Proof of Immortality, VII

[Jabba]

- Now, realizing that I hadn't been addressing the right arguments, I'll go back and clarify my answers to FF 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 11.

Since you've posted your fringe reset "opening statement" here, will you consent to respond -- here -- to a systematic and thorough response to it?

- I think that, using Bayesian statistics, I can virtually disprove the consensus scientific hypothesis that we each have only one, finite, life to live…

You already admitted you can't, but that you "still believe [you're] right." You don't understand how Bayesian inference works. You habitually misstate the scientific consensus.
Fatal flaw 1: You err in formulating a Bayesian inference.

- Again, this is a claim that I have, since, revised. My new claim is

1. New information may affect the probability of an existing hypothesis (H).
2. An old event may be new info if it hasn’t already been considered in the current probability of H.
3. If an event is unlikely – given a particular hypothesis (H) – but the event occurs, the occurrence will tend to have a negative effect upon the probability of H — but, it need not.
4. It could be that given the complementary hypothesis – the event would be even more unlikely.
5. Or, it could be that all possible events – given H – are equally unlikely (e.g. a fair lottery) -- if so, the particular event needs to be "set apart" in a way that is relevant to the hypothesis in order to impact the hypothesis.
6. If – given H – an event is impossible, but does occur, H must be wrong.
7. Otherwise, what we call Bayesian statistics is used to evaluate the effect of a new and relevant event upon the probability of H.
8. I claim that by using my own current existence as the new info, Bayesian Statistics, virtually proves that we humans are not mortal.

 

[John Jones]

- Again, this is a claim that I have, since, revised. My new claim is

:facepalm:

Not another fringe reset! What does this make, 75?

What is it this time? New made-up numbers? New equivocations? New faulty logic? New lies?

 

[jond]

- Again, this is a claim that I have, since, revised. My new claim is

Why do you think adding a soul makes your body’s existence more likely?

Or are you back to claiming that the body’s existence isn’t what’s in question? In which case you are arguing against something that has no relationship with the materialist model.

 

[caveman1917]

The proof of his hypothesis therefore rests on the premise that his hypothesis is unprovable. It's possibly the most absurd logical fallacy I've ever seen.

It's beautiful in a way.

 

[jond]

Oh, and Jabba: pretending you haven't been caught equivocating between your versions of E won't help you with a neutral jury. They can see your posts, and they will continue to be highlighted until you acknowledge and accept one or the other, and the ramifications of it.

 

[JayUtah]

- Again, this is a claim that I have, since, revised. My new claim is

Jabba, why is it so evidently difficult for you to follow the simplest instructions?

One post, all the the responses to all the fatal flaws in a single post. No dialectics. No walls of quotations. This is an exercise in surveying your argument at the highest level quickly, a breadth-first examination of it. We're not going to stop every day and allow debate on the one or two things you've trickled out that day.

Why? Because this is how you stall the discussion. I'm giving you the opportunity to prove your argument has something more to it that endlessly bogging down in some minute detail or another. So far you've provided us ample evidence that that's all you know how to do.

Shape up and do what I ask, in the way I asked you to do it, please..

 

[RoboTimbo]

Which would also apply to mountains and Volkswagens and everything else.

Why can't you address that, Jabba? Why do you run from so many questions?

Answer the question, Jabba.

 

[Monza]

Monza,
- That was a mistake. (1/10100) should have been (1/10¹⁰⁰).

You are missing the point. I am just confused by your math. You gave some "estimates" for probability and when plugged into your equation, you get the following:

P(NR|me&k) = P(me|NR)*.99 / (P(me|NR)*.99 + .01*.01)

To make it read easier, I only substituted X for P(me|NR) giving...

P(NR|me&k) = X / (X+.0001)

Where does the value of 1/10¹⁰⁰ come from? Do you mean that P(me|NR) is estimated at 1/10¹⁰⁰? If so, it seems strange. I just sat down and estimated P(me|NR) at .9918 which gives...

P(NR|me&k) = .9998 or virtually 1.

 

[Agatha]

You are missing the point. I am just confused by your math. You gave some "estimates" for probability and when plugged into your equation, you get the following:

P(NR|me&k) = P(me|NR)*.99 / (P(me|NR)*.99 + .01*.01)

To make it read easier, I only substituted X for P(me|NR) giving...

P(NR|me&k) = X / (X+.0001)

Where does the value of 1/10¹⁰⁰ come from? Do you mean that P(me|NR) is estimated at 1/10¹⁰⁰? If so, it seems strange. I just sat down and estimated P(me|NR) at .9918 which gives...

P(NR|me&k) = .9998 or virtually 1.

A cynical person might suggest that Jabba's "estimates" have been chosen to produce the result he wanted.

 

[JayUtah]

A cynical person might suggest that Jabba's "estimates" have been chosen to produce the result he wanted.

You might say that, but I couldn't possibly comment.

 

[The Norseman]

We're not going to stop every day and allow debate on the one or two things you've trickled out that day.

Unfortunately, that's exactly what's been happening and apparently will continue to do so.

Why? Because this is how you stall the discussion. I'm giving you the opportunity to prove your argument has something more to it that endlessly bogging down in some minute detail or another. So far you've provided us ample evidence that that's all you know how to do.

And that's all that will ever happen. He knows this and nothing so far will change his mind.

I'm not saying that anyone should no longer respond, but we should be realistic here at least. We're being strung along; we might as well admit it and go from there.

 

[Mojo]

A cynical person might suggest that Jabba's "estimates" have been chosen to produce the result he wanted.

Are you calling me cynical?

 

[Agatha]

Perish the thought!

 

[JayUtah]

Unfortunately, that's exactly what's been happening and apparently will continue to do so.

And if it does, he'll have proven that those skeptics were right about him all along despite his protests. I can't help it if people act foolishly. But I can make them have to lie conspicuously about why they're doing it.

 

[The Norseman]

And if it does, he'll have proven that those skeptics were right about him all along despite his protests. I can't help it if people act foolishly. But I can make them have to lie conspicuously about why they're doing it.

Yes, you're doing an excellent job too and I appreciate your as well as many others' insights.

 

[Jabba]

Caveman,
- I am a currently existing human self. My claim is that this event is more likely if human selves are immortal than if each potential self has only one finite life at most. Do you still disagree?

Please refer to the following instruction:

You will refer to all such probabilities by these symbols. You do not get to deviate from that formulation.

(that is meant to include the events themselves as well)
I have rewritten your post accordingly as:

Originally Posted by Jabba
Caveman,
- E[*]. My claim is that P(E|I) > P(E|~I). Do you still disagree?


Please follow those instructions in the future. As to your question: yes, of course, but do let me know if you ever get around to supporting your claim rather than repeating it. Do you think repeating something makes it true?
* asserting the data

Caveman,
- (Einstein vs Bohr or Wheeler-Dewitt?)
- I'll try to do as you ask. I had revised my own expression in an attempt to make sure that my claim worked. I don't think that your attachment about "being born" is appropriate.

None of which in any way supports the claim that you are more likely to exist (to have been born) if you are immortal than if you are mortal...

- Anyway, 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.

 

[jond]

Caveman,
- (Einstein vs Bohr or Wheeler-Dewitt?)
- I'll try to do as you ask. I had revised my own expression in an attempt to make sure that my claim worked. I don't think that your attachment about "being born" is appropriate.


- Anyway, 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.

And yet, you have acknowledged that the only way to be immortal is to have another unlikely thing (soul) in addition to your body. Which means it is impossible for your current existence to be more likely if you are immortal. (And you have also agreed to this, back on May 4.)

 

[jond]

Caveman,
- (Einstein vs Bohr or Wheeler-Dewitt?)
- I'll try to do as you ask. I had revised my own expression in an attempt to make sure that my claim worked. I don't think that your attachment about "being born" is appropriate.


- Anyway, 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.

Also: you think that your current existence is more likely if you are immortal, but you have provided no support for the claim. You simply keep asserting it and putting in an absurd number you’ve made up then simply state that OMG i’m SO unlikely the alternative MUST be more likely.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I had revised my own expression in an attempt to make sure that my claim worked.

"One and four are seven" is still just as wrong as "1+4=7". Rewording it doesn't make it "work".

Do as you were instructed.

 

[Mojo]

Caveman,
- (Einstein vs Bohr or Wheeler-Dewitt?)
- I'll try to do as you ask. I had revised my own expression in an attempt to make sure that my claim worked. I don't think that your attachment about "being born" is appropriate.

Of course it is: if you hadn't been born your existence would not have been observed.