Proof of Immortality, VII

[Belz...]

Thermal,
- Virtual proof, and yeah.

Virtual proof is not proof. It's imagined proof. You either have mathematical proof or you don't. I take it from this post of yours that you, in fact, don't.

 

[Jabba]

Dave,
- 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. Also,
the most statistically savvy member of our thread (Caveman) says that the sharpshooter fallacy doesn't apply.
- 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. I think that by studying the formula I'm using and judging the numbers I've inserted, we should be able to nail down our specific disagreements.
- For one thing, do you accept that Bayesian statistics does apply to re-evaluating OOFLam?

No.

As Jay and I, and others, have pointed out, OOFLam isn't a hypothesis. It's the outcome of several different hypotheses...

Dave,
- As Jay and you, and others may have argued.
- Try again -- to me, OOFLam is an obvious hypothesis. Maybe, I shouldn't call it the consensus Scientific hypothesis. Would it help to just call it one of the non-religious hypotheses about mortality?

 

[JayUtah]

Virtual proof, and yeah.

There is no such thing.

This is one of your classic equivocations. You talk about "virtual zero," and elsewhere about "virtual evidence." You constantly try to invent a third option which evidently means, "it has the force of what I'm trying to accomplish, but incurs none of the obligation of effort."

Your proof failed long ago. It failed for reasons that are all too obvious to anyone but you who reads it. When you tell us you are unable to address those reasons, you don't get to then save face by inventing a new kind of proof that somehow means you still win without having prevailed in the debate.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Thermal,
- Virtual proof, and yeah.

Your proof has been shown to consist solely of fatal flaws which you've been utterly incapable of correcting, or indeed of even responding to in a meaningful way.

You fail.

 

[JayUtah]

As Jay and you, and others may have argued.

No, we pointed it out. Stop putting easier words in your critics' mouths. You offer no rebuttal response to the statement, so trying to say it isn't what it is is just your standard word play -- no substance, and a clear intent to evade and deceive. No, you don't get to tell us what our theory must be just because such a thing would be easier for you to refute.

Try again -- to me, OOFLam is an obvious hypothesis.

It obviously isn't. It's an observation of outcome. That out come can arise from a number of circumstances, including materialism. A hypothesis proposes a testable mechanism for how the observations arise, as opposed to just noting outcome. Simply saying what the observed outcome should be sidesteps the test of mechanism, which then doesn't let you differentiate between all the hypotheses that lead to that outcome. And we know why you want to sidestep it. You need the actual mechanism to be vague and undefined so that you can sneak your soul theory into it. Well, we're not going to let you because that would be an invalid proof.

Remember in my list of fatal flaws where I argued that you didn't understand the parts of a statistical inference and how they fit together? Your latest post is good evidence that I'm right.

Maybe, I shouldn't call it the consensus Scientific hypothesis.

No, repeatedly inventing new names for things does not permit you to foist wrong concepts.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Dave,
- As Jay and you, and others may have argued.
- Try again -- to me, OOFLam is an obvious hypothesis.

Then you clearly can't grasp simple concepts. That's why you refuse requests to define the words you use. You have no clue what they mean.

Maybe, I shouldn't call it the consensus Scientific hypothesis.

You, particularly, shouldn't try to speak for what the consensus scientific hypothesis is. You are welcome to invent your straw models and speak for those.

Would it help to just call it one of the non-religious hypotheses about mortality?

If you're speaking about materialism, you are allowed to call it materialism. Note that that does NOT mean you are allowed to define it. You lack the capacity to do so.

 

[Belz...]

- Try again -- to me, OOFLam is an obvious hypothesis.

It's not obvious at all. It's the result of observation that we conclude that life begins and ends.

 

[Jabba]

...
Since OOFLam isn't a clearly defined hypothesis, then its complement isn't clearly defined either...

- How is OOFLam not clearly defined?
- ~OOFLam is simply anything but OOFLam.
- Pointing out the specific possible hypotheses is tricky, but adding "some other explanation" (which I did) should solve that problem.

 

[JayUtah]

How is OOFLam not clearly defined

It fails to describe a testable mechanism.

OOFLam is simply anything but OOFLam.

If a set is poorly defined, its complement is poorly defined.

Pointing out the specific possible hypotheses is tricky, but adding "some other explanation" (which I did) should solve that problem.

"Some other explanation" is poorly defined. Your whole problem here is in trying to estimate the probability of a heterogeneous catch-all, not all of which necessarily result in immortality. That you made the catch-all set smaller doesn't change the fundamental flaw in your reasoning.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- As Jay and you, and others may have argued.
- Try again -- to me, OOFLam is an obvious hypothesis. Maybe, I shouldn't call it the consensus Scientific hypothesis. Would it help to just call it one of the non-religious hypotheses about mortality?

It's not a hypothesis at all. It's a statement. It's no more a hypothesis than "The earth revolves around the sun."

 

[Jabba]

...
You also don't have any new information to use to re-evaluate the hypothesis. Your existence isn't new information, because you already existed before you decided to re-evaluate the the hypotheses...

- In this case, any relevant info that was not included in determining the prior probability of the hypothesis is "new."

 

[Belz...]

~OOFLam is simply anything but OOFLam.

Including two finite lives?

- Pointing out the specific possible hypotheses is tricky

No, it isn't.

 

[godless dave]

- In this case, any relevant info that was not included in determining the prior probability of the hypothesis is "new."

And you determined the prior probability of the hypothesis after you already existed.

 

[Jabba]

...
You also have no way of getting meaningful estimates for the likelihood of a given event under any of the hypotheses.

- You can substitute whatever numbers you like, and you're always going to get a meaningful,real, number greater than 10^-100.

 

[SOdhner]

- In this case, any relevant info that was not included in determining the prior probability of the hypothesis is "new."

So if I roll some dice and get 5, 2, 2, 6, 1.

And then I calculate the odds of getting those specific rolls in that order.

And then I count those rolls as "new" information.

I have proved the null hypothesis wrong (pretty much regardless of how I word that "hypothesis" or how poorly defined it is).


Like so: If the world is random, then the odds of my specific roll is extremely small. Virtually impossible. And yet, I have rolled 5, 2, 2, 6, 1. Therefore the world is not random and I have proved everything is predetermined.


Wow, this Jabba method is fun and easy.

 

[JayUtah]

- In this case, any relevant info that was not included in determining the prior probability of the hypothesis is "new."

The information was used to formulate H, after the information arose and according to it. It therefor cannot be new to H. You're trying to backfill the notion that you can estimate a meaningful prior after you've already observed the outcome. You're separately trying to foist a different notion that the likelihood is related to the prior.

 

[godless dave]

- You can substitute whatever numbers you like, and you're always going to get a meaningful,real, number greater than 10^-100.

How can you say that when you haven't even defined ~H? If we don't know how souls are produced, then we don't know the likelihood of a particular soul existing. It might be less than the likelihood of my body existing.

 

[JayUtah]

- You can substitute whatever numbers you like, and you're always going to get a meaningful,real, number greater than 10^-100.

The ability to substitute any numbers into a model does not make those numbers meaningful. You are conflating the ability to solve a formula with the ability to understand what the formula represents. The results are meaningful only if the model is correct and if the input is meaningful. Your inputs are not meaningful. The result from the formula is therefore not meaningful.

 

[Jabba]

It's not a hypothesis at all. It's a statement. It's no more a hypothesis than "The earth revolves around the sun."

- That the earth revolves around the sun is also a hypothesis.

 

[Belz...]

- You can substitute whatever numbers you like, and you're always going to get a meaningful,real, number greater than 10^-100.

I'll say. The number I like for OOFLAM is 1.

What do you have to say about that?