• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba, with your cards and poker hands analogy you limit yourself to one deck of cards. With your VW analogy, you do not limit the supply of VW parts. For the analogies to match, you need to have either:

1. One deck of cards and one warehouse of VW parts (resulting in large finite numbers of poker hands or VWs)
OR
2. Infinite decks of cards and infinite VW parts (resulting in infinite numbers of poker hands or VWs)

Your intrinsic/extrinsic distinction has been artificially introduced by you because you have mismatched your inputs.
 
Agatha said:
Jabba, with your cards and poker hands analogy you limit yourself to one deck of cards. With your VW analogy, you do not limit the supply of VW parts. For the analogies to match, you need to have either:

1. One deck of cards and one warehouse of VW parts (resulting in large finite numbers of poker hands or VWs)
OR
2. Infinite decks of cards and infinite VW parts (resulting in infinite numbers of poker hands or VWs)

Your intrinsic/extrinsic distinction has been artificially introduced by you because you have mismatched your inputs.
Click to expand...

Hold on, I'll pop to MHorN to see if intellectual dishonesty is ruled outside of "effective debate"
 
godless dave said:
Aren't all of those variables necessary for calculating how many possible Volkswagens there are?
Click to expand...
- How about this.

- I've defined the poker situation as a "closed" system -- the possibilities are limited by the givens. Such is not the case in the Volkswagen situation -- if the number of possible different (separate) Volkswagens is limited, it is limited by "non-givens."
- These are two different types of limitations -- two different types of "finiteness."

- Can you agree to that, so far? By agreeing, you will not be committing to anything else -- and, you will still be free to change your mind, anyway.
 
Last edited:
Agatha said:
Jabba, with your cards and poker hands analogy you limit yourself to one deck of cards. With your VW analogy, you do not limit the supply of VW parts. For the analogies to match, you need to have either:

1. One deck of cards and one warehouse of VW parts (resulting in large finite numbers of poker hands or VWs)
OR
2. Infinite decks of cards and infinite VW parts (resulting in infinite numbers of poker hands or VWs)

Your intrinsic/extrinsic distinction has been artificially introduced by you because you have mismatched your inputs.
Click to expand...
Agatha,
- Can you agree to my claim in 4785?
 
Jabba said:
- How about this.

- I've defined the poker situation as a "closed" system -- the possibilities are limited by the givens. Such is not the case in the Volkswagen situation -- if the number of possible different (separate) Volkswagens is limited, it is limited by "non-givens."
- These are two different types of limitations -- two different types of "finiteness."

- Can you agree to that, so far? By agreeing, you will not be committing to anything else -- and, you will still be free to change your mind, anyway.
Click to expand...

Good morning, Mr. Savage!

Have you, at any point in any of these threads, understood the problem of assuming the consequent?

It's a form of special pleading, or a descent to tautology, or simply a circular argument; start by declaring that what you want to prove is true, then manipulate everything else to result in the conclusion you began with.

Here, you are doing it again--or still doing it, to wit:

If you define the number of potential hands of poker as "finite", by imposing limits upon the resources from which the poker hands may be fashioned, while at the same time defining the number of Vokswagens as "infinite", by pretending that there are no limits upon the resources from which the Volswagens are made; then the only difference between the number of potential poker hands and the number of potential Volkswagens is the artificial limits (or lack of limits) you have imposed.

The only difference is the conditions you imposed; conditions that created the distinction you are claiming is innate.

Your quoted post is no more than the claim that systems that you close are "closed", but systems that you open are "open".

Why not simply present you evidence for the existence of the immortal soul?
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
- How about this.

- I've defined the poker situation as a "closed" system -- the possibilities are limited by the givens. Such is not the case in the Volkswagen situation -- if the number of possible different (separate) Volkswagens is limited, it is limited by "non-givens."
- These are two different types of limitations -- two different types of "finiteness."

- Can you agree to that, so far? By agreeing, you will not be committing to anything else -- and, you will still be free to change your mind, anyway.
Click to expand...
No, I can't agree to this because your "givens" have a fundamental difference in each case. In the poker hands you limit yourself to only one deck. Your outcomes, because you don't count two identical hands as two different choices, are limited. In the VWs, you have unlimited material and time, so you count two identical-in-every-respect cars as two choices.

To be the same analogy, you must either restrict the input of the VWs to the equivalent of one deck of cards (we've suggested one non-replenishable warehouse of parts) and keep the single deck of cards, or widen the input of the cards (to an infinite number of decks) and keep the infinite supply of materials and time for the VWs.
 
Jabba said:
Agatha,
- Can you agree to my claim in 4785?
Click to expand...
Answered above in my previous post which is currently numbered 4790. In short, no.

I really can't put it any more simply than this:

Limited input (just one deck of cards) -> Limited output (finite poker hands)
Unlimited input (unlimited materials and unlimited time) -> Unlimited output (infinite VWs)

By the way, it would be wonderful if you followed your own debating rules as stated on your website, and addressed the points people are making.
 
Jabba said:
- How about this.

- I've defined the poker situation as a "closed" system -- the possibilities are limited by the givens. Such is not the case in the Volkswagen situation -- if the number of possible different (separate) Volkswagens is limited, it is limited by "non-givens."
- These are two different types of limitations -- two different types of "finiteness."

- Can you agree to that, so far?
Click to expand...

No.

The limits to the possible number of Volkswagens are obvious. I can see no justification for leaving them out of a probability calculation.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
- How about this.

- I've defined the poker situation as a "closed" system -- the possibilities are limited by the givens. Such is not the case in the Volkswagen situation -- if the number of possible different (separate) Volkswagens is limited, it is limited by "non-givens."
- These are two different types of limitations -- two different types of "finiteness."
Click to expand...


This is complete and utter nonsense, It has no meaning. It makes no sense. There is no difference between cards and Volkswagens except that in one example you recognize the artificial limits you have created and in the other you fail to recognize the artificial limits you have ignored.


- Can you agree to that, so far?
Click to expand...


No. No. No.
 
Jabba said:
- How about this.

- I've defined the poker situation as a "closed" system -- the possibilities are limited by the givens. Such is not the case in the Volkswagen situation -- if the number of possible different (separate) Volkswagens is limited, it is limited by "non-givens."
- These are two different types of limitations -- two different types of "finiteness."

- Can you agree to that, so far? By agreeing, you will not be committing to anything else -- and, you will still be free to change your mind, anyway.
Click to expand...
Absolutely not.
 
Extrinsic v Intrinsic/Distinguish?

So, the limits I imposed on the two "situations" are not different types of limitations?
 
Jabba said:
So, the limits I imposed on the two "situations" are not different types of limitations?
Click to expand...


Nope. There is no difference at all between cards and Volswagens. Both can be limited in exactly the same way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom