caveman1917
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2015
- Messages
- 8,143
No that did not comply with that instruction, here's the correction:
Again, refer to all probabilities and events by their symbolic formulation as I gave some posts ago.
Proof of Immortality, VII
- Thread starter abaddon
- Start date
- Status
No that did not comply with that instruction, here's the correction:
Again, refer to all probabilities and events by their symbolic formulation as I gave some posts ago.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Nobody agrees with you, and you have offered no evidence to support this assertion.
Dave
jond
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 3,440
Apparently, Jabba subscribes to the stork theory?
halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2012
- Messages
- 10,259
Do you have a reason for believing your existence is more likely if you’re immortal beyond wishful thinking?
If so, do you have any evidence to support that idea? Your weird random number excretion is amusing but doesn’t support any of your claims.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
I think one of his claims is that if his soul was immortal it would exist at all points in time, hence his occasional comments that it is unlikely that he exists now rather than at another time, and his objection to his having been born as a condition for his existence.
But, of course, if he hadn't been born his existence couldn't be observed, so this attempt to force a value of 1 for the likelihood of his existence being observed if he is immortal fails.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
And all you've done for five years is repeat this same belief, dress it up with bogus notation, and beg everyone to accept it as a mathematical proof.
Any clue when your corrected responses to the fatal flaws will be ready? You've had six months.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Monza,
- I'm not totally sure of your question -- so, I'll have to "play it by ear," one note at a time.
- I am claiming that P(me|NR) -- or X -- is equal to 1/10100. I claim that because I think that the real likelihood of me currently existing -- given NR (or OOFLam) -- is virtually zero, but that 10-100 is small enough to make my point.
- I suspect that doesn't answer your question...
- I don't understand how you got .9918.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Really? It's pretty obvious. The number you get out of the model varies greatly depending on the number you put into the model. The outcome of the model as it affects your proof changes from "confirm" to "reject" if you use a different number than one of your guesses. Hence it's important that the numbers be more than guesses.
Which is a number you just pulled out of your backside, and therefore has no meaning or relation to anything.
There is no such thing as "virtual zero." And you've never proven any value for this likelihood or provided a single iota of data to substantiate your beleif. Before you even got started you decided that life without immortality must have a very, very low probability. All you're doing now is trying to disguise that preconception so as not to make it look so obviously like a begged question.
Asked and answered. It is either zero, because you've divided by infinity, or it is a finite number that must be the result of some computation you can elucidate. You don't get to pick random small numbers to compensate for your inability to foist the concept of "virtual zero."
Translation: I have no clue how math works, but I'm just going to continue inventing ad hoc methods and concepts to see how many people I can fool into thinking I'm a genius.
You know it doesn't answer the question. You don't have an answer for the question, or any questions. This is why you don't answer questions and instead treat ISF as your own private pulpit.
How's your answer to the fatal flaws coming? Will it take another six months?
He chose a different random number than you did, providing exactly as much rationale for his guess as you have for your guess. A proper answer to his question would be to show how your method for choosing that value is more objective and defensible than his.
I swear to a God I don't even believe in and Sonny Jesus that if you say "I claim" one more time without backing anything up.
halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2012
- Messages
- 10,259
Perhaps we could make this a fundraiser. We can set up a pledge drive to donate a quarter to a skeptical charity every time he makes an unfounded claim to support a previous unfounded claim. We’d need to set up a time limit though. If we leave it open ended all the donors would be bankrupted.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
- I'll try again.
- You want me to use these meanings for these symbols.
- I = "people are immortal"
- E = "I exist"
- Unfortunately, I don't think those meanings properly express the logic of my claim. For the moment, at least, I think that the best way to express the logic of my claim involves the following meanings for E and I.
- I = I am immortal.
- E = I currently exist.
- So,
- I think that P(E|I) > P(E|~I) because E and P(E|I) > P(E|~I).,
- IOW, I think that P(E|I) > P(E|~I) because I currently exist and my current existence is more likely if I'm immortal than if I have only one finite life to live.
- So far, I can't figure out why that logic doesn't work.
- Maybe an even easier way to express the logic is that I'm much more likely to currently exist if reincarnation is real than if we each have only one finite life to live.
jond
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 3,440
How does adding a soul (which is what would be reincarnated) make the existence of your body more likely?
Jabba all of our patience is worn thin with your nonsense.
We don't want you to change "the symbols" (WTF), we want you to actually reference meaningful numbers drawn from actual data not made up nonsense you've pulled from your backside.
We want you to stop ignoring everybody and only rudely talking to whatever poster you feel is "on your side" enough to twist their words into some out of context soundbite you can pretend agrees with you, we REALLY want you to stop routinely lying about who agrees with you, and we want you to actually provide intellectually significant evidence or barring that at least meaningful contextual... anything for any of the nonsense you've been spouting FOR FIVE EVERLOVING FORNICATION UNDER CARNAL KNOWLEDGE YEARS NOW!
jond
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 3,440
Jabba, did you lie on December 27 when you agreed that in materialism the only thing required to explain your self is the existence of your body? Did you lie on December 30when you agreed that the only way to get to immortality (or reincarnation) is to add another element to your body? Or did you lie when you stated on May 4 that you agree that two unlikely things cannot be more likely than one of those by itself?
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Hogwash. Dozens of people over five years have given you excellent treatises on why it doesn't work -- which you've roundly ignored.
After a six-month delay in addressing the high-level list of why your argument fails, you seem to have decided you can't do it after a brief attempt. If you can't overcome the refutation of your argument, your proof fails.
No, that's just the same broken logic with some cosmetic changes.
Which is exactly why we want Jabba to drop this nonsense.
One of the reasons I bristle at the various levels of thread nannying this thread often gets is that this is not the only place Jabba is acting this little skit of his out. We stop "engaging" him and he'll just go elsewhere.
I want Jabba to drop this foolish crusade entirely and enjoy the years he has left. He's mentioned several times an extended family he is obviously very fond of. He should not be wasting his Golden Years acting out some passion play to rid himself of the sort of Philosophy 101 existential crisis most people get over by their middle ages.
halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2012
- Messages
- 10,259
People react differently to confronting their own mortality. Some choose to expend vast portions of their life denying the fact that life is finite. It's sad really. They become so lost in culturing a delusion that they waste the time they have.
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
- Status