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, 02:57 PM   #481
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,735
Originally Posted by CriticalThanking View Post
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
CT,
- Thanks -- but so far, I still think I'm right...
- Though, I do see that I should have used a raffle instead.

- The information I have available is that there were two winners out of 10 million tickets. I have one ticket. Based only on that information, I have two chances to have one of the winners. 9,999,998 of the tickets were losers. Given that info, the likelihood of me being a winner is 2/10,000,000.
- So far, I can't see where that's wrong.
- (I'm tempted to put this more into gambling terms, and say that the odds of me winning are 2 to 9,999,998 -- would that be correct?)
__________________
"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
"Et tamen salsus est ratio plerumque recta ad unum." 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, 03:00 PM   #482
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 64,733
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
CT,
- Thanks -- but so far, I still think I'm right...


Of course you do! Why wouldn't you? Don't let those reasoned arguments and pieces of evidence fool you. If you have an idea, never ever change your mind!
__________________
"Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack!"
Argumemnon 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, 03:02 PM   #483
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,941
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
CT,
- Thanks -- but so far, I still think I'm right...
- Though, I do see that I should have used a raffle instead.

- The information I have available is that there were two winners out of 10 million tickets. I have one ticket. Based only on that information, I have two chances to have one of the winners. 9,999,998 of the tickets were losers. Given that info, the likelihood of me being a winner is 2/10,000,000.
- So far, I can't see where that's wrong.
It's right as far as it goes, but isn't very useful information since you already bought the ticket and the winning numbers have already been drawn.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- (I'm tempted to put this more into gambling terms, and say that the odds of me winning are 2 to 9,999,998 -- would that be correct?)
That would be wrong. When gamblers talk of odds, they talk of the odds of winning a prize, not the odds of having already won a prize in a game they've already played.
__________________
"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 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, 03:04 PM   #484
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,735
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
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.
Dave,
- I think we're still passing in the night.
- My model H is that each human "self," be it a thing, process or illusion, will exist only once, at most. Isn't that exactly what you believe?
__________________
"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
"Et tamen salsus est ratio plerumque recta ad unum." 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, 03:06 PM   #485
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,941
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- I think we're still passing in the night.
- My model H is that each human "self," be it a thing, process or illusion, will exist only once, at most. Isn't that exactly what you believe?
Yes, but that's not how you most recently defined H. This is the part I don't believe:

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- My claim: if you were able to reproduce the exact chemistry of your brain, you would get an identical brain, but you would not get an identical self. There is something about the self that is not determined by the chemistry.
__________________
"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 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, 03:49 PM   #486
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 10,817
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...)
Don't slow down! No one has any trouble understanding you. Your fallacious logic and wishful thinking are common and positively pedestrian.

Rather than tracking your time for your beloved, why not show her the reproof you have received these last 4 years, and ignored. I nominate JayUtah and Slowvehicles posts as good examples.

Not that other people weren't just as effective, but there has been an almost unlimited pool of effective criticism of your muddled points, and we have to draw the line somewhere.
John Jones 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, 04:08 PM   #487
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,849
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- I think we're still passing in the night.
- My model H is that each human "self," be it a thing, process or illusion, will exist only once, at most. Isn't that exactly what you believe?
- Right, which means that the liklihood of your self existing is exactly the same as your body existing.

- But you are insisting that your self exists separately from your body, which means you not only have to account for the likelihood of your body, but also your "self".

- And then, you need to find a way for your "self" to physically interface with your brain.

- There is no way for you to make it more likely for the "self" to exist separately from your body, given that your body does, demonstrably, exist.
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, 05:03 PM   #488
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,607
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
My model H is...
Your definition for H changes all the time, depending upon what uncomfortable refutation you have to ignore. Now you say it is...

Quote:
that each human "self," be it a thing, process or illusion, will exist only once, at most.
Earlier you said it's the "scientific hypothesis."

Quote:
Isn't that exactly what you believe?
It doesn't matter. Four years later we're still trying to figure out what you mean by H. There's enough ambiguity in that to clear up that we don't have to resort to consensus among the critics just yet.

Your statement "[E]ach human 'self,' be it a thing, process or illusion, will exist only once, at most," is a consequent of the scientific model. It isn't the model itself. A statement of theory that would be closer to the model is what people have been telling you: All that can be described as the self is an emergent property of a functioning brain.

You blatantly contradicted that when you said...
Quote:
There is something about the self that is not determined by the chemistry.
Under the scientific model that is not true. You may not simply inject that into the discussion and pretend you're still talking about science.

Further, you are asking permission to prove first an immaterial component to the self. That is, you are asking leave to prove the statement...
Quote:
There is something about the self that is not determined by the chemistry.
...as some sort of stepping stone to proving immortality. I for one will not grant you that leave, first because it's a shifted goalpost, second because you then beg the statement while trying to falsify it, and third because immaterialism has bugger all to to do with falsifying...
Quote:
that each human "self," be it a thing, process or illusion, will exist only once, at most.
...and therefore is no kind of stepping stone.
JayUtah 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, 08:53 PM   #489
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 23,053
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- I think we're still passing in the night.
- My model H is that each human "self," be it a thing, process or illusion, will exist only once, at most. Isn't that exactly what you believe?

Jabba -

Don't you see your own sleight of hand? You claim that the "self" can be a "thing, process or illusion" in the first half of the sentence, but then treat it solely as a thing in the second half.

Here is a process: Going 65 mph. A working car can go 65 mph. Is "going 65 mph" something that will exist only once, at most? Is each car that hits 65 mph somehow a reincarnation of the immortal "going 65 mph"?

Consciousness is not a thing. Simply giving lip service to that notion while still treating it as a thing just is not right.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader 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, 09:10 PM   #490
jt512
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,578
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post


Of course you do! Why wouldn't you? Don't let those reasoned arguments and pieces of evidence fool you. If you have an idea, never ever change your mind!

Oh, thanks. Now I have to go out and buy a new irony meter: one calibrated on the log scale.
jt512 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 13th October 2016, 12:25 AM   #491
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,790
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- My model H is...

And there's your problem (well, one of them). The H you are arguing against is not the scientific model of consciousness, but something you have invented yourself.
__________________
"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 13th October 2016, 12:30 AM   #492
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,790
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- So far, I can't see where that's wrong.

It's wrong, in the context of this discussion, because it isn't a valid analogy for the hypothesis you are arguing against.
__________________
"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 13th October 2016, 12:43 AM   #493
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,790
Originally Posted by jond View Post
- But you are insisting that your self exists separately from your body, which means you not only have to account for the likelihood of your body, but also your "self".

- And then, you need to find a way for your "self" to physically interface with your brain.

It's worse than that: he's insisting that 'the scientific model' requires all that.
__________________
"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 13th October 2016, 02:02 AM   #494
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 64,733
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
Oh, thanks. Now I have to go out and buy a new irony meter: one calibrated on the log scale.
You're acting as if I didn't provide the evidence and reasoning for my position.
__________________
"Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack!"
Argumemnon 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 13th October 2016, 08:29 AM   #495
CriticalThanking
Designated Hitter
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: On in memory
Posts: 2,960
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
CT,
- Thanks -- but so far, I still think I'm right...
I can tell.
Quote:
- Though, I do see that I should have used a raffle instead.

- The information I have available is that there were two winners out of 10 million tickets.
Highlighting mine. Stop right there. In a raffle, by definition there can be only one winner. There is only one piece of paper drawn from the hat. If you do an additional drawing, then that is an independent event. The odds on the second drawing are the same if the original winning piece of paper is put back in the hat, or both the numerator and denominator drop by 1 if the first winning piece of paper is left out for the second drawing. Perhaps you meant there were two tickets with a potential winning name, but that's not how I interpreted what you said.

Quote:
I have one ticket. Based only on that information, I have two chances to have one of the winners.
Say what? If you have one ticket, how can you have 2 chances to win? If you have 1 ticket, you have one chance out of total tickets purchased (raffle) or one chance out of total possible numbers drawn independent of tickets purchased (lottery).

Quote:
9,999,998 of the tickets were losers. Given that info, the likelihood of me being a winner is 2/10,000,000.
Okay it sounds like you are wanting to say you purchased 2 entries and 9,999,998 other entries were purchased by one or more other people. Yes, your probability of winning is 2/10,000,000. Your odds are 2:9,999,998.

In a raffle, you have a guaranteed winner. In a lottery, you do not. As others have asked you ad nauseum, given that you exist, what are the odds that you exist?

ETA: jt512, Argumemnon, please take it outside.

Last edited by CriticalThanking; 13th October 2016 at 08:31 AM.
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 13th October 2016, 08:46 AM   #496
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 64,733
Originally Posted by CriticalThanking View Post
ETA: jt512, Argumemnon, please take it outside.
We like doing it with an audience.
__________________
"Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack!"
Argumemnon 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 13th October 2016, 08:52 AM   #497
CriticalThanking
Designated Hitter
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: On in memory
Posts: 2,960
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
We like doing it with an audience.
Won't someone think of the children? Please take it to the Social Diseases and Coital Events sub-forum.
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 13th October 2016, 08:55 AM   #498
CriticalThanking
Designated Hitter
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: On in memory
Posts: 2,960
And Jabba, none of this addresses the many other flaws with your position continually pointed out by others: definition of soul, pool of potential souls, justification of numbers used, et al.
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 13th October 2016, 09:41 AM   #499
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by CriticalThanking View Post
Won't someone think of the children? Please take it to the Social Diseases and Coital Events sub-forum.
We HAVE one of those?
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle 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 13th October 2016, 09:52 AM   #500
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 64,733
Originally Posted by CriticalThanking View Post
Won't someone think of the children? Please take it to the Social Diseases and Coital Events sub-forum.
I think those are hidden to non-super-members.
__________________
"Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack!"
Argumemnon 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 13th October 2016, 10:16 AM   #501
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
I think those are hidden to non-super-members.
It is to be hoped that any "super-members" are being kept hidden.

just sayin'.
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle 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 13th October 2016, 10:58 AM   #502
jt512
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,578
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
You're acting as if I didn't provide the evidence and reasoning for my position.

That's because you misinterpreted the so-called evidence and your reasoning was wrong.

As to how I'm acting, I'm acting as if I'm arguing with someone who a) doesn't have the math background to even have an opinion; b) fails to recognize the inadequacy of his background; c) has an opinion anyway; d) has been corrected by more than one person who does have the requisite background; e) failed to recognize superior expertise in others; and e) despite the foregoing, insists his opinion is correct.

Last edited by jt512; 13th October 2016 at 11:06 AM.
jt512 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 13th October 2016, 11:07 AM   #503
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,735
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
CT,
- Thanks -- but so far, I still think I'm right...
- Though, I do see that I should have used a raffle instead.

- The information I have available is that there were two winners out of 10 million tickets. I have one ticket. Based only on that information, I have two chances to have one of the winners. 9,999,998 of the tickets were losers. Given that info, the likelihood of me being a winner is 2/10,000,000.
- So far, I can't see where that's wrong.
- (I'm tempted to put this more into gambling terms, and say that the odds of me winning are 2 to 9,999,998 -- would that be correct?)
Originally Posted by CriticalThanking View Post
I can tell.
Highlighting mine. Stop right there. In a raffle, by definition there can be only one winner. There is only one piece of paper drawn from the hat. If you do an additional drawing, then that is an independent event. The odds on the second drawing are the same if the original winning piece of paper is put back in the hat, or both the numerator and denominator drop by 1 if the first winning piece of paper is left out for the second drawing. Perhaps you meant there were two tickets with a potential winning name, but that's not how I interpreted what you said...
CT,
- I didn't know that there could be only one winner in a raffle. I've participated in something just like a raffle in which there were three winners.
__________________
"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
"Et tamen salsus est ratio plerumque recta ad unum." 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 13th October 2016, 11:15 AM   #504
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 64,733
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
That's because you misinterpreted the so-called evidence and your reasoning was wrong.
Nope. At this point you're simply making claims without supporting them. Your say-so does not determine reality.

Quote:
As to how I'm acting, I'm acting as if I'm arguing with someone who a) doesn't have the math background to even have an opinion
Ad hominem.

Quote:
d) has been corrected by more than one person who does have the requisite background
Yes, reality sure is a democracy.

Quote:
e) failed to recognize superior expertise in others
Expertise? What are your credentials? I'll remind you that Dave quoted wikipedia.
__________________
"Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack!"

Last edited by Argumemnon; 13th October 2016 at 11:20 AM.
Argumemnon 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 13th October 2016, 11:19 AM   #505
CriticalThanking
Designated Hitter
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: On in memory
Posts: 2,960
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
CT,
- I didn't know that there could be only one winner in a raffle. I've participated in something just like a raffle in which there were three winners.
The only raffle I have ever heard of in which there are multiple winners are the situation I described in which there are multiple prizes via multiple drawings from the same pool of tickets. It is not possible for two people two win a single instance of a prize in any raffle I have ever heard of. Each draw changes the odds in the subsequent drawing. The total number of potential winners is reduced since the prior winner is removed.

How many "potential souls" buying a ticket are there? What evidence is there for soul or its ability to buy a ticket?

If you believe there can be multiple winners of a single prize, which of the winning souls gets primacy in the body drawn? Do they timeshare? Is it "survival of the fittest"?


Inquiring minds want to know.

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 13th October 2016, 11:52 AM   #506
LarryS
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 727
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
...and around we go again.

Mod InfoContinued from this thread.
Posted By:zooterkin
BTW, has anyone provided a Proof of Mortality yet . . . beyond the death of accessories such as the body?
LarryS 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 13th October 2016, 12:03 PM   #507
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 10,817
Originally Posted by LarryS View Post
BTW, has anyone provided a Proof of Mortality yet . . . beyond the death of accessories such as the body?
Not even close.
John Jones 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 13th October 2016, 12:13 PM   #508
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,790
Originally Posted by CriticalThanking View Post
It is not possible for two people two win a single instance of a prize in any raffle I have ever heard of.

What if we could perfectly reproduce the winning ticket? Wouldn't that bring back the same win?
__________________
"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; 13th October 2016 at 12:17 PM.
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 13th October 2016, 12:42 PM   #509
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 10,817
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
What if we could perfectly reproduce the winning ticket? Wouldn't that bring back the same win?
John Jones 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 13th October 2016, 02:26 PM   #510
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 64,733
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
So shall we go back to watching Jabba divide his finite level of knowledge and understanding between a sequence of posts that seems to be increasing without an upper bound, and observe the inevitable consequences?
I'll bring the popcorn. Just have some soda ready.
__________________
"Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack!"
Argumemnon 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 13th October 2016, 02:30 PM   #511
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,735
Originally Posted by CriticalThanking View Post
The only raffle I have ever heard of in which there are multiple winners are the situation I described in which there are multiple prizes via multiple drawings from the same pool of tickets. It is not possible for two people two win a single instance of a prize in any raffle I have ever heard of. Each draw changes the odds in the subsequent drawing. The total number of potential winners is reduced since the prior winner is removed.

How many "potential souls" buying a ticket are there? What evidence is there for soul or its ability to buy a ticket?

If you believe there can be multiple winners of a single prize, which of the winning souls gets primacy in the body drawn? Do they timeshare? Is it "survival of the fittest"?


Inquiring minds want to know.

CT
CT,
- Sorry. I missed your previous point about multiple drawings. There were three drawings in the incident I mentioned.
- In the current case, I'm just claiming that the likelihood of me currently existing is the result of the number of selves currently existing divided by the number of potential selves, and the number of potential selves is unlimited.
__________________
"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
"Et tamen salsus est ratio plerumque recta ad unum." 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 13th October 2016, 02:37 PM   #512
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,849
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
CT,
- Sorry. I missed your previous point about multiple drawings. There were three drawings in the incident I mentioned.
- In the current case, I'm just claiming that the likelihood of me currently existing is the result of the number of selves currently existing divided by the number of potential selves, and the number of potential selves is unlimited.
How does the likelihood of your current existence differ from your body's current existence?

What is a potential self? Specifically, please.
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 13th October 2016, 02:42 PM   #513
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 64,733
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- In the current case, I'm just claiming that the likelihood of me currently existing is the result of the number of selves currently existing divided by the number of potential selves, and the number of potential selves is unlimited.
If I throw a dart, what are the odds that it hits this precise spot in the universe? Do you divide the number of spots by the number of potential spots and declare that it's a miracle, or do you perhaps think that the dart hitting that spot is due to a number of specific factors, making the odds pretty much 1?
__________________
"Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack!"
Argumemnon 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 13th October 2016, 03:13 PM   #514
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,607
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
...divided by the number of potential selves, and the number of potential selves is unlimited.
No. That is not the scientific hypothesis. The scientific model has no concept of "potential selves."
JayUtah 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 13th October 2016, 03:18 PM   #515
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,607
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
the result of the number of selves currently existing...
No. That is not the scientific model. The scientific model has no concept of "winners" in a "raffle" of life, there allegedly being some 7 billion such "winners" alive today. The factors that affect whether a self comes into existence have absolutely nothing to do with how many times it has previously happened or how many times it is currently in force. Under the scientific hypothesis it has to do only with the qualitative factors that affect the production of a human organism with a viable brain. It is irrespective of how many times it happens.
JayUtah 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 13th October 2016, 03:58 PM   #516
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,849
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
No. That is not the scientific model. The scientific model has no concept of "winners" in a "raffle" of life, there allegedly being some 7 billion such "winners" alive today. The factors that affect whether a self comes into existence have absolutely nothing to do with how many times it has previously happened or how many times it is currently in force. Under the scientific hypothesis it has to do only with the qualitative factors that affect the production of a human organism with a viable brain. It is irrespective of how many times it happens.
What is the likelihood that Jabba will address this?
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 13th October 2016, 04:16 PM   #517
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,607
Originally Posted by jond View Post
What is the likelihood that Jabba will address this?
"Virtually zero."
JayUtah 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 13th October 2016, 04:28 PM   #518
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,849
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
"Virtually zero."
He must be calculating potential responses.
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 13th October 2016, 04:29 PM   #519
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 23,053
Originally Posted by LarryS View Post
BTW, has anyone provided a Proof of Mortality yet . . . beyond the death of accessories such as the body?

I guess it's been proven to a scientific certainty but not to a mathematical/logical certainty.

I'll be back ...
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader 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 13th October 2016, 06:19 PM   #520
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
I'll bring the popcorn. Just have some soda ready.
SODA!?!?!
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle 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 12:27 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.