVIDENCE!

 

[jond]

Hans,
- My evidence is made up of premises.
1. I am a currently existing human self
2. Under the hypothesis that human selves are immortal, the likelihood of my current existence is 1.00.
3. Under the hypothesis that we are mortal (only one life per self), the likelihood of my current existence is less than 10^-100.
- Where do you disagree?

How does adding an unlikely soul change anything about the circumstances under which your body came into existence? The thing you insist is so unlikely (your body) exists currently whether or not you have a soul. We can alter your sense of self by altering your brain’s chemistry or by physical damage to your brain whether or not you have a soul. So you cannot pretend that your body isn’t part of the equation. So: however unlikely your body is, it is impossible for it to be more likely that you have that AND an unlikely an unevidenced soul.

 

[Pixel42]

Hans,
- My evidence is made up of premises.
1. I am a currently existing human self
2. Under the hypothesis that human selves are immortal, the likelihood of my current existence is 1.00.
3. Under the hypothesis that we are mortal (only one life per self), the likelihood of my current existence is less than 10^-100.
- Where do you disagree?

a) Premises are not evidence.

b) 2 and 3 are nonsensical premises.

 

[JoeMorgue]

My evidence is made up of premises.

No. Your made up nonsense is made of other made up nonsense.

1. I am a currently existing human self

Woo there let's not be too harsh. Sure you want to just go an assume that? Doesn't your Bayesian Woo address the possibility that you're just dreaming your a butterfly jacked into the Matrix of a brain in a vat on the side of Plato's Cave?

2. Under the hypothesis that human selves are immortal, the likelihood of my current existence is 1.00.

That's the dumbest thing anyone has ever said.

3. Under the hypothesis that we are mortal (only one life per self), the likelihood of my current existence is less than 10^-100.

That's the second dumbest.

Where do you disagree?

Jesus Christ. It's not like it matters. You'll just restate your "claims" again because YOU REFUSE TO GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL THAT "CLAIMS" ARE NOT EVIDENCE.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Hans,
- My evidence is made up of premises.
1. I am a currently existing human self
2. Under the hypothesis that human selves are immortal, the likelihood of my current existence is 1.00.
3. Under the hypothesis that we are mortal (only one life per self), the likelihood of my current existence is less than 10^-100.
- Where do you disagree?

I disagree with (2); the likelihood of your current existence, given that you exist at all at some time, is 1. However, this does not address the probability, but rather assumes, that you exist at all at some time.
I also disagree with (3); the likelihood of your current existence at the time you are making your claim, also given that you exist at all at some time, is also 1, because the fact of making your claim is conditional upon you existing at the time you make it.

As I said earlier, you're playing bait-and-switch between a conditional probability and an absolute one.

I also note that your guess at the probability of your current existence is entirely unsupported by data of any kind.

Dave

ETA: I'm also increasingly unconvinced of (1).

 

[Jabba]

Hans,
- My evidence is made up of premises.
1. I am a currently existing human self
2. Under the hypothesis that human selves are immortal, the likelihood of my current existence is 1.00.
3. Under the hypothesis that we are mortal (only one life per self), the likelihood of my current existence is less than 10^-100.
- Where do you disagree?

a) Premises are not evidence.

b) 2 and 3 are nonsensical premises.

- Re a) They are if the jury agrees with them.
- Re b) If human selves are immortal they always exist, and always includes now. If human selves have only one finite life to live during all of time, what is the likelihood that your time would be right now?

 

[godless dave]

Hans,
- My evidence is made up of premises.
1. I am a currently existing human self
2. Under the hypothesis that human selves are immortal, the likelihood of my current existence is 1.00.
3. Under the hypothesis that we are mortal (only one life per self), the likelihood of my current existence is less than 10^-100.
- Where do you disagree?

We all disagree with 2 and 3.

 

[Pixel42]

- Re a) They are if the jury agrees with them.

This is not a court of law, so that is not the appropriate definition of evidence.

- Re b) If human selves are immortal they always exist, and always includes now. If human selves have only one finite life to live during all of time, what is the likelihood that your time would be right now?

The likelihood of me existing at the time I observe my existence is 1, as has been explained to you dozens of times.

 

[JayUtah]

They are if the jury agrees with them.

There are no juries in mathematical proofs. You're conflating being able to convince someone that something is true with being able to show that something is true. That alone is extremely revealing about how you operate. You don't care what's true or not, what's right or not. You only care whether you can deceive someone into agreeing that you're a genius.

If human selves are immortal...

Just say "soul" and quit trying to fool people into thinking that's not what you mean.

...what is the likelihood that your time would be right now?

Why is right now significant other than that it's the time when you presently exist? (Texas sharpshooter fallacy).

 

[Dave Rogers]

- If human selves have only one finite life to live during all of time, what is the likelihood that your time would be right now?

Given that you have to exist in order to post, the likelihood that you are alive at the time you're posting is 1.

Dave

 

[JayUtah]

My evidence is made up of premises.

That's not evidence. Premises are propositions. They themselves require proof in order to hold. Your problem in this debate is precisely that you don't know what evidence is. You seem to think that merely stating what you need to be true establishes it as true.

Where do you disagree?

With 2 and 3 -- you know, the parts where you simply declare your proof to be valid with your made-up numbers.

In a larger sense, you were given a comprehensive list of ways in which we disagree. For six months you pretended that list didn't exist. Then when it no longer became tenable for you to deny its existence, you tried to use it to springboard yet another fringe reset, which was immediately quelled. You didn't even pay close enough attention to the list to know how many items were on it or what the items said. You tried to answer a few of them, but failed the requirement that you deal with all of them in breadth-first fashion.

Given that you have now demonstrated you are unwilling to address the disagreements with your claims, it is highly insulting for you to keep asking what those objections are. You know full well what they are, and you know full well you're utterly incapable of addressing them. Now shape up and prove you're not just a long-running troll.

 

[JoeMorgue]

- Re a) They are if the jury agrees with them.

Listen to me very carefully.

You are not a lawyer. Reality is not a trial. Mankind is not a jury.

I get why this idea appeals to you, because it allows you to "win" the debate by gaming the system. Trials and law have technicalities and rules of order and such.

Reality has none of those things.

Even if you could prove immortality in a court of law, you'd still die. Because reality cares not for what consensus a the third species of Chimpanzee gets tricked into believing on a technicality.

 

[zooterkin]

2. Under the hypothesis that human selves are immortal, the likelihood of my current existence is 1.00.

Nonsense.

You exist, so the probability of your current existence is 1.0. That applies whether your 'self' is immortal or not.

However, you have not established any prior probability of your 'self' existing at all, unless you are suggesting that all possible 'selves' will exist at all times. You also haven't established whether your 'self' is always going to have a body available to inhabit at any particular time, nor whether it's limited to a particular type of body; if human, then you've got a very limited range of time and location for it to appear in.

 

[halleyscomet]

Hans,
- My evidence is made up of premises.
1. I am a currently existing human self
2. Under the hypothesis that human selves are immortal, the likelihood of my current existence is 1.00.
3. Under the hypothesis that we are mortal (only one life per self), the likelihood of my current existence is less than 10^-100.
- Where do you disagree?

I hope you're better at cooking than you are at, well, ANYTHING you've done here. If not, I suspect this is what it looks like when you cook pasta.