Proof of Immortality, VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
Dave,
- I think that's wrong.
- When an event is unlikely to happen given a particular hypothesis, it is potential evidence against the hypothesis, in that, it being evidence depends upon other conditions. Here, one of the conditions is that the "hypothesis predicts a wide variety of possible events, each of them individually unlikely."
Click to expand...

I don't know of any approach to science or logic that views unlikelihood that way. You would only call a hypothesis into question if events happened more (or less) often than the hypothesis predicts.

In any case, the particular hypothesis under discussion does predict a wide variety of possible events, each of them individually unlikely, so we can both agree that in this case, an unlikely event happening is not evidence against the hypothesis.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
I think that's wrong.
Click to expand...

It isn't.

When an event is unlikely to happen given a particular hypothesis, it is potential evidence against the hypothesis...
Click to expand...

No, because it can be equally potent against the line of reasoning that purports to connect the evidence to the hypothesis. This is, in fact, one of the ways in which Bayes is used legitimately when the priors are measured. I covered this earlier as two or three of the fatal flaws in your argument. It has been explained to you exactly how and why you're wrong on this point. Simply insisting in the face of it that you aren't is wishful thinking.
 
JayUtah said:
Unacceptable.

I don't mean the statement is unacceptable, I mean that it is unacceptable for you to be making an "opening statement" in the sixth chapter of this five-year debate.
Click to expand...

Seriously Jabba read that. Read it twice. Recite it before bed like a prayer. Get it tattooed on your forehead backwards so you have to read it everytime you look in a mirror.

We are over half a decade, six separate "canon" threads, almost as many spin-off threads, two distinct message boards into this discussion and you are still re-arraiging the pieces on the board enough to make your opening move.

Do you, on any level, even begin to grasp how insane that is?
 
Last edited:
godless dave said:
Is it more exciting than all the other times we had the exact same discussion?

Last time you got excited about a line of discussion you ended up abandoning it.
Click to expand...

Abandoned very quickly, too. Odd how when shown his errors, he quickly moves away into something else. Only to return with the same long destroyed arguments as though he'd never seen any response at all to them.
 
godless dave said:
I don't know of any approach to science or logic that views unlikelihood that way. You would only call a hypothesis into question if events happened more (or less) often than the hypothesis predicts.

In any case, the particular hypothesis under discussion does predict a wide variety of possible events, each of them individually unlikely, so we can both agree that in this case, an unlikely event happening is not evidence against the hypothesis.
Click to expand...
Dave,
- Since Jay just responded to this sub-issue, I'll defer to him. If I get a chance, I'll respond to your response later.
 
Jabba said:
This is getting exciting! I'll be back!
Click to expand...

This sounds suspiciously like your main interest is just keeping people on the hook as some sort of audience or unwilling actors in your drama. Prove otherwise.

We've discussed this particular point before, several times. You never found it exciting before, at least not in the way your critics may understand the term. Two weeks ago I addressed your ongoing misunderstanding of the probative value of statistical inference. Your professed excitement today hasn't compelled you to rejoin the argument. "I think you're wrong" is not an actionable rejoinder. You must engage the substance of the rebuttal.
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- Since Jay just responded to this sub-issue, I'll defer to him. If I get a chance, I'll respond to your response later.
Click to expand...

No, answer both me and Dave, as we have both found separate faults with your claim. Neither Dave nor I has agreed to be your sole critic, nor to the larger issue of whether there should be a sole critic. You are responsible for all serious criticism as long as you are posting in a public forum in which all members may post.

Nor have I agreed to the "sub-issue ad infinitum" schedule of debate. I have identified elven individually fatal flaws in your argument (with perhaps more to come as we run across them). If you're going to be answering me, I have already said I expect a comprehensive answer to my comprehensive rebuttal within short order (a day or so). I have also identified a half dozen or so dishonest techniques that I wish you to address. Please provide a complete answer, not a hopscotch jaunt through the ones you think you can answer. I do not accept today's attempt at a fringe reset, as I already addressed comprehensively your "outline" from the first week of June.
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
No, answer both me and Dave, as we have both found separate faults with your claim. Neither Dave nor I has agreed to be your sole critic, nor to the larger issue of whether there should be a sole critic. You are responsible for all serious criticism as long as you are posting in a public forum in which all members may post.

Nor have I agreed to the "sub-issue ad infinitum" schedule of debate. I have identified elven individually fatal flaws in your argument (with perhaps more to come as we run across them). If you're going to be answering me, I have already said I expect a comprehensive answer to my comprehensive rebuttal within short order (a day or so). I have also identified a half dozen or so dishonest techniques that I wish you to address. Please provide a complete answer, not a hopscotch jaunt through the ones you think you can answer. I do not accept today's attempt at a fringe reset, as I already addressed comprehensively your "outline" from the first week of June.
Click to expand...
Jay,
- For some reason, you can't appreciate my problem in keeping up with all the arguments sent my way...
- I can't even keep up with just your arguments.
- I'm amazed at how fast you are -- I guess that's why you can't appreciate my problem with keeping up...
- Anyway, per you're 'request,' I'll see what I can do with Dave's disagreement first and get to yours later -- if you or Dave don't respond to my response to Dave first, or I don't feel like someone else especially deserves a response first...
 
Jabba said:
Jay,
- For some reason, you can't appreciate my problem in keeping up with all the arguments sent my way...
- I can't even keep up with just your arguments.
- I'm amazed at how fast you are -- I guess that's why you can't appreciate my problem with keeping up...
- Anyway, per you're 'request,' I'll see what I can do with Dave's disagreement first and get to yours later -- if you or Dave don't respond to my response to Dave first, or I don't feel like someone else especially deserves a response first...
Click to expand...

It's hard to believe you have trouble keeping up with arguments when you waste time writing posts declaring your intention to respond later.
 
Jabba said:
For some reason, you can't appreciate my problem in keeping up with all the arguments sent my way...
Click to expand...

Not for "some" reason -- for the reasons I carefully laid out yesterday. I have no sympathy for the illusion of martyrdom you seem bent on creating around you. Quit whining, stalling, summarizing, and arranging. Your critics have been especially forbearing up to this point, but we're sick of your excuses.

Anyway, per you're 'request,' I'll see what I can do with Dave's disagreement first...
Click to expand...

Do that instead of begging for special treatment, announcing your guest seating order, and all other distractive crap you've subjected us to today. Nearly all your posts today have been the same ham-fisted manipulation attempts I warned you about yesterday. Get rid of those and you'll have time to address the several challenges to the merits of your claim.

...I don't feel like someone else especially deserves a response first...
Click to expand...

Your feelings are irrelevant. Criticism against you doesn't go away or cease to have value simply because you don't feel like answering it. Don't act like such a prima donna.
 
godless dave said:
I don't know of any approach to science or logic that views unlikelihood that way. You would only call a hypothesis into question if events happened more (or less) often than the hypothesis predicts...
Click to expand...
Dave,
- What if an hypothesis claimed that X should never occur, and X occurs?
If we can get past the sharp shooter issue, as far as I can tell, mathematics says that H is probably wrong.
- Gotta go. I'll be back
 
Jabba said:
- For some reason, you can't appreciate my problem in keeping up with all the arguments sent my way...
Click to expand...

No, we just don't believe it. You've proven time and time again that you _CAN_ keep up with everything, what with the amount of repetition you post here, the time to post it you could use to address people's arguments. You've also had quite the time and memory to go back to quote people from time to time.

So no, this is just an excuse, and we don't believe you.
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- What if an hypothesis claimed that X should never occur, and X occurs?
Click to expand...

Then the hypothesis is wrong.

Keep in mind that "very unlikely" does not mean "impossible".

Given a regulation 52 card deck of playing cards, it's very unlikely I will be dealt a royal flush. If I am dealt a royal flush, that is not evidence against the hypothesis that this is a regulation 52 card deck of playing cards. If I am dealt two forests, a mountain, a Fireball, a Lightning Bolt, and Sol Ring, and a Shivan Dragon, then it's definitely not a regulation 52 card deck of playing cards.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
Dave,
- What if an hypothesis claimed that X should never occur, and X occurs?
If we can get past the sharp shooter issue, as far as I can tell, mathematics says that H is probably wrong.
- Gotta go. I'll be back
Click to expand...

People exist. Under H, selves are an emergent property of a functioning brain. They are generated by the brain. Under H, the likelihood of your self existing and your brain existing are exactly the same. Mathematics says that H is far more likely than your preferred hypothesis in which selves require both the brain and a non physical soul.
 
Jabba said:
What if an hypothesis claimed that X should never occur, and X occurs?
Click to expand...

Wrong question. X has a probability of occurring under some hypothesis H. How that's determined varies according to formulation. If P(X|H) is, say, based on historical data then we can reason about P(H|X) by observing a series of X. If, however, P(X|H) is purely speculative, then P(H) as a prior must have some factual basis. (It does not, in your formulation.) Observing P(X|H) over many X in a way that seems to contract H means that the speculated method of reckoning P(X|H) is where the error lies.

This is covered under two of the fatal flaws I already pointed out in your argument. Do not simply continue to make the same errors. Further, the specific way in which you formulate P(X|H) has been separately shown to be untenable. That's one or two other previously-identified fatal errors.

Further, under no circumstances does a statistical inference that concludes X cannot happen constitute proof that X did not happen. If X happened, the probability that it should happen under whatever circumstances prevailed is simply irrelevant.

If we can get past the sharp shooter issue...
Click to expand...

We will not "get past" the issue in the way you want, which is to disregard that you're committing it and that it's a fatal flaw in your argument. You assign significance to X, and thus to P(X|H), only after you observe what X is. There is no statistical tap-dance that makes that not an error.

as far as I can tell, mathematics says that H is probably wrong.
- Gotta go. I'll be back
Click to expand...

"As far as [you] can tell" ignores several fatal errors beyond the two or three you've focused on this afternoon. You laid out your argument in a comprehensive fashion and I gave you a comprehensive response. There were a dozen individually fatal errors that you have not even acknowledged much less rejoined. No, you can't say that once you get past a couple of initial errors, the rest just falls into place. You don't get to leap over all your critics' subsequent objections and land at the desired conclusion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom