Cont: Proof of Immortality VIII

[caveman1917]

No, I think that's you. If P(E)=1, then E is true for all possible cases, so P(anything|E) must simply be P(anything). In caveman1917's language, P(E)=1 is specifying a universe in which E is always true.

Dave

That's not true, non-empty sets with probability 0 can exist - P(~E) can be 0 even though ~E is not empty. That's the problem stopping the proof for P(E) = 1 => P(E|H) = 1 (as you and I have given earlier) from being basically a single statement.

ETA: X = ∅ => P(X) = 0 but not the other way around.

 

[Jabba]

js,
- Sounds like it's the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy you're aiming at. Do you have other targets?

js,
- Since you haven't responded, I'm going to assume (for the moment, at least) that the only fault you find in my claim is the Sharpshooter fallacy -- so, I'll try to expand/expound a little on my reasoning re that fallacy.
- Again (slightly modified),
But then, is your current self “set apart” from all the other selves?
Here’s why I think it is.
You are the only thing that you know exists — the rest could be your imagination. (Some would say that you’re a “process,” rather than a “thing.”)
If you didn’t ever exist, it would be as if nothing ever existed — and, the “likelihood” of you ever existing would be less than 1/10¹⁰⁰— given the non-religious hypothesis. “Likelihood,” is an official term.
If you didn’t currently exist, it would be as if nothing currently existed, and the likelihood of you currently existing is even (much) less than the likelihood of you ever existing…
That gives enormous significance to your current, personal SSA.
And, the thing is, every current SSA has the same reason to believe that OOFLam is wrong — and that she or he is not mortal.
IOW, you don’t need to be objectively set apart from other selves; "subjectively" should be plenty.

- In addition,
- Note that we all just take our personal existence for granted. When, it's really the very last thing we should take for granted...
- Note also that according to the well-educated/non-religious hypothesis, you had no pre-existence, you were not drawn from a pool of potential selves -- also, if we were able to reproduce your body/brain, we would not reproduce your "self" (we would not bring you/your self back to life).
- In other words, YOU were created -- YOU came out of nowhere. You had no existence, whatsoever, before you were so unlikely created, and you'll never have any existence after you pass...
- Something is wrong here!

 

[godless dave]

also, if we were able to reproduce your body/brain, we would not reproduce your "self" (we would not bring you/your self back to life).

As we discussed many times, if we were able to reproduce your body/brain, we would reproduce your "self", and reproducing your "self" would not bring you back to life, because to reproduce is to make a copy.

- In other words, YOU were created -- YOU came out of nowhere. You had no existence, whatsoever, before you were so unlikely created, and you'll never have any existence after you pass...
- Something is wrong here!

You have provided absolutely no reason to think anything is wrong here.

 

[Belz...]

- Since you haven't responded, I'm going to assume (for the moment, at least) that the only fault you find in my claim is the Sharpshooter fallacy

Everybody's gone at length about exactly what's wrong with your arguments. Don't pretend that you don't know that. It's rude and insulting.

You are the only thing that you know exists — the rest could be your imagination.

That doesn't set you apart because your body could be your imagination too, but it's part of you under H. Stick to parameters that YOU set up.

(Some would say that you’re a “process,” rather than a “thing.”)

No, not some. Under H your self IS a process because it couldn't be anything else. Stop trying to ram a soul into H where it doesn't belong.

If you didn’t ever exist, it would be as if nothing ever existed — and, the “likelihood” of you ever existing would be less than 1/10¹⁰⁰— given the non-religious hypothesis.

Absolutely not. None of this follows. It would be as if nothing ever existed TO YOU. It has no bearing on the likelihood of anything. You wouldn't exist and the odds of you existing would be zero.

If you didn’t currently exist, it would be as if nothing currently existed, and the likelihood of you currently existing is even (much) less than the likelihood of you ever existing…

You really do believe that making claims amounts to demonstrating them, don't you?

That gives enormous significance to your current, personal SSA.
And, the thing is, every current SSA has the same reason to believe that OOFLam is wrong — and that she or he is not mortal.

Belief is irrelevant.

IOW, you don’t need to be objectively set apart from other selves; "subjectively" should be plenty.[/I]

Are you now claiming that you are subjectively (i.e. fictitiously) immortal? Sure, if your claim is that you're immortal in your own mind, no one's going to challenge you on that. You have the right to believe anything you want, but does that mean that now you're abandoning your original claim to be able to prove immortality mathematically (that is, objectively)? Because that would mean you admit to losing the debate.

- Note that we all just take our personal existence for granted. When, it's really the very last thing we should take for granted...

Speak for yourself. Some of us don't take it for granted.

- Note also that according to the well-educated/non-religious hypothesis, you had no pre-existence, you were not drawn from a pool of potential selves

If there are no pools of potential selves then your entire line of argument leading to your 10^-100 number collapses. I'm not sure you want to say that.

-- also, if we were able to reproduce your body/brain, we would not reproduce your "self" (we would not bring you/your self back to life).

That's not what "reproduce" means. We would bring to life a new you that would be identical but distinct. That's what reproduce means. You're thinking of "resurrect".

- In other words, YOU were created -- YOU came out of nowhere.

That doesn't follow from your earlier statements. Even if you were correct about the self not being reproduced, it doesn't mean it comes from nowhere. You've in fact already admitted that it comes from the brain, which is not nowhere.

- Something is wrong here!

Yes, everything about your arguments is wrong. You draw incorrect conclusions from false premises and blame reality for it.

 

[JayUtah]

Since you haven't responded, I'm going to assume (for the moment, at least) that the only fault you find in my claim is the Sharpshooter fallacy...

You have absolutely no reason to believe that's the only thing wrong with your proof. You've been shown many times by many people all that's wrong with it. And no -- as much as you clearly want to script both sides of the debate to make it seem like you won, you have no right to assume what other people "must" think just because they choose not to engage you within your arbitrary time limits. Those who so choose have explained their reasons to you -- trying to have any sort of discussion with you is like talking to a wall. You simply don't listen, so people don't waste their time trying to teach you.

You are the only thing that you know exists...

Same solipsistic nonsense as always. If you don't have a better argument, just hang it up. It hasn't convinced anyone.

“Likelihood,” is an official term.

Not the way you're using it. You don't have the faintest clue what a likelihood really is. In your argument it's just a word you throw around to help you believe you're smarter than your critics.

we would not reproduce your "self" (we would not bring you/your self back to life).
- In other words,

No. There is nothing you can conjure up by inventive punctuation that magically escapes the explanatory power of materialism. You're trying to make materialism explain the soul you've assumed must be part of the data E. Further, you're deliberately concealing that attempt in the hopes that some gullible person won't figure out that you know you're begging the question. It's a great big lie, Jabba. And no one yet has bought it.

Something is wrong here!

What's wrong, obviously, is that we've indulged your childish shenanigans for far too long. Other people managed to come to the same conclusions we do regarding your arguments in much less time. And those conclusions are that you a mathematically incompetent, but are trying to razzle-dazzle math into appearing to confirm your spiritual beliefs.

Now quit insulting us and wasting our time, and actually engage the debate instead of just mindlessly repeating your claims. Or just man up and give up. I'm good either way.

 

[zooterkin]

js,
- Since you haven't responded, I'm going to assume (for the moment, at least) that the only fault you find in my claim is the Sharpshooter fallacy

Don't be ridiculous.

Though, by itself, the Sharpshooter fallacy is enough to sink it.

 

[Dave Rogers]

- Since you haven't responded, I'm going to assume (for the moment, at least) that the only fault you find in my claim is the Sharpshooter fallacy

That's an extraordinarily dishonest assumption to make, given that you've been told continuously for the last five years by almost everyone in this thread that your claim has multiple flaws any one of which would be fatal to the conclusion you're trying to draw from it. Such dishonesty is extremely ill-mannered.

Dave

 

[RoboTimbo]

js,
- Since you haven't responded, I'm going to assume (for the moment, at least) that the only fault you find in my claim is the Sharpshooter fallacy

I'll have to call this exactly what it is - another of your outright lies.

Do you have anything honest to say?

 

[ferd burfle]

js,
- Since you haven't responded, I'm going to assume...

How many thousands of substantive posts have you not responded to? The level of hypocrisy of this statement is astonishing.

 

[Mojo]

js,
- Since you haven't responded, I'm going to assume (for the moment, at least) that the only fault you find in my claim is the Sharpshooter fallacy -- so, I'll try to expand/expound a little on my reasoning re that fallacy.
- Again (slightly modified),
But then, is your current self “set apart” from all the other selves?
Here’s why I think it is.
You are the only thing that you know exists — the rest could be your imagination. (Some would say that you’re a “process,” rather than a “thing.”)
If you didn’t ever exist, it would be as if nothing ever existed — and, the “likelihood” of you ever existing would be less than 1/10¹⁰⁰— given the non-religious hypothesis. “Likelihood,” is an official term.
If you didn’t currently exist, it would be as if nothing currently existed, and the likelihood of you currently existing is even (much) less than the likelihood of you ever existing…
That gives enormous significance to your current, personal SSA.
And, the thing is, every current SSA has the same reason to believe that OOFLam is wrong — and that she or he is not mortal.
IOW, you don’t need to be objectively set apart from other selves; "subjectively" should be plenty.

- In addition,
- Note that we all just take our personal existence for granted. When, it's really the very last thing we should take for granted...
- Note also that according to the well-educated/non-religious hypothesis, you had no pre-existence, you were not drawn from a pool of potential selves -- also, if we were able to reproduce your body/brain, we would not reproduce your "self" (we would not bring you/your self back to life).
- In other words, YOU were created -- YOU came out of nowhere. You had no existence, whatsoever, before you were so unlikely created, and you'll never have any existence after you pass...
- Something is wrong here!

Yes: you are.

 

[halleyscomet]

js,
- Since you haven't responded, I'm going to assume (for the moment, at least) that the only fault you find in my claim is the Sharpshooter fallacy -- so, I'll try to expand/expound a little on my reasoning re that fallacy.

Let's examine the absurdity of that claim by shifting the context:

Dear Cooks Illustrated Magazine,

Since you haven't responded, I'm going to assume (for the moment, at least) that the only fault you find in my feces and roadkill aspic sorbet is the amount of horseradish -- so, I'll try to expand/expound a little on my reasoning re the need for including exactly six ounces of freshly ground horseradish as a garnish.

To use a more tasteful comparison, you can't turn Swiss cheese into cheddar by plugging one hole.

 

[Dancing David]

js,
- Since you haven't responded, I'm going to assume (for the moment, at least) that the only fault you find in my claim is the Sharpshooter fallacy -- so, I'll try to expand/expound a little on my reasoning re that fallacy.
- Again (slightly modified),
But then, is your current self “set apart” from all the other selves?

Because the sense of self is generated by different bodies and is never the same moment to moment

 

[JayUtah]

How many thousands of substantive posts have you not responded to? The level of hypocrisy of this statement is astonishing.

I wasn't going to address this, but since someone else has...

Over the weekend on another forum I frequent, we had a fairly energetic contributor who posted something Sunday evening and gloated over his "victory" at not having received a response within two hours or so. Apparently he was sure he'd stumped us, although most of us -- religious or not -- were enjoying an Easter holiday and not really paying attention to tinfoil hat topics. That's where we are here, only I'd be hard pressed to determine which of the two experiences I find most childishly evasive and annoying.

Jabba, it's really quite insulting for you to expect answers to your posts within some arbitrary time limit when you in contrast reserve the right to ignore whatever you want for whatever reason for as long as necessary, and then expect people to repeat themselves or dredge up references when you suddenly come down off the pedestal and pay attention. Regardless of how badly you want people to believe you're being treated, you have been given many, many substantive posts that speak clearly and correctly to the errors you've made. And you have now earned a reputation not only here but elsewhere of simply ignoring them all.

At this point it's clear to everyone -- including you -- that your proof does not work. And it's clear you know why, but just don't care. Additionally, your selfish and privileged behavior raises the additional question of why any reasonable person would attempt to engage you. You are now that the point of having to convince reasonable, intelligent people even just to pay attention to you, much less that you have something worth discussing.

If you want this debate to focus on your proof instead of your behavior, you need to stop being so brazenly hypocritical.

 

[jsfisher]

js,
- Since you haven't responded, I'm going to assume (for the moment, at least) that the only fault you find in my claim is the Sharpshooter fallacy

Don't assume that. Your argument is riddled with many fatal faults. Be that as it may, my recent sequence of posts was prompted by your misuse and abuse of conditional probability. Remember? You insisted that with P(E) equal to one you could still take P(E|H) to be 10^-100.

Now that you are faced with the reality of not getting the mathematical result you wanted, you have resorted to changing your initial conditions. You have made two things patently obvious:
(1) You do not have the statistical (or mathematical) expertise you have alleged.
(2) You are interested only in the conclusion. Everything else is flexible.

 

[jond]

js,
- Since you haven't responded, I'm going to assume (for the moment, at least) that the only fault you find in my claim is the Sharpshooter fallacy -- so, I'll try to expand/expound a little on my reasoning re that fallacy.
- Again (slightly modified),
But then, is your current self “set apart” from all the other selves?
Here’s why I think it is.
You are the only thing that you know exists — the rest could be your imagination. (Some would say that you’re a “process,” rather than a “thing.”)
If you didn’t ever exist, it would be as if nothing ever existed — and, the “likelihood” of you ever existing would be less than 1/10¹⁰⁰— given the non-religious hypothesis. “Likelihood,” is an official term.
If you didn’t currently exist, it would be as if nothing currently existed, and the likelihood of you currently existing is even (much) less than the likelihood of you ever existing…
That gives enormous significance to your current, personal SSA.
And, the thing is, every current SSA has the same reason to believe that OOFLam is wrong — and that she or he is not mortal.
IOW, you don’t need to be objectively set apart from other selves; "subjectively" should be plenty.

- In addition,
- Note that we all just take our personal existence for granted. When, it's really the very last thing we should take for granted...
- Note also that according to the well-educated/non-religious hypothesis, you had no pre-existence, you were not drawn from a pool of potential selves -- also, if we were able to reproduce your body/brain, we would not reproduce your "self" (we would not bring you/your self back to life).
- In other words, YOU were created -- YOU came out of nowhere. You had no existence, whatsoever, before you were so unlikely created, and you'll never have any existence after you pass...
- Something is wrong here!

- I know you will ignore all the point by point refutations of this post, but you shouldn't. They are all correct, and you are wrong.
- In addition,
- The self, under H, is not a thing. It is a process happening in a functioning brain.
- It is generated by the brain, which means it most definitely DOES NOT "come out of nowhere."
- You still claim reproducing your brain wouldn't bring "you back to life" yet you then refuse to answer the question of how it would be meaningful to assert that a person born in 1806 who self identified as Sam Jones could meaningfully be Jabba in 2018. If self identity isn't the same as sense of self, what EXACTLY do you mean by sense of self?
- The something that is wrong is Jabba's refusal to accept any facts which disagree with his preconceived conclusion.

 

[Jabba]

Don't assume that. Your argument is riddled with many fatal faults. Be that as it may, my recent sequence of posts was prompted by your misuse and abuse of conditional probability. Remember? You insisted that with P(E) equal to one you could still take P(E|H) to be 10^-100.

Now that you are faced with the reality of not getting the mathematical result you wanted, you have resorted to changing your initial conditions. You have made two things patently obvious:
(1) You do not have the statistical (or mathematical) expertise you have alleged.
(2) You are interested only in the conclusion. Everything else is flexible.

- I've given my answer, as best I can, for the Texas Sharpshooter accusation. Indicate what you see as my other fatal faults, and I'll do my best to answer each one.

 

[Belz...]

- I've given my answer, as best I can, for the Texas Sharpshooter accusation.

Then you are utterly unequipped to deal with criticism of your claim and arguments.

Indicate what you see as my other fatal faults, and I'll do my best to answer each one.

We know that's not true. Jay has repeated the list of fatal flaws for months on end and you never made any effort to meet his challenge that you address them.

 

[SOdhner]

- Since you haven't responded, I'm going to assume (for the moment, at least) that the only fault you find in my claim is the Sharpshooter fallacy -- so, I'll try to expand/expound a little on my reasoning re that fallacy.

Man, another month away and I return to the same post that he's done a hundred times over the past five years. As I've said before, the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy is my personal pick for the single largest glaring flaw in Jabba's "argument" although of course it's hard to pick a winner in that contest.

I'm going to respond to this before taking off for another few months, but I do so knowing that Jabba probably won't respond, if he does respond he'll probably latch onto one unimportant side comment, if he does reply to the main thing it will be with a "so what I think you're saying is" or "would you say that 1/000 is a small number" or "here's the same quote you already pointed out was incorrect" or some other irrelevant non-response, and finally if he somehow actually responds in an intelligent way and gets my point he'll revert back to acting like he doesn't understand a few weeks from now.

So here we go:

Jabba! Long time no chat! You seem to be misunderstanding what the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy is, how it applies to your argument, and why it's a problem. Because of this people have asked you MANY times to define it or give an example of it and you haven't done that, so it doesn't seem like you have any desire to actually understand what we're talking about. Until you do so you won't be able to understand why you're wrong, so if you genuinely want to learn you should take a minute and do that. PM me if you want some one-on-one explanation time, I would be more than happy to help.

Your argument hinges on being able to say:
1. It would be unlikely for me to exist.
2. But I do.
3. So something fishy is going on.

That's not a crazy thing to say, I totally get it. I see where you're coming from. But the problem is you're only looking at things you ALREADY know exist to prove your point. That would be like me painting my door blue and then saying "Wow! What are the odds I would have a blue door? What an odd color for a door, this must be a miracle!"

Let's try an experiment for the SEVENTH time (you didn't respond the first six times, quoted at the bottom of this post in case you think I'm exaggerating or something).

If we're going to pick someone (in this case, Jabba) after the fact then to be fair and avoid the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy we should be able to pick someone not just from the pool of people that actually currently exist but from all people that have ever existed AND all hypothetical people that DON'T exist. So let's pick Jobbo, someone that's a lot like you but also different in a few ways including the all-important quality of actually existing.

You say this person is VERY unlikely to exist. Also, they don't exist. Therefore everything is right in the world.

See?

We can do this again and again. You say you only have a 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance of existing? That may be correct, but as I can point to 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999 people that actually don't exist that math works out just fine.

It's unlikely for me to win the lottery, but it's much more likely for SOMEONE to win the lottery. If we assume your argument is sound (it's not) then logically it would be sound coming from someone else as well. If it's sound coming from someone else, literally anyone can present this argument with their own name in place of yours. If anyone can present this argument, then no specific person is required to exist for this argument to be valid. That means we're no longer trying to calculate the chances of any specific person, we're just trying to look at the odds that ANYONE will exist.

In that case, we would expect any individual person to be unlikely but we would still expect people in general - just like the lottery example or the shuffled deck example.

When you deal a hand of cards in poker, you decide the rules AHEAD of time. You already know what cards are worth more, what makes a winning hand, what's wild, etc. prior to shuffling and dealing. That's why it's fair. You picking after the fact and acting like your specific existence was the "win condition" for this scenario and therefore notable would be like me dealing myself a hand of cards, looking at them, and then saying "Okay the way you win this version of poker is to have a two of clubs, a five of hearts, a nine of hearts, a jack of diamonds, and a king of clubs... which happens to be exactly what's in my hand! Pay up!"

You would never accept that as a fair game, and you would be right.

Okay, I'm out again. I'll check back in in a few months, feel free to PM me if Jabba actually responds to this or something.

Jabba, let me fix this for you. Let's set aside complaints about the "pool of potential selves" existing or not, and just agree that as you've said you are talking about whether or not someone exists that would be really unlikely given all the other people that could have hypothetically existed instead.

I know this relies on the idea that there are WAY more hypothetical people that could have existed than ones that actually do exist. It would be nearly infinite, while our population is less than eight billion (extreme estimating because I can't be bothered).

So let's pick a target! You want to pick yourself, but that's getting into this whole big thing. So let's use a random number generator. Random.org is a good one, though they can't go higher than 1,000,000,000 which is a LONG way from "almost infinite". Still, that just skews the odds in your favor so let's do that. Let's say if I get a 1 it's a person who exists, and if I get anything else it's someone who doesn't. I'll run it 100 times.

Okay. Done. I could post the list here but it's big and ugly and I think people would understandably object so let's just cut to the chase: none of them exist. So then we plug them into your formula and it says...

1. The odds of this specific person existing are really really low under materialism.
2. And, in fact, they don't exist.
3. Therefore all is right with the world and consistent with materialism.

Like I said, I ran it a hundred times* (one click, but a hundred random numbers generated). This is what it looks like to pick a target fairly. So good news, reality is consistent with our expectations and we can be done here.

(*EDIT: I noticed this "again" button at the bottom and clicked it twenty times. So that's 2100 tests with odds WAY better than you were figuring.)

What was the likelihood of Znarfblatt Beeplegorp existing? Very small? Does the fact that they don't exist confirm materialism? There are INFINITE people that don't exist, and only a finite number that do. That would seem to mean that your formula is wrong, since most people don't exist AS PREDICTED BY YOUR FORMULA'S VERSION OF MATERIALISM. Therefore it is confirmed, and you're not immortal.

But sure, let's play by your rules. You know who else is special and set apart? Franklin Gazorpazorp. Franklin is a special case that we need to consider. Also Franklin doesn't exist. So let's do your formula and... oh my! I predict he wouldn't exist under a materialistic model and HE DOESN'T! This proves materialism correct. Great work everyone.

No, that's wrong. You're one hundred percent guaranteed to be here, because the person talking about the likelihood of existing always exists. If you're saying that's not the case then we also have to look at your argument and see if it holds up when presented by a person that doesn't exist. Let's use my old friend Gazorpazorp Washington.

Oh man! Gazorpazorp is unlikely to exist and in fact doesn't exist, therefore confirming the non-religious model! So I guess you're not immortal. In fact, I have another eleventy-squintillion people that don't exist, and it turns out none of them exist either so you're just one in elevnty-squintillion which about matches your predicted likelihood. So that's solved.

1. A target can be legitimate even if it is not specified to an observer ahead of time.

Okay, so I'll choose Johnson Gazorpazorp as my target.

Since he doesn't exist, that means you're not immortal right?

If you can specify the target after the fact, I can pick Millthreep Jones, who does not exist (but could have). Since Millthreep doesn't exist, this (by your logic) would confirm the materialist side and indicate that you're not immortal.

If we pick the target after the fact and use that as the basis of your formula, you're always picking someone that already exists and saying "Oh my goodness! The person that already exists exists! What are the odds?" which is the same as me picking good 'ol Millthreep and acting shocked that he doesn't exist.

If you're always going to pick someone that exists, your argument boils down to: "People exist, therefore I'm immortal" rather than "I specifically exist, therefore I'm immortal."

 

[godless dave]

Jabba, before we even get to the Texas Sharpshoot fallacy, you seem to be under the impression that if something is very unlikely, it shouldn't happen. But that's not what unlikely means. It's not a synonym for impossible.

 

[RoboTimbo]

- I've given my answer, as best I can, for the Texas Sharpshooter accusation.

LOL, it isn't an accusation, it's a fallacy and a fatal flaw to your argument. Your best answer hasn't overcome that.

Indicate what you see as my other fatal faults, and I'll do my best to answer each one.

Do your best to go find the list that was placed in front of your face every day.