Cont: Proof of Immortality VIII

[Belz...]

It relies specifically on saying that all incarnations of Jabba are statistically equivalent events, even though elements of his description of a disembodied soul contradict that equivalence.

All elements contradict that equivalence.

 

[Jabba]

That formula does follow from the basic Bayes Theorem. However, you do not have a complementary hypothesis. The H you have is that of a materialistic reality. Immortality is not the complement of that. It is just one of the possibilities.

So, no, you cannot use that formula.

js,

- My complement included 8 different possibilities.
- In addition, my next version will assert the complement of OOFLam as it pertains only to me -- and thereby, reduce the number of possibilities in the complement.

- So far, no one at SUNY has contacted me -- I must have said too much about my idea...

 

[Jabba]

Oh, we made progress. Perhaps you didn't notice.

Perhaps it has existence outside a brain in ~OOFLam, but it is OOFLam you are trying to disprove, and you just agreed that whatever a soul is, it does not increase the likelihood of the brain existing, which means that ~OOFLam has at best a likelihood EQUAL to OOFLam.

Which part if this do you not agree with?

Hans

Hans,
- Please try again -- I don't understand your logic. Does it apply to my follow-up correction?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Hans,
- Please try again -- I don't understand your logic. Does it apply to my follow-up correction?

What correction?

Which part of my logic do you not understand?

Hans

 

[JayUtah]

My complement included 8 different possibilities.

To be a complement it has to include all of them, including the ones you can't think of. Your answer indicates you don't know what "complement" means in this case.

Right now you have materialism and reincarnation. As jt512 showed us yesterday, there is a formulation for that. Or more simply, you can just arrive at P(R|J) and P(M|J) separately and take the ratio P(R|J)/P(M|J) as a valid comparison. The reason you don't do that is either because you don't know how, or because you know you're trying to hide a false dilemma.

In addition, my next version will assert the complement of OOFLam as it pertains only to me...

"OOFLAM" is not a thing.

Specifically, as we have explained at length, the proposition that life is finite and singular is merely what would follow from the actual operative hypothesis. That hypothesis is materialism, and materialism is what you are talking about in your proof. But because you need the false dilemma in order for your proof to appear to succeed, you change horses from hypotheses to observables regardless of hypothesis. This is equivocation.

The complement of an observable outcome says nothing about how that outcome may or may not have come to be. And it says nothing about how the absence of the observable may or may not have come to be. That means your likelihoods would have to be completely speculative in both cases.

So far, no one at SUNY has contacted me -- I must have said too much about my idea...

Meaning what, exactly?

 

[Belz...]

Jabba, didn't you just make up the "1/10¹⁰⁰" number?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Hans,
- Please try again -- I don't understand your logic. Does it apply to my follow-up correction?

Well figure the fudge out there "Master of Effective Debate." It's not like you're gonna die so you can waste time.

 

[sackett]

About SUNY: University departments receive communications from -- I musn't say cranks -- from time to time. I know this because I spent almost my entire life in higher education. The wisest response is silence. Sometimes, academics will reply by saying something like, "We don't feel qualified to evaluate the material you sent us." That's a way of telling the -- not a crank, I'm not using that word! -- that his effusion defies intelligent commentary.

Does that teach the -- godammit, crank! there, I said it! -- anything? Not usually. Hell, never. But it saves time.

 

[abaddon]

I suspect jabba is aiming for that wooest of ideas, the over soul . This is the woo idea that everyone has an over soul which intentionally incarnates and intentionally wipes all memory from the incarnation while the over soul itself retains memory of all incarnations.

This puts jabba way outside any Christianity and into total new age baloney.

 

[Mojo]

I suspect jabba is aiming for that wooest of ideas, the over soul . This is the woo idea that everyone has an over soul which intentionally incarnates and intentionally wipes all memory from the incarnation while the over soul itself retains memory of all incarnations.

This puts jabba way outside any Christianity and into total new age baloney.

It also puts him firmly into pseudoscience.

 

[zooterkin]

I suspect jabba is aiming for that wooest of ideas, the over soul . This is the woo idea that everyone has an over soul which intentionally incarnates and intentionally wipes all memory from the incarnation while the over soul itself retains memory of all incarnations.

This puts jabba way outside any Christianity and into total new age baloney.

That doesn't fit with his infinitely divided bucket of consciousness.

 

[Jabba]

That formula does follow from the basic Bayes Theorem. However, you do not have a complementary hypothesis. The H you have is that of a materialistic reality. Immortality is not the complement of that. It is just one of the possibilities.

So, no, you cannot use that formula.

js,

- My complement included 8 different possibilities.
- In addition, my next version will assert the complement of OOFLam as it pertains only to me -- and thereby, reduce the number of possibilities in the complement...

To be a complement it has to include all of them, including the ones you can't think of. Your answer indicates you don't know what "complement" means in this case.

- Sorry.
I actually included 9 different possibilities.

- Here's the latest version of my syllogism...


THE MATH OF MORTALITY
...
Re P(E|~H):
The probability (“likelihood”) of E given ~H, involves several specific hypothetical possibilities.
That only some of us have but one finite life.
That we each have numerous finite lives.
That only some of us have numerous finite lives.
That we each have an infinity of finite lives.
That only some of us have an infinity of finite lives.
That we each have an infinite life.
That only some of us have an infinite life.
That time isn’t what we think it is.
Some other explanation....

 

[Belz...]

- Sorry.
I actually included 9 different possibilities.

Odd that you can find those posts of yours really quickly but can't remember someone else's post that you responded to in the same day.

 

[JayUtah]

I actually included 9 different possibilities.

No, you included an admission that you couldn't think of all the possibilities. That means you don't have a complement. Pray tell your critics how to compute P(some other explanation) and P(evidence|some other explanation) for any class of problem, in some way that does not amount to mere guesswork or indirection. Statisticians around the globe are waiting for this profound bit of wisdom.

 

[Jabba]

Oh, we made progress. Perhaps you didn't notice.

Perhaps it has existence outside a brain in ~OOFLam, but it is OOFLam you are trying to disprove, and you just agreed that whatever a soul is, it does not increase the likelihood of the brain existing, which means that ~OOFLam has at best a likelihood EQUAL to OOFLam.

Which part if this do you not agree with? Hans

- "which means that ~OOFLam has at best a likelihood EQUAL to OOFLam."
- I don't understand how that follows.
- By "the brain," above, do you mean the same brain?

 

[Mojo]

- Sorry.
I actually included 9 different possibilities.

Totally irrelevant. If you can say how many possibilities it includes, it isn't a complement.

You fail again.

 

[MRC_Hans]

- "which means that ~OOFLam has at best a likelihood EQUAL to OOFLam."
- I don't understand how that follows.
- By "the brain," above, do you mean the same brain?

Any brain.

.... You like numbers:

1) You perceive a self.

2) You have agreed that whether a product of the a brain or an occupant of a brain, the self needs a brain to be expressed.

3) You have agreed that the likelihood of a brain to exist is the same whether it produces a self or houses a self.

4) Therefore, a brain producing a self (OOFLam) is (at least) as likely to occur as a brain housing a self (~OOFLam). (This requires that the pairing of brain and self is a certainty.)

OK?

Now as for the likelihood of YOUR brain perceiving YOUR self NOW:

This is where the Texas sharpshooter comes in; you have, quite arbitrarily, chosen to examine YOU. You might have chosen to examine ANY sentient being that has ever existed or will ever exist in the universe. In all cases, once you choose a given being, the self that being will perceive is, of course, its own. Therefore, no matter what the likelihood of that beings existence, it's perception of it's own self is a given.

Hans

 

[Jabba]

That formula does follow from the basic Bayes Theorem. However, you do not have a complementary hypothesis. The H you have is that of a materialistic reality. Immortality is not the complement of that. It is just one of the possibilities...

js,
- My complement included 8 different possibilities.
- In addition, my next version will assert the complement of OOFLam as it pertains only to me -- and thereby, reduce the number of possibilities in the complement...

To be a complement it has to include all of them, including the ones you can't think of. Your answer indicates you don't know what "complement" means in this case...

- Sorry.
I actually included 9 different possibilities.

- Here's the latest version of my syllogism.

THE MATH OF MORTALITY...
Re P(E|~H):
The probability (“likelihood”) of E given ~H, involves several specific hypothetical possibilities.
That only some of us have but one finite life.
That we each have numerous finite lives.
That only some of us have numerous finite lives.
That we each have an infinity of finite lives.
That only some of us have an infinity of finite lives.
That we each have an infinite life.
That only some of us have an infinite life.
That time isn’t what we think it is.
Some other explanation...

No, you included an admission that you couldn't think of all the possibilities. That means you don't have a complement. Pray tell your critics how to compute P(some other explanation) and P(evidence|some other explanation) for any class of problem, in some way that does not amount to mere guesswork or indirection. Statisticians around the globe are waiting for this profound bit of wisdom.

- Isn't that what you meant when you said "including the ones you can't think of"?

 

[Jabba]

Totally irrelevant. If you can say how many possibilities it includes, it isn't a complement.

You fail again.

- I don't follow...

 

[Jabba]

Any brain.

.... You like numbers:

1) You perceive a self.

2) You have agreed that whether a product of the a brain or an occupant of a brain, the self needs a brain to be expressed.
3) You have agreed that the likelihood of a brain to exist is the same whether it produces a self or houses a self.

4) Therefore, a brain producing a self (OOFLam) is (at least) as likely to occur as a brain housing a self (~OOFLam). (This requires that the pairing of brain and self is a certainty.)

OK?...

Hans,
- No.
- Re #2, only on this "earthly plain."