Proof of Immortality, VII

[godless dave]

Monza,
- If I understand your question, I should be looking out two sets of eyes.

Monza said two Jabbas, not one Jabba simultaneously in two locations.

In the non-religious model, things can't be in two locations at once.

 

[Mojo]

Monza,
- If I understand your question, I should be looking out two sets of eyes.

Jabba, you keep asking where you are misrepresenting the materialist model. Well, YOU'RE DOING IT AGAIN!

 

[wollery]

Also,

the most statistically savvy member of our thread (Caveman) says that the sharpshooter fallacy doesn't apply.

Would that be the same poster that describes your attempts at statistics as the worst of anyone in the thread by a wide margin?

 

[JayUtah]

I do think that the significance of my unlikelihood is the weakest link in my argument, but I do still think that it's totally significant.

It really can't be both. You're trumping up the semblance of significance out of nothing more than an assertion that the outcome -- whatever it was -- would have been highly improbable in retrospect. That's the essence of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

Also, the most statistically savvy member of our thread (Caveman) says that the sharpshooter fallacy doesn't apply.

No, desperately glomming onto whomever expresses disagreement with your critics is not a defense. You have, on more than one occasion, said that you do not understand what he says, hence your characterization of him is uinformed. And you have passed on numerous requests that you demonstrate your knowledge of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. You obviously don't understand it, so you grasp at straws.

Whatever, if you don't mind, I'd like to postpone further discussion of the sharpshooter issue until I know with what specifically else you're finding fault.

This is what you do. You propose to focus on one subissue until it's resolved, posturing this as a systematic method of examining a claim. Except that here it is resolved, and the resolution is that your proof fails on the point of post hoc rationalization. So what you really propose is to focus on one subissue until refutation is imminent, then frantically change horses to avoid that disaster. You shift abruptly between individual points, pretending that each abandoned point is no longer operative once you leave it behind in favor of your new subissue.

This is why I proposed a breadth-first examination. You can't play your shell game if you're forced to confront the entirety of the errors in your proof all at once. And you know full well what they are, so stop asking. You also know full well -- having admitted to it -- that you cannot sustain the debate at its most fundamental level and must instead rely on foisted ground rules that forestall any meaningful challenge to your proof. In any universe, that means you lose the debate.

For one thing, do you accept that Bayesian statistics does apply to re-evaluating OOFLam?

I do not agree that you're using Bayesian statistics correctly to effect your proof, nor that it would be the appropriate method given the data you have at hand. I've told you specifically why. At this point, asking for the objections to be repeated is just rude.

Further, no one accepts that your proof is valid. You have shown it to quite a number of statisticians, including in person to experts you yourself have selected. They have all told you that you're wrong. Instead of taking their corrections to heart, you abandon them and carry on your merry way. The evidence shows you have absolutely no interest in whether your proof actually has any statistical validity. You have shown interest only in whether you can fool people into thinking it works.

 

[JayUtah]

If I understand your question, I should be looking out two sets of eyes.

Then you don't understand the question, because it stipulates that there won't be one I but rather two identical, indistinguishable I's. Your intentionally vague language is trying -- and here failing -- to masquerade that you're trying to foist dualism onto materialism.

 

[JayUtah]

In the non-religious model, things can't be in two locations at once.

And in the materialist model, there can't be anything that won't be copied in a hypothetically perfect copy.

 

[halleyscomet]

Monza,
- If I understand your question, I should be looking out two sets of eyes.

SOdhner,
- What, again, was your question?

 

[halleyscomet]

For one thing, do you accept that Bayesian statistics does apply to re-evaluating OOFLam?

You have more trouble understanding the word "no" than an incel pickup artist at a college night club. How many times does someone have to tell you "no" before you accept that's the answer they're giving?

Have you ever considered art as a hobby? If you approach art the way you approach mathematics I suspect all of your efforts to depict the female form would end up featured on https://www.reddit.com/r/badwomensanatomy/

Mods, these are not insults, but observations and analogies to describe just how profoundly disconnected from reality Jabba's claims are.

 

[SOdhner]

I do think that the significance of my unlikelihood is the weakest link in my argument, but I do still think that it's totally significant.

That's all you can say though. "I think it is". That's not good enough. You have no actual valid reason.

Also, the most statistically savvy member of our thread (Caveman)

That's one of the funniest things you've said so far. Caveman can't even tell that 1/10 is bigger than 1/100, so he's really not the one you should be pointing to as an authority. Also, he has flat-out said that you're wrong so I can't imagine why you would want to.

says that the sharpshooter fallacy doesn't apply.

It does. Obviously. The sharpshooter fallacy is where you pick the target after the shots are fired. In this instance, the "target" is you existing. Since you already existed when you set this target, it is absolutely by definition the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.

Picture if we were playing cards. You got four aces, and I got a six of diamonds, a jack of clubs, a three of clubs, and a seven of hearts. Then I pull out some paper and write "RULES: Aces are worthless, and if you have a six of diamonds, a jack of clubs, a three of clubs, and a seven of hearts then you win" on it. Now I say that I get to take all your money, even though I wrote the rules after we already drew our cards. Would you be okay with that? (Note that both our hands have equal likelihood - the only reason to value one over the other is because of the rules we've made up whether that's my newly-written rules or the more common rules of, say, poker.)

I'd like to postpone further discussion of the sharpshooter issue until I know with what specifically else you're finding fault.

You've got like a hundred different lists of fatal flaws by now, maybe it's time to address one of the items on those lists.

SOdhner,
- What, again, was your question?

Well the question in this case was this one. Technically that was addressed to Caveman, but you can feel free to answer.

My most recent questions to YOU were right in this post, and I'd be super impressed if you actually responded to them.

Any post that doesn't start with a proper and precise definition of the probability space, and doesn't continue with a proper mathematical argument in that space so as to reach the desired conclusion, is just going to be ignored by me from now on.

You're being silly. You've made up a counter-argument to a strawman claim you invented because you can't be bothered to admit that you're wrong. Everyone knows you're wrong, and if you've read my post then you know it too and are just being too stubborn to admit it. That's probably why you're saying you won't read it - because you know if you admit to reading it you have to also admit it shows that you're incorrect.

Anyway, it doesn't matter. We all know Jabba is wrong for that and a hundred other reasons, and if you want to be another part of this thread that refuses to face facts you're certainly in the right place. We're all going to go around in circles and accomplish nothing here forever.

 

[Thermal]

Thermal,
- How about from the proposed singularity?

Jabba:

We could speculate about the outcome assuming various models. It is certainly interesting. But you are proposing a proof of immortality. Would you agree that a proof should rely on more robust support than assumption of a particular model?

 

[Pixel42]

The sharpshooter fallacy is where you pick the target after the shots are fired. In this instance, the "target" is you existing. Since you already existed when you set this target, it is absolutely by definition the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.

Picture if we were playing cards. You got four aces, and I got a six of diamonds, a jack of clubs, a three of clubs, and a seven of hearts. Then I pull out some paper and write "RULES: Aces are worthless, and if you have a six of diamonds, a jack of clubs, a three of clubs, and a seven of hearts then you win" on it. Now I say that I get to take all your money, even though I wrote the rules after we already drew our cards. Would you be okay with that? (Note that both our hands have equal likelihood - the only reason to value one over the other is because of the rules we've made up whether that's my newly-written rules or the more common rules of, say, poker.)

Jabba: read this again, and keep reading it until you understand the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.

Your existence is not equivalent to four aces or a royal flush, it is the equivalent to any old random selection of cards.This has been pointed out to you more times than I can count, and your only response has been to say you don't agree, but you can give no sensible reason why not. It is the most fundamental and egregious of the mistakes you are making, and if you cannot address it then your argument immediately fails. So address it, or admit defeat and go away.

 

[Dave Rogers]

2. But even your new claim has been done to death already in earlier iterations. Here's the short version: E is the data, that which is observed. Does the observation (ie Jabba existing) distinguish between, say, "Jabba + soul 1" and "Jabba + soul 2"? The answer is of course no.

Wrong. I'm not talking about rational claims, but rather that made by Jabba, in which he is very clear about the belief that it is his specific soul that is significant - hence all the "But it wouldn't be you" nonsense. And given that that is actually Jabba's claim, it falls foul of the conjunction fallacy along with all its other fatal flaws.

Dave

ETA: You can see this for yourself. Jabba claims that an exact physical copy of him would be distinct from him, that it would not be him, and we do not know who it would be. This is equivalent to a claim that his observation distinguishes between "Jabba + soul 1" and "Jabba + soul 2". There is no other way to interpret this.

 

[Belz...]

- I do think that the significance of my unlikelihood is the weakest link in my argument

Your entire argument rests on it, and it has been shown to be entirely irrelevant and miscalculated. Wouldn't you call that weak?

Also, the most statistically savvy member of our thread (Caveman) says that the sharpshooter fallacy doesn't apply.

Just because you think he agrees with you doesn't make him savvy at all. He can't even answer a simple question.

- Whatever, if you don't mind, I'd like to postpone further discussion of the sharpshooter issue until I know with what specifically else you're finding fault.

Why? So you can run away from another fatal flaw in your reasoning?

 

[Belz...]

Monza,
- If I understand your question, I should be looking out two sets of eyes.

Why?

 

[The Sparrow]

Why?

Because you have 2 brain radios tuned into the same clump from the soul pool.

duh!

 

[Belz...]

Obviously. But not under H you don't.

 

[halleyscomet]

Poor Jabba,

 

[Dave Rogers]

Obviously. But not under H you don't.

The more important part of the statement is "If I understand your question, ...". Most people would concede that, if the statement following this is false, then they haven't understood the question. That may not be the case here, however.

Dave

 

[Jabba]

Jabba:

We could speculate about the outcome assuming various models. It is certainly interesting. But you are proposing a proof of immortality. Would you agree that a proof should rely on more robust support than assumption of a particular model?

Thermal,
- Virtual proof, and yeah.

 

[HighRiser]

That may not be the case here, however.

Dave

Much in the same way that the beach is not near the shore.