Proof of Immortality III

[Mojo]

We can't let by the fact that he has defined the "self" incorrectly in all of his formulations. He considers it a constant and unchanging thing, rather than a process.

In doing so, he commits the fallacy of Appealing to Popularity. He reasons that most people experience consciousness as continuous and distinct, therefore it is.

I think he's also begging the question there: he's trying to establish that the "self" is an independent entity, and assuming that in his definition.

We should have had bingo cards printed up.

 

[Jabba]

Because every hypothesis that isn't H will imply its own likelihoods for individual people existing.

Dave,
- I think that the following answers your objection-- I've corrected(?) for a previous mistake...

9.1. Re P(E|~H):
9.1.1. The probability (“likelihood”) of E given ~H, involves several specific hypothetical possibilities.
9.1.1.1. That only some of us have but one finite life.
9.1.1.2. That we each have numerous finite lives.
9.1.1.3. That only some of us have numerous finite lives.
9.1.1.4. That we each have an infinity of finite lives.
9.1.1.5. That only some of us have an infinity of finite lives.
9.1.1.6. That we each have an infinite life.
9.1.1.7. That only some of us have an infinite life.
9.1.1.8. That time isn’t what we think it is (to be explained).
9.1.1.9. Some other explanation.

9.1.2. Now I must estimate (roughly) the prior probability (rounded off to 3 decimal places) of each more specific possibility (hypothesis), given ~H.
9.1.2.1. That only some of us have but one finite life: .000
9.1.2.2. That we each have numerous finite lives: .200.
9.1.2.3. That only some of us have numerous finite lives: .000
9.1.2.4. That we each have an infinity of finite lives; .200
9.1.2.5. That only some of us have an infinity of finite lives: .000
9.1.2.6. That we each have an infinite life: .200.
9.1.2.7. That only some of us have an infinite life: .000
9.1.2.8. That time isn’t what we think it is (to be explained): .200
9.1.2.9. Some other explanation: .200

9.1.3. And now, I must estimate the likelihood of my own current existence given the different specific hypotheses under ~H.
9.1.3.1. That only some of us have but one finite life: .10.
9.1.3.2. That we each have numerous finite lives: .10.
9.1.3.3. That only some of us have numerous finite lives: .25.
9.1.3.4. That we each have an infinity of finite lives; 1.00
9.1.3.5. That only some of us have an infinity of finite lives: .50.
9.1.3.6. That we each have an infinite life: 1.00
9.1.3.7. That only some of us have an infinite life: .50
9.1.3.8. That time isn’t what we think it is (to be explained): .50
9.1.3.9. Some other explanation: .50

9.1.4. And now, I must multiply each of the probabilities of ~H above by the likelihoods of my current existence, given each specific hypothesis, and add up their products. And, the total likelihood of my current existence given ~H:
9.1.4.1. P(E|~H) = (0*.5) + (.2*.10) + (0*.25) + (.2*1.0) + (0*.5) + (1*.2) + (0*.5) + (.2*.5) + (.2*.5), or
9.1.4.2. P(E|~H) = 0 + .02 + 0 +.2 + 0 + .2 + 0 + .1 + .1, or
9.1.4.3. P(E|~H) = .62. And,
9.1.5. P(H|E) = 0*.99/(0*.99 + .62*.01) = (0/.0062) = 0.
9.1.6. P(H|E) = 0.

- IOW, given my current existence, the posterior probability that I will have one, finite life is (effectively) zero…

- I think that I got the numbers right this time.

 

[I Am The Scum]

- I think that I got the numbers right this time.

The numbers you made up?

No, you didn't get them right. You made them up.

 

[JayUtah]

Right: begging the question that the soul is a separate entity. Also begging the question that the soul is necessary in order for uniqueness to arise -- P(E|~H) = 1/∞.

Straw man, in that the scientific model is wrongly characterized as a system of chance, thus conflating predictability with complexity.

Special pleading in claiming he exercises a superior mode of thinking. Various appeals to pity in asking for his opponents to go easy on him and be friendly; various attempts to shame critics away from responding appropriately.

Argument from authority, claiming various prominent authors or presenters support his beliefs or -- in the extremes of his desperation -- frown on his critics' confidence. The latter is patently specious. The former turn out to be various web cranks and woo-peddlers.

Shifting the burden of proof, the oft-employed special case of argument from ignorance.

Appeal to the gallery, in suggesting that others elsewhere would appreciate him more.

And the granddaddy of them all, so Aristotelianly old that I still prefer its Latin name ignoratio elenchi. Jabba simply ignores the actual refutations of his claims and focuses on irrelevant minutia.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- I think that the following answers your objection-- I've corrected(?) for a previous mistake...

9.1. Re P(E|~H):
9.1.1. The probability (“likelihood”) of E given ~H, involves several specific hypothetical possibilities.
9.1.1.1. That only some of us have but one finite life.
9.1.1.2. That we each have numerous finite lives.
9.1.1.3. That only some of us have numerous finite lives.
9.1.1.4. That we each have an infinity of finite lives.
9.1.1.5. That only some of us have an infinity of finite lives.
9.1.1.6. That we each have an infinite life.
9.1.1.7. That only some of us have an infinite life.
9.1.1.8. That time isn’t what we think it is (to be explained).
9.1.1.9. Some other explanation.

How many lives people may or may not have are outcomes of hypotheses. The likelihood of a particular self existing is not based on the outcome of a hypothesis, but on how that hypothesis defines what a self is and how a self comes into existence.

 

[JayUtah]

I think that I got the numbers right this time.

NO.

As usual, you just made them up and therefore they have no meaning. And you didn't correct any of the fatal flaws in the structure of your argument. As usual you just ignored everything that was said to you and repeated the claim that hasn't fundamentally changed in over four years.

Fail.

 

[abaddon]

All is at least reasonable until the baloney starts at 912. From then on it is a fiasco, a fantasy.

Omitted at that point is ALL of us have only one finite life and even the notion that perhaps at least some of us have one finite life is assigned a probability of 0 because Jabba says so. No explanation given, ignore that man behind the curtain.

 

[aleCcowaN]

This thread is definitely bad for my health. I start giggling non stop when I read Jabba's probabilistic concoctions.

The contrast between his patronizing «The probability (“likelihood”) of E given ~H» and his «now, I must estimate the likelihood of my own current existence given the different specific hypotheses under» with total probability reaching way above 100% even when some overlapping is taken care of, is bone crashingly hilarious.

 

[jond]

Dave,
- I think that the following answers your objection-- I've corrected(?) for a previous mistake...

9.1. Re P(E|~H):
9.1.1. The probability (“likelihood”) of E given ~H, involves several specific hypothetical possibilities.
9.1.1.1. That only some of us have but one finite life.
9.1.1.2. That we each have numerous finite lives.
9.1.1.3. That only some of us have numerous finite lives.
9.1.1.4. That we each have an infinity of finite lives.
9.1.1.5. That only some of us have an infinity of finite lives.
9.1.1.6. That we each have an infinite life.
9.1.1.7. That only some of us have an infinite life.
9.1.1.8. That time isn’t what we think it is (to be explained).
9.1.1.9. Some other explanation.

9.1.2. Now I must estimate (roughly) the prior probability (rounded off to 3 decimal places) of each more specific possibility (hypothesis), given ~H.
9.1.2.1. That only some of us have but one finite life: .000
9.1.2.2. That we each have numerous finite lives: .200.
9.1.2.3. That only some of us have numerous finite lives: .000
9.1.2.4. That we each have an infinity of finite lives; .200
9.1.2.5. That only some of us have an infinity of finite lives: .000
9.1.2.6. That we each have an infinite life: .200.
9.1.2.7. That only some of us have an infinite life: .000
9.1.2.8. That time isn’t what we think it is (to be explained): .200
9.1.2.9. Some other explanation: .200

9.1.3. And now, I must estimate the likelihood of my own current existence given the different specific hypotheses under ~H.
9.1.3.1. That only some of us have but one finite life: .10.
9.1.3.2. That we each have numerous finite lives: .10.
9.1.3.3. That only some of us have numerous finite lives: .25.
9.1.3.4. That we each have an infinity of finite lives; 1.00
9.1.3.5. That only some of us have an infinity of finite lives: .50.
9.1.3.6. That we each have an infinite life: 1.00
9.1.3.7. That only some of us have an infinite life: .50
9.1.3.8. That time isn’t what we think it is (to be explained): .50
9.1.3.9. Some other explanation: .50

9.1.4. And now, I must multiply each of the probabilities of ~H above by the likelihoods of my current existence, given each specific hypothesis, and add up their products. And, the total likelihood of my current existence given ~H:
9.1.4.1. P(E|~H) = (0*.5) + (.2*.10) + (0*.25) + (.2*1.0) + (0*.5) + (1*.2) + (0*.5) + (.2*.5) + (.2*.5), or
9.1.4.2. P(E|~H) = 0 + .02 + 0 +.2 + 0 + .2 + 0 + .1 + .1, or
9.1.4.3. P(E|~H) = .62. And,
9.1.5. P(H|E) = 0*.99/(0*.99 + .62*.01) = (0/.0062) = 0.
9.1.6. P(H|E) = 0.

- IOW, given my current existence, the posterior probability that I will have one, finite life is (effectively) zero…

- I think that I got the numbers right this time.

Why is ~H a given? Remember, under H, the probability of you having one finite life is 1. And since H is always more probable than ~H, you lose.

 

[Loss Leader]

Dave,

- I think that I got the numbers right this time.

Jabba -

May you live in good health for a thousand years. Your post is complete nonsense. You purport to list all the possibilities of ~H and then assign them probabilities based on nothing.

~H is am infinite set. There's no way to list everything in the set let alone assign it a probability. For example, you forgot that we might live in a clockwork universe wherein your existence would be certain., or anyone of the infinite universes with laws like our own I'm which you don't exist.

If the odds of you existing in a scientific universe are 1/999,999, then we only need about 10,000,000 universes for you to exist in one of them. What's the chance of you finding yourself in the universe where you exist? 1. The chance is 1.

You have yet to produce one reliable, testable numeric probability. Your latest screed doubles down on that by introducing a half dozen more unreliable, untestable made-up nonsense numbers.

 

[Jabba]

Why is ~H a given? Remember, under H, the probability of you having one finite life is 1. And since H is always more probable than ~H, you lose.

jond,
- Instead of "given that ~H is true," think "if ~H is true," or even "if ~H were true."

 

[sackett]

I want to hear Jabba explain how the nature of time is not what we think it is.

 

[Mojo]

Dave,
- I think that the following answers your objection-- I've corrected(?) for a previous mistake...

9.1. Re P(E|~H):
9.1.1. The probability (“likelihood”) of E given ~H, involves several specific hypothetical possibilities.
9.1.1.1. That only some of us have but one finite life.
9.1.1.2. That we each have numerous finite lives.
9.1.1.3. That only some of us have numerous finite lives.
9.1.1.4. That we each have an infinity of finite lives.
9.1.1.5. That only some of us have an infinity of finite lives.
9.1.1.6. That we each have an infinite life.
9.1.1.7. That only some of us have an infinite life.
9.1.1.8. That time isn’t what we think it is (to be explained).
9.1.1.9. Some other explanation.

9.1.2. Now I must estimate (roughly) the prior probability (rounded off to 3 decimal places) of each more specific possibility (hypothesis), given ~H.
9.1.2.1. That only some of us have but one finite life: .000
9.1.2.2. That we each have numerous finite lives: .200.
9.1.2.3. That only some of us have numerous finite lives: .000
9.1.2.4. That we each have an infinity of finite lives; .200
9.1.2.5. That only some of us have an infinity of finite lives: .000
9.1.2.6. That we each have an infinite life: .200.
9.1.2.7. That only some of us have an infinite life: .000
9.1.2.8. That time isn’t what we think it is (to be explained): .200
9.1.2.9. Some other explanation: .200

9.1.3. And now, I must estimate the likelihood of my own current existence given the different specific hypotheses under ~H.
9.1.3.1. That only some of us have but one finite life: .10.
9.1.3.2. That we each have numerous finite lives: .10.
9.1.3.3. That only some of us have numerous finite lives: .25.
9.1.3.4. That we each have an infinity of finite lives; 1.00
9.1.3.5. That only some of us have an infinity of finite lives: .50.
9.1.3.6. That we each have an infinite life: 1.00
9.1.3.7. That only some of us have an infinite life: .50
9.1.3.8. That time isn’t what we think it is (to be explained): .50
9.1.3.9. Some other explanation: .50

9.1.4. And now, I must multiply each of the probabilities of ~H above by the likelihoods of my current existence, given each specific hypothesis, and add up their products. And, the total likelihood of my current existence given ~H:
9.1.4.1. P(E|~H) = (0*.5) + (.2*.10) + (0*.25) + (.2*1.0) + (0*.5) + (1*.2) + (0*.5) + (.2*.5) + (.2*.5), or
9.1.4.2. P(E|~H) = 0 + .02 + 0 +.2 + 0 + .2 + 0 + .1 + .1, or
9.1.4.3. P(E|~H) = .62. And,
9.1.5. P(H|E) = 0*.99/(0*.99 + .62*.01) = (0/.0062) = 0.
9.1.6. P(H|E) = 0.

- IOW, given my current existence, the posterior probability that I will have one, finite life is (effectively) zero…

- I think that I got the numbers right this time.

OK, you need to go back to this:

Jabba,

What is the probability that you would calculate the likelihood of your existence if you didn't exist?

jt,
- Zero.

See also the post that appeared between question and answer:

Every time someone posts something like this I think to myself "surely this time Jabba will finally grasp the fundamental mistake he is making. It simply could not be made any easier to understand". But he never does.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I want to hear Jabba explain how the nature of time is not what we think it is.

-be careful what you ask for...

 

[jond]

jond,
- Instead of "given that ~H is true," think "if ~H is true," or even "if ~H were true."

But why would we think that when it is so much less likely than H?

 

[Mojo]

Also, Jabba, you are still conflating two separate hypotheses: that your existence is the result of chance, and that you have a finite lifetime. These are not the same hypothesis.

 

[Loss Leader]

Also, Jabba, you are still conflating two separate hypotheses: that your existence is the result of chance, and that you have a finite lifetime. These are not the same hypothesis.

If he has 1 finite lifetime, it seems he'd have a better chance of existing than if he were immortal. The universe had so many more chances to bring together the elements that make Jabba for a finite time.

 

[JayUtah]

jond,
- Instead of "given that ~H is true," think "if ~H is true," or even "if ~H were true."

Why are you focusing on this minutia when the structure of your argument is fatally flawed? Do you simply not care?

 

[Jabba]

How many lives people may or may not have are outcomes of hypotheses. The likelihood of a particular self existing is not based on the outcome of a hypothesis, but on how that hypothesis defines what a self is and how a self comes into existence.

Dave,

- I would say that it depends upon all three...

- The "self" I'm talking about is difficult to effectively communicate/define. The best I can do, perhaps, is it's the self concept that reincarnationists think keeps returning.
- Whether thing, process or illusion, science must say that it (as a totally specific thing, process or illusion) must be brought into existence by laws of physics, chemistry and biology. And either, we could replicate this thing, process or illusion by replicating the PC&B, or we couldn't -- it being a second level emergent property that is simply unique, however many times we replicate the PC&B. Toon suggests (as I understand Toon) that the specific time would have to be included in order to replicate a specific self...

 

[godless dave]

Dave,

- I would say that it depends upon all three...

- The "self" I'm talking about is difficult to effectively communicate/define. The best I can do, perhaps, is it's the self concept that reincarnationists think keeps returning.
- Whether thing, process or illusion, science must say that it (as a totally specific thing, process or illusion) must be brought into existence by laws of physics, chemistry and biology. And either, we could replicate this thing, process or illusion by replicating the PC&B, or we couldn't -- it being a second level emergent property that is simply unique, however many times we replicate the PC&B.

Of course we could replicate it, theoretically. We've discussed this at length. Under the scientific model, the likelihood of a particular self existing is exactly the same as the likelihood of the particular brain that produces it existing.

In models where the "self" can be separate from the brain, there must be some other mechanism for producing one and associating it with a physical body. The likelihood of a particular one existing will depend on the details of that mechanism.