Proof of Immortality, VII

[JayUtah]

I didn't want him to think that his hypocrisy went unnoticed. It's another dimension of his innate dishonesty.

Indeed. I just want to hang some neon lights on the billboard you've erected showing his dishonesty. "I can't be bothered to address all your points because I don't have time, but since I'm cornered let me post a long blob of rambling text, carefully numbered for reference." Or, "I need you guys to remind me what you said about this, but I also just posted a huge anthology quoting a dozen of our previous posts that lead up to my one-line comment."

 

[abaddon]

Jabba,

You have made a big deal over the years of how an imaginary "jury" of people who do not exist will judge your arguments.

How do you think they will view you now? I know the answer to that question, but do you?

 

[Mojo]

...but I suppose he figures that it's still somehow a going concern if he can keep people posting in this thread.

It's like cdesign proponentsists wanting to 'teach the controversy'; as long as he can prolong the discussion he can pretend that there's a valid issue to be discussed.

 

[JoeMorgue]

100 quadrillion to one. "Virtually zero". There. Are you happy now? Put it on your *********** map.

Couple of weeks back in this trainwreck I actually presented Jabba with an actual number he could use in this "equation."

Assuming that all matter in the observable universe was being used to calculate new and unique "thoughts" at Bremerton's Limit from the moment of the Big Bang until the heat death of the universe.

3.4 x 10^60 kilograms of matter calculating at 1.36 x 10^50 bits per second per kilogram of matter with each "thought" taking 800 bits of data, about a sentence's worth, to get across, for a period of 3.154 X 10^116 seconds.

1.458 x 10^227. That it's. That the number of conceptual thoughts that could be generated if literally all the resources in the entire universe were working at maximum efficiency toward the sole goal of generating as many

So any one individual "concept" in this universe would have a probability of 1 in 1.458 x 10^227. This is peak improbable. 1 in 1.458 x 10^227. That is the Plank Improbability. That is what probability would mean if all of space and time was turned into a Bayesian Overloader with the sole goal of making each individual concept as improbable as possible.

For some reason the Master of Debate didn't want to use that number.

 

[tinribmancer]

Couple of weeks back in this trainwreck I actually presented Jabba with an actual number he could use in this "equation."

Assuming that all matter in the observable universe was being used to calculate new and unique "thoughts" at Bremerton's Limit from the moment of the Big Bang until the heat death of the universe.

3.4 x 10^60 kilograms of matter calculating at 1.36 x 10^50 bits per second per kilogram of matter with each "thought" taking 800 bits of data, about a sentence's worth, to get across, for a period of 3.154 X 10^116 seconds.

1.458 x 10^227. That it's. That the number of conceptual thoughts that could be generated if literally all the resources in the entire universe were working at maximum efficiency toward the sole goal of generating as many

So any one individual "concept" in this universe would have a probability of 1 in 1.458 x 10^227. This is peak improbable. 1 in 1.458 x 10^227. That is the Plank Improbability. That is what probability would mean if all of space and time was turned into a Bayesian Overloader with the sole goal of making each individual concept as improbable as possible.

For some reason the Master of Debate didn't want to use that number.

He probably wanted to come up with his own number. Remember that there can only be one, JoeMorgue.

 

[SOdhner]

- What is the likelihood that the specific "contents" of the big bang would be such as to lead to your existence -- and specifically, that it would lead to your existence right "now"?

Jabba,

There's no possible way this question doesn't lead back to the Sharpshooter problem which you've already said you refuse to discuss.

Also, it's tough to give an actual answer to this because the laws of physics weren't the same at the Big Bang and so getting into a discussion about why it was like it was and whether or not it could have been another way isn't something science is prepared to do right now. Maybe someday.

Even so, you have three basic outcomes possible:

1. It's essentially 1 (and if you look at actual probability rather than trying to figure out how likely it was before it happened then it *is* one because it *did* happen). In this case, we're guaranteed and your argument is broken and ruined and you lose.

2. It's essentially 0, but so is everything else and so singling out one thing and saying that it's unlikely and therefore special or immortal is absurd and a blatant use of the Sharpshooter fallacy and so your argument is broken and ruined and you lose.

3. It's somewhere in the middle, not super likely or unlikely but one of some limited number of options like 1/12 or something and in that case it's not unlikely enough to make a big deal out of AND you still have the Sharpshooter thing and so your argument is broken and ruined and you lose.


So...

It doesn't really matter. Put any number in there that you want, it doesn't help your case.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Couple of weeks back in this trainwreck I actually presented Jabba with an actual number he could use in this "equation."

Assuming that all matter in the observable universe was being used to calculate new and unique "thoughts" at Bremerton's Limit from the moment of the Big Bang until the heat death of the universe.

3.4 x 10^60 kilograms of matter calculating at 1.36 x 10^50 bits per second per kilogram of matter with each "thought" taking 800 bits of data, about a sentence's worth, to get across, for a period of 3.154 X 10^116 seconds.

1.458 x 10^227. That it's. That the number of conceptual thoughts that could be generated if literally all the resources in the entire universe were working at maximum efficiency toward the sole goal of generating as many

So any one individual "concept" in this universe would have a probability of 1 in 1.458 x 10^227. This is peak improbable. 1 in 1.458 x 10^227. That is the Plank Improbability. That is what probability would mean if all of space and time was turned into a Bayesian Overloader with the sole goal of making each individual concept as improbable as possible.

For some reason the Master of Debate didn't want to use that number.

I suppose it all adds up to 42?

... I'm not kidding. That is the number I shall give, in the unlikely event that Jabba should ever ask me.

Hans

 

[JayUtah]

Also, it's tough to give an actual answer to this because the laws of physics weren't the same at the Big Bang and so getting into a discussion about why it was like it was and whether or not it could have been another way isn't something science is prepared to do right now.

It doesn't really matter. Put any number in there that you want, it doesn't help your case.

Jabba pulls this red herring every time this question comes up. He drives the origin of the analysis all the way back to before the Big Bang and solicits estimates of probability. He then parlays "It's incalculable" to "It's incalculably large," thus making the Big Denominator in his likelihood ratio contingent on all universes that could supposedly have arisen. Keep in mind that Jabba decided that P(E|H) had to be very small before he even started with his proof. He admits this. So for years he's been casting about trying to find some pseudo-mathematical, pseudo-philosophical, or pseudo-scientific post-justification for why it has to be very small. It generally involves showing that his little solitary existence, as he is presently constituted, is governed by a ginormous denominator of possible outcomes. Therefore he is special in a way that mere "chemistry" can't describe.

As you say, it always comes back to the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. It doesn't matter how big that denominator is if you've reckoned your numerator after the fact and started reasoning in a space where that numerator has to be a given. And Jabba knows that error is fatal to his claims, which is why he employs all the out-of-band methods to avoid discussing it. Jabba has declared himself to be the master of Effective Debate, which seems to mean that everyone he talks to must necessarily be relevantly deficient and therefore in need of his guidance. When he gets stuck -- which is often -- he retreats back to a role that combines moderator, referee, and professor and purports to set forth rules to ensure the debate is "effective." He wants to "organize" and shepherd a debate, not actually have one. That's why he pretends that leaving aside the Texas sharpshooter fallacy for now is strictly a moderatorial move that purports to benefit the debate as a whole -- you know, instead of being a rather obvious evasion.

 

[Jabba]

Thermal,
- I'm not sure that what I'm about to ask actually addresses what you just said, but I need to find out.
- What is the likelihood that the specific "contents" of the big bang would be such as to lead to your existence -- and specifically, that it would lead to your existence right "now"?

Jabba:
The probability was one. It happened.

Thermal,

- Keep in mind that "likelihood" and "probability," as they are used in Bayesian statistics, are not the same.

- It seems to me that in order to determine the likelihood of my current existence -- given modern science, OOFLam and determinism -- we need to assume that the original content of the big bang was such as to 'ultimately' cause my current existence.
- In order to do that, those original ingredients had to do lots of other things -- such as, produce the planet we call "Earth" (and also, its moon -- just for instance). And, in other words, we need to determine the random likelihood of all those specific necessary original factors -- however many there were.
- I had best leave it at that for now...

 

[JayUtah]

Keep in mind that "likelihood" and "probability," as they are used in Bayesian statistics, are not the same.

And you keep formulating both wrong. SOdhner is displaying a better understanding of likelihood than you do. Likelihood is probability distribution across remaining parameters given one of the parameters. Within that space, the probability of the fixed parameter is 1. You seem to think otherwise, which is the essence of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. You know the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, that thing you refuse to describe in your own words to test your understanding of it. You know, that thing you told everyone you weren't going to discuss right now because you wanted to focus on some irrelevant detail.

It seems to me that in order to determine the likelihood of my current existence -- given modern science...

No. You don't get to just throw in offhand parameters.

In order to do that, those original ingredients had to do lots of other things -- such as, produce the planet we call "Earth" (and also, its moon -- just for instance). And, in other words, we need to determine the random likelihood of all those specific necessary original factors --

Wow, look at that -- exactly the argument I predicted 15 minutes ago you would deploy.

I had best leave it at that for now...

No, you need to answer his questions instead of trying to lecture him on subjects you don't know anything about. He's pointing out that the numbers you seek are incalculable. That is, there is no rational way to calculate what values they might be, whether you want to compute them as probabilities or as likelihoods. And here you are trying to parlay that incalculability into foisting a random-variable model.

 

[sackett]

Yessir! Fightin' mad!

...

- It seems to me that ... I had best leave it ... for now...

I've edited the above out of

Insolence! Sheer insolence!

Why heck, I'm offended at my own behaviour.

You can imagine how some of these other guys make me feel.

 

[Mojo]

Thermal,

- Keep in mind that "likelihood" and "probability," as they are used in Bayesian statistics, are not the same.

- It seems to me that in order to determine the likelihood of my current existence -- given modern science, OOFLam and determinism -- we need to assume that the original content of the big bang was such as to 'ultimately' cause my current existence.
- In order to do that, those original ingredients had to do lots of other things -- such as, produce the planet we call "Earth" (and also, its moon -- just for instance). And, in other words, we need to determine the random likelihood of all those specific necessary original factors -- however many there were.

Why would any of those factors change if you had an immortal soul?

 

[Belz...]

Do you think that you had to exist?

Irrelevant, but given determinism, there was no other possibility. That's why the odds of you existing are 1.

 

[Belz...]

- Keep in mind that "likelihood" and "probability," as they are used in Bayesian statistics, are not the same.

Stop lecturing people on topics you don't understand.

- It seems to me that in order to determine the likelihood of my current existence -- given modern science, OOFLam and determinism -- we need to assume that the original content of the big bang was such as to 'ultimately' cause my current existence.

No. Given determinism everything has a likelihood of 1.

- In order to do that, those original ingredients had to do lots of other things -- such as, produce the planet we call "Earth" (and also, its moon -- just for instance). And, in other words, we need to determine the random likelihood of all those specific necessary original factors -- however many there were.

You just said that determinism was a given. Who said anything about random events?

 

[Thermal]

Thermal,

- Keep in mind that "likelihood" and "probability," as they are used in Bayesian statistics, are not the same.

- It seems to me that in order to determine the likelihood of my current existence -- given modern science, OOFLam and determinism -- we need to assume that the original content of the big bang was such as to 'ultimately' cause my current existence.
- In order to do that, those original ingredients had to do lots of other things -- such as, produce the planet we call "Earth" (and also, its moon -- just for instance). And, in other words, we need to determine the random likelihood of all those specific necessary original factors -- however many there were.
- I had best leave it at that for now...

Well...yeah. If you throw billions of packs of cards in the air, some will land in a perfect straight flush. Some of those cards landed in such a way as to produce the moon and Jabba. And in the vastness of time and space, that happened. Are you are suggesting that it was so unlikely that..something...must have had a hand in making sure those things all happened? If not, I don't see why it should seem so improbable.

Eta: and if we knew enough about those cards, their weight and other forces acting on them, it could be predict where and how they would land right out of the gate. That doesn't mean that the straight flushes are so staggeringly unlikely; they are inevitable

 

[Pixel42]

Jabba's existence is not the equivalent of a straight flush, it is the equivalent of any random hand of cards. Please don't encourage his delusion that he is in any way special, Thermal.

 

[JayUtah]

Well...yeah. If you throw billions of packs of cards in the air, some will land in a perfect straight flush.

Which, as Pixel42 points out, matters only if there's some reason ahead of time why the standard poker hands will be the significant outcomes in the exercise. Jabba's game is that he assigns significance to the outcomes only after the outcomes are observed. And the reason for the significance is that they were observed and were, as he reckons it, unlikely.

That doesn't mean that the straight flushes are so staggeringly unlikely; they are inevitable

In general, receiving a straight flush of a given rank and suit is no more or less likely than being dealt any other hand, including garbage hands. We agree ahead of time, for the purposes of playing poker, that certain combinations of cards are special in a way that enlivens the game. But those combinations are largely extrinsic to the inherent probabilistics of drawing/dealing cards. They're arbitrary, but agreed upon before the cards are dealt and drawn. The arbitrary significance matters only insofar as we are using the cards to play poker. Jabba wants to say that a certain garbage hand must be special because it was so very unlikely that he would be dealt it, from among all possible deals.

Jabba runs with the notion of predesignated combinations and says there are reasons he can post-justify the "value" of the hand he has been dealt. I.e., reasons why he's special. Instead, existence is more akin to simply being dealt five cards, with no indication that a game of any kind is being played. Then the cardholders are asked to evaluate their hands. No reason to default to poker; we don't know if that was the intent. Each can say that his hand was just as improbable as that held by any other player, or as any conceivable undealt hand. Absent any prior designation of significance, no player "wins" this game simply by claiming he has the most improbable hand. The conflation of probability/likelihood with significance is what Jabba doesn't get.

 

[Thermal]

Which, as Pixel42 points out, matters only if there's some reason ahead of time why the standard poker hands will be the significant outcomes in the exercise. Jabba's game is that he assigns significance to the outcomes only after the outcomes are observed. And the reason for the significance is that they were observed and were, as he reckons it, unlikely.



In general, receiving a straight flush of a given rank and suit is no more or less likely than being dealt any other hand, including garbage hands. We agree ahead of time, for the purposes of playing poker, that certain combinations of cards are special in a way that enlivens the game. But those combinations are largely extrinsic to the inherent probabilistics of drawing/dealing cards. They're arbitrary, but agreed upon before the cards are dealt and drawn. The arbitrary significance matters only insofar as we are using the cards to play poker. Jabba wants to say that a certain garbage hand must be special because it was so very unlikely that he would be dealt it, from among all possible deals.

Jabba runs with the notion of predesignated combinations and says there are reasons he can post-justify the "value" of the hand he has been dealt. I.e., reasons why he's special. Instead, existence is more akin to simply being dealt five cards, with no indication that a game of any kind is being played. Then the cardholders are asked to evaluate their hands. No reason to default to poker; we don't know if that was the intent. Each can say that his hand was just as improbable as that held by any other player, or as any conceivable undealt hand. Absent any prior designation of significance, no player "wins" this game simply by claiming he has the most improbable hand. The conflation of probability/likelihood with significance is what Jabba doesn't get.

You and Pixel42 are right, of course. Jabba seems to marvel at how unlikely it was that the cosmos arranged itself just so, to have resulted in the straight flush in our little corner of it. I was trying to underscore that any particular arrangement is not at all unlikely. Some places might have a 2 of hearts by itself, some full decks neatly in numerical order. There's no reason to be amazed at the particular flop from our POV

 

[JayUtah]

You and Pixel42 are right, of course. Jabba seems to marvel at how unlikely it was that the cosmos arranged itself just so, to have resulted in the straight flush in our little corner of it. I was trying to underscore that any particular arrangement is not at all unlikely. Some places might have a 2 of hearts by itself, some full decks neatly in numerical order. There's no reason to be amazed at the particular flop from our POV

It's the "any particular arrangement" that Jabba co-opts to his advantage. That's the subject of our caution. Any pattern would be presumptive in this exercise -- standard poker hands, "natural" orderings or groupings, etc. Playing cards lead themselves to all manner of such intuitive interpretation that, as you illustrate, has nothing actually to do with the inherent behavior of sampling but which appeal to a subjective sense of wonder.

That intuitive thinking is what Jabba engenders in order to escape the harsh reality of the statistics. He plays up the notion that you can decide after the cards are thrown that poker hands are significant in the outcomes, if only because you saw a royal flush laying on the floor. Or that baccarat-esque sequences are significant because you see a lot of modulo-10 nines. The point is that if you grant Jabba that he is a straight flush, you grant him the post-dictated significance he relies on to sneak his rationale past careless analysts.

You obviously understand the mathematics of what you're saying, so don't mistake the intent. Debating with Jabba, however, also requires dodging his slyly begged questions -- of which this is one of his favorites because he thinks it gets him off the Texas sharpshooter hook.

 

[JoeMorgue]

You can't possibly be serious.

A year and a half or so ago you wrote a long, angsty post telling us how you came to this theory in your teens.

On page 135 of "Questions I wish Jabba would answer" is whether or not he realizes that the people in this thread actually have memories and remember arguments and statement that he made that directly contradicts things he's saying now.

There's a Youtube channel I follow called Captain Disillusion, where a guy debunks viral videos. One of his videos was a broad debunking "Trick Shot" viral videos where people make insane, improbable trick shots. Things like casually tossing a ping pong ball into a red cup from across the room without looking.

A lot of them involved digitally manipulation, camera tricks, the classic string, or other tricks but Captain D. fully admitted that some of them were legit... in a very specific way.

Yes it is possible, he says placing down a red cup and walking across the room, turning and tossing a ball into the cup without breaking stride with no edits in a handheld camera, to make such a shot without technically cheating.

He then explains what he did. He tried it over and over. That short scene took 37 takes and several hours. Many of the trick shots he showed in the video were not literally impossible, just very unlikely. The selective editing where you only see the final successful attempt is where the dishonesty lies.

Jabba is attempting to do this argumentatively. Jabba thinks no matter how many bad, wrong, fatal arguments he makes they will be undone when he finally makes that breakthrough argument and his goal (which at this point is as much a fantasy as anything else in this nightmare) is to show only the edited part where he "lands the shot" to his mythical "neutral audience."