From the link, Jabba's OP reads in part: "- I seem to have written an 8 page paper virtually proving -- through Bayesian statistics -- that we are immortal (or something similar). Obviously, I must be doing something wrong..."
Feel free to demonstrate that the act of copying you would necessitate killing you.
Oh, I understood that; I figured I might just throw him a tiny little proto-bone and point out the one thing he did say that's right.
Ah. Yeah. Oops. I didn't even consider that.
No, I am not criticising you in any way shape or form. I am simply telling you exactly how Jabba will represent you on his borked site. Watch out, because you will be cited as support regardless of what you actually said. I wish that were not true, but having read Jabba's site to date, I know it is true.
Indeed, Jabba's defense against the first of a dozen fatal flaws in his argument is simply to insist that he must be formulating a Bayesian inference correctly, contrary to what has been claimed here. Except that it's been also claimed elsewhere, and shown elsewhere with detailed explanations. It's also been shown here. They even went so far as to accuse Jabba of reinventing probability thoery in order to shoehorn his religious claims into statistics.
I appreciate your wanting to clarify so thank you; I didn't take it as a criticism at all. Still, I'm actually slightly embarrassed for not seeing it before.
- Here, the new sense of self would be different in that regard -- and, we have no way of predicting "who" it will be instead.
Agatha,
