Proof of Immortality, VII

Status
Not open for further replies.
JayUtah said:
You lose and I win, Jabba.
Click to expand...

You both lose.

Jabba failed over 5 years to support the argument, but you also failed over 5 years to find the error (ie the unsupported assertion of "P(E|I) > P(E|~I)"). Jabba failed over 5 years to support his asserted faith (in immortal souls), but you also failed over 5 years to support your asserted faith (in materialism) and at least he doesn't go around claiming that his faith is "espoused by science". Jabba over 5 years displayed a failure to present mathematics above the "not-even-wrong" level and a persistent ineducability regarding it, you over 5 years displayed a failure to present mathematics above the "wrong" level and a persistent ineducability regarding it.

I suppose you could claim victory by some abstract debate rule where you win by default, but it's no more than the victory of the one saying "1 + 1 = 3" over the one who can't even write down a sum in the first place.
 
caveman1917 said:
you over 5 years displayed a failure to present mathematics above the "wrong" level and a persistent ineducability regarding it.
Click to expand...

Why should ANYONE be expected to provide an equation to counter Jabba's math themed fan-fiction? There's nothing in Jabba's equation to counter because it is rank gibberish.

It's like claiming you'd need to calculate the skull strength needed to survive being hit on the head with an anvil in order to successfully claim that Wile E Coyote would be killed by the majority of what he experiences in the Roadrunner cartoons were he a real animal.
 
Oh Jesus the Thread Nanny has a cameo this episode. We usually save that for the season finale.
 
Dave Rogers said:
And that's what Jay means when he says that the fact of Jabba's existence at this particular time is not a new piece of information. Jabba is discussing his supposed proof at this particular time; it may be deduced from this that he exists at this particular time. There is no additional information from which to draw any Bayesian inference.
Click to expand...

Refer back to the electrical wire example. You have agreed that the problem depends on this ratio: P(E|L) / P(E|~L). Now suppose that E is changed from "I exist" to "I currently exist" then all that happens is that P(E|L) and P(E|~L) are reduced by the same factor and that change hence doesn't influence the result. Jabba's change is simply irrelevant, nothing more.

"I currently exist" are not magic words, just like "I exist" aren't. Use real math, not magic word math, there's no such thing as magic word math. Since you seem to like to claim fallacy names (Unsupported inequality fallacy) I'll go ahead and claim the "Magic word math fallacy" for arguing that a standard mathematical procedure or theorem does or does not apply because some magic word appears. Here are some examples:

1. You can't prove a negative.

In this case the magic word is "not".

2. The probability of having a body and a soul can not be greater than the probability of having only a body.

In this case the magic word is "and".

3. The event you're conditioning on is "I exist" so you can't do Bayesian inference.

Magic words being "I exist".

And now the apparently latest:

4. The event you're conditioning on is "I currently exist" so you can't do Bayesian inference.

Magic words being "I currently exist".

There is no such thing as magic word math.
 
Last edited:
halleyscomet said:
Why should ANYONE be expected to provide an equation to counter Jabba's math themed fan-fiction?
Click to expand...

Nobody is expected to. JayUtah though regularly chose to assert mathematical claims and explicitly saying "mathematically speaking" or things to that effect. Almost none of which stand up to any scrutiny.
 
caveman1917 said:
You both lose.
Click to expand...
Nope.

caveman1917 said:
Jabba failed over 5 years to support the argument, but you also failed over 5 years to find the error (ie the unsupported assertion of "P(E|I) > P(E|~I)").
Click to expand...
Nope. This has been pointed out in detail. Jabba has failed to argue anything the contrary. Over the past years, Jabba has told you that you are flat out wrong.

caveman1917 said:
Jabba failed over 5 years to support his asserted faith (in immortal souls), but you also failed over 5 years to support your asserted faith (in materialism) and at least he doesn't go around claiming that his faith is "espoused by science".
Click to expand...
wrong.

caveman1917 said:
Jabba over 5 years displayed a failure to present mathematics above the "not-even-wrong" level and a persistent ineducability regarding it, you over 5 years displayed a failure to present mathematics above the "wrong" level and a persistent ineducability regarding it.
Click to expand...
Wrong.

caveman1917 said:
I suppose you could claim victory by some abstract debate rule where you win by default, but it's no more than the victory of the one saying "1 + 1 = 3" over the one who can't even write down a sum in the first place.
Click to expand...
Amusing. You claim 1+1=3 when everyone else including Jay claims 1+1=2.
 
caveman1917 said:
Nobody is expected to. JayUtah though regularly chose to assert mathematical claims and explicitly saying "mathematically speaking" or things to that effect. Almost none of which stand up to any scrutiny.
Click to expand...

Citation needed. I'd like to see some examples of what you're talking about.
 
Monza said:
....

Making a copy of you doesn't bring you "back" to life. Making a copy brings another you "into" life. The copy is you; it is just another you. That is, it is a copy. There are now two yous. There is no "seeing out two sets of eyes" or anything like that. There are literally two separate Jabbas. ....
Click to expand...

Concise and perfect.

Because of this, Jabba, you will ignore it. Then you will complain "WE" are rude and biased.
Do you understand now?
 
halleyscomet said:
Citation needed. I'd like to see some examples of what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

You mean stuff like how, supposedly, it is mathematically impossible for P(~H) to be greater than P(H) because muh magic word? You can find it if you wanna go look for it, I ain't gonna bother.
 
caveman1917 said:
You mean stuff like how, supposedly, it is mathematically impossible for P(~H) to be greater than P(H) because muh magic word?
Click to expand...

Of course it's impossible. P(H) is based on the unlikelihood of the body existing. ~H assumes the body also exists, but that it is also complemented by a soul. So P(~H) can't possibly be more likely, since the likelihood of the body is the same. Of course, the likelihood of the soul would have to be 1 in order for P(~H) to not be _less_ than that of P(H).
 
Argumemnon said:
Of course it's impossible. P(H) is based on the unlikelihood of the body existing. ~H assumes the body also exists, but that it is also complemented by a soul. So P(~H) can't possibly be more likely, since the likelihood of the body is the same. Of course, the likelihood of the soul would have to be 1 in order for P(~H) to not be _less_ than that of P(H).
Click to expand...

"Oh my gosh!!! They all have legs!!!! They don't just have only a torso but also complemented by legs!! But it's impossible!! But muh mathz!!!! Waaaaaaaah!!!11!!1!1!!"
 
caveman1917 said:
"Oh my gosh!!! They all have legs!!!! They don't just have only a torso but also complemented by legs!! But it's impossible!! But muh mathz!!!! Waaaaaaaah!!!11!!1!1!!"
Click to expand...

It's not my argument, but jabba's. He's the one who is arguing that there are "odds" to his body existing. I'm pointing out that in a dualistic universe these "odds" are still there, so it's impossible for "jabba" to be more likely in that universe than in the materialistic one.
 
caveman1917 said:
GOTO 1892
Click to expand...

Some people come here to have arguments. You seem to be here to show that you can't.

trivially refuted by noting that ~H is not a subset of H.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was a subset. If you bothered to read my posts rather than look for a reason to disagree and be silly, you'd notice that I said that both H and ~H require the same body to exist, so if the odds of that body existing are important to calculate P(H), they are important to calculate P(~H), and cannot be more likely in the latter.
 
Argumemnon said:
I didn't say it was a subset. If you bothered to read my posts rather than look for a reason to disagree and be silly, you'd notice that I said that both H (people only have a torso) and ~H (people have a torso and legs) require the same body torso to exist, so if the odds of that body torso existing are important to calculate P(H), they are important to calculate P(~H), and cannot be more likely in the latter.
Click to expand...

ftfy

GOTO 1892
 
caveman1917 said:
ftfy

GOTO 1892
Click to expand...

Again, you're not making any sense. Perhaps if you tried to make sense to someone else than you, it would help.

Nobody said anything about torsos. You do understand that torsos are part of bodies, right? Again, you should take the "odds" thing up with Jabba, not me. Personally I don't buy that there are odds to people existing at all.

This is the problem with you popping into this thread once in a while just to poke people in the ribs for your amusement: you end up looking like a fool who's not been following the discussion at all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom