Proof of Immortality, VII

Status
Not open for further replies.
halleyscomet said:
I am developing a theory that there are more pink unicorns than blue ones. I’m finding Jabba’s argument style and mathematics are a perfect fit for advancing the claim. I am confident that I can reappropriate his tactics to argue my thesis even more convincingly that Jabba has argued his.
Click to expand...

Jabba said:
- IOW, I'm trying to re-evaluate the hypothesis that selves are mortal (H).
- Does anyone here accept the formula I'm using in trying to re-evaluate the probability of that hypothesis -- given my current existence?
- That formula is P(H|E)=P(E|H)P(H)/((P(E|H)P(H))+P(E|~H)P(~H)).
Click to expand...

Now, let's apply that to unicorn color statistics.

The existence of unicorns is, like the soul in Jabba's use of this equation, a given. I'm not going to mince words with y'all, but the Bible is VERY clear on both points. Here are some citations regarding unicorns:

https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=unicorn&qs_version=KJV

Back to the equation:

k = all background knowledge,
P = the probability of,
NR = Non-Religious hypothesis,
| = given,
me = me (my existence),
R = Religious hypothesis.
The formula for this probability is
P(NR|me & k) = P(me|NR)P(NR|k) / (P(me|NR)P(NR|k) + P(me|R)P(R|k)).
Click to expand...

Since we are adapting the equation for unicorn color analysis we can alter the key variables as follows:

k = all theoretical unicorn colors
NR = Pink Hypothesis
R = Blue Hypothesis

We will then relabel k as Color, NR as Pink and R as Blue.

The "me" from the equation that was used to refer to Jabba can be canceled out as an irrelevant flourish that adds unnecessary complication to the equation.

This gives us:

P(Pink|Color) =
P(Pink)P(Pink|Color) /
(P(Pink)P(Pink|Color) + P(Blue)P(Blue|Color))

The equation contains a few open intervals:

https://www.rapidtables.com/math/symbols/Basic_Math_Symbols.html#basic
(a,b) open interval (a,b) = {x | a < x < b}
Click to expand...

This is silly, as there is no condition for which we are contemplating infinite unicorns of any color, unless one wants to invoke a multiverse in the analysis, which is just plain silly in this context. This allows us to further simplify the equation:

P(Pink / Color) =
P(Pink)P(Pink / Color) /
(P(Pink)P(Pink / Color) + P(Blue)P(Blue / Color))

Why am I converting open intervals into division? Because we want the percentages and not the open intervals of course! (What? If Jabba can ignore what actual statisticians say about how to do it, so can I.)

Have at it and plug in some numbers! You'll find that in every conceivable outcome the ONLY way for blue unicorns to outnumber pink ones is for the number of blue unicorns out outnumber ALL unicorns!

Don't like it? Then you're just in denial:

UrDCUATl.png
 
Quote:
IOW, in the latter case, in a sense, each of us comes out of nowhere, we’re all “brand new.” The particular DNA seems to produce a bit of consciousness with an accompanying particular “self”, but if we were able to replicate the DNA, we wouldn’t get the same self.
Simply more question-begging. The notion that we are "brand new" and "come out of nowhere" are clearly concepts you believe in, but do not have any meaning under materialism. Therefore they cannot be used to falsify materialism. (fatal flaw 8 restated)

Quote:
P(H|E)=P(E|H)P(H)/P(~H) =
(7,000,000,000/ ∞)*.99/.01 =
Δx→0
This formulation is gibberish. The third line doesn't follow from the first in that a purported real number cannot equate to the extent of a limit, which is a concept and not a number. You haven't specified a limit. You haven't defined x. Division of a non-zero real number by infinity, where it is defined, is defined as zero, not "virtually zero." It is not defined for this particular circumstance. You have provided no rationale for ~H. ~H is not an hypothesis but a set of mutually exclusive hypotheses; the formulation must consider them individually.

Fatal flaw 11: Your formulation is pseudo-mathematical gibberish in a number of ways.
Click to expand...
- Sorry. So far, I can't do it. Maybe, someone could do it for me?
 
Jabba said:
- Sorry. So far, I can't do it. Maybe, someone could do it for me?
Click to expand...

You don't have enough of a theory to wrap a mathematical model around it. Your equation is presumptuous gibberish.

You need to go back to the drawing board and work out a remedial theory before you can start mucking around with calculating odds. My unicorn color theory has more meat to it than your gibberish about proving immortality through statistics.

To use an art metaphor, you've vomited onto a canvas and are insisting it's a photo-realistic painting of a cat. You are now trying to get people into an argument about how well you drew the whiskers when you are, in fact, pointing at the partially digested remnants of this morning's corn flakes.
 
Caveman,
- I've addressed all but #11. Are any of my explanations acceptable to you.
 
Jabba said:
Caveman,
- I've addressed all but #11. Are any of my explanations acceptable to you.
Click to expand...

Which is it, Jabba? Is the likelihood of your body existing a given (as you stated on May 4th) or is it virtually zero as you are now claiming?

And since you agree that the likelihood of a body and soul cannot be more likely than the body alone, why does it matter how unlikely the body is? Adding a soul changes nothing about how your body came to be. All it does is add another unlikely thing into the equation.

You have lost, Jabba. Give it up.
 
Jabba said:
Caveman,
- I've addressed all but #11. Are any of my explanations acceptable to you.
Click to expand...

If those excuses are the best that you can do then you've effectively conceded the debate. You CAN'T answer the fatal objections to your claims and you have admitted as such.

Thank you for your concession.
 
jond said:
Which is it, Jabba? Is the likelihood of your body existing a given (as you stated on May 4th) or is it virtually zero as you are now claiming?

And since you agree that the likelihood of a body and soul cannot be more likely than the body alone, why does it matter how unlikely the body is? Adding a soul changes nothing about how your body came to be. All it does is add another unlikely thing into the equation.

You have lost, Jabba. Give it up.
Click to expand...

Neither. He's already conceded he has no argument or defense. Whatever he's claming he admits he can't prove it or fix his equation.
 
Jabba, it seems like you are still claiming that in OOFLAM selves come out of nowhere, but earlier you said you were trying to disprove the materialist hypothesis, which is that selves are generated by brains. Which is it?
 
godless dave said:
Jabba, it seems like you are still claiming that in OOFLAM selves come out of nowhere, but earlier you said you were trying to disprove the materialist hypothesis, which is that selves are generated by brains. Which is it?
Click to expand...

And he agreed that the materialist hypothesis is that selves are generated by the brain. Which means he is now trying to weasel out of what he agreed to. Fortunately the record is preserved for all to see.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
I've tried to explain my logic re this maneuver more than once.
Click to expand...

No, you've just foisted it repeatedly.

No one here accepted any of my explanations.
Click to expand...

That's right, and they've gone on to show you how your argument fails. You keep returning to the same circular argument to defend it. Your argument is wrong, and you have been shown in detail how it's wrong.

Whatever, I'm still convinced that it makes sense...
Click to expand...

But it doesn't. Your fervent belief doesn't make special pleading and circular logic go away.

and I probably can't express my argument any better than I already have. So, I think I'll leave it there, and get on with other sub-issues...
Click to expand...

No, if you can't address your critics rebuttals, you lose the debate then and there. That's how losing works.
 
Jabba said:
- Sorry. So far, I can't do it. Maybe, someone could do it for me?
Click to expand...

No. You claimed to be a "certified statistician." If you are unable to correctly write your own equations and formulate your own models, then we have to consider that other claim a falsehood. Expert after expert has told you that you simply don't know what you're doing. You don't get to try to chummy up to your critics and make them do the work you can't do. If you are unequal to the task, you lose the debate because that's what it means to lose.
 
Jabba said:
Caveman,
- I've addressed all but #11. Are any of my explanations acceptable to you.
Click to expand...

Follow the format requirements. A single post, with each FF (except 5, 8, 9, 10) quoted properly and separately, and your response to each (being at most a couple of sentences) immediately beneath each quoted FF. No colouring - if you want/need you can nest quotes, like this:

inner
Click to expand...
outer
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom