Thermal
August Member
Or exactly 1. Pure determinism from the instant of the Big Bang.
Proof of Immortality, VII
- Thread starter abaddon
- Start date
- Status
Or exactly 1. Pure determinism from the instant of the Big Bang.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
You don't know that, but in any case so what?
I'm disagreeing. All you've proven is that dividing one number by a very much larger number produces a very small number. You haven't shown that these numbers actually mean the concepts you purport that they do, and therefore that the small quotient constitutes a probability that matters in the context of that concept. The number you have computed isn't a meaningful likelihood. It's just a quotient of two numbers.
The Texas sharpshooter fallacy is exactly about wrongly assigning post hoc meaning to an event that purports to have occurred with a very small probability, only because it has occurred with alleged improbability. You don't seem to grasp this, which is why we assume you refuse to describe the Texas sharpshooter fallacy in your own terms and explain why it's a fallacy. Instead you seem to expect your critics to let you commit it and agree that you have thereby succeeded in your proof.
Last edited:
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
Just like the particular scent of a banana. No difference. You will ignore this because it breaks your argument. We all see this. Every single one of us. You are fooling no one.
halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2012
- Messages
- 10,259
Last edited:
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
This was Loss Leader's favorite rebuttal. Jabba's model doesn't consider a clockwork universe. And while we may have beliefs about that either way, we don't have -- and can't presently get -- data that refutes the possibility our universe is not entirely deterministic. Jabba's "unimaginably small" number is based on the assumption of a chaotic universe. A chaos model works, but is not known to be correct.
Belz...
Fiend God
Even if it's correct, my understanding is that it averages out way before it gets to the macroscopic scale, so for all intents and purposes the universe is entirely deterministic, making the odds of ANY event 1.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Indeed, and Jabba has wholly avoided talking about different models of determinism as it affects his model. His model is predicated only one conceptualization of it. I've encouraged Jabba several times to undertake a study of chaos theory. Unfortunately that field is one of the many he feels he either knows enough of already, or doesn't need to know in order to be the genius he is in his own mind.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
In fact, we could then draw a Bayesian inference.
(1) The probability of any event in a deterministic universe is 1, so P(E|D)=1.
(2) The probability of any event in a non-deterministic universe is unimaginably small; I estimate it at 10-1000 at best, so P(E|~D)<10-1000.
(3) We cannot tell whether the universe we live in is deterministic or non-deterministic, therefore we can assign an initial estimate of 0.5 for the probability that the universe is deterministic. P(D)=P(~D)=0.5.
(4) According to Bayes' Theorem, P(D|E)=P(E|D)P(D)/P(E)
(5) We can estimate the probability of any event as the average of its probability in a deterministic and a non-deterministic universe, which gives the result that the probability of any event is (0.5+5x10-1001), insignificantly different from 0.5.
(6) Substituting into Bayes' Theorem, we find that P(D|E), the probability that we live in a deterministic universe given that any event has actually taken place, is (1x0.5/0.5) = 1.
(7) Therefore, the fact that any event has taken place demonstrates that we live in a deterministic universe.
And please don't criticise me for posting that. As you can see, I didn't have any choice.
Dave
ferd burfle
Graduate Poster
Here I think we see a more subtle variation on the “you agree that ...” gambit. This statement assumes previous agreement to a point where, as always, there was no agreement.
+1 for subtlety, -10 for dishonesty.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
No, you really didn't have a choice. Someone has to show how it's possible to correctly describe the process of making a model and then go on to make one that's completely inapplicable, meaningless, and nonprobative.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Just like the odds of any particular snowflake.
As it is with any mountain.
I don't think you're disagreeing with me about the size of a snowflake's likelihood.
Which, I think you agree, is what you're employing.
Give me the definition of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy in your own words again for the first time so that everyone will know that you DO understand it. As it stands, it seems that you simply are unable to comprehend what it means.
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
I am fascinated by lichens lately. The dark disks in this photo (20X mag) are areas where the lichen will release spores. (this is the fungal part of the lichen). The spores then have to settle somewhere and get lucky enough to meet the right cynobacteria or algae (depending on the species) to be able to form a lichen again. This is not the only way lichen can spread, but it is the most risky. None the less, lichens do reproduce in this manner.
The odds, the odds against this happening, are like, cosmic huge man, it must be like essentially zero....so like, lichens are immortal.
Sorry for the off topic, but this thread is useless for anything else.
The odds, the odds against this happening, are like, cosmic huge man, it must be like essentially zero....so like, lichens are immortal.
Sorry for the off topic, but this thread is useless for anything else.
Attachments
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Jabba's standard answer is that lichens, mountains, cars, and snowflakes don't have souls whereas humans do, therefore analogies between humans and other objects aren't apt, even under materialism. Oh, but that's not by any means a circular argument, begging the question, or special pleading. He said so himself.
Belz...
Fiend God
Have you spoken to your doctor about this?
Thermal
August Member
My apologies for the repetition, then. I haven't followed along with this voluminous thread, and every time I try to catch up I get distracted by the thought-provoking criticisms and sidebar discussions.
FWIW, the regular posters in this thread must find it frustrating, but the lurkers are treated to some fascinating posts. Thanks to all.
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
For sure. the difference is humans are radios tuned into the soul pool. Or humans have a special emergent property that is somehow different than any other emergent property in the universe in such a way that.....well....ummm........
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Don't apologize. Jabba's feet need to be held to the fire, and it doesn't matter who brings up what objection if the objection is valid. All the objections have been brought up many times before, so there's no shame in pointing out that Jabba still hasn't answered some particular one.
More importantly, Jabba desperately wants to make it seem like he's winning this debate, even when he's losing it. He'll happily declare that he's unable to convince anyone he's right, but that this is the problem of his critics and audience. He'll declare that they somehow aren't on his level of thought, or that they're too hopelessly biased to agree outwardly with him. As he has with his other topics, he just needs to make it look like he would have won if only his critics hadn't been so mean and unfair to him. But when reasonable newcomers breathe new life into reasonable objections, it's harder for Jabba to argue that it's just his same old critics employing their same old tricks. It points out that these are real issues that real people have with his proof, and he needs to address them if he wants his proof to be taken seriously.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
How do you know that the 'awareness' is the same and not changing constantly?
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
So is the existence of Mt Tahoma
- Status