Proof of Immortality, VII

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
- We're on vacation with friends -- that's why I've been so quiet.

Dave,
- So anyway, as far as I can tell, you do accept that the likelihood of your current existence, given OOFLam, is no greater than 10-100.
Click to expand...

There isn't much point in reading further than your first lie. Don't you agree that it would be better if you didn't continually lie?
 
Jabba said:
- How would you change the .99 and .62?
Click to expand...

Why did you ignore the other two, much more egregious, problems that Dave mentioned? Are you really still under some sort of delusion that the only problem with your proof is the exact numbers you've chosen.

No, you know full well that there are serious problems with your proof. And you've also admitted that you cannot solve them. In the real world that means your proof fails. Yet on the basis of your admittedly problematic model, you've suggested you are essentially the greatest philosopher ever to have lived because you have solved the problem of the proof of a soul. You don't seem to consider that the problems you're having here are not because your critics are biased and mean-spirited, as you claim, but because your model is severely and obviously broken.

At this point you have to do more than simply defend your choice of numbers. You have to prove you're worthy of more attention than just pointing and laughing.
 
caveman1917 said:
Meh. Use "computer" for "torso" and "keyboard" for "legs", you could make the same argument yet...wait for it...they all have keyboards, don't they?
Click to expand...

I see you haven't understood.

Jabba has a specific body, and he claims to have a specific soul. But he claims that it's more likely that he has both a specific soul and a specific body than just a specific body. Materialism does not require specification of two separate entities. Jabba's claim does require specification independently of two separate entities, because he has claimed that the brain receives the soul in the same way that a radio receives a transmission.

Is it more likely that you are listening to a radio with a serial number of 201A31557, or that you are listening to a transmission broadcast on 298.37MHz on a radio with serial number 201A31557?

Is it more likely that Jabba possesses a specific soul (which may be associated with any specific body) and a specific body, in the instance that the soul is a real thing; or is it more likely that Jabba possesses a specific body, in the instance that the soul is not?

You need to let go of the requirement that the hypothesis of the soul should remain unrefuted, because that's not what's under discussion here. Your "counter-example" is in fact a counter example to the wrong claim.

Dave
 
Jabba said:
- Here, I would argue that if you estimate anything less than 1.00 and anything more than 0, P(~H|E) is still greater than P(H|E).
Click to expand...

You're still wallowing in denial. The problem is with your overall approach, which you admit you can't fix. Therefore you're still frantically pretending you can just fiddle with the knobs and make it all better.

All the numbers in your model are simply made up. There is not one single number in all your model that is not a product of your dictatorial say-so. Yes, it's a feature of your model that you've contrived the likelihood ratio to basically reject any hypothesis it's given, regardless of what the hypothesis actually is or the evidence for or against it. That's not a helpful feature of your model. It is, in fact, a very good reason why your model should be rejected as the fact-free contrivance it is.
 
Jabba said:
- So anyway, as far as I can tell, you do accept that the likelihood of your current existence, given OOFLam, is no greater than 10-100.
Click to expand...

There's probably not a single person in the history of the universe who's agreed to that.

You demand politeness from others, but you're easily the most insulting poster in this thread, lying about what others have posted, and especially after the hundreds of times they've told you that they don't agree.
 
Jabba said:
- Here, I would argue that if you estimate anything less than 1.00 and anything more than 0, P(~H|E) is still greater than P(H|E).
Click to expand...

I think you agree that you aren't able to comprehend the issues with your logic or the feedback that you've been given.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Jabba has a specific body, and he claims to have a specific soul. But he claims that it's more likely that he has both a specific soul and a specific body than just a specific body.
Click to expand...

Well, I for one do have a specific computer and a specific keyboard plugged into it. But fine, let's check. Those of us who have a specific computer and a specific keyboard plugged into it, please raise your hands... Ok, now those of us who have a specific computer and no keyboard, please raise your hands... See?

You're a physicist for ****'s sake, this stuff isn't difficult. None of the math in this thread has gone above "trivial" level.

GOTO 1892
 
Belz... said:
Maybe at this point you could realise that, if nobody, including a physicist, agrees with your math and logic, perhaps you're WRONG.
Click to expand...

Who gives a **** what a physicist says about math and logic? The point is that he should reasonably be expected to be educable on the subject given that the subject really doesn't require much more than a couple of sets and relations between them.
 
caveman1917 said:
Well, I for one do have a specific computer and a specific keyboard plugged into it. But fine, let's check. Those of us who have a specific computer and a specific keyboard plugged into it, please raise your hands... Ok, now those of us who have a specific computer and no keyboard, please raise your hands... See?



You're a physicist for ****'s sake, this stuff isn't difficult. None of the math in this thread has gone above "trivial" level.



GOTO 1892
Click to expand...

We have half a dozen specific computers in our house, and two of them have no keyboard plugged into them. Nor do they need them.
 
caveman1917 said:
Who gives a **** what a physicist says about math and logic? The point is that he should reasonably be expected to be educable on the subject given that the subject really doesn't require much more than a couple of sets and relations between them.
Click to expand...

Jabba does. You know. That dude which you worship.
 
caveman1917 said:
Well, I for one do have a specific computer and a specific keyboard plugged into it. But fine, let's check. Those of us who have a specific computer and a specific keyboard plugged into it, please raise your hands... Ok, now those of us who have a specific computer and no keyboard, please raise your hands... See?
Click to expand...

You're still addressing the wrong claim. This is not about the claim that the body and the soul existing are less probable than the body only existing; I clearly stated that I wasn't discussing that claim a couple of posts ago.

Jabba's claiming that the probability of his complete, current self existing is greater under the assumption that his complete current self comprises a body, which may be any one of all possible bodies (hence defining one probability space), and a soul, which may be one of all possible souls (hence defining a second probability space), associated with each other.

Under materialism, the self is a process of the body, so there is only a single probability space.

Now, you may argue that these are not directly comparable because they effectively require different universes. That's quite true; that's another failing of Jabba's. But they are, quite specifically, P(E|R) and P(E|H), and Jabba is claiming that the latter is the greater of the two. But in fact P(E|R) is at most P(E|H)*P(S|R), where P(E|H) is the probability of Jabba's body existing - the same in both universes - and P(S|R) that of Jabba's soul existing; there may also be a term for the probability of Jabba's specific soul inhabiting Jabba's specific body.

(Oh, and by the way, I'm typing this on a laptop.)

caveman1917 said:
You're a physicist for ****'s sake, this stuff isn't difficult. None of the math in this thread has gone above "trivial" level.
Click to expand...

It's not a problem with the complexity of the maths. It's a problem, actually, with following the fractured logic of Jabba's argument, which I'm not entirely surprised you can't do; it took me a long time to figure out what he thought he was claiming. I can see you're not there yet.

caveman1917 said:
GOTO 1892
Click to expand...

Invalid response. There is no many-to-many relationship between parts of different bodies. If it were possible to plug a used set of arms into a new body you might have a point; but in Jabba's mythology, the soul may associate with any body, and the body with any soul. The probabilities of specific instances of both co-existing are therefore independent, not dependent.

Dave
 
caveman1917 said:
Who gives a **** what a physicist says about math and logic? The point is that he should reasonably be expected to be educable on the subject given that the subject really doesn't require much more than a couple of sets and relations between them.
Click to expand...

You exhibit two basic misconceptions here. One is that you have correctly identified the sets and relationships under discussion. The other is that a teacher/pupil relationship exists.

Dave
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom