theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Whatever it is, I think it's pretty clear that Jabba is only interested in consuming his own products.
Cont: Proof of Immortality VIII
- Thread starter Jabba
- Start date
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
One of the great failings of this thread so far is that there's never been an appropriate XKCD cartoon for it. At last, in (one hopes) its dying days, Randall Munroe has finally put that right.
Dave
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
That's not really appropriate, it's about someone who is being misinterpreted because, although he thinks he's being perfectly clear, he actually isn't. Jabba may put the failure to agree with him down to being misinterpreted because he can't make his argument sufficiently clear, but he's actually being perfectly clear and everyone is understanding him - he's just wrong, His failure to understand why he's wrong appears to be due to an inability to grasp basic logical and statistical concepts.
Last edited:
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2012
- Messages
- 10,259
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
I'm pretty sure Jabba knows that's not what's happening.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
It's hard to slice finely between inability and unwillingness. Keep in mind the matter of record where Jabba says he's heavily emotionally invested in his belief. Regardless of what we might point to and say "That's evidence he doesn't understand logic," an equally serviceable explanation is that he just doesn't want to believe he lost. Either path leads to the need to explain the loss some other way.
Jabba's explanation struggles to avoid the ad hominem "I think a neutral audience would understand this better," but runs headlong into a presumption of intractability that he thinks is impersonal enough to be credible. "It's just that hard a problem to solve," and it's therefore no one's personal fault. To go back to your point, there's a trope in fringe argumentation that says if the claimant can't understand it, the critic must not be able to either. Therefore no one can be sure. If Jabba really doesn't get the principles of logic and reason, rather than just being unwilling to cope with their consequences, then he could end up thinking that no one else knows, say, what the Texas sharpshooter fallacy is either.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2012
- Messages
- 10,259
Interesting. How long can this thread live after Jabba left?
Hans
That depends on how many of my posts mocking the thread the moderators allow to stand.
It's like Jabba was working on source material for a grown-up version of the Illustrated Book of Bad arguments.
https://bookofbadarguments.com
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
- I'm back!!!
- Caveman says that I need to show that P(E|I) > P(E}~I).
- Putting the issue back into my Terms, I claim that P(E|~H) > P(E|H), where E is the current existence of my self (my awareness), H is OOFLam and ~H is ~OOFLam.
- Under OOFLam, my current existence is incredibly unlikely/improbable; whereas, since ~OOFLam includes multiple possibilities -- one of those being that I always exist -- how can P(E|~H) not be greater than P(E|H)?
- Caveman says that I need to show that P(E|I) > P(E}~I).
- Putting the issue back into my Terms, I claim that P(E|~H) > P(E|H), where E is the current existence of my self (my awareness), H is OOFLam and ~H is ~OOFLam.
- Under OOFLam, my current existence is incredibly unlikely/improbable; whereas, since ~OOFLam includes multiple possibilities -- one of those being that I always exist -- how can P(E|~H) not be greater than P(E|H)?
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
And so the latest flounce didn't stick.
Jabba, you're back to the claim that P(E|H) is a number so small that no other number can possibly be smaller, but with the slight modification that you're now claiming that it's a number so small that there can be no set of other numbers whose sum is smaller. Mathematically, this is nonsensical drivel that's not even worth a serious response.
Dave
Jabba, you're back to the claim that P(E|H) is a number so small that no other number can possibly be smaller, but with the slight modification that you're now claiming that it's a number so small that there can be no set of other numbers whose sum is smaller. Mathematically, this is nonsensical drivel that's not even worth a serious response.
Dave
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
You already showed that H=1.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Dave,
- I'd like to respond to your arguments, but it would sure help if you could abandon your insults...
- Please tell me why you think my argument is wrong. You've probably told me already, but I can't remember, and you could speed up my responses by telling me again. I couldn't understand your reasoning above.
Last edited:
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
...in at least one of those being that you never existed, how can P(E|~H) not be less than P(E|H)?
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
It would sure help if you stopped thinking of criticism of your arguments as personally insulting to you.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
This is still a false dilemma. You dispute only materialism and you consider only recincarnation. You hide this false dilemma in made-up terms and then just make up numbers based on a pidgin understanding of probability that you think lets you infer one thing by knowing the other.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Jabba,
It wasn't an insult. It was a reasoned criticism of your argument. You're saying that P(E|H) is so small that P(E|~H) can't possibly be smaller. That's complete nonsense. It has no basis in any form of mathematical reasoning. As caveman1917 puts it, it's "not even wrong;" as in, it's not coherent enough to admit of correction. Seriously, your argument is that bad.
Let me, however, try.
About 113 billion people have lived on the Earth. Every one of them either has died or is expected to die. Supposing that we set the odds of immortality at 0.5 for one person ever having lived, then the existence of 113 billion people indicates odds of 2-113,000,000,000 for immortality. Even if we accepted (which, of course, nobody does) your blindly guessed number of 10-100 for your current existence, it's still unimaginably larger than the odds of immortality.
See how easy it is to imagine a number smaller than your guess for the probability of P(E|H)? Your claim is that P(E|~H) cannot possibly be less than P(E|H), but it is in fact trivially simple for it to be less; it simply needs to be a smaller number.
And also, I don't think your argument is wrong; this is mathematics, and it simply is wrong.
Now I have a question for you.
You will now proceed to change the subject, focus on another sub-sub-sub-issue, rinse and repeat several times, and eventually come back to this one, where, having conveniently forgotten this response, you'll make the exact same claim again and ask everyone to refute it yet again, because you're too lazy to look it up (though you always have time to post the question again, and again, and again, and again...) and too befuddled to remember it.
What is the point of even trying to communicate with you, when it's an absolute certainty that you won't pay any attention?
Dave
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
It's not insulting to point out that you're just making up nonsensical drivel and trying to call it mathematics. You have been told this several times by several mathematicians in basically the same terms.
If you feel a post has been insulting, report it for moderation. Otherwise do not insult your critics by switching into moderator mode to avoid accountability for your claims. Especially do not insult your critics by demanding a standard of behavior you yourself are unwilling to meet. There's a list in your other thread of the ways in which you habitually disrespect your critics, and you are deliberately ignoring it.
Stop insulting us by pretending this hasn't already been done.
Stop insulting us by playing dumb. I showed in your other thread that you're perfectly capable and willing to look up what other people have said, after your laziness receives the proper shame.
Stop insulting your critics by suggesting they're the ones who are delaying the debate by not jumping through your hoops.
What part was unclear? You're making stuff up and trying to call it mathematics, hoping that you can convince someone that your critics don't know enough themselves about mathematics in order to call you on your dishonesty.
Because you don't understand conditional probability, likelihood, or the nature of the complement to some given hypothesis. ~H is a set of hypotheses whose interrelationships you know nothing about. You cannot therefore say that they are mutually exclusive, that they are partially inclusive, or even what they are. You cannot say "~H must be true," or that P(~H) says anything meaningful about any hypothesis other than H. You can only say that some hypothesis in the set ~H may lead to immortality and may have P(E|K) > P(E|H). But you can't do that without knowing what K is and what P(K) is. And you can't know that there isn't some hypothesis in ~H that takes the cake, because by definition you can't enumerate them all.
The problem is not some new relationship that Caveman has made you aware of. The problem is, and has always been, that your problem is wrongly formulated at the most fundamental level. And we don't need to bash its details to exhaustion in order to know this about it.
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
He did, in the post you're replying to.
And he didn't insult you, he insulted your argument. And he's right.