Proof of Immortality III

Status
Not open for further replies.
jsfisher said:
Jabba,

I have noticed that while your H has morphed from "the scientific model" into "only one life...", your justification for P(E|H) has not.
You have been using E, your existence, to mean your sense of existence. This is how you were able to claim E has some independence of your body under ~H. Your current H has the same characteristic.

You need to re-figure P(E|H).
Click to expand...
js,
- My H has, indeed, morphed.
- I morphed it so as to make (or, try to make) the conclusion more direct. I morphed H because I believed that I needed more justification for claiming that the scientific model was wrong than I did for claiming that OOFLam was wrong. I didn't think that I needed anymore justification for OOFLam being wrong.
 
Jabba said:
I morphed it so as to...
Click to expand...

Nobody asked why you changed horses. They're pointing out that having done so, the parts of your formulation that relied upon the previous H are no longer valid. They're telling you that you need to revise the rest of your formulation to account for it. Just do that -- address the points that were made, not imaginary questions that weren't asked but for which you think you have an answer.
 
Jabba said:
js,
- My H has, indeed, morphed.
- I morphed it so as to make (or, try to make) the conclusion more direct. I morphed H because I believed that I needed more justification for claiming that the scientific model was wrong than I did for claiming that OOFLam was wrong. I didn't think that I needed anymore justification for OOFLam being wrong.
Click to expand...

You simply refuse to acknowledge that under the scientific model, and OOFLam, there is no such thing as a "soul". In your mind, it is inconceivable that the self and the body are the same thing. The problem, of course, is that what the rest of us are saying, and what the null position in science is, is this: there is no evidence for what you're calling a soul. Nor does it explain anything, nor does it offer any testable claims (as you are presenting it). No amount of torturing statistics is going to change this.
 
Jabba said:
- My H has, indeed, morphed.
- I morphed it so as to make (or, try to make) the conclusion more direct. I morphed H because I believed that I needed more justification for claiming that the scientific model was wrong than I did for claiming that OOFLam was wrong. I didn't think that I needed anymore justification for OOFLam being wrong.
Click to expand...


You started with H being a specific hypothesis under which you are mortal and your current existence is possible but unlikely, and this meant that ~H was all other hypotheses including all other hypotheses under which you are mortal. This meant that disproving H couldn't prove that you are immortal. By "morphing" H you have avoided this problem, but substituted another.

You now have ~H including only hypotheses under which you are immortal, but H is now a hypothesis that doesn't really say anything about how likely your existence is, because while it includes scenarios under which your current existence is very unlikely, it also includes scenarios under which your existence is certain, so your argument fails again. If you are going to "morph" H in this way, you also need to "morph" the rest of your argument.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
Dave,
- This is our Mount Rainier issue, and -- I think -- the critical issue. That is, is the likelihood of my particular existence an appropriate entry for P(E|H)?...
Click to expand...

godless dave said:
I'm really asking why you think P(E|H) being a very small number brings H into doubt...
Click to expand...

Jabba said:
Dave,
- If you accepted my other entries, would you accept that P(E|H) being a very small number brings H into doubt?
Click to expand...

godless dave said:
No.
Click to expand...

Jabba said:
Dave,
- I think that if you did accept my other entries -- and, the appropriateness of my particular likelihood of existence being an appropriate entry for P(E|H) in our Bayes formula -- you would understand why P(E|H) being a very small number would bring H into doubt.
- Consequently, it still seems to me that my particular likelihood of existence being an appropriate entry for P(E|H) in our Bayes formula is the critical issue -- and, the real source of your objection/reservation...
Click to expand...

Loss Leader said:
Jabba -
First, asking someone a question, getting an answer and then ignoring that answer is exceptionally rude. You just disregarded godless dave's "No" for the reason that ... you didn't like it, I guess?...
Click to expand...
LL,
- I didn't intend to disregard Dave's "No." I tried to explain why I thought that the reservation I proposed was the source of the reservation he proposed -- and consequently, the reservation we should be addressing.
 
Jabba said:
LL,
- I didn't intend to disregard Dave's "No." I tried to explain why I thought that the reservation I proposed was the source of the reservation he proposed -- and consequently, the reservation we should be addressing.
Click to expand...
It would be a revelation if you addressed any reservation.
 
Jabba said:
I tried to explain why I thought that the reservation I proposed was the source of the reservation he proposed -- and consequently, the reservation we should be addressing.
Click to expand...

No, you simply restated the argument he had already rejected and ignored his reasons for rejecting it. You are simply fishing for things you can use to reset the argument once more. Do not try to tell people what we "should be addressing" when they have already told you what they want you to address.

Now get on with it.
 
Jabba said:
jsfisher said:
Jabba,

I have noticed that while your H has morphed from "the scientific model" into "only one life...", your justification for P(E|H) has not.
You have been using E, your existence, to mean your sense of existence. This is how you were able to claim E has some independence of your body under ~H. Your current H has the same characteristic.

You need to re-figure P(E|H).
Click to expand...
js,
- My H has, indeed, morphed.
- I morphed it so as to make (or, try to make) the conclusion more direct. I morphed H because I believed that I needed more justification for claiming that the scientific model was wrong than I did for claiming that OOFLam was wrong. I didn't think that I needed anymore justification for OOFLam being wrong.
Click to expand...


The key part of the piece you highlighted is the part now in underscored bold italics.

You cannot use your scientific-model justification for P(E|H) now that you have switched what H means. You need justification that works for H = OOFLam.
 
Last edited:
Mojo said:
You now have ~H including only hypotheses under which you are immortal....
Click to expand...

It is worse than that. ~H includes all sorts of hypotheses where some of us are immortal and others aren't, where we each may get exactly two lives, etc., etc.
 
jsfisher said:
It is worse than that. ~H includes all sorts of hypotheses where some of us are immortal and others aren't, where we each may get exactly two lives, etc., etc.
Click to expand...


... a clockwork universe where one's chance of existing is 1 ...
 
Loss Leader said:
jsfisher said:
It is worse than that. ~H includes all sorts of hypotheses where some of us are immortal and others aren't, where we each may get exactly two lives, etc., etc.
Click to expand...
... a clockwork universe where one's chance of existing is 1 ...
Click to expand...


His current H includes clockwork universes in which we are mortal.
 
jsfisher said:
It is worse than that. ~H includes all sorts of hypotheses where some of us are immortal and others aren't, where we each may get exactly two lives, etc., etc.
Click to expand...


I think he's being tripped up by his desire to give the hypothesis he's arguing against a silly-sounding name.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
js,
- My H has, indeed, morphed.
- I morphed it so as to make (or, try to make) the conclusion more direct. I morphed H because I believed that I needed more justification for claiming that the scientific model was wrong than I did for claiming that OOFLam was wrong. I didn't think that I needed anymore justification for OOFLam being wrong.
Click to expand...

Mojo said:
You started with H being a specific hypothesis under which you are mortal and your current existence is possible but unlikely, and this meant that ~H was all other hypotheses including all other hypotheses under which you are mortal. This meant that disproving H couldn't prove that you are immortal. By "morphing" H you have avoided this problem, but substituted another.

You now have ~H including only hypotheses under which you are immortal, but H is now a hypothesis that doesn't really say anything about how likely your existence is, because while it includes scenarios under which your current existence is very unlikely, it also includes scenarios under which your existence is certain, so your argument fails again. If you are going to "morph" H in this way, you also need to "morph" the rest of your argument.
Click to expand...
Mojo,
- This is a very curvy road we're traveling. My claim is that you are missing some of the turns...
- In this case, I'd say that you made a turn you shouldn't have. Many of us could be quite mortal. In the following, wherever the word "some" occurs allows for mortality -- it's just that, in my opinion, the prior probabilities of those particular versions of ~H are very small.

1.1. Re P(E|~H):
1.1.1. The probability (“likelihood”) of E given ~H, involves several specific hypothetical possibilities.
1.1.1.1. That only some of us have but one finite life.
1.1.1.2. That we each have numerous finite lives.
1.1.1.3. That only some of us have numerous finite lives.
1.1.1.4. That we each have an infinity of finite lives.
1.1.1.5. That only some of us have an infinity of finite lives.
1.1.1.6. That we each have an infinite life.
1.1.1.7. That only some of us have an infinite life.
1.1.1.8. That time isn’t what we think it is (to be explained).
1.1.1.9. Some other explanation.
 
Last edited:
You're still ignoring the basic objection, which is that you are now defining H differently to the way you were originally defining it, but have failed to "morph" your argument to fit your new H.
 
Oh, and the way you're framing it now, that "some other explanation" includes everyone having a finite number of finite lives, so you haven't even escaped the false dilemma.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
Mojo,
- This is a very curvy road we're traveling. My claim is that you are missing some of the turns...
- In this case, I'd say that you made a turn you shouldn't have. Many of us could be quite mortal. In the following, wherever the word "some" occurs allows for mortality -- it's just that, in my opinion, the prior probabilities of those particular versions of ~H are very small.

1.1. Re P(E|~H):
1.1.1. The probability (“likelihood”) of E given ~H, involves several specific hypothetical possibilities.
1.1.1.1. That only some of us have but one finite life.
1.1.1.2. That we each have numerous finite lives.
1.1.1.3. That only some of us have numerous finite lives.
1.1.1.4. That we each have an infinity of finite lives.
1.1.1.5. That only some of us have an infinity of finite lives.
1.1.1.6. That we each have an infinite life.
1.1.1.7. That only some of us have an infinite life.
1.1.1.8. That time isn’t what we think it is (to be explained).
1.1.1.9. Some other explanation.
Click to expand...


Jabba, you are trying to prove immortality (and specifically your own immortality) by disproving H, whatever that might currently be. For you to do this, it is necessary for ~H to only include hypotheses under which you are immortal. You need to frame H accordingly, and then find some way of disproving that specific H.

The wrong turn I took was not realising how badly your argument is messed up, but don't worry: jsfisher has put me back on the right track.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom