Proof of Immortality, VII

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
- Actually, I have a new, and easier, question.
Click to expand...

And as usual, you've ignored my post so you can pretend the Sharpshooter Fallacy either doesn't apply or isn't a big deal. But it applies to this question too, Jabba.

Anyway!

I'll happily take a look at this question because anything even remotely new in this No Exit scenario is interesting to me.

Jabba said:
- What is the likelihood of now being during my lifetime -- given OOFLam, the big bang and a lifetime of 100 years? I get 1/140,000,000 (at most).
Click to expand...

This is an easy one! First we have to decide if we're taking actual historical stuff into account, or if we're pretending you had some chance of just magically popping into existence ex nihilo.

1. If we're taking history into account, the answer is 1. Things lead to other things, and in this case they led to you. If we're looking at NOW, the historical data includes just a moment ago when you also existed - but even if we back up to just before you existed (however you define that) all the bits were in place and you starting to exist was guaranteed. So, 1.

2. If you're asking what the odds are of you randomly popping into existence ex nihilo, it's a very silly nonsense question. Also, we know that that's not how you came into existence so it wouldn't be relevant to your goal anyway.

So there you go. Problem solved.

Jabba said:
- Does anyone here agree with me?
Click to expand...

That the question is new and easier? I guess I could agree with that. It doesn't in any way support your quest for proof of immortality though.
 
Jabba said:
- Actually, I have a new, and easier, question.
- What is the likelihood of now being during my lifetime -- given OOFLam, the big bang and a lifetime of 100 years? I get 1/140,000,000 (at most).
- Does anyone here agree with me?
Click to expand...


How would the likelihood of now being during your current lifetime differ if you had an immortal soul in addition to your body?
 
Jabba said:
- Actually, I have a new, and easier, question.
Click to expand...
It's not new, you've asked it before. Often it's ignored because it's such an embarrassingly stupid question, but certain kind individuals have tried to explain to you why it's such a silly question, and been completely ignored as usual.

What is the likelihood of now being during my lifetime
Click to expand...
The likelihood of the moment you ask this question being during your lifetime is 100%.
 
Jabba said:
- Actually, I have a new, and easier, question.
- What is the likelihood of now being during my lifetime -- given OOFLam, the big bang and a lifetime of 100 years? I get 1/140,000,000 (at most).
- Does anyone here agree with me?
Click to expand...

What were the odds of your parents having a baby?
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
- Am I wrong that likelihood is different than probability?
Click to expand...

A likelihood is different from a probability, but you don't know how to properly use or compute either one. This is the problem, and it's a big one. So stop groping for some trivial tactical win. Being able to quote a well-known snippet of fact from an introductory text doesn't mean you are the expert you elsewhere claim to be. You can work the mechanics of the formulas, but you don't know anything about how they're supposed to be used or what governs the numbers they ingest. In other words, you don't grasp the underlying model. Statisticians have universally told you this. Again, one accused you of making up all new rules for probability theory in order to get your "proof" to work. Another flat-out called you "profoundly ignorant." Being able to tell a probability from a likelihood doesn't fix that. Get used to the fact that no one with appropriate knowledge is going to give you the praise and accolades you are obviously so desperately seeking. The problem with your argument is not its audience. Your argument is broken at the conceptual level, in many ways you already admitted you can't correct, and in ways the people you look to for a neutral opinion have already identified to you. Fiddling with the knobs isn't going to correct a fundamentally unworkable design, but all you want to allow is knob-fiddling.
 
Pixel42 said:
The likelihood of the moment you ask this question being during your lifetime is 100%.
Click to expand...

Indeed, this appears to be the concept Jabba doesn't understand about likelihood. If a statistical model is governed by some number of parameters, a likelihood examines the behavior of the model after one or more parameters are fixed at 1. The remaining parameters are allowed to vary as usual, and you get a probability distribution that has fewer degrees of freedom. Jabba wants to combine the relative invariance of the resulting distribution with the effects of varying the fixed parameter -- which of course violates the principle of the likelihood.
 
Jabba said:
- Are you guys saying that P(E|H) -- in our situation -- equals 1.00?
Click to expand...

I can't speak for anyone else, but I was answering the actual question you asked. This was your question:

Jabba said:
- What is the likelihood of now being during my lifetime -- given OOFLam, the big bang and a lifetime of 100 years? I get 1/140,000,000 (at most).
Click to expand...

That was the question I answered. "What is P(E|H)?" is a different question.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom