Proof of Immortality, VII

[Filippo Lippi]

Thermal may not be aware that another dishonest tactic employed by Jabba is to stop responding after he's been backed into a corner, but to continue to check back on the thread. There will then be yet another reset when Jabba deems that sufficient time has passed.

- 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?

Like that

 

[jt512]

- Are you guys saying that P(E|H) -- in our situation -- equals 1.00?

"Our" situation? "We" have no situation. What you have is an argument in which P(E|H) = P(E|~H) = 1, as I have been saying for quite some time. That is fundamentally why your observation that you exist says nothing about whether you're immortal.

 

[Pixel42]

Jabba: are you familiar with the concept of cargo cult science? Because what you are doing is cargo cult maths. You're trying to copy what real mathematicians do, but because you have no real understanding of why they' do it you're making silly mistakes and producing gibberish. You're the equivalent of the guy sitting in a bamboo tower wearing bamboo headphones assuming that what he's doing will produce the same results as a real air traffic controller. The cargo planes will never land, and you will never produce a real mathematical proof.

 

[jt512]

Jabba: are you familiar with the concept of cargo cult science? Because what you are doing is cargo cult maths. You're trying to copy what real mathematicians do, but because you have no real understanding of why they' do it you're making silly mistakes and producing gibberish. You're the equivalent of the guy sitting in a bamboo tower wearing bamboo headphones assuming that what he's doing will produce the same results as a real air traffic controller. The cargo planes will never land, and you will never produce a real mathematical proof.

That says it all.

 

[Jabba]

- 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?

1. This is the only time you could have been alive, because your life is the result of previous events.

- Am I wrong that likelihood is different than probability?

- Are you guys saying that P(E|H) -- in our situation -- equals 1.00?

- But P(E|H) is not 1.

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


That was the question I answered. "What is P(E|H)?" is a different question.

Dave,
- So, what is your answer to the latter?

The same as all the other times you have asked me that question: I do not have enough data to make an estimate. I do not know all the starting conditions at the beginning of the universe. Even starting in, say, 1940, the year before my father was born, I would not have enough data to make an estimate.

Dave,
- Both questions are about the random likelihood of an event.
- So again, what is the random likelihood of now being during my lifetime -- given OOFLam, the big bang and a lifetime of 100 years?

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- Both questions are about the random likelihood of an event.
- So again, what is the random likelihood of now being during my lifetime -- given OOFLam, the big bang and a lifetime of 100 years?

1. If you exist, then your lifetime has to be now, because of the preconditions of your existence.

 

[Belz...]

I apologize; I was brusque. "Most properly rendered" was pretentious and certainly not meant to offend.

Please don't grovel on the floor on my account. There's no offense or need to apologise. Keep doing what you're doing.

 

[Belz...]

- So again, what is the random likelihood of now being during my lifetime -- given OOFLam, the big bang and a lifetime of 100 years?

1.

 

[Jabba]

- Are you guys saying that P(E|H) -- in our situation -- equals 1.00?

"Our" situation? "We" have no situation. What you have is an argument in which P(E|H) = P(E|~H) = 1, as I have been saying for quite some time. That is fundamentally why your observation that you exist says nothing about whether you're immortal.

jt,
- I looked through 'chapters' VI and VII and couldn't find anything about P(E|H) = P(E|~H) = 1. I don't understand what you're saying.

 

[SOdhner]

- Both questions are about the random likelihood of an event.

You're assuming it's random then. Not only might that be wrong, it's absolutely wrong the way you seem to be implying it. You did not appear one day out of nothing, you are the result of a whole chain of events that logically follow from each other in a non-random way.

- So again, what is the random likelihood of now being during my lifetime -- given OOFLam, the big bang and a lifetime of 100 years?

What does the big bang have to do with anything, Jabba? Why would we want to try and determine the likelihood of something right now based on conditions that are like 13.8 billion years out of date? Conditions that we can't re-create, don't have a detailed record of, etc.? That's absurd.

And I'm essentially talking to myself, which is also absurd. Why do I keep posting? This has been going on for more than five years and Jabba will never learn and nothing will happen and the discussion will never go anywhere and his formula is so clearly wrong there's really no need to put any effort into disproving it anyway and yet I keep coming back. Something is wrong with me.

Anyway! File this with all the other posts that will get ignored. I'll be back later to write another one because I guess I am some sort of masochist with nothing better to do. Have a great morning everyone!

 

[godless dave]

And I'm essentially talking to myself, which is also absurd. Why do I keep posting? This has been going on for more than five years and Jabba will never learn and nothing will happen and the discussion will never go anywhere and his formula is so clearly wrong there's really no need to put any effort into disproving it anyway and yet I keep coming back. Something is wrong with me.

Whatever is wrong with you is also wrong with me.

 

[Jabba]

Dave,
- Both questions are about the random likelihood of an event.
- So again, what is the random likelihood of now being during my lifetime -- given OOFLam, the big bang and a lifetime of 100 years?

1. If you exist, then your lifetime has to be now, because of the preconditions of your existence.

Dave,
- This is not a question involving cause and effect. This is about random likelihood.
- It's the same kind of question as, "What is the likelihood of you winning the lottery (given that you won it)?

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- This is not a question involving cause and effect. This is about random likelihood.
- It's the same kind of question as, "What is the likelihood of you winning the lottery (given that you won it)?

Then your question is flawed, because your existence is the result of cause and effect.

 

[SOdhner]

- This is not a question involving cause and effect. This is about random likelihood.

You're not random. You did not just mysteriously pop into existence one day.

- It's the same kind of question as, "What is the likelihood of you winning the lottery (given that you won it)?

1. If you already won the lottery, it's 1.

BUT I do know what you mean, on the lottery part. It's just that you're still wrong because you don't understand what the Sharpshooter Fallacy is. The odds of you, specifically, winning the lottery is what you want to look at. What you *should* be looking at is the odds that *someone* will win the lottery, since anyone that wins will be marveling that it happened to them.

Jabba, what are the odds that *someone* will win the lottery?

 

[JayUtah]

jt, I looked through 'chapters' VI and VII and couldn't find anything about P(E|H) = P(E|~H) = 1. I don't understand what you're saying.

And that was the most cargo-culty response you could have given.

You don't get math. Which is to say, you don't get what people mean when they express themselves in mathematical notation. You seem to know a few of the rules of algebra. But you don't understand important concepts in mathematics. More importantly, you can't distill the underlying thoughts if someone writes in math.

So what do you do when someone repeats an objection, but writes it in mathematical form? You frantically search the thread for that exact expression and panic when you can't find the exact thing mentioned. It's your equivalent to bamboo headphones. Instead you could just read what the math is telling you.

Your entire model lives in a space where P(E) = 1. This is how you express, in mathematical terms, the notion that your entire proof resides entirely in a space where you already exist. Equating P(E|H) to P(E|~H) is how you express, in mathematical terms, that the likelihood of E is not affected by H. That too arises out of the notion that your proof lives entirely in a space where E is a given, and therefore P(E) doesn't vary according to anything. It's math for saying that if you start with your existence as a given rather than as data, the relative likelihoods of different hypotheses for how you got there are moot. Whichever other event was in play, it clearly happened.

 

[Belz...]

This is not a question involving cause and effect. This is about random likelihood.

No, it's about cause and effect. You simply refuse to understand that.

- It's the same kind of question as, "What is the likelihood of you winning the lottery (given that you won it)?

And it has the same answer: 1.

 

[JayUtah]

This is not a question involving cause and effect. This is about random likelihood.

I assume at some point your father sat you down and gave you the "birds and the bees" talk, which should have emphasized the cause-and-effect relationship of having sexual intercourse. Your existence is exactly a matter of observable causes and effects. Now in terms of the whole human race those causes and effects, due to the properties of chaos theory that govern who has sex with whom over many generations, become unpredictable from first principles. And because you don't understand predictability, you punt and say it must be random.

But none of that matters because you implant your proof in a space defined by your existence, regardless of how you came to exist.

It's the same kind of question as, "What is the likelihood of you winning the lottery (given that you won it)?

No, it's not. See the earlier parts of the thread for the repeated discussion of how existence is not like a lottery.

 

[JayUtah]

It's the same kind of question as, "What is the likelihood of you winning the lottery (given that you won it)?

P(A|A) = 1 for all A. This is why you can't explain the Texas sharpshooter fallacy in your own words.

 

[The Sparrow]

You're not random. You did not just mysteriously pop into existence one day.
...

But its random that his body/brain actually tuned into the particular clump of jabba-soul from the "pool of consciousness".

 

[Belz...]

P(A|A) = 1 for all A.

This seems so obvious...



We should answer jabba's every post with a mathematical equation, just to see him flip out.