Proof of Immortality III

[Loss Leader]

LL,
- What was the probability that the big bang would have all the necessary characteristics?

It doesn't matter because we have no idea how many universes existed before or exist concurrently with ours. We can never escape our universe to find out. This may be the 7 sextilionth universe to be produced.

What is the chance that you would find yourself existing in a universe in which you exist? 1.

You don't have anything in your "math" that rules out the clockwork universe from your OOFLAM set. And you don't have any way of calculating the odds of being on a scientific universe compared to being in a clockwork one.

Your odds of existing are borked.

 

[The Sparrow]

... but, if we go back to the apparent singularity, the odds of me ever existing would still be virtually zero.

Same thing for the banana I just ate. You didn't address it then, how about now?

Odds are my banana has some sort of random mutation, combined with the particular growing conditions it experienced, that makes it unique from any other banana that has existed.

 

[The Sparrow]

LL,
- What was the probability that the big bang would have all the necessary characteristics?

For the banana I just ate? probably 1.0000

 

[The Sparrow]

Dave,
- Yeah (I was going to put little quotes around the 'before,' but decided not to), but Hawking does talk about a singularity that somehow brought forth(?) the big bang. In addition, the singularity took up no space and contained infinite mass...
- Whatever, the big bang came with characteristics that ultimately lead to me in a deterministic universe. What is the likelihood that the big bang would bring those precise characteristics -- given modern science?

1.0000 - leading to - banana I just ate.
What explicitly is the difference between you and the banana?

 

[The Sparrow]

Jabba, why cannot your argument be used to 'prove' bananas have souls?

 

[JayUtah]

Jabba, why cannot your argument be used to 'prove' bananas have souls?

For the same reason it cannot be used to prove Mt. Ranier has a soul. You have to start with the presumption that people have souls. Only then can you properly do the math that proves they do.

 

[jsfisher]

js,
- I don't understand. For a mortal soul to exist, it would have to be connected to a living body...

Why? You don't require a soul be connected to a living body in ~H. Also, if it is the soul that defines the existence, even if a body is required, which body could be irrelevant. Any body would do.

You need to recalculate P(E|H).

js,
- Still struggling here -- that would seem to be the critical difference between the two hypotheses.

Where in the hypothesis of having only one finite life (at most) is having a soul ruled out?

You have already told us you do not require a body for existence (in your attempt to justify a calculation for P(E|~H)), so why would it be required in P(E|H)?

Perhaps it is time for you to clearly state how you define existence and what you actually include in your hypothesis.

 

[Hokulele]

Perhaps it is time for you to clearly state how you define existence and what you actually include in your hypothesis.

He defines it ... conveniently.

 

[abaddon]

LL,
- What was the probability that the big bang would have all the necessary characteristics?

As much as any other hypothesis.

Why is your one preferential?


Are you really that ignorant that you are unaware of what a hypothesis really is?

I don't think you are. I think it is pretense.

Do I have evidence for this? Dare me. As soon as the heat becomes too unbearable, you resort to "poor me", "I am old", "I cannot respond to all of the replies", " I only have so many hours per day", "I don't understand your point", "I can't prove it, but ...<insert vague excuse here>".

Of course, this might be valid were it remotely true. But it isn't.

At the least inkling of an opening, you launch into revisionism of that which has proceeded before, gross mis- and re- interpretation of questions asked of you, absolutely abhorrent abuse of those responses, which are few, to which you deign to respond. Abject lies that you responded in any substance to those responses to which you falsly claimed to respond. Outright insult of you interlocutors, despite lack of evidence of anything.

Frankly, your chosen position is utterly vapid, and devoid of all substance. Were I you, I would be hanging my head in shame for proposing such rubbish. Unfortunately, back up thread a bit you stated that you didn't care.

Perhaps it might be that you disagree( Quelle surprise).

If you do, wheel it on out. Feel free.

Do you not think it odd that after years, you still cannot?

 

[JayUtah]

Do you not think it odd that after years, you still cannot?

Or even better: Jabba is not alone in his beliefs. Many people fervently believe in a creator, in souls, and in immortality. These are also, in some cases, very smart people -- including logicians and mathematicians. If it were possible to prove mathematically (i.e., objectively) that an immortal soul exists, don't you think it would have been done by now?

 

[Jabba]

Doesn't matter what the likelihood is, the fact is that it did turn out that way. Do you really think we're so important to the universe that it was created this was just so we could exist?

jond,
- First, I think we're like worms (or maybe, chickens) trying to understand calculus...
- But, I do think that there is some kind of ultimate meaning to the universe -- or, even to a multiverse. I don't think that existence is just a big mechanical accident. My best guess is that there exists something beyond reductive materialism, that consciousness is immaterial and more basic than the material, that consciousness inherently cares, that love is the 'bottom line.' Something like that... and, we're in the middle of it.

 

[Loss Leader]

and, we're in the middle of it.

Pity then that there's no evidence of any of it. Heck, most of the words you used don't even have testable definitions. And the evidence we do have indicates that everything is explainable in material terms.

I hope your beliefs bring you comfort, but don't pretend they're anything but unevidenced wishes.

 

[JayUtah]

jond,
- First, I think we're like worms (or maybe, chickens) trying to understand calculus...
- But, I do think that there is some kind of ultimate meaning to the universe -- or, even to a multiverse. I don't think that existence is just a big mechanical accident. My best guess is that there exists something beyond reductive materialism, that consciousness is immaterial and more basic than the material, that consciousness inherently cares, that love is the 'bottom line.' Something like that... and, we're in the middle of it.

Invoking the inevitable unknown doesn't provide justification or proof for what you want that unknown to be. You have persistently argued that science has no power to understand or measure the soul. Yet you want to use "analytical" means to prove it exists. You're simply going to have to choose whether it's a belief or a putative fact.

You can warble all you want about some grandiose belief you have of the universe, who you think created it, and your role in it. But when you propose to prove it mathematically you have to leave behind all that mealy-mouthed pseudo-mysticism. It doesn't matter why you found religion. Pouring out your angst instead of providing proof is inappropriate.

 

[Mojo]

jond,
- First, I think we're like worms (or maybe, chickens) trying to understand calculus...
- But, I do think that there is some kind of ultimate meaning to the universe -- or, even to a multiverse. I don't think that existence is just a big mechanical accident. My best guess is that there exists something beyond reductive materialism, that consciousness is immaterial and more basic than the material, that consciousness inherently cares, that love is the 'bottom line.' Something like that... and, we're in the middle of it.

But can you believe all these things before breakfast?

 

[Jabba]

Pity then that there's no evidence of any of it. Heck, most of the words you used don't even have testable definitions. And the evidence we do have indicates that everything is explainable in material terms.

I hope your beliefs bring you comfort, but don't pretend they're anything but unevidenced wishes.

LL,

- They do bring me comfort.

- I've said all this before -- but it still applies.
- It would appear that we humans have two different ways of processing data -- analytically and holistically.
- It would appear that the beliefs I proposed come through holistic thinking, and if a person is too analytic, he or she will not be able to appreciate (or, imagine) these beliefs.
- It would appear that either analytic thinking is transcendence blind, or holistic thinking hallucinates.
- And finally, it would appear that you guys are just too analytic in order to easily appreciate -- or imagine -- such beliefs.

 

[Hokulele]

- It would appear that we humans have two different ways of processing data -- analytically and holistically.

Wrong.

Stop making up definitions of words to suit your agenda, rather than using their actual meanings.

 

[Loss Leader]

LL,

- They do bring me comfort.

- I've said all this before -- but it still applies.
- It would appear that we humans have two different ways of processing data -- analytically and holistically.
- It would appear that the beliefs I proposed come through holistic thinking, and if a person is too analytic, he or she will not be able to appreciate (or, imagine) these beliefs.
- It would appear that either analytic thinking is transcendence blind, or holistic thinking hallucinates.
- And finally, it would appear that you guys are just too analytic in order to easily appreciate -- or imagine -- such beliefs.

Pity, then, that there's no testable evidence that whatever you call "holistic" leads to testable knowledge. There is no evidence that people are divided into such groups. And there's no evidence that self-described "holistic" people are any better prepared for anything.

Don't put the fault at our feet because you can't put together a logical argument.

 

[Jabba]

Or even better: Jabba is not alone in his beliefs. Many people fervently believe in a creator, in souls, and in immortality. These are also, in some cases, very smart people -- including logicians and mathematicians. If it were possible to prove mathematically (i.e., objectively) that an immortal soul exists, don't you think it would have been done by now?

Jay,

- Yes. You would think so…

- But then, no one has even talked about this idea (except toontown) (that I can find), and (obviously, to me) it sure seems worth thinking and talking about…
- First you have the anthropic principle – interesting coincidences.
- Then, you have that I have come into existence – lots of coincidences.
- Then, now happens to be between 1942 and, say, 2042 – amazing coincident.
- If we accept determinism and the anthropic principle, not only did our universe have the right content for life and intelligence, it also had to have the right content for me, and for now being between 1942 and 2042…
- When do we start getting suspicious?

- Then, whatever I am, I’m the only TPI (thing, process or illusion) that I know exists -- everything else could be my imagination..
- And, without me existing, there might as well be nothing.
- And, without me ever existing, there might as well never be anything.
- We take ourselves totally for granted; but, we must be the very last TPI we should take for granted.
- Did I have to exist?
- Then, there’s the uncertainty principle and the observer's role in quantum mechanics.
- And besides, nothing really makes sense. If there were nothing, now that would make sense!
- And, it goes on...

- Again, when do we start getting suspicious -- that there is more here than meets the reductive materialistic eye?

 

[Mojo]

- But then, no one has even talked about this idea (except toontown)

And Toontown said you were wrong, remember?

 

[ferd burfle]

LL,



- They do bring me comfort.



- I've said all this before -- but it still applies.

- It would appear that we humans have two different ways of processing data -- analytically and holistically.

Setting aside your lack of definition for "holistically", only one of these leads to a testable result. If you want to set aside a scientific approach to the problem, that's your choice. What won't fly here is for you to equivocate and call the outcome of your "holistic" process scientific proof. You want the respect of science for your beliefs but are unwilling to use a scientific or even logical process.

- It would appear that the beliefs I proposed come through holistic thinking, and if a person is too analytic, he or she will not be able to appreciate (or, imagine) these beliefs.

Imagination alone will never prove a thing. You said you would prove immortality. You have failed.

- It would appear that either analytic thinking is transcendence blind, or holistic thinking hallucinates.

Another in an endless string of false dichotomies. But I would tend to agree with your latter choice.

- And finally, it would appear that you guys are just too analytic in order to easily appreciate -- or imagine -- such beliefs.

Yeah, we're too analytical to accept the outcome of an illogical and un-evidenced process as proof of something in the real world. We're funny that way.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk