Proof of Immortality, VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm not speaking as a moderator in this post, just as a participant in the thread so this post carries no more weight than any other post made by an ISF member.

Jabba, for the love of everything you hold dear, please return to the topic of your immortality. Please address the responses you are getting instead of copypasting lists over and over again.

This derail into the origin of the universe and your personal ability to make sense of the evidence we have for it is nothing to do with your arguments for immortality.
 
RoboTimbo said:
It has taken you five years to NOT address any of the fatal flaws in your argument. Why are you so against taking a week to actually address them?
Click to expand...

Or an hour. I really just want an hour. With a brief summary in hand -- an outline of how Jabba plans to address his critics on every point on the table -- we could conceivably endure quite a lengthy and detailed foray into the various sub-topics. But without that high-level assurance of a plan, we have little choice but to characterize the fine-toothed picking as a distraction from what he has come to realize is a losing argument. I've given Jabba leave to postpone the sub-issues. In fact, I've given Jabba explicit instructions not to include the sub-issues. I've done this with the intent of paring down the assignment to something that can be done in an hour or less. And because I've done that, I expect him not to whine about how long it's going to take.
 
Jabba said:
[...] Keep in mind that if I'm right, we're all the same re our mortality and I can't set us apart the usual way...
Click to expand...

Why would anyone keep that in mind? You've never been right. You can't persuade your critics using even the simplest of logical arguments.

You have not produced any evidence to support your silly arguments, and you likely never will.
 
Argumemnon said:
This is the crux of your entire argument. You don't care what the reality is. You just care that the conclusion is convenient for you.
Click to expand...

If even that. He doesn't have to believe it. It doesn't have to make sense to him. In terms of his argument, it simply has to be taken arguendo for no more purpose than to correctly reckon P(E|H). It doesn't have to be reality for him to use it properly in his argument. We haven't even reached that stage, which is why the first of the fatal flaws -- which I'm sure we'll never see him address again -- is that he doesn't understand how to formulate a Bayesian inference. Every day he provides more proof he doesn't.
 
Jabba said:
- So, you're suggesting that "ever" only goes back 13 billion years. Does that really make sense?
Click to expand...


Where does a circle start and end? How can a Moebius strip have only one side, when it can be constructed from an object with two?

You have a very limited imagination when it comes to topology, and how that could possibly affect time.
 
JayUtah said:
If even that. He doesn't have to believe it. It doesn't have to make sense to him. In terms of his argument, it simply has to be taken arguendo for no more purpose than to correctly reckon P(E|H). It doesn't have to be reality for him to use it properly in his argument. We haven't even reached that stage, which is why the first of the fatal flaws -- which I'm sure we'll never see him address again -- is that he doesn't understand how to formulate a Bayesian inference. Every day he provides more proof he doesn't.
Click to expand...

Oh, but I meant at an more basic level than that. His formula and everything else are just tools to serve the convenience: that he won't die.
 
It's simple. If you want to quibble about whether reality exists (which is all "Materialism" really boil down to) you can't do in a discussion where you are trying to promote an answer to a question, real or imagined.

Your cop out response to someone pointing out that your answer doesn't make sense can't be "Prove to me answers as a concept exist."
 
Although the topic for this thread has drifted broadly at times, it has at least tried to stay in the same continent with Bayesian statistics and proofs of immortality. The philosophical significance of modern science isn't in that same continent, so I have taken the liberty of deporting multiple posts that didn't belong before they reached the Kingdom of Bickering.

You're welcome.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jsfisher
 
I can't believe I survived a hurricane to find that this thread has somehow managed to find a new way to go downhill.
 
Jabba said:
...
- Moving along a little bit -- remember all the events that had to occur in order for you and me to be here today.
10. And, the thing is, logically speaking, NOTHING should exist...
Click to expand...


godless dave said:
...
That's not logical at all...
Click to expand...

Jabba said:
... Yes it is. Logically speaking, either something has come from nothing, or something has always existed -- neither of which makes any sense.
Click to expand...

godless dave said:
In what way do neither of those make sense? Something obviously exists, so if that seems illogical, then at least one of your premises must be wrong.
Click to expand...

Jabba said:
- That's the problem. Which one is it?
Click to expand...

godless dave said:
The premise that something couldn't always have existed. And, if you hold it, the premise that "always" extends infinitely into the past instead of a finite amount of time.
Click to expand...

Jabba said:
Dave,
- If I understand what you're saying, time came from nothing...
Click to expand...

godless dave said:
Maybe it did. Or maybe time has existed forever - where "forever" is around 13 billion years so far. There's no evidence there was ever nothing.
Click to expand...

Jabba said:
- So, you're suggesting that "ever" only goes back 13 billion years. Does that really make sense?
Click to expand...

godless dave said:
That's what the available evidence suggests. Whether it makes sense to me has no bearing on whether it's true.
Click to expand...
- It should. Whether it makes sense or not is part of the evidence. That it doesn't make sense (even just to you) suggests that there is something wrong with the science. Quantum entanglement doesn't seem to make sense. That suggests that something is wrong with current science.

- So, all that may be wrong -- but, it is logical.
 
Last edited:
... And as such, is part of the evidence.

- This refers back to 2375.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
- It should.
Click to expand...

Are you seriously suggesting that reality must make sense to you?




You do know that plenty of established science was very counter-intuitive, right? The very computer you're using to post here wouldn't work if not for some pretty insane Quantum Mechanics stuff. But it works despite not making sense to a lot of people.

Whether it makes sense or not is part of the evidence.
Click to expand...

Absolutely not.

How do you manage to get the fundamentals so wrong, so consistently?
 
Jabba said:
- It should. Whether it makes sense or not is part of the evidence. That it doesn't make sense (even just to you) suggests that there is something wrong with the science. Quantum entanglement doesn't seem to make sense. That suggests that something is wrong with current science.
Click to expand...

There's no reason to think my brain is capable of understanding everything. What you have above is not any kind of evidence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom