[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
Dave,
- There are two different ways to think about this. For the moment, I'll try to explain just the one I'm using.
- Why is it now? If "now" -- according to the one, finite lifetime opinion -- happened to be any other time (in eternity?) -- you wouldn't be existing.
Click to expand...
But something/one else would exist for which the question would be equally valid. I know this has been covered back thread, but your just expressing your wonderment that somebody has won the lottery. Winning the lottery doesn't prove that God has singled you out, or your good fortune is part of any greater purpose, any more than your existence proves that.

Label all the infinite possible universes 1,2,....n. One of them is our universe, with you and me in it. Why is that one special so that it being picked is any more significant that one containing no stars and no life? Sure, the odds are infinitesimally small, but so are the odds of all the other possibilities. Why are you claiming that the one containing you occuring is significant?
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- There are two different ways to think about this. For the moment, I'll try to explain just the one I'm using.
- Why is it now? If "now" -- according to the one, finite lifetime opinion -- happened to be any other time (in eternity?) -- you wouldn't be existing.
Click to expand...

Mr. Savage:

At the risk of being accused of being condescending, when do you intend to get a handle on the "special snowflake" or "perfect puddle" argument?

If "now" happened top be "any other time"; it would look just as special--to any consciousness living "now".

This is the fatal weakness of your "special hand of cards" illustration. You keep looking at results-after-the-fact instead of properly looking at predictions-before-the-fact.

Your hole is special, puddle, but any other hole "you" found "yourself" in would seem just as special...to "you".
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
Pakeha,
- Reincarnation does seem to me the most likely explanation.
Click to expand...

Ah. So the current plan is to ignore the list of questions and to answer short questions in a timely manner.

Here is my short question. How are the chances of you answering the questions in posts #2052 and #2053?
 
Jabba said:
Pakeha,
- Reincarnation does seem to me the most likely explanation.
Click to expand...
The most likely explanation of what?

What is the observed phenomenon that you seek to explain, and why does reincarnation seem to be the most likely explanation?
 
Jabba said:
Pakeha,
- Reincarnation does seem to me the most likely explanation.
Click to expand...

I know a number of people who believe in reincarnation, so your reply doesn't surprise me.
Could you give me an idea why you think it's something that can be substantiated?
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- There are two different ways to think about this. For the moment, I'll try to explain just the one I'm using.
- Why is it now? If "now" -- according to the one, finite lifetime opinion -- happened to be any other time (in eternity?) -- you wouldn't be existing.
Click to expand...

I'm questioning why you're treating the time the event happens as independent from the prior events that led to the event in question. My existence depends on my parents meeting in 1965. It is unremarkable that I didn't come into existence prior to that event. It would be impossible for me to have existed prior to that event. One event depends on the other; they have to happen in order.
 
Last edited:
Agatha said:
The most likely explanation of what?

What is the observed phenomenon that you seek to explain
Click to expand...
The phenomenon that Jabba still seems to think requires explanation, despite numerous patient attempts by you and others to get him to understand the stupidity of his reasoning, is his special snowflakeness.
 
Pixel42 said:
The phenomenon that Jabba still seems to think requires explanation, despite numerous patient attempts by you and others to get him to understand the stupidity of his reasoning, is his special snowflakeness.
Click to expand...

Is he actually asking the (usually rhetorical) question asked by man through the ages (often on his knees, with head in hands), "Why me? why here? why now?" and expecting an explanation?
 
Slowvehicle,
- One good step towards avoiding the risk of being accused of being condescending would be to start calling me "Rich" (or Jabba) instead of Mr. Savage.
 
Jabba,

Could you clarify why the "special snowflake" description of your reasoning is incorrect. I, along with apparantly everybody else here, think it demolishes your argument. Do you understand why we would think that?
 
Jabba said:
Slowvehicle,
- One good step towards avoiding the risk of being accused of being condescending would be to start calling me "Rich" (or Jabba) instead of Mr. Savage.
Click to expand...


Didn't you complain when he did exactly that on the Shroud thread?
 
John Jones said:
Didn't you complain when he did exactly that on the Shroud thread?
Click to expand...

The exchange in question:
Jabba said:
Slowvehicle said:
Rich:

Please explain why it is not disrespectful (in your words) of you to continue to ignore my questions? If you only intend to relpy to one poster, whynot simply have a PM discussion?
Click to expand...
Slowvehicle,

- By now, I must have left 1000 question/comments unanswered. But then, I've used up almost all my time with the 800 I have answered. And, if I had somehow answered, say, 10 more q/c's, I would likely have generated 100 more.
- And further, I've been answering more than one poster -- but, the ones I've answered have generally been the least disrespectful, and I guess you don't realize it, but your "Oh Rich..." is a way to "talk down" to me (there's a better word for it, but I can't think of it...).

--- Rich
Click to expand...
 
John Jones said:
So my memory is not playing tricks on me.
Click to expand...

Nope. Seems to simply be a rhetorical tactic to avoid valid questions/counterpoints. Accuse your interlocutor of disrespect for whichever mode of address they used.

"Rich" is valid as that is the moniker used at the end of many of his posts.
"Jabba" is his handle, and thus equally valid.

Both of these he has now stated are his preferred modes of address.

"Mr. Savage" cannot be construed as anything other than respectful. It is his actual name.

So as is said, "Where's the beef?"
 
Jabba said:
Slowvehicle,
- One good step towards avoiding the risk of being accused of being condescending would be to start calling me "Rich" (or Jabba) instead of Mr. Savage.
Click to expand...

Mr. Savage: When I called you "Rich", or "Richard", you complained about it. Are you honestly going to take time from your glacial progress to complain about being formally addressed? Shall I address you as "Ootliender Pedoonkee"?

When do you intend to address the problem of the utter lack of any evidence of the existence of a "soul"; or the problem of a fixed number of immortal "souls" compared to increasing populations, or the fact that interrupted existence without continuity is not immortality?
 
Last edited:
Slowvehicle said:
Mr. Savage: When I called you "Rich", or "Richard", you complained about it. Are you honestly going to take time from your glacial progress to complain about being formally addressed? Shall I address you as "Ootliender Pedoonkee"?

When do you intend to address the problem of the utter lack of any evidence of the existence of a "soul"; or the problem of a fixed number of immortal "souls" compared to increasing populations, or the fact that interrupted existence without continuity is not immortality?
Click to expand...

I'm gonna take a wild guess here.

Even if you addressed him as Sir Richard of the clan Savage, occasionally known by the moniker "jabba", who signs his own posts "Rich".

You will still be ignored. I don't know why, and, well, tumbleweeds. Why Jabba thinks what he thinks is...unknowable, if he won't tell us.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom