ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Closed Thread
Old 12th October 2016, 06:19 AM   #441
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,098
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
-Why do you think that 7 billion is not justified?
The likelihood of your current existence has nothing to do with the number of people alive now. It doesn't even have anything to do with the number of people alive when you were born. It has to do with the events that resulted in your existence.

This is moot anyway, since the model you're trying to disprove is not a model I subscribe to.
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm
godless dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th October 2016, 06:21 AM   #442
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 17,007
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
-Why do you think that 7 billion is not justified?
Because you ignore the 1,267,650,600,228,229,401,496,703,205,376 direct ancestors for just you in the past 100 generations.

I also have 1,267,650,600,228,229,401,496,703,205,376 ancestors in the past 100 generations.

So does everyone alive today. Now you must deal with 7,000,000,000 times 1,267,650,600,228,229,401,496,703,205,376 ancestors that actually must have existed for you to be here now.

But it's worse. 100 generations only encompasses 3,000 years of history approximately, taking an average of 30 years per generation. Mankind has been around for 200,000 years. Taking that into account, the numbers get even bigger. There simply have never existed at any time or across any period, that many human beings. That being the case, then, you Jabba, cannot possibly exist at all.

That is the rabbit hole that your 'logic' leads to unavoidably.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th October 2016, 07:05 AM   #443
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,513
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Why do you think that 7 billion is not justified?
You have the burden to show it is. Don't shift it.

You say it relates to the number of people who have lived or are living. You have the burden to show that has any relationship whatsoever to the probability of a self arising. Just because it's a number you can point to doesn't mean it's a number that works in an accurate and serviceable model. You don't know how to model processes quantitatively. I can measure the wavelength of light reflected from a fencepost. That doesn't have anything to do with its ability to hold up a fence. Similarly I can measure the strain on a cantilevered sundial platform. That has nothing to do with whether the sundial is pointed in the right direction. You have tho prove the validity of your model and the applicability of its parameters before you can argue that computing it for certain values produces a predictive result.

As I said yesterday and several times before then, and you assiduously ignore because it's "too challenging" for you, it's your need to have specific numbers that divide out to miniscule pre-planned probabilities that is driving your modeling here, not any sort of rationale or science. That's why you can't give any evidence for any of your proof. It's all made up, and you know it.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th October 2016, 07:08 AM   #444
Thermal
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,065
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Because you ignore the 1,267,650,600,228,229,401,496,703,205,376 direct ancestors for just you in the past 100 generations.

I also have 1,267,650,600,228,229,401,496,703,205,376 ancestors in the past 100 generations.

So does everyone alive today. Now you must deal with 7,000,000,000 times 1,267,650,600,228,229,401,496,703,205,376 ancestors that actually must have existed for you to be here now.

But it's worse. 100 generations only encompasses 3,000 years of history approximately, taking an average of 30 years per generation. Mankind has been around for 200,000 years. Taking that into account, the numbers get even bigger. There simply have never existed at any time or across any period, that many human beings. That being the case, then, you Jabba, cannot possibly exist at all.

That is the rabbit hole that your 'logic' leads to unavoidably.
Hm. It has been estimated that there have been 107-108 billion people ever, so can I assume your ancestral calculation assumes non human ancestors? Seems odd to include them in 100 generations, but who am I to judge. But if so, shouldn't it be an odd number at least for the first asexual to sexual ancestor?Also, shouldn't common ancestry reduce the backward calculation of ancestors with each generation?
__________________

Previously known as MostlyDead. Feeling better now.
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th October 2016, 07:13 AM   #445
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,513
Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
Lest we forget, Jabba has already tarred scientists as both incompetent and dishonest.
And that desperate accusation is more relevant than ever. Jabba wants people to think scientists are incompetent because they are unable to determine that the properties of consciousness are due to some soul they can't detect. Or in the alternative he wants them to believe scientists are dishonest for "really" knowing there is a soul but being to ideologically entrenched to admit it.

Jabba has used every flagrantly dishonest practice I can think of to try to sneak the notion of a soul into the scientific hypothesis. When your argument is based entirely on trying to trick people into admitting something they have already said they don't subscribe to, you lose the attention of grown-ups.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th October 2016, 07:43 AM   #446
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator
 
jsfisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 21,101
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
Hm. It has been estimated that there have been 107-108 billion people ever, so can I assume your ancestral calculation assumes non human ancestors?
No, it assumes no inbreeding. It is a bogus number, of course, but what numbers in this thread haven't been?
__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group.

"He's the greatest mod that never was!" -- Monketey Ghost
jsfisher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th October 2016, 07:54 AM   #447
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,962
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
The likelihood of your current existence has nothing to do with the number of people alive now. It doesn't even have anything to do with the number of people alive when you were born. It has to do with the events that resulted in your existence.

This is moot anyway, since the model you're trying to disprove is not a model I subscribe to.
Dave,
- Say 10 million tickets were sold to the lottery. You bought one. You find out that 2 tickets won -- but, you don't know what the correct number was. What is the likelihood that you won?
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th October 2016, 07:59 AM   #448
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,700
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Say 10 million tickets were sold to the lottery. You bought one. You find out that 2 tickets won -- but, you don't know what the correct number was. What is the likelihood that you won?
I think you missed this bit, even though you highlighted it:

Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
The likelihood of your current existence has nothing to do with the number of people alive now. It doesn't even have anything to do with the number of people alive when you were born. It has to do with the events that resulted in your existence.
This makes your analogy completely off the mark, since it assumes that the above is false. You're assuming that you won the lottery when, in fact, everybody born 'wins'.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th October 2016, 08:04 AM   #449
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 8,375
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Say 10 million tickets were sold to the lottery. You bought one. You find out that 2 tickets won -- but, you don't know what the correct number was. What is the likelihood that you won?
It doesn't matter. Your analogy is flawed. Your existence is not a lottery.

Stop acting like we don't know what your argument is. We're not going to agree to some pointless out of context scenario when we all know you're going to pretend like that agreeing with you.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Hating a bad thing does not make you good." - David Wong
JoeBentley is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th October 2016, 08:08 AM   #450
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,098
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Say 10 million tickets were sold to the lottery. You bought one. You find out that 2 tickets won -- but, you don't know what the correct number was. What is the likelihood that you won?
That would depend on how the numbers are drawn.

My likelihood would not be one in 10 million, unless it were a raffle and not a lottery.

You haven't specified how souls are produced in your model H, so we don't know what the likelihood of a particular soul existing is.
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm

Last edited by godless dave; 12th October 2016 at 08:09 AM.
godless dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th October 2016, 08:10 AM   #451
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 17,007
Originally Posted by jsfisher View Post
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
Hm. It has been estimated that there have been 107-108 billion people ever, so can I assume your ancestral calculation assumes non human ancestors?
No, it assumes no inbreeding. It is a bogus number, of course, but what numbers in this thread haven't been?
Precisely the point. Jabba avoids this like the plague ever since he conceded that he cannot explain it.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th October 2016, 08:13 AM   #452
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 8,375
Here's one if you made an infinite number of random, out of context analogies what are the changes one of them would make sense and actually describe your argument?

We're at an infinite number of monkeys typing away trying to come up with an argument that would prove how many angels can dance on the head of a pin in Plato's Cave at this point.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Hating a bad thing does not make you good." - David Wong
JoeBentley is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th October 2016, 08:18 AM   #453
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,513
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Say 10 million tickets were sold to the lottery. You bought one. You find out that 2 tickets won -- but, you don't know what the correct number was. What is the likelihood that you won?
Your ability to cite a different problem that's properly quantified and bounded does not mean the immortality problem is bounded, nor that your model properly quantifies it. You're begging the question that this analogy property describes your model. It does not.

As has been said, your existence is not a lottery. Say 10 million tickets were sold to the lottery. You bought one. Two tickets are winners. That same day, your bank was robbed and your savings account was drained. Since it's improbable your ticket was one of the winners, what is the coincidence anyone at all won the lottery on the very same day your bank was robbed?

There, that's a more like your argument.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th October 2016, 08:21 AM   #454
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,513
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
You haven't specified how souls are produced in your model H, so we don't know what the likelihood of a particular soul existing is.
And we have to emphasize that it's "Jabba's model H." As much as he wants that to be the scientific hypothesis of the self, it cannot be if it requires a soul to complete it. There is no such requirement in the scientific model.

Now certainly Jabba can define whatever he wants as H and pit it against whatever he wants as some h from ~H. But in doing so he cannot claim to have falsified the scientific hypothesis and therefore proven immortality. He will have solved some different problem that has nothing to do with science.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th October 2016, 08:33 AM   #455
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,513
Originally Posted by jsfisher View Post
No, it assumes no inbreeding. It is a bogus number, of course, but what numbers in this thread haven't been?
Indeed, while the numerator has the problem of being pulled out of Jabba's dark orifice, the real problem is the denominator. If you're going to divide by infinity and get zero (leaving aside the problem of whether you can do that), it doesn't matter what non-zero real number the denominator might be. The quotient will always be zero.

Jabba's rationale for dividing by infinity is pure wordplay. There is no math whatsoever involved in it. He up and declares on no more authority than his ipse dixit that emergent properties must somehow come from a "pool" of "potential" such properties. And having surmised that there is no artificial limit to the size of that pool, its cardinality (the number of items in it) must be infinity. He doesn't explain how such a pool pertaining to a property would necessarily have discrete elements and therefore be something for which cardinality would even have meaning.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th October 2016, 08:37 AM   #456
jond
Illuminator
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,021
Asked of Jabba before, and ignored every time:

Once your parents conceived you, what is the likelihood that you became Jabba.
(Under the scientific model, the answer is 1. You are the only person you possibly could have become because "you" are a process of your functioning brain.)

Once your parents conceived you, what is the likelihood that you instead became Napoleon?
(Under the scientific model the answer is 0. Your parents were not alive at the same time as his, and you never experienced anything that he did so it is impossible that you would have been Napoleon.)
jond is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th October 2016, 08:40 AM   #457
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,962
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
The likelihood of your current existence has nothing to do with the number of people alive now. It doesn't even have anything to do with the number of people alive when you were born. It has to do with the events that resulted in your existence.

This is moot anyway, since the model you're trying to disprove is not a model I subscribe to.
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Say 10 million tickets were sold to the lottery. You bought one. You find out that 2 tickets won -- but, you don't know what the correct number was. What is the likelihood that you won?
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
That would depend on how the numbers are drawn.
My likelihood would not be one in 10 million, unless it were a raffle and not a lottery.

You haven't specified how souls are produced in your model H, so we don't know what the likelihood of a particular soul existing is.
Dave,
- I don't understand?
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th October 2016, 09:02 AM   #458
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,098
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- I don't understand?
Let's use the Mega Millions lottery as an example. Here's the explanation from their site, www.megamillions.com/winning-numbers:

Quote:
Mega Millions drawings are held Tuesday and Friday at 11:00 pm ET. Five balls are drawn from a set of balls numbered 1 through 75; one ball is drawn from a set of balls numbered 1 through 15. You win if the numbers on one row of your ticket match the numbers of the balls drawn on that date.
The odds of you winning (or sharing) the jackpot are based on the odds that the numbers they draw will match the numbers that are on the ticket you bought. This is based on the likelihood of a particular set of numbers being drawn. Wikipedia says these odds are "1 in about 258.9 million". I can't verify that; I got a C in discrete math and don't remember any of it now.

Your odds of winning have nothing to do with the number of tickets sold. The only effect number of tickets sold has is on your odds of sharing the prize if you win - the odds that someone else also has a ticket with the same numbers.

If you are the only person who buys a ticket, the odds of the numbers on your ticket matching the draw are 1 in about 258.9 million. If 258 million people each buy one ticket, the odds of the numbers on your ticket matching the draw are still 1 in about 258.9 million.
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm
godless dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th October 2016, 10:06 AM   #459
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,478
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Would you accept that the self is an emergent property?
A bit late but:

The statement is not false, but it is also not right. It is incomplete.

You must state what it is an emergent property [b]of[b], otherwise it's useless.

The self is an emergent property of a functioning brain having gathered enough experiences to form a self.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th October 2016, 10:09 AM   #460
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,513
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I don't understand?
Then it's probably not a good idea for you to use such analogies to try to explain your argument. You understand neither the analogy nor the problem with your argument.

That said, what your claim is is not in dispute -- the immortality claim, not the lottery claim. What is in dispute is the validity of that claim. So stop simply telling people what your claim is, and start responding to the reasons they give you for why your claim is not valid.

Regarding P(E|H), your E is a preconceived value. You are hypothesizing after the results are known. Your figure of 7x10^9 has no bearing on the probability that a self will come into being. It's simply the number of people alive. Your division by infinity has no basis in mathematics because you have simply invented a concept ("potential selves") that has no meaning under H and exists solely so you can assert it is a set of discretes whose cardinality provides your denominator.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th October 2016, 10:24 AM   #461
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,700
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- I don't understand?
Nope.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th October 2016, 10:29 AM   #462
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,214
Back to the lottery analogy. Expect the next 10 pages to deal with that.......again.
The Sparrow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th October 2016, 10:52 AM   #463
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,962
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
Let's use the Mega Millions lottery as an example. Here's the explanation from their site, www.megamillions.com/winning-numbers:
The odds of you winning (or sharing) the jackpot are based on the odds that the numbers they draw will match the numbers that are on the ticket you bought. This is based on the likelihood of a particular set of numbers being drawn. Wikipedia says these odds are "1 in about 258.9 million". I can't verify that; I got a C in discrete math and don't remember any of it now.
Your odds of winning have nothing to do with the number of tickets sold. The only effect number of tickets sold has is on your odds of sharing the prize if you win - the odds that someone else also has a ticket with the same numbers.
If you are the only person who buys a ticket, the odds of the numbers on your ticket matching the draw are 1 in about 258.9 million. If 258 million people each buy one ticket, the odds of the numbers on your ticket matching the draw are still 1 in about 258.9 million.
Dave,
- I'll be studying your explanation, but hopefully jt or Caveman will chip in.
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th October 2016, 10:52 AM   #464
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,749
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Say 10 million tickets were sold to the lottery. You bought one. You find out that 2 tickets won -- but, you don't know what the correct number was. What is the likelihood that you won?

Say 10 million tickets were sold and the draw has been made: what is the likelihood that someone who has won has bought a ticket with the winning numbers on it?
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

Last edited by Mojo; 12th October 2016 at 11:14 AM.
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th October 2016, 11:01 AM   #465
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,749
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
Neither the 7 billion nor the infinity are justified, nor have you presented a reasonably possible alternative hypothesis.

The H you're trying to disprove is a model that includes souls. I don't believe in souls.
Dave,
-Why do you think that 7 billion is not justified?

Note that Dave said that neither the 7 billion nor the infinity is justified.

Another reason is that they are not part of H, neither are they implied by it. As you have repeatedly been told, under H the "self" is not an independent entity that must compete to occupy an available body. There are no "potential selves". Consciousness is something that the brain does, not a thing.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

Last edited by Mojo; 12th October 2016 at 11:18 AM.
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th October 2016, 11:24 AM   #466
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,098
I guess in your scenario you can get one in ten million after the draw, after you know how many tickets were sold and how many of them won, but before you look at the winning numbers. But I don't see how that's analogous to either the scientific model or your model H.

If someone were to pick one resident of planet earth at random right now your odds of getting picked would be 1 in about 7.5 billion, but again, I don't see how that's analogous to either the scientific model or your model H.
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm
godless dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th October 2016, 11:27 AM   #467
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 17,007
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- I don't understand?
Industrial grade bovine fecal matter.

You claim not to understand, yet continue to make wild claims.

If you are honest, then by your own admission you have no clue what you claim might be.

On the other hand, perhaps you know exactly what are your claims. In that case you know exactly what your lies might be.

Which is it?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th October 2016, 12:17 PM   #468
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,513
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- I'll be studying your explanation, but hopefully jt or Caveman will chip in.
Don't make everyone else wait while you stall for time. Until one or either of them cares to respond, please address the other problems with your formulation of P(E|H), that are being pressed by people who are actually participating.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th October 2016, 12:28 PM   #469
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,214
I follow this thread in order to watch smart people demolish ******** arguments. That is the only reason
The Sparrow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th October 2016, 12:38 PM   #470
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,962
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
I guess in your scenario you can get one in ten million after the draw, after you know how many tickets were sold and how many of them won, but before you look at the winning numbers. But I don't see how that's analogous to either the scientific model or your model H.

If someone were to pick one resident of planet earth at random right now your odds of getting picked would be 1 in about 7.5 billion, but again, I don't see how that's analogous to either the scientific model or your model H.
Dave,
- Given OOFlam, your likelihood of existing right now would not be just 1 divided by some unimaginable number, it would be 7.5 billion divided by some unimaginable number -- because, in this case, there isn't just one 'winner,' there are 7.5 billion of them. You could be any one of them.
- If that isn't clear, I'll slow down and try again. (For my wife's sake, I'm keeping a record of the time I spend arguing with you guys...)
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th October 2016, 12:40 PM   #471
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,523
There are no 'winners' to account for, in the scientific model.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th October 2016, 12:42 PM   #472
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,098
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Given OOFlam, your likelihood of existing right now would not be just 1 divided by some unimaginable number, it would be 7.5 billion divided by some unimaginable number -- because, in this case, there isn't just one 'winner,' there are 7.5 billion of them. You could be any one of them.
Why would the likelihood of me existing have anything to do with the number of people alive right now?

My current existence depends on my previous existence.

My previous existence depends on the events that led to my existence. This is true for both the scientific model and your model H.
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm
godless dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th October 2016, 12:43 PM   #473
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 17,007
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Given OOFlam, your likelihood of existing right now would not be just 1 divided by some unimaginable number, it would be 7.5 billion divided by some unimaginable number -- because, in this case, there isn't just one 'winner,' there are 7.5 billion of them. You could be any one of them.
Wrong. I have demonstrated that and you continue to run away. Please stop it.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- If that isn't clear, I'll slow down and try again. (For my wife's sake, I'm keeping a record of the time I spend arguing with you guys...)
All of it is wasted. You know this, we know this and probably your spouse knows it too.

You are unable to form any coherent position. We all know it.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th October 2016, 12:47 PM   #474
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,513
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Given OOFlam, your likelihood of existing right now would not be just 1 divided by some unimaginable number...
No.

It is not some "unimaginable number." It's not a number at all. Your denominator is a quantity you assigned to a concept you invented and tried to paste onto the scientific hypothesis. It has no basis in math.

Quote:
...there are 7.5 billion of them [winners]. You could be any one of them.
What does the number of people alive today have to do with the probability that a self will arise? It certainly has nothing to do with the fanciful circumstances from which you derive the denominator.

You simply picked two numbers that, when divided, gave you the number you planned for in your "argument," regardless of whether they quantified any sort of model.

Quote:
If that isn't clear, I'll slow down and try again.
You will try again no matter what happens. This is a four-year odyssey of you simply trying again in the face of clear refutations that you refuse to address. Trying again is all you do. You don't consider for a moment

Quote:
(For my wife's sake, I'm keeping a record of the time I spend arguing with you guys...)
Attempted a currying sympathy noted and disregarded. Let your wife read this four-year-old thread and come to her own conclusions about what has caused all the waste of time.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th October 2016, 12:49 PM   #475
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,513
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
There are no 'winners' to account for, in the scientific model.
This is leakage from his made-up concept of "potential selves." They are the tickets in his lottery analogy. Not all "potential selves" in his model get to be real selves, so those that are somehow "win."

None of this has the slightest bit to do with the scientific hypothesis.

BLATANT STRAW MAN
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th October 2016, 12:50 PM   #476
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator
 
jsfisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 21,101
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
If someone were to pick one resident of planet earth at random right now your odds of getting picked would be 1 in about 7.5 billion, but again, I don't see how that's analogous to either the scientific model or your model H.
Yep, and the chances of that resident of planet Earth existing would be 1 in 1.
__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group.

"He's the greatest mod that never was!" -- Monketey Ghost
jsfisher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th October 2016, 12:54 PM   #477
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,098
Jabba, keep in mind that even if you get me to accept 7 billion or "some unimaginable number", all you will have done is argued for your model H being wrong.

I already think your model H is wrong. I don't believe souls exist.
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm
godless dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th October 2016, 01:04 PM   #478
CriticalThanking
Designated Hitter
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: On in memory
Posts: 3,043
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- I don't understand?
If it helps, Jabba, I will illustrate the other type discussed, the raffle. A raffle typically sells "chances to win." Each entry is distinct.

To summarize: in a lottery, the denominator is defined by the drawing criteria and not the number of entries. The denominator in a raffle is exactly the number of entries.

Raffle example: each person pays $1 to put their name on a piece of paper. The pieces of paper are put into a hat. One piece of paper is drawn as the winner. The odds of winning are the number of pieces of paper with your name divided by the total number of pieces of paper in the hat. If you buy the only entry, your odds are 1/1. If you buy one and your neighbor buys 99, your odds are 1/100. The denominator is the total number of entries purchased (1 + 99). If you buy 2 tickets, you increase both the numerator and denominator by 1. (2/2 if you buy the only entries, or 2/101 if your neighbor buys 99).

Compare that to the lottery example very well described above. Your odds of winning are not impacted by the number of entries other people purchase. The odds of a given set of numbers being drawn is the same number (very large number for 6 balls). It does not matter if you buy the only ticket, or you buy 1,000 tickets. The denominator does not change. Your buying additional tickets (assuming you buy a different number each time) only increases the numerator, not the denominator.


CT
CriticalThanking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th October 2016, 01:28 PM   #479
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,749
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Given OOFlam, your likelihood of existing right now would not be just 1 divided by some unimaginable number, it would be 7.5 billion divided by some unimaginable number -- because, in this case, there isn't just one 'winner,' there are 7.5 billion of them. You could be any one of them.

But since "OOFLam" is a strawman of your own devising, this is irrelevant.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th October 2016, 01:33 PM   #480
jond
Illuminator
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,021
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Given OOFlam, your likelihood of existing right now would not be just 1 divided by some unimaginable number, it would be 7.5 billion divided by some unimaginable number -- because, in this case, there isn't just one 'winner,' there are 7.5 billion of them. You could be any one of them.
- If that isn't clear, I'll slow down and try again. (For my wife's sake, I'm keeping a record of the time I spend arguing with you guys...)
No, you couldn't be any one of them. You could only be who you are, because "you" are the result of the working of your brain.
jond is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:28 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.