Proof of Immortality III

Status
Not open for further replies.
If anyone can give a fair summary of what Toontown's overall point is, I'd be much obliged.
 
calebprime said:
If anyone can give a fair summary of what Toontown's overall point is, I'd be much obliged.
Click to expand...
One of his points seems to be that those posters here who would be happy to buy a lottery ticket after the draw has taken place (if only that was possible) should be spending their savings on lottery tickets before the draw takes place. So far he has refused to share his reasoning or to correct anyone who attempts to work it out, choosing instead to belittle them for not getting it, whatever "it" is.
 
calebprime said:
If anyone can give a fair summary of what Toontown's overall point is, I'd be much obliged.
Click to expand...
caleb,
- Here's my interpretation.
- The consensus scientific model of human mortality (that we each have only one, finite, lifetime -- at most) is surely wrong.
- That's because the likelihood of your current existence -- given the one, finite, lifetime (at most) model/hypothesis -- is virtually zero, and (assuming that you really do currently exist) that conclusion about the likelihood of your current existence has serious, negative mathematical implications re the truth value of the scientific model.
- I hope Toon agrees.
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
-Virtually zero.
Click to expand...
Very good. I trust you will agree that the likelihood of it looking like any other of the enormous number of possible arrangements of rocks at that precise moment is equally small. Now: what is the probability that one of those vanishingly unlikely arrangements would in fact occur?
 
Jabba said:
caleb,

- Here's my interpretation.

- The consensus scientific model of human mortality (that we each have only one, finite, lifetime -- at most) is surely wrong.

- That's because the likelihood of your current existence -- given the one, finite, lifetime (at most) model/hypothesis -- is virtually zero, and (assuming that you really do currently exist) that conclusion about the likelihood of your current existence has serious, negative mathematical implications re the truth value of the scientific model.

- I hope Toon agrees.
Click to expand...


He probably will.
It's claptrap, on a level of claptrappyness that only a baby elk learning to tie it's shoe laces for the first time would try to explain through the medium of British Sign Language, whilst yodelling the theme tune to Starsky & Hutch and eating a lemon.
 
Jabba said:
caleb,
- Here's my interpretation.
- The consensus scientific model of human mortality (that we each have only one, finite, lifetime -- at most) is surely wrong.
- That's because the likelihood of your current existence -- given the one, finite, lifetime (at most) model/hypothesis -- is virtually zero, and (assuming that you really do currently exist) that conclusion about the likelihood of your current existence has serious, negative mathematical implications re the truth value of the scientific model.
- I hope Toon agrees.
Click to expand...

Thank you, that gets me somewhere near the ballpark, which is all I wanted. Much obliged.
 
Nonpareil said:
Still trying to argue that "long shot" is equivalent to "impossible", I see.

Good luck with that.
Click to expand...

Still ignoring the context and missing the point, I see.

Bad luck with that.

Mojo said:
I'm not sure why saying that evidence that is consistent with a hypothesis is not evidence against that hypothesis makes one "logically challenged".
Click to expand...

Toontown said:
Figure this one out, and you'll have made it to square 1.

I have a hypothesis that says there is 10 -1000 probability that a black hole will emit a dead rat during a random hour of observation. We begin to observe a black hole, and within moments a nearly dead rat pops out of it.

You want that hypothesis? Take it. You can have it. I don't want it. I almost certainly made a mistake when I formulated it. That hypothesis is as dead as the rat. Sure, the rat is only 0.99999... dead. Go ahead and try to resuscitate the rat if you want. It's your life.
Click to expand...

I simply tried to explain by analogy to Mojo how statistical tests of hypotheses work. He and some others among whom you've included yourself, don't seem to understand (or perhaps simply don't want to acknowledge) that when a hypothesis imposes a probability of occurrence on an outcome, that is a prediction. And said prediction may be correctly assumed to have occurred at t=0 +10 -43 if said hypothesis is assumed to have been true at that moment.

And when observed reality differs radically from said prediction, such as when the hypothesis mandates that an outcome should not be observed with a certainty converging on 1, the hypothesis is ruled out at a corresponding level of certainty. No matter how much said outcome looks like itself, Godless Dave. OTC, precisely because and only because said outcome looks exactly like, and in fact is, itself.

But you can have it's remains if you want them. Hypotheses are never statistically ruled out at level 1. Only at levels converging on 1.

I provided this context yesterday, but it was sent to AAH when I responded in kind to Mojo's false claim of having seen "my problem".
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
caleb,
- Here's my interpretation.
- The consensus scientific model of human mortality (that we each have only one, finite, lifetime -- at most) is surely wrong.
- That's because the likelihood of your current existence -- given the one, finite, lifetime (at most) model/hypothesis -- is virtually zero, and (assuming that you really do currently exist) that conclusion about the likelihood of your current existence has serious, negative mathematical implications re the truth value of the scientific model.
- I hope Toon agrees.
Click to expand...

Not exactly, Jabba. I don't rule out the scientific model at all. OTC, I use it.

I rule out the notion that the scientific model alone, in it's present form, sufficiently accounts for why the light of day is being made manifest.

I would point to the quantum stew at t = 0 + 10 -43 seconds after the big bang and identify what came immediately afterwards as the "main shuffle".

Then I would point out that my particular brain may only occur as the precise result of, and in the precise form of, an immense number of atoms in a particular organization, occurring at particular x,y,z,t spacetime coordinates, in a particular spacetime continuum. One shot. One shot only. All the above, right then, right there, or no Toon brain forever.

Then I would rule out this particular brain as the only way the light of day could ever have been made manifest.

I've already explained all that except perhaps precisely what it is I'm ruling out. And I'm pretty sure I did that way back when.
 
Last edited:
Toontown said:
Then I would point out that my particular brain may only occur as the precise result of...
Click to expand...

And how is that not just the Texas sharpshooter fallacy? Let's go back to the white-eyed fruit flies. You spoke of the probability that some would emerge, based on some model. I believe you discussed that the actual emergence or non-emergence of them would validate or falsify the model. That suggests one white-eyed fruit fly is pretty much like any other white-eyed fruit fly for the purposes of testing the model. But now, when you need a whopping small probability, you suddenly switch to individuals and only the "precise result" factors into the probability.
 
ComfySlippers said:
He probably will.
It's claptrap, on a level of claptrappyness that only a baby elk learning to tie it's shoe laces for the first time would try to explain through the medium of British Sign Language, whilst yodelling the theme tune to Starsky & Hutch and eating a lemon.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

May I suggest you try reading for comprehension? That might help you at least know what it is you're calling claptrap.
 
Jabba said:
That's because the likelihood of your current existence -- given the one, finite, lifetime (at most) model/hypothesis -- is virtually zero...
Click to expand...

But that's a loaded proposition. The "one finite life" scenario is shared among the billions of people who live, have lived, and will live. Thus as I point out to Toontown above, estimating the odds that some one particular individual in that population will arise is misleading.

And you have the cart before the horse. You want to contrast the fact of existence with the near impossibility you compute for existence. That shows the error of your computation, not the presumptive miracle of life.

...the likelihood of your current existence has serious, negative mathematical implications re the truth value of the scientific model.
Click to expand...

No. Just, no.

First, you refuse to address the reversal of your burden of proof. You foist a narrow concept onto your critics and then embrace everything that isn't that concept. Aggregating dissimilar concepts doesn't create a workable model.

Second, you insist on a probabilistic model. You said you could prove immortality mathematically. But proving that something is or is not factual by showing it is or is not probable isn't a proof. See the Prosecutor's Fallacy.

Third, that's simply not how Bayes works.
 
Toontown said:
May I suggest you try reading for comprehension?
Click to expand...

There's nothing to comprehend. Your claim is based on a begged question that has been brought to your attention. You refuse to justify it beyond appealing to "common sense." Hence your claim requires no further contemplation.
 
JayUtah said:
And how is that not just the Texas sharpshooter fallacy?
Click to expand...

If the Standard Cosmological Model is basically correct as far as it goes, then the prediction was made as soon as the model was true. And the prediction was: no Toon-specific brain, with a certainty converging on 1. brains of various kinds, yes, almost certainly. Toon-specific brain? No, certainty converging on 1.

And right away, here's this apparently Toon-specific brain. But still I don't rule out the Standard Cosmological Model. Instead, I rule out the assumed requirement of a Toon-specific brain as the assumed prerequisite for the light of day to be made manifest.

JayUtah said:
Let's go back to the white-eyed fruit flies. You spoke of the probability that some would emerge, based on some model. I believe you discussed that the actual emergence or non-emergence of them would validate or falsify the model. That suggests one white-eyed fruit fly is pretty much like any other white-eyed fruit fly for the purposes of testing the model. But now, when you need a whopping small probability, you suddenly switch to individuals and only the "precise result" factors into the probability.
Click to expand...

I don't "need" a whopping small probabiliity. I have it. The universe provided this perspective. I'm using it.
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
There's nothing to comprehend. Your claim is based on a begged question that has been brought to your attention. You refuse to justify it beyond appealing to "common sense." Hence your claim requires no further contemplation.
Click to expand...

Then you're off the hook. You can stop contemplating. When did you start, BTW?

Just out of curiosity: Can you give an example of an existing question which has not been brought to our attention?
 
Toontown said:
If the Standard Cosmological Model is basically correct as far as it goes, then the prediction was made as soon as the model was true. And the prediction was: no Toon brain, with a certainty converging on 1. brains of various kinds, yes, almost certainly. Toon brain? No, certainty converging on 1.
Click to expand...

Ahem, fruit flies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom