Proof of Immortality, VII

[halleyscomet]

"Oh my gosh!!! They all have legs!!!! They don't just have only a torso but also complemented by legs!! But it's impossible!! But muh mathz!!!! Waaaaaaaah!!!11!!1!1!!"

Are you trying to actually make a point or just curry favor with Jabba? If your goal is to curry favor with Jabba, you can do it quicker and more efficiently by posting a picture of yourself in a shroud of Turin bath robe or lying in a bed with Shroud of Turin bed sheets. If your goal is to make a point, I suggest you start by not lying about the claims of the person you're arguing with.

 

[Belz...]

If your goal is to make a point, I suggest you start by not lying about the claims of the person you're arguing with.

I don't think he can. If he did, he'd have to pay me a trillion dollars.

 

[caveman1917]

If your goal is to make a point, I suggest you start by not lying about the claims of the person you're arguing with.

Arguing that particular point? I've done so enough throughout this thread series as well as just linked to an earlier post on it. No, after persistent ineducability comes not more argument but mockery - post 1892 is more of a visualization of the intellectual validity of that particular magic word math argument (the one where "and" is the magic word).

 

[Belz...]

post 1892 is more of a visualization of the intellectual validity of that particular magic word math argument (the one where "and" is the magic word).

Yeah, it illustrates how poorly you understand it.

 

[Mojo]

You mean stuff like how, supposedly, it is mathematically impossible for P(~H) to be greater than P(H) because muh magic word? You can find it if you wanna go look for it, I ain't gonna bother.

Nope, that's not the argument.

Jabba claims that the observation of his existence is so unlikely under a hypothesis in which it requires his body to exist that observing his existence makes such a hypothesis so unlikely that it can be ruled out.

Observing Jabba's existence requires his body to exist whether or not he has an immortal soul.

People are pointing out a glaring flaw in Jabba's argument: if it rules out the hypothesis he opposes, it must also rule out the hypothesis he favours.

I very much doubt that anyone, other than (perhaps) Jabba, believes that Jabba's argument rules out either hypothesis.

People are just pointing out that Jabba's argument is nonsense.

 

[jond]

Fact: Jabba agrees that the in the materialist model, the existence of his body is all that is required to explain his sense of self.

Fact: Jabba agrees that the only way to get from there to reincarnation or immortality is to add another unlikely entity (soul) into the equation.

Fact: Jabba's body exists, and we can alter his sense of self by physically damaging or chemically altering his brain.

Fact: to explain Jabba's current existence, whether or not he has a soul, the existence of his body (which Jabba insists is so massively unlikely) must be accounted for in H, as well as in ~H.

 

[caveman1917]

Nope, that's not the argument.

Sure it is. For example jond in particular seems to be doing nothing else.

Jabba claims that the observation of his existence is so unlikely under a hypothesis in which it requires his body to exist that observing his existence makes such a hypothesis so unlikely that it can be ruled out.

Observing Jabba's existence requires his body to exist whether or not he has an immortal soul.

People are pointing out a glaring flaw in Jabba's argument: if it rules out the hypothesis he opposes, it must also rule out the hypothesis he favours.

I very much doubt that anyone, other than (perhaps) Jabba, believes that Jabba's argument rules out either hypothesis.

People are just pointing out that Jabba's argument is nonsense.

That's hogwash. Here's your homework: prove that for every event A in a probability space there does not exist an event E such that P(A|E) < P(A) and P(~A|E) < P(~A). Don't worry, it's trivial.

 

[godless dave]

Fact: Jabba agrees that the in the materialist model, the existence of his body is all that is required to explain his sense of self.

Well, he claims to agree with that. Sometimes.

 

[jond]

Well, he claims to agree with that. Sometimes.

True.

 

[jond]

Sure it is. For example jond in particular seems to be doing nothing else.



That's hogwash. Here's your homework: prove that for every event A in a probability space there does not exist an event E such that P(A|E) < P(A) and P(~A|E) < P(~A). Don't worry, it's trivial.

Jabba claims the likelihood of his current existence under H is virtually zero (insert whatever number you want). Under H, that means the likelihood of his body existing is virtually zero. Under ~H, the likelihood of his body existing remains virtually zero, but he has added a second unlikely entity (soul) that needs to exist in addition to his body. Please, oh super great math genius, tell me how you can make the likelihood of his current existence under ~H more than than under H. These are Jabba's numbers, work from there.

 

[caveman1917]

Please, oh super great math genius

I get how you'd like to pretend that it would take a "super great math genius" to prove you wrong on basic probability theory, but quite the contrary, this stuff is trivial.

tell me how you can make the likelihood of his current existence under ~H more than than under H.

Ever heard of a thing called burden of proof? Prove that necessarily P(H) ≥ P(~H). But maybe first: can you articulate the difference between H and H ∪ ~H?

 

[Steve]

Oh Jesus the Thread Nanny has a cameo this episode. We usually save that for the season finale.

"Jesus the Thread Nanny" . Has a nice ring to it.

 

[Belz...]

I get how you'd like to pretend that it would take a "super great math genius" to prove you wrong on basic probability theory, but quite the contrary, this stuff is trivial.

One thing's certain, it would take someone who knows math more than you.

 

[jond]

I get how you'd like to pretend that it would take a "super great math genius" to prove you wrong on basic probability theory, but quite the contrary, this stuff is trivial.



Ever heard of a thing called burden of proof? Prove that necessarily P(H) ≥ P(~H). But maybe first: can you articulate the difference between H and H ∪ ~H?

No, I am utterly indifferent to probability theory. I don’t think that P(H) is necessarily greater than P(~H). I can, however state with confidence that when the thing that Jabba insists is so unlikely exists in both H and ~H, it must be accounted for in both. As for the difference, in this case H is Jabba’s current existence is explained by the existence of his body. In theory, ~H is anything else explaining his existence, however in reality it is Jabba insisting that there is a soul in addition to his body which would be immortal. But his body must be accounted for because we know we can change his sense of self by altering his brain.

 

[caveman1917]

No, I am utterly indifferent to probability theory.

And that sums it up. Thanks for playing, try again when you can articulate the difference between H and H ∪ ~H.

 

[jond]

And that sums it up. Thanks for playing, try again when you can articulate the difference between H and H ∪ ~H.

Please, oh great math genius, show us the numbers on how Jabba’s body becomes more likely by adding an unlikely soul to it.

 

[caveman1917]

Please, oh great math genius, show us the numbers on how Jabba’s body becomes more likely by adding an unlikely soul to it.

I never said that it does, and I have nothing to prove. Now rather than playing games, I suggest you prove your claim. Here's one of many instances of it:

It is impossible for ~H to be more likely than H.

Feel free to either present proof, retract, or join Argumemnon in a loop over post 1892.

 

[Belz...]

And that sums it up. Thanks for playing, try again when you can articulate the difference between H and H ∪ ~H.

Congratulations for snipping the rest of his post that explains to you once again the crux of your mistake. I'm starting to suspect that you know that you're wrong.

Feel free to either present proof, retract, or join Argumemnon in a loop over post 1892.

Yeah! Fear Caveman's non-sequitur nonsense post!

 

[jond]

I never said that it does, and I have nothing to prove. Now rather than playing games, I suggest you prove your claim. Here's one of many instances of it:


Feel free to either present proof, retract, or join Argumemnon in a loop over post 1892.

Already done many times: Jabba’s H and ~H both include the very thing he insists is so unlikely. In ~H he adds an additional unlikely entity to his apparently very unlikely body. You think the conjunction fallacy doesn’t apply, but Jabba’s own words make it clear that it does.

 

[caveman1917]

Already done many times: Jabba’s H and ~H both include the very thing he insists is so unlikely. In ~H he adds an additional unlikely entity to his apparently very unlikely body. You think the conjunction fallacy doesn’t apply, but Jabba’s own words make it clear that it does.

You mean the subset fallacy? There's no such thing as the conjunction fallacy

Either way: GOTO 1892. The loop can only be exited on the condition that substituting "have only a torso" and "have torso and legs" for "have only a body" and "have a body and a soul" in your claims doesn't instantly make you look like a lunatic. ETA: Here's a hint if you'd like that to happen any time soon: learn to articulate the difference between H and H ∪ ~H.