RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Why don't you just show the math where you got your numbers from?
Proof of Immortality, VII
- Thread starter abaddon
- Start date
- Status
Why don't you just show the math where you got your numbers from?
I already did and you ignored them. No I won't repeat them, no I won't tell you where to find them because you'll just ignore them again.
Again NONE OF THIS MATTERS BECAUSE YOU DON'T LISTEN.
Last edited:
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
Well, if your goal is to find talking points for your "map", you do listen...very selectively. Keep this in mind Mr Thermal sir. Your opponent is not interested in debate. He is interested in mining.
Yeah I'm fully and intimately aware of that.
But since there is no "neutral audience" out there to read Jabba's self insert fan fiction, that rather doesn't matter.
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
What gets me frustrated (about my self) is getting angry. Whereas for our opponent, its all a big joke. It all feels like a betrayal of....I dunno...honor or decency.
Jabba's nonsense is frustrating, but the day I actually let it legit anger me instead of just using it as an excuse for some humorous catharsis is the day I swallow a spool of razor wire, pull one end out my mouth, the other end out my ass, and floss myself to death.
*Credit to Yahtzee on that one*
*Credit to Yahtzee on that one*
Thermal
August Member
Jabba:
The entire formula, it's premise, and the individual values, all seem to flow from a confirmation bias. The specific values of the priors are not relevant till you justify the base assumption, that the probability of H/OOFLam could be meaningfully calculated at all. Or looked at another way, H is the only value that could be supported by observation. I think you have to provide a lot of support for the initial premises before getting to the details of the priors' specific values.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Stop groveling for agreement. Stop trying to legitimize your wild-guesses-as-probability exercise by baiting others to engage in it too.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
No one can come up with defensible numbers for your model. That's why it's not a workable model for proving that something must be true. And that why you had to drop that howler: if the data can't be discovered, then it's legitimate to just make them up. Nor does someone else's guesses remove any bias on your part. The confirmation bias is in your head and pervades everything you've done -- not just the algebra. And it won't be going away just because of what someone else says in this debate. You've already been given quite enough rebuttal to latch onto, should you actually have any desire to shed that bias.
Last edited:
Belz...
Fiend God
You should take that as a hint that you're wrong.
"Self insert fan fiction." Yuck. That's a nasty-sounding phrase. Can't put my finger on exactly what makes it sickly -- and of course don't want to.
By god, Jabba, you shouldn't put up with stuff like that! You ought to gather up your dignity and leave this unworthy place! Really, you ought to.
Really.
By god, Jabba, you shouldn't put up with stuff like that! You ought to gather up your dignity and leave this unworthy place! Really, you ought to.
Really.
Belz...
Fiend God
Do you accept that the universe is deterministic?
Belz...
Fiend God
Nobody on the skeptics' side got refuted except in your hero fantasy.
It really is the only context in which this trainwreck works though.
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
One of the problems with your approach is taking subjective judgements like "reasonable possibility" and "unimaginably small" and trying to substitute numerical equivalents.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Thermal,
- I do want OOFLam to be wrong. I do have a bias. And, I have to wonder why no one else has brought up my objection to OOFLam if I'm right about it...
- But then, I think that the easiest way to judge my claim is to analyze the specific numbers I use. Re prior probabilities. I could use .999 and .001, or even .9999 and .0001 instead, and still easily win the argument -- if my likelihoods are correct, or anywhere near correct.
- I think that your wording above is a little off the mark. Re "The specific values of the priors are not relevant till you justify the base assumption, that the probability of H/OOFLam could be meaningfully calculated at all. Re that hilited part, I think you meant, "likelihood of E (my current existence) given H/OOFLam."
- Re, "Or looked at another way, H is the only value that could be supported by observation," I think that by the hilited portion, you meant, "H is the only hypothesis."
- If I'm right about your intended meanings, I'll try to address them. If I'm wrong, please try to further explain them.
-
Belz...
Fiend God
Except that you're wrong and everybody has brought it up.
Any number you use is a fiction, so it's pointless to anayse them.
Well that's because you lie and claim people haven't brought up objections when they've literally been repeating their objections for years now and you just don't listen.
Okay. You made them all up. They are all gibberish.
You'll do no such thing and now it. You will never address anything. Stop lying.
Why? You won't listen.
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
It doesn't matter what numbers you use. It doesn't matter how unlikely your existence is. Everything that can possibly happen has a zillion to one chance of actually happening, but some of them are bound to happen and of course they do. Expressing surprise at any individual one of them happening is silly, but when that event is your own existence it's just ridiculous. For goodness's sake try to understand what the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy is.
- Status