Proof of Immortality, VI

[JoeMorgue]

Jabba you do understand the "fringe reset" only works (for certain usages of "work") if you are in a discussion where a lot of people are coming and going, right?

We were all here the last time you fringe resetted, and the time before that, and the time before that, and the time before that. We're aren't some new group of opponents that are going to go through the motions with you.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Dave,
- I have numerous claims and sub-claims, but those are central.
- At the top(?) of my syllogism, I claim that
1. There is a reasonable possibility that the human self is not physical -- not, at least, in our current understanding of physical.

And your evidence for that claim is ...?

2. The likelihood of an event occurring -- given a particular hypothesis -- has mathematical implications (albeit indefinite) regarding the posterior probability of the hypothesis.

No. The posterior probability of any event is only dependent n whether it occurred or not. If it occurred, it is 1, if not 0.

3. The likelihood of the current existence of my "self" -- given OOFLam -- is no more than 10^-100.

Your definition of "self" is incompatible with materialism. You have not given a sensible motivation for the probability you claim.

4. For that to be an appropriate element in judging the probability of OOFLam, my current existence needs to be set apart from most other selves in a way that is relevant to OOFLam.

Makes no sense. At all.

5. My self is thusly set apart.

False.

6. If I am correct so far, the posterior probability of OOFLam is extremely small.

False.

- Underlying the "top" are numerous other claims/premises. For instance,
1. For the likelihood of my current existence to be an appropriate element in the relevant formula, my particular existence does not need to be pre-specified as appropriate. My particular current existence does not need to be specified as a legitimate “target” prior to my existence.

False.

2. There are other characteristics of an event that can identify its likelihood as an appropriate element, as a legitimate target, in judging the posterior probability of the hypothesis.

Has no meaning.

3. “Targetness” is complex, and exists in degrees.

Has no meaning

(I know you will igonre this)

Hans

 

[SOdhner]

If:

• There are infinite potential selves
• Some percentage of them come into existence

What would we expect to see?

• Any percentage of infinity is infinity.
• Therefore we would expect to see infinite actual selves.

Since we do not see that, the premise is wrong.

 

[Jabba]

Then nonphysical selves should not figure into P(E|H). As I said earlier, P(E|H) would not be some number over infinity. It would be determined in a manner similar to determining the likelihood of Mount Rainier existing.

- There are a bunch of different issues here. I'll start off with, "What would P(E|H) be if we calculate from before the big bang?"

 

[godless dave]

- There are a bunch of different issues here. I'll start off with, "What would P(E|H) be if we calculate from before the big bang?"

We already had this discussion.

There is no "before the big bang".

If you mean "at the time of the big bang", then the number is impossible to calculate. I think we can agree it would be very small.

And P(E|G) (where E is the current existence of Mount Rainier and G is the scientific model for how mountains on earth form) would be similarly very small.

Does that mean our understand of geology must be wrong?

 

[jond]

- There are a bunch of different issues here. I'll start off with, "What would P(E|H) be if we calculate from before the big bang?"

Exactly as likely or unlikely as Mt Rainier.

 

[jond]

Speaking of unlikely things, Jabba, remind us which is more likely:

1. Our bodies & brains exist, which generate a sense of self.
2. Our bodies & brains exist, and then there is a separate entity called a self that somehow attaches itself to our brains.

 

[JayUtah]

"What would P(E|H) be if we calculate from before the big bang?"

There is no "before" the Big Bang that is calculable in any sense that applies to this problem.

We covered this issue already at length. Both mountains and people, under materialism, are the products of chaotic systems operating over the entire length of time. Chaotic systems are deterministic. (Don't equivocate on this without reading Hume.) But they are still chaotic, and so from any set of first principles, a large variety of outcomes are possible. In each case, only one emerges. That one may divide that by the estimated number of outcomes is a fact of arithmetic. That such a quotient would represent the probability of the individual specimens arising is utterly meaningless. Probability doesn't have meaning, because there was no pre-ordained significance to the specimen that arose, whether mountain or man. That is materialism. Don't try to change it.

There is really only one issue here. You want to reckon P(E|H), and you want it to be a very, very small number. And because you've decided what the number needs to be before you even thought about how to model it, your attempts at modeling it are laughably ignorant and easily seen to be wrong. You can't get the arithmetic right. You can't get the stipulations of statistical inference right. You can't even get the formula right. It's a laughable display.

 

[John Jones]

- There are a bunch of different issues here. I'll start off with, "What would P(E|H) be if we calculate from before the big bang?"

You already went there. You lost.

 

[Jabba]

We already had this discussion.

There is no "before the big bang".

If you mean "at the time of the big bang", then the number is impossible to calculate. I think we can agree it would be very small.

And P(E|G) (where E is the current existence of Mount Rainier and G is the scientific model for how mountains on earth form) would be similarly very small.

Does that mean our understand of geology must be wrong?

- No.
- I think the basic point here is that P(E|H) -- as calculated from the singularity -- is the appropriate figure. What is the likelihood that the singularity would bring on a Big Bang that would lead to life?

 

[JayUtah]

What is the likelihood that the singularity would bring on a Big Bang that would lead to life?

The same as that it would bring on a Big Bang that would lead to a specific mountain. And equally inapplicable, because neither life nor a mountain were identified beforehand as desirable outcomes.

 

[jond]

The same as that it would bring on a Big Bang that would lead to a specific mountain. And equally inapplicable, because neither life nor a mountain were identified beforehand as desirable outcomes.

...but there are degrees of desirable outcomes...

 

[godless dave]

- No.
- I think the basic point here is that P(E|H) -- as calculated from the singularity -- is the appropriate figure. What is the likelihood that the singularity would bring on a Big Bang that would lead to life?

Impossible to calculate with the data we have.

 

[John Jones]

Impossible to calculate with the data we have.

Hey Jabba, the above does not give you license to pull numbers out of thin air.

 

[JayUtah]

Impossible to calculate with the data we have.

Hey Jabba, the above does not give you license to pull numbers out of thin air.

But that's not the point. It's obvious that the values are practically incalculable. But that's the ambiguity we're going to wallow in so as to take everyone's mind off the obvious commission of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy in Jabba's argument. Let's spend two or three days quibbling about chaotic systems from the beginning of the universe right down to every fissure in Mt Ranier. Keep in mind that the fringe theorist isn't interested in answering questions. He's interested only in prolonging the debate, and if possible forcing it into the nethermost regions of irrelevance and incalculability so that the meaningless quibbling takes the place of a straightforward, honest examination of the claims that would otherwise bring the argument to a swift conclusion. Jabba knows he doesn't have a leg to stand on, so he's leading everyone on a merry chase through pointless trivia.

 

[SOdhner]

Hey Jabba,

I'd be willing to engage with you one-on-one if you'd like.

NOTE: I mean, I agree with what all the others have said regarding the fact that this is a forum and not really the place for a one on one discussion and how it's not a good idea to ignore valid points just because you've decided that you're only going to respond to one person. Furthermore, I would remind you that even if you convince me you wouldn't be able to act as if that meant that you had convinced the whole forum; in no way can I claim to be a representative of the others here. But I'd be willing to engage with you one-on-one anyway.
/NOTE

I just have a few requests:

1. Don't start by re-stating your whole thing. We've all seen it many times and it's cluttering the place up. I'm familiar with it, I can find the most recent copy easily enough.
2. I will ask one question at a time, as you have preferred. Likewise I would ask that you not go off on tangents, and you answer that one question before trying to bring up new points, restart the discussion, etc.
3. I reserve the right to ask a question that I don't see a specific bullet point for, though if my question DOES correspond to one of your bullet points I would make an effort to specifically quote it for ease of discussion.

I promise I will take this seriously and not make jokes. Let me know if you are interested.

 

[abaddon]

- No.
- I think the basic point here is that P(E|H) -- as calculated from the singularity -- is the appropriate figure. What is the likelihood that the singularity would bring on a Big Bang that would lead to life?

According to your argument, there are an infinity of potential outcomes from the big bang, yet we end up in this one whose likelyhood is vanishingly small among the infinity of potential outcomes from the BB.

You are, in fact, supporting creationism. I would not be surprised if you turned out to be a YEC proponent. That is the trajectory you have chosen.

 

[abaddon]

Hey Jabba,

I'd be willing to engage with you one-on-one if you'd like.

NOTE: I mean, I agree with what all the others have said regarding the fact that this is a forum and not really the place for a one on one discussion and how it's not a good idea to ignore valid points just because you've decided that you're only going to respond to one person. Furthermore, I would remind you that even if you convince me you wouldn't be able to act as if that meant that you had convinced the whole forum; in no way can I claim to be a representative of the others here. /NOTE

I just have a few requests:

1. Don't start by re-stating your whole thing. We've all seen it many times and it's cluttering the place up. I'm familiar with it, I can find the most recent copy easily enough.
2. I will ask one question at a time, as you have preferred. Likewise I would ask that you not go off on tangents, and you answer that one question before trying to bring up new points, restart the discussion, etc.
3. I reserve the right to ask a question that I don't see a specific bullet point for, though if my question DOES correspond to one of your bullet points I would make an effort to specifically quote it for ease of discussion.

I promise I will take this seriously and not make jokes. Let me know if you are interested.

Oooh. Will godless dave lose his position as anointed LCP? Will GD be ousted by the man wanton enough to assume that mantle?

Who stays? Who goes? Jabba decides.

Sorry, SOdhner, this game has been played before, by a mod, no less. Jabba bails when pinned down. Every time.

Five years of this nonsense where we have had to put up with the crap.

Fair play to you for stepping up to the plate, but after 5 years of the game of celebrity goalpost traverse, nobody really cares anymore.

 

[Loss Leader]

- No.
- I think the basic point here is that P(E|H) -- as calculated from the singularity -- is the appropriate figure. What is the likelihood that the singularity would bring on a Big Bang that would lead to life?

It's probably related to the chance that there has only been one universe produced from one big bang.

As far as we know, there are billions of universes.

What is the chance that we find ourselves in the one we find ourselves? 1.

 

[The Sparrow]

-.... What is the likelihood that the singularity would bring on a Big Bang that would lead to life?

We can't possibly know, and neither can you.

Have their been other universes?
Are there many universes right now?
Are their universes that immediately fizzle because they aren't 'fine tuned'.
Could be there were 87,000,000,000 fizzled universes before I brewed that was just right. Could be 87,000,000,000 other universes similar to ours that did result in life.

You don't know.
You can't know.
Your odds calculation is meaningless.

You will pretend this post was never made.