JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
You can't possibly be serious.
A year and a half or so ago you wrote a long, angsty post telling us how you came to this theory in your teens. You told us how invested you were in it emotionally. Not just that, you told us that unless you could prove your theory mathematically, you would be emotionally devastated. Not only did you admit to a strong personal bias, you went on to admit that this bias is, for all intents and purposes, insurmountable. You're going to be emotionally devastated (your words, if I recall) if you can't make this proof work. How does that give anyone any confidence that a conversation with you about the errors in your proof would be productive?
Since you wrote that post I have brought up its admissions at least monthly. Trying to gaslight a newcomer into believing your critics haven't touched on your bias is as low as it gets. I would say it's a new low for you, but I've come to the conclusion that there is no limit to how low your argument can go.
Which brings us to the acute topic: why you incessantly, habitually, and thoroughly lie about what your critics have or haven't said. You seem to find it remarkably easy to misrepresent other points of view, or simply lie about the facts of what was said or done. Just bald-faced lies, unashamedly so. This is deeply concerning. It's not just once or twice. It's the rule by which you seem to treat all criticism. I'm not going to pretend I'm concerned about your mental health or whatever. I'm going to point out just how pointedly rude it is for you to continue to solicit feedback when all the evidence shows you're just going to invariably lie about it. This is not acceptable behavior in a civil society.
No. The easiest way to judge your claim is to look at the myriad fundamental ways it is broken before we even get to the part where you choose your numbers. You've admitted you can't redeem your argument at that most fundamental level, so all this quibbling over what number we should use is just you constantly distracting from an obvious failure by obsessing over detail.
Yes, and do you remember what all those statisticians told you was wrong with a model that did that? You have a model whose output in the form of a posterior probability is nearly perfectly unrelated to its priors. You "graciously" allow for wiggle room in the priors knowing full well that it will make absolutely no difference in the answer. That's not math. That's just sleazy salesmanship. It's offering to throw in the undercoating for free when you know the undercoating is already free, just to curry favor with people who should be otherwise skeptical. Except here people know math. They can see what you're trying to do, and they rightly don't let you. This happens everywhere you take your theory and the audience knows math. You're clearly only able to put on a song and dance that you hope fools sychophants into being your fans.
Your likelihoods are completely made up and completely unjustified. You know this, which is why you have to keep resorting to non-mathematical methods such as lying and gaslighting to try to establish them. And then you get all offended and accusatory when it doesn't work. Your argument is little more than a poorly-executed used car salesman's spiel, and it deserves exactly the response it's getting.
