Proof of Immortality, VII

Status
Not open for further replies.
SOdhner said:
1. caveman1917 thinks your formula is wrong. He doesn't agree with you about you being immortal.
Click to expand...


Ah, but remember: Jabba has his own special rules of evidence, under which anything that disagrees with his opponents' position makes it more likely that Jabba is correct. Even if it explicitly says he's wrong.
 
Jabba said:
jt,
- I looked through 'chapters' VI and VII and couldn't find anything about P(E|H) = P(E|~H) = 1. I don't understand what you're saying.
Click to expand...

caveman1917 said:
Just ignore it, it's wrong anyway and it's already been refuted in an earlier iteration. jt512 is just a bit confused about this, in his logic he's replacing "you haven't supported that P(E|H) is different from P(E|~H)" with "P(E|H) = P(E|~H) = 1" because apparently "the data (you existing) is known before you enter it into the calculation". However if we go by that logic then statistics as a whole is impossible, because the data will always be known before you enter it into the calculation - otherwise you wouldn't be able to enter it into the calculation in the first place. Refer to my examples earlier with the electrical wire and such, if this logic were correct then P(E|L) = P(E|~L) = 1 and I wouldn't have been able to conclude that the wire likely wasn't live based on my existence, yet I clearly can.
Click to expand...
Caveman,
- My thanks will only increase your tsuris, but thanks anyway.
 
Jabba thinks that probability can override facts and reality.

For instance. Right now as I type this there is a grey squirrel running along the fence out back of my house. I'm watching him right now through my back patio door. Both of my cats are also watching him. The kitten is making chittering noises at it.

Now as a matter of pure probability what are the odds that a squirrel is running along my fence right now? I mean there's a nearly infinite number of things that could be on my fence right now, there's a nearly infinite number of objects that could be in my back yard instead of a fence. There's a nearly infinite amount of time in the universe and a squirrel is only going to be running along my fence is a amazingly small fraction of that time.

On the size and time scale of the universe a squirrel running along my fence is an amazingly improbable event.

Ergo, by Jabbian logic, it is impossible that a squirrel is running along my fence. And yet it is, or rather was now it's making a go at my bird feeder. This particular squirrel, or at least one like it I'm not expert on squirrel identification, runs along my fence several times a day at the very least.

By ignoring the concept of "likely-hood" and focusing only on some false idea of "probability" where every inane thing is equally likely, all events become nearly impossible in the eyes of probability.

Even if we take Jabba's "My existence is nearly infinitely improbable" argument at face value it would apply equally to every event, every process, every object, and every conceptual idea in the universe. Jabba's proved nothing is possible as well as he's proved his death is possible.

We've used various lottery metaphors but what Jabba is doing is actually winning the lottery and claiming its impossible because it's so unlikely.

And I should state for clarity this isn't me putting words in Jabba's mouth. He's literally admitted from the start that is what he is doing. He literally thinks he can stop his own death by making up as many alternatives to it as possible until he tips the probability because that's how he thinks statistics works.

In Jabba's world the opening coin toss at the Superbowl couldn't be a team captain calling heads or tails, but would be the two team captains agreeing on who would get first possession if the coin landed on its side, if it quantum tunneled through the Earth, if hit a randomly appearing chunk of anti-matter and destroyed the entire city in an explosion, if a bird swooped in a grabbed the coin out of midair and flew away with it....
 
caveman1917 said:
Just ignore it, it's wrong anyway and it's already been refuted in an earlier iteration. jt512 is just a bit confused about this, in his logic he's replacing "you haven't supported that P(E|H) is different from P(E|~H)" with "P(E|H) = P(E|~H) = 1" because apparently "the data (you existing) is known before you enter it into the calculation". However if we go by that logic then statistics as a whole is impossible, because the data will always be known before you enter it into the calculation - otherwise you wouldn't be able to enter it into the calculation in the first place. Refer to my examples earlier with the electrical wire and such, if this logic were correct then P(E|L) = P(E|~L) = 1 and I wouldn't have been able to conclude that the wire likely wasn't live based on my existence, yet I clearly can.
Click to expand...

No, I am not confused; and, no, you have not refuted my argument. You have only misunderstood it, which, of course, could by my fault for not communicating it properly. Let me try again.

Jabba observes that he exists, and he believes that his observation that he exists is evidence for the hypothesis he is immortal, H_im, over the hypothesis that he is mortal, H_m. Now, let's assume that H_m is true. What is the probability that Jabba would observe that he exists under H_m? It's 1. Why? Consider the alternative: what is P(Jabba_observes_that_he_doesn't_exist | H_m)? it's 0. Therefore, P(Jabba_observes_that_he_exists| H_m) = 1. And this is true of H_im, as well. Therefore, P(E|H_m) = P(E|H_im) = 1.

The trick Jabba has unconsciously played is misstating E as "Jabba exists," when in fact E is "Jabba observes that Jabba exists." But Jabba could never observe his own nonexistence; therefore, Jabba's observation that he exists is the only outcome that Jabba could ever observe, which is why I've been saying that, for all intents and purposes, Jabba is conditioning his observation on his own existence. To put it another way, Jabba's sample space is E.
 
Last edited:
jt512 said:
"Tsuris"? Oy. You're Jewish? Since when do Jews believe in immortality?
Click to expand...

There are groups of Christians, particularly Gentile ones who are part of or support the "Jews for Jesus" movement, that fetishize aspects of Judaism. For example, they'll refrain from eating pork because of the Old Testament prohibitions. This will not, however, stop them from wearing cotton / polyester blends.

Years ago I read a blog post by a Jewish friend who found themselves in a church where the pastor was showing off the Shofar they had among the nick-knacks on their altar. My friend asked them about how they, as Christians, observed Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. The pastor had NO clue what my Jewish friend was talking about. They just displayed the Shofar they way they would a crucifix.

They also had a menorah, which they lit during Advent using "Convoluted rules the pastor seemed to understand but had nothing to do with Hanukkah." The pastor explained that it had to do with how "Jesus celebrated Hanukkah as a child." The pastor even had a sermon he gave during the children's service about Jesus celebrating Hanukkah as a child. When my friend tried to explain the timeline of Hanukkah, and how Jesus could NOT have celebrated it, the pastor condescendingly tut-tutted his concerns and brushed them off with, "I think I know my own Bible a bit better than you."

That's the level of argument Jabba is offering here. His equation makes about as much sense as a Pastor making up rules about how to light a menorah to commemorate how they think Jesus celebrated Hanukkah as a child.
 
Among the eleventy billion question we've begged Jabba to address is how he is defining 'immortality.'

For all the lamb bleating complaining that an exact replica of Jabba "wouldn't beeeeee meeee" and "wouldn't beeeee the saaaaaaaameeee!" he seems perfectly comfortable in accepting that a totally new person that shares no thoughts, memories, characteristics, or continuity would be him via reincarnation or whatever he's on about at the moment.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
- No. You're wrong. The particular 'ticket' selected depends on physics.
Click to expand...

godless dave said:
For a lottery? Yes, it does. And they work very carefully to make sure the ticket machines select numbers in an unpredictable way, so that for purposes of calculating odds you can ignore all the details of how ticket numbers are selected or how winning numbers are selected.
Click to expand...
- But, first of all, the lottery is not actually random -- however hard the engineers work on making it unpredictable.
- Science agrees that the particular bodies born are also not random -- just that we don't know nearly enough to predict what body will be born. In that respect, which ticket will be drawn and which body will be born are very similarly unpredictable.

- And then, second of all, what we call "likelihood" is based only on what is given. It isn't based upon anything else.
- In my most recent question, "So again, what is the random likelihood of now being during my lifetime -- given OOFLam, the big bang and a lifetime of 100 years?", we actually have four givens (my current existence is one of them).
- And, given those givens, the likelihood of now being during my lifetime is 1/140,000,000.
- Though, OOFLam should be replaced with OOFL.
 
Jabba said:
- But, first of all, the lottery is not actually random -- however hard the engineers work on making it unpredictable.
- Science agrees that the particular bodies born are also not random -- just that we don't know nearly enough to predict what body will be born. In that respect, which ticket will be drawn and which body will be born are very similarly unpredictable.

- And then, second of all, what we call "likelihood" is based only on what is given. It isn't based upon anything else.
- In my most recent question, "So again, what is the random likelihood of now being during my lifetime -- given OOFLam, the big bang and a lifetime of 100 years?", we actually have four givens (my current existence is one of them).
- And, given those givens, the likelihood of now being during my lifetime is 1/140,000,000.
- Though, OOFLam should be replaced with OOFL.
Click to expand...

- How does OOFLam make any difference to all the things that have to happen for you to exist? You keep ignoring this question. Whether or not you have a soul, all those same things had to happen.
- the only time you could exist is the time that you do. You are the result of your parents having had sex some nine months before you were born.
 
Jabba said:
- But, first of all, the lottery is not actually random -- however hard the engineers work on making it unpredictable.
- Science agrees that the particular bodies born are also not random -- just that we don't know nearly enough to predict what body will be born. In that respect, which ticket will be drawn and which body will be born are very similarly unpredictable.

- And then, second of all, what we call "likelihood" is based only on what is given. It isn't based upon anything else.
- In my most recent question, "So again, what is the random likelihood of now being during my lifetime -- given OOFLam, the big bang and a lifetime of 100 years?", we actually have four givens (my current existence is one of them).
- And, given those givens, the likelihood of now being during my lifetime is 1/140,000,000.
- Though, OOFLam should be replaced with OOFL.
Click to expand...

Do you understand that this is the only time you could be alive? If you weren't born when you were you wouldn't have been born at all.
 
jt512 said:
No, I am not confused; and, no, you have not refuted my argument. You have only misunderstood it, which, of course, could by my fault for not communicating it properly. Let me try again.

Jabba observes that he exists, and he believes that his observation that he exists is evidence for the hypothesis he is immortal, H_im, over the hypothesis that he is mortal, H_m. Now, let's assume that H_m is true. What is the probability that Jabba would observe that he exists under H_m? It's 1. Why? Consider the alternative: what is P(Jabba_observes_that_he_doesn't_exist | H_m)? it's 0. Therefore, P(Jabba_observes_that_he_exists| H_m) = 1. And this is true of H_im, as well. Therefore, P(E|H_m) = P(E|H_im) = 1.

The trick Jabba has unconsciously played is misstating E as "Jabba exists," when in fact E is "Jabba observes that Jabba exists." But Jabba could never observe his own nonexistence; therefore, Jabba's observation that he exists is the only outcome that Jabba could ever observe, which is why I've been saying that, for all intents and purposes, Jabba is conditioning his observation on his own existence. To put it another way, Jabba's sample space is E.
Click to expand...
jt,
- But "probability" is not what we're looking for -- we're looking for "likelihood."
- (Caveman, I can't help myself.)
 
godless dave said:
Do you understand that this is the only time you could be alive? If you weren't born when you were you wouldn't have been born at all.
Click to expand...
Dave,
- I do understand that (given OOFLam) -- but, that isn't the issue. Likelihood, very often, if not usually, refers to an E that already exists.
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- I do understand that (given OOFLam) -- but, that isn't the issue. Likelihood, very often, if not usually, refers to an E that already exists.
Click to expand...

Then the answer is 1. There is only one time period that your lifetime could have fallen into.

If you're talking about the likelihood of you existing, period, then that's a different question.
 
Jabba said:
- In my most recent question, "So again, what is the random likelihood of now being during my lifetime -- given OOFLam, the big bang and a lifetime of 100 years?", we actually have four givens (my current existence is one of them).
Click to expand...

We can therefore ignore all the other three givens, and ask: What is the probability that you exist at time T0, given that you exist at time T0? As phrased, the answer can only possibly be 1.

Dave
 
Jabba said:
- But "probability" is not what we're looking for -- we're looking for "likelihood."
Click to expand...

Let's see what the difference is.

Wiktionary said:
likelihood (countable and uncountable, plural likelihoods)
1.The probability of a specified outcome; the chance of something happening; probability; the state or degree of being probable. In all likelihood the meeting will be cancelled.The likelihood is that the inflation rate will continue to rise.
2.(statistics) The probability that some fixed outcome was generated by a random distribution with a specific parameter.
3.Likeness, resemblance. "There is no likelihood between pure light and black darkness, or between righteousness and reprobation." (Sir W. Raleigh)
4.(archaic) Appearance, show, sign, expression. "What of his heart perceive you in his face by any likelihood he showed to-day ?" (Shak)
Click to expand...

Assuming you're not asking what you look like (definitions 3 and 4), there is no actual distinction between probability and likelihood. Can you please therefore abandon this latest red herring?

Dave
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom