Proof of Immortality, VII

Status
Not open for further replies.
jsfisher said:
Carry on, then. Let's not let precision ever interfere with a discussion of fact. Mathematics and mathematical notation are flexible that way, no?
Click to expand...

Mathematics isn't flexible. Mathematical notation is arbitrary. And this isn't even about precision, the following statements:

- for all x in H: we have a body and not a soul
- for all x in ~H: we have a body and a soul

precisely entail:

- for all x in H ∪ ~H: we have a body

(ETA: and it doesn't even matter whether ~ is the complement operator or not for this to be true)

At least the last time (when I said "distinct" instead of "disjoint") you actually had a point. But since you asked:

Define two sets as spojfdsqhop iff they do not have an element in common.

Then: ~H and H are spojfdsqhop and therefor the "conjunction fallacy" argument fails.

See how flexible mathematical notation is? As opposed to mathematics itself? See how the argument still fails no matter what bunch of squiggles we use?
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
Carry on, then.
Click to expand...

Besides, why should I have to abide by your arbitrary preferences when at best all you're really doing is the equivalent of this:

JayUtah & the crowd: "7 is the largest number divisible by only 1 and itself."

You: *silence*

JayUtah & the crowd: "Mathematically speaking 7 really is the largest number divisible by only 1 and itself."

You: *silence*

JayUtah & the crowd: "Yep, no way around it, 7 is the largest number divisible by only 1 and itself. It's just mathz!"

Me: "Here's proof that there's actually an infinite number of prime numbers."

You: "Yeah well I prefer to call those 'doodleedoo' numbers rather than 'prime' numbers so ha!"

Me: ...
 
Last edited:
caveman1917 said:
Mathematics isn't flexible. Mathematical notation is arbitrary. And this isn't even about precision, the following statements:

- for all x in H: we have a body and not a soul
- for all x in ~H: we have a body and a soul

precisely entail:

- for all x in H ∪ ~H: we have a body

(ETA: and it doesn't even matter whether ~ is the complement operator or not for this to be true)

At least the last time (when I said "distinct" instead of "disjoint") you actually had a point. But since you asked:

Define two sets as spojfdsqhop iff they do not have an element in common.

Then: ~H and H are spojfdsqhop and therefor the "conjunction fallacy" argument fails.

See how flexible mathematical notation is? As opposed to mathematics itself? See how the argument still fails no matter what bunch of squiggles we use?
Click to expand...

- for all x in H ∪ ~H: we have a body is false since ~H includes scenarios where a body is not required.
 
Great. The thread about Jabba’s math themed reincarnation fantasy story has been taken over by fan-fiction arguments about the fake math equation he used to make the fantasy story sound mathematical.

It’s like a Star Trek thread about Next Gen plots being overtaken by an argument over the series finale that mentioned going Warp 13 when Voyager later established Warp 10 as so fast you were literally at every point in the universe simultaneously.
 
halleyscomet said:
It’s like a Star Trek thread about Next Gen plots being overtaken by an argument over the series finale that mentioned going Warp 13 when Voyager later established Warp 10 as so fast you were literally at every point in the universe simultaneously.
Click to expand...

Please, don't mention "Threshold." The memory's still too raw.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Please, don't mention "Threshold." The memory's still too raw.



Dave
Click to expand...



It’s still better philosophy than this thread.

Better science too. A TriLithium warp drive allowing Warp 10 travel is more likely than anything useful or intelligible coming out of Jabba’s claims.
 
Recently, Jabba confirmed that he did not exist in 1888. His existence started in the year of his birth (sometime in the 1940s, I presume). The problem in determining if he is immortal or not, is that it is too early to tell. The maximum mortal lifespan is roughly 120 years, and he is currently within that window. Even if he has an immortal soul attached, we cannot tell yet whether it will live on after his body dies. The likelihood if his existence "now" is about the same whether he is immortal or not.

Now, if Jabba contemplates his existence in the year 2195 he may have something. I can't wait!
 
caveman1917 said:
Mathematics isn't flexible. Mathematical notation is arbitrary. And this isn't even about precision, the following statements:

- for all x in H: we have a body and not a soul
- for all x in ~H: we have a body and a soul
...
Click to expand...

Under your private definition of complement, sure.
 
Jabba said:
- I'll try again.
- You want me to use these meanings for these symbols.
- I = "people are immortal"
- E = "I exist"

- Unfortunately, I don't think those meanings properly express the logic of my claim. For the moment, at least, I think that the best way to express the logic of my claim involves the following meanings for E and I.
- I = I am immortal.
- E = I currently exist.
- So,
- I think that P(E|I) > P(E|~I) because E and P(E|I) > P(E|~I).,
- IOW, I think that P(E|I) > P(E|~I) because I currently exist and my current existence is more likely if I'm immortal than if I have only one finite life to live.
- So far, I can't figure out why that logic doesn't work.

- Maybe an even easier way to express the logic is that I'm much more likely to currently exist if reincarnation is real than if we each have only one finite life to live.
Click to expand...
Caveman,
- I don't think you ever responded to my last argument. I still think that I'm correct with the basic idea -- and, it's just a case of getting the nuances correct...
- At least superficially, it seems like you're making a conjunction fallacy fallacy like many of the others are doing.
 
Monza said:
Recently, Jabba confirmed that he did not exist in 1888. His existence started in the year of his birth (sometime in the 1940s, I presume). The problem in determining if he is immortal or not, is that it is too early to tell. The maximum mortal lifespan is roughly 120 years, and he is currently within that window. Even if he has an immortal soul attached, we cannot tell yet whether it will live on after his body dies. The likelihood if his existence "now" is about the same whether he is immortal or not.

Now, if Jabba contemplates his existence in the year 2195 he may have something. I can't wait!
Click to expand...
Monza,
- Where did I confirm that I did not exist in1888?
 
Jabba said:
I don't think you ever responded to my last argument.
Click to expand...

Then now you know how that feels like.

I still think that I'm correct with the basic idea
Click to expand...

No amount of evidence will ever convince you otherwise.

and, it's just a case of getting the nuances correct...
Click to expand...

No, your basic idea is ENTIRELY wrong, in every conceivable way.

At least superficially, it seems like you're making a conjunction fallacy fallacy like many of the others are doing.
Click to expand...

So you just read that in the last couple of pages and decided to parrot it?
 
Jabba said:
I still think that I'm correct with the basic idea -- and, it's just a case of getting the nuances correct...
Click to expand...

No. Your argument fails elementary and fundamental logic. I made a list of the major errors and tried for six months to get you to address it. You have lately admitted that you cannot, and tried to distract from that admission by poisoning the well for your critics. You know full well -- and in fact you have publicly conceded -- that you cannot address the dozen or so fatal flaws in your argument. Therefore to say now you only need to get "the nuances correct" has to be a lie.

...it seems like you're making a conjunction fallacy fallacy...
Click to expand...

Please explain that fallacy in your own words. You have displayed a tendency not to know what various common fallacies are and why they're fallacies. Now it seems, as others have opined, that you're just picking up on language others have used and are now trying to sound smart by repeating it.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
it's just a case of getting the nuances correct...
Click to expand...
No. As you've been told dozens of times with comprehensive explanations, "1 and 4 are 7" is just as wrong as "1+4=7". Calling it a matter of nuance is a lie. Your fundamental argument is wrong, as you well know.
 
jsfisher said:
Under your private definition of complement, sure.
Click to expand...

No. U = H ∪ ~H by definition. Defining both H and ~H and asserting them to be complements implicitly defines the universe as their union. If you disagree then feel free to give a definition of complement in which that isn't true.

I'm assuming you forgot that the universe is freely chosen in your first response about how "we do not have a body" would also be part of ~H, and now are grasping at straws. Your failure to derive the universe from sufficient information to do so (ie two sets being defined and asserted to be complements) is not my responsibility.

ETA: are you forgetting to account for that the complement operator is relative to the chosen universe?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom