Cont: Proof of Immortality VIII

[JayUtah]

Yep, when compared to zero, any number, no matter how small, is still going to be stup-donkulously large

And somewhat qualitatively different. Zero as a concept in number theory has special properties apart from those of other numbers, which means you don't get to interchange between zero and a non-zero number of any magnitude without consequences. Jabba apparently thinks we don't remember the history of the debate. He tried to foist the concept of "virtual[ly] zero," and that fell flat. 10^-100 is just his latest term for the concept he's trying to foist. I don't have to tell you that you don't get to claim a mathematical proof for something if you have to use your own private math to get there.

 

[Jabba]

Dave,
- If reincarnation is true, my self will inhabit many different bodies. And again, maybe brains receive, rather than produce their selves.

- In ~H, it must be that E includes a spiritual existence.

Yes, that's the hypothesis you're trying to prove.

Includes it, yes. But it also includes your current existence, which involves your body.

- So?

So the likelihood of your body existing is part of P(E|~H).

- No. I shouldn't have agreed that it involves my body.
- When the self exists on the "physical plane," it naturally involves A body -- but again, if reincarnation is true, my self doesn't require my current body.

 

[godless dave]

- No. I shouldn't have agreed that it involves my body.
- When the self exists on the "physical plane," it naturally involves A body -- but again, if reincarnation is true, my self doesn't require my current body.

But E is your current existence in your body. That's what we observe.

 

[MRC_Hans]

- No. I shouldn't have agreed that it involves my body.
- When the self exists on the "physical plane," it naturally involves A body -- but again, if reincarnation is true, my self doesn't require my current body.

If materialism is true your self doesn't require your current body. It just requires any current body, which you will then identify as you. You will draw your target around the bullet hole.

Hans

 

[theprestige]

You should've picked mount Rainier.

Believe me, I thought about it.

 

[jsfisher]

- No. I shouldn't have agreed that it involves my body.

Sure you do. That is the evidence you are presenting. E is you, Jabba, telling us about your sense of self. You know, your sense of self which includes your memories, and your sensory inputs, and your "think therefore I am". Your body is part of that.

Now, it could well be (however unlikely) that your E has as its cause some sort of soul that exists independent of your body, but you are providing E for consideration, not your soul.

- When the self exists on the "physical plane," it naturally involves A body -- but again, if reincarnation is true, my self doesn't require my current body.

Perhaps, but your evidence does.

 

[Jabba]

But E is your current existence in your body. That's what we observe.

- You're quick!
- Correct. But E is the current existence of my self. My self currently exists on the physical plane. To do that, it requires a body. But, we don't know that it requires a particular body. Nor, do we know that it doesn't also exist outside the physical plane -- and as such, doesn't need a body.

 

[sackett]

Collecting your math as it appears to me, Jabba.

But:

~P(H|E) = P(E|H)+P(H)/(P(E|H)
Reverting (see Cachexia et al. 1922):
*Ph + P(E|~H)P(~H) (mean old average)
@ P[H ]qualia symbol understood[ EEEK = 10100 *.99/
or something pretty close
Re-reverting to the meanie-mean,
(10100 *.99 + .62 * approx. 01)
`P(H|E) =\= 10-1000 /(10-102210 + .6200+/-)
phutz P(H|E) = 10-00 /0062, or, converting,

+ PHE = 100.00-1002quiet!
~\^ P(H|E) = 0!
And the result is the same:
# P(~|E) = .0062/(.0062 + 10.99)
< P(~ | ) = 1|PEW

So are we done here?

 

[Belz...]

- No. I shouldn't have agreed that it involves my body.

It DOES involve your body. You agreed that your CURRENT existence can only be observed with your current body when you told us that your "self" has no memory or consciousness outside of it. The body is required under ~H as well. Whatever odds you place on it under H must be equal to those under ~H.

You cannot escape this, no matter how much you try to.

You still haven't told us whence you got 10^-100.

 

[Belz...]

My self currently exists on the physical plane.

That is absolutely meaningless under either hypothesis. Stick to the proof, please, and tell us where you got 10^-100.

To do that, it requires a body. But, we don't know that it requires a particular body.

Irrelevant. Stop playing word games. That is incredibly rude.

 

[The Norseman]

- Two points:
- The current existence of my self (even if my spiritual existence depends upon the existence of a physical body to "produce," or receive it) is much more likely in ~H than in H. In ~H, the existence of my spiritual self does not depend upon a particular body.
- In ~H, my spiritual existence may not require any body.
-

How do you know?

It DOES involve your body. You agreed that your CURRENT existence can only be observed with your current body when you told us that your "self" has no memory or consciousness outside of it. The body is required under ~H as well. Whatever odds you place on it under H must be equal to those under ~H.

You cannot escape this, no matter how much you try to.

You still haven't told us whence you got 10^-100.

He kinda already did when he thought that any old number could represent not-zero as Jay just recently pointed out (again).

 

[godless dave]

- You're quick!
- Correct. But E is the current existence of my self. My self currently exists on the physical plane. To do that, it requires a body. But, we don't know that it requires a particular body. Nor, do we know that it doesn't also exist outside the physical plane -- and as such, doesn't need a body.

But our observation, E, is your self in your body.

 

[jt512]

jt,
- I don't perceive the implication that you do. To me P(E|H) + P(E|~H) = 1...

WTF are you talking about? P(E|H) + P(E|~H) don't have to add to 1. They don't even add to 1 in your own so-called model.

Your belief that P(E) = 1 contradicts your model, because P(E) = 1 implies that P(E|H) = P(E|~H) = 1. This has been demonstrated algebraically to you in multiple recent posts. Whether you accept it or not is irrelevant, except for what it reveals about your ability to do elementary algebra.

Again, you need to find numbers for P(E|H) and P(E|~H) that satisfy the following equation; otherwise, you have contradicted your own model.

1 = P(E|H)(.99) + P(E|~H)(.01) .

We look forward to seeing the two numbers that you pick.

 

[JayUtah]

I shouldn't have agreed that it involves my body.

Why not? Because it's what's true, or because it's what you think will make your proof work? Your data E is your current -- repeat, current -- existence. That absolutely necessitates your body. Not anyone's body. Not maybe a body or maybe not. All of that is part of the data. You specified it to be your body when you needed a very small target for materialism to hit, on the grounds that you could argue how vanishingly improbable it would be for materialism to hit it. Now you're trying to walk that back when you see that the data then becomes nondiscriminating for things that aren't materialism.

Now if you could explain the Texas sharpshooter fallacy in your own words -- which you can't -- you'd understand the problem you are trying to overcome.

When the self exists on the "physical plane," it naturally involves A body -- but again, if reincarnation is true, my self doesn't require my current body.

The data E requires your current body. That some hypothesis has views on what happens outside of the observation simply does not matter. It's entirely irrelevant. You don't get to redefine E in the case of reincarnation to include factors not part of the observation for materialism. The observation must be exactly the same for both hypotheses, shorn of speculation and interpretation.

 

[JayUtah]

My self currently exists on the physical plane. To do that, it requires a body. But, we don't know that it requires a particular body.

Your proof requires a particular body so that you can make it hard for materialism to hit it. If it can be any body, then materialism wins hands down. It's very good at producing any old organism.

Nor, do we know that it doesn't also exist outside the physical plane -- and as such, doesn't need a body.

But that's not part of the observation. As I've been trying to explain to you for well over eight months, you're trying to include interpretive, explanatory, and speculative elements of reincarnation as if they were part of the observed data, E. They are not part of that. You may not consider what else some hypothesis might say about other speculated outcomes as part of the observation you are using in your model.

Your observation, E, is that you currently exist. That necessarily includes your present body.

 

[Jabba]

But our observation, E, is your self in your body.

- That is our observation -- but, we don't know that it has to be. That's what we're trying to find out, and the likelihood of the current existence of my self is 10^-100 if it depends upon my current, particular, body -- but much greater if it doesn't.

 

[Belz...]

the likelihood of the current existence of my self is 10^-100 if it depends upon my current, particular, body

WHY?

 

[JayUtah]

- That is our observation -- but, we don't know that it has to be.

But that's what it is. Statistical inference determines the effect of one event upon another event. That effect is utterly unconnected to whatever other events might or might not occur.

I can't believe we have to explain this to you. It's like you're defending yourself at trial when someone saw you stab the victim. Your defense is, "Yes, that's what you observed, but it doesn't have to be what you observed."

That's what we're trying to find out, and the likelihood of the current existence of my self is 10^-100 if it depends upon my current, particular, body -- but much greater if it doesn't.

Fiddling with E doesn't fix your problem, Jabba. If you relax the constraints on E such that reincarnation can use any body, then you have to relax the constraints on E for materialism, which means it too can use any body. You're quite obviously trying to contrive the numbers so that immortality appears to win, not so that you arrive at a valid proof. Do you really think your critics can't see this?

 

[Mojo]

- That is our observation -- but, we don't know that it has to be. That's what we're trying to find out, and the likelihood of the current existence of my self is 10^-100 if it depends upon my current, particular, body -- but much greater if it doesn't.

Then you need to go and find out before you can continue with your proof.

 

[Mojo]

I saw this quotation in the news today:

“I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken-down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.” - Stephen Hawking.

What do you have that makes your conjectures any more valid than this?