How can you even measure probability as you do here? What methodology are you using to end up with those numbers? And how can you attach a higher number to theories that you are arguing for? Isn't that a serious cognitive bias towards your own convictions?

As far as I see it, there is no probability until there is actual support for a hypothetical truth. All of these have no real foundation and is both highly speculative and fantasy. So probability cannot be applied to such a low degree of support.

So far, we have no data what-so-ever that support any kind of life after death. So it's a bit like putting the cart before the horse, adding probability to theories that do not have any foundation in the first place. To return to my favorite analogy in epistemology, Russel's teapot; we must first establish a true probability of there being a teapot, before adding the probability that it is a white, blue or red teapot. The attributes of the teapot cannot have a probability when there are no data to support that it's even out there in space.

It's like me asking you to guess the probability of my car's color. Red 10%, Blue 16,48%, Green 7,4%. Without any knowledge of whether or not I even own a car. Establish that there is data to support an actual hypothesis of me owning a car, then attach a probability of color. However, if it's only hypothetical that I own a car, then you can just continue with hypothetical probabilities of all attributes of that hypothetical car, without there ever be any data whatsoever of anything other than the existence of the car itself. So a low probability truth has low probability attributes. It becomes a form of infinite regress and thus the existence of the car needs to be established beyond the hypothetical before we continue with hypothetical attributes of that car.

How can you even measure probability as you do here? What methodology are you using to end up with those numbers? And how can you attach a higher number to theories that you are arguing for? Isn't that a serious cognitive bias towards your own convictions? — Christoffer

The first three are guesses. The fourth is calculated here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/269149

The fifth is:
(chance of eternalism) * (chance future real) * (chance time dimension circular)
50%*50%*50%=12.5%

As far as I see it, there is no probability until there is actual support for a hypothetical truth. All of these have no real foundation and is both highly speculative and fantasy. So probability cannot be applied to such a low degree of support — Christoffer

The foundations for eternalism are Relativity and the 'now' independent nature of the physical laws in general (also my argument here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5302/an-argument-for-eternalism/p1)

I agree the foundation for some of the others is shaky or non-existent, hence assigning a 1% probability (rounded up) for each of them.

So far, we have no data what-so-ever that support any kind of life after death — Christoffer

We will never have any data supporting life after death. People are still interested though; our primary directive is survival and this directive extends beyond the grave. But despite not having data, there are still possibilities and where there are possibilities there are probabilities.

It's like me asking you to guess the probability of my car's color. Red 10%, Blue 16,48%, Green 7,4%. Without any knowledge of whether or not I even own a car. — Christoffer

I can still assign a probability that you own a green car without knowing whether you own a car or not; I just assign a lower probability to account for the fact you may not even own a car.

The first three are guesses. The fourth is calculated here: — Devans99

That calculation does not have any valid foundation other than your own invention. There's a 50% chance I own a car. That is a calculation I just made, is that probability correct? No, since it refers to nothing more than a probability of my own invention.

I agree the foundation for some of the others is shaky or non-existent, hence assigning a 1% probability (rounded up) for each of them. — Devans99

You cannot assign any probability like this and not for the others either.

You haven't given any deductive reasoning behind any of the calculations which indisputably solidifies the probabilities you proposed.

We will never have any data supporting life after death. People are still interested though; our primary directive is survival and this directive extends beyond the grave. — Devans99

People's desperation in a will to continue life after death does not support there ever being any life after death. Desperation as a source for conclusions is an extremely irrational belief without any substance of knowledge at all. Emotional desperation is not enough to create a foundational understanding of the universe.

But despite not having data, there are still possibilities and where there are possibilities there are probabilities. — Devans99

This is fundamentally lacking any logic. Without any data or rational deduction, you have nothing but belief, which is not a foundation for any probability.

I can still assign a probability that you own a green car without knowing whether you own a car or not; I just assign a lower probability to account for the fact you may not even own a ca — Devans99

No, you can't, since you don't have any data to attach that probability to. You can't just invent a number like that, it's not how logic or probability math works. This is I think why you often ignore the counter-arguments you get on this forum. You are so convinced that your math logic is true that you ignore the holes in your logic and therefore others must be wrong. But your math logic is made up, there's nothing to support concluding with your numbers.

1%, 12.5%, how do you even reach those specific numbers? You're just inventing them out of thin air. Why not 12,6%? Why not 1,76%, Why not 19,4%? If some new theories pop up, are they within the calculus? Do they affect these numbers? If there are other possibilities, doesn't that mean that the calculated probabilities only ends up being based on how many guesses about the universe there is? If I say the universe is an apple pie, that's a possibility I just invented, so there must be a 1% chance that we are all interdimensional crust crumbs.

All of your "calculations" are merely extensions of blind guesses that you refuse to acknowledge as blind guesses, Devans.

You are determined to prove there is a god...and it is almost certain, you are determined to show that the god in question is one you have in mind.

Sometimes you attempt it out-front...with integrity; sometimes using back-door methods that lack integrity.

Either way...it is almost certain you will not succeed. I, personally, think it cannot be done. I know for certain that some very intelligent people have attempted to do it...and come up very short.

But, I will acknowledge that you, here in a relatively small Internet forum...MIGHT do it.

So far...you are about at strike seventeen.

That calculation does not have any valid foundation other than your own invention. There's a 50% chance I own a car. That is a calculation I just made, is that probability correct? No, since it refers to nothing more than a probability of my own invention. — Christoffer

In the absence of any data about the frequency of car ownership, it is correct to assign a 50% probability that you own a car; it is a boolean proposition with a boolean sample space.

You haven't given any deductive reasoning behind any of the calculations which indisputably solidifies the probabilities you proposed. — Christoffer

The deductive reasoning for eternalism was given here (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5302/an-argument-for-eternalism/p1). It is a provisional argument, so I have assigned a 50% probability it is correct.

The rest of the calculation is inductive, for example, the chances of circular time:
(chance of eternalism) * (chance future real) * (chance time dimension circular)
50%*50%*50%=12.5%

- chance of eternalism. My senses say no, but logic says yes. So I left it at a default 50%.
- chance future real. Only some flavours of eternalism are future real. Physics favours future real. Future real does not agree with our intuitive feel for time. So again I went with 50%
- chance time dimension circular. It is either a line or a circle. So 50%. Actually its more likely to be a circle (then every moment has a moment preceding it) so this is an underestimate

Do you not see how breaking the problem down in this manner is a superior approach to taking a blind guess?

No, you can't, since you don't have any data to attach that probability to — Christoffer

But in the absence of data, we assume a boolean distribution. We make that assumption because it is statistically the most likely distribution.

1%, 12.5%, how do you even reach those specific numbers? You're just inventing them out of thin air. — Christoffer

The 1% estimates have sufficiently small impact of the overall analysis that guessing them does not matter too much. I have given you the calculations for the two that matter. Those calculations are a step removed from a blind guess, which is what most people do.

You are determined to prove there is a god...and it is almost certain, you are determined to show that the god in question is one you have in mind — Frank Apisa

Dude, this is about life after death not God. Two different questions. Life after death is possible without God as pointed out in the OP.

I subscribe to no conventional religion. Deism is probably the best description (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism).

You are determined to prove there is a god...and it is almost certain, you are determined to show that the god in question is one you have in mind — Frank Apisa


Dude, this is about life after death not God. Two different questions. Life after death is possible without God as pointed out in the OP.

I subscribe to no conventional religion. Deism is probably the best description (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism). — Devans99

Yes...and almost all houses have a door in front and a door in back.

It does not matter if you use the door in front or the door in back...if you are using one of the doors to enter...IT IS THE HOUSE YOU ARE TRYING TO ENTER.

In any case, your "probability" estimates for almost everything you speak to are NOT probability estimates at all. You do not have the numbers and facts necessary for such estimates...although that does not stop you from pretending you do.

The chances that there is life after death...are not calculable.

If you want to blindly guess there is life after death...do it.

If you want to blindly guess there is no life after death...do it.

But to pretend this is a discussion legitimately probing whether there is or not...and that you can calculate the probability in any way...

...is disingenuous.

The deductive reasoning for eternalism was given here — Devans99

That's not a deductive argument, so no. Read the answers in that thread given to you. You ignore them and start new threads in which you conclude your previous arguments to be final and concluded without ever addressing the problems people raise. You end up just having personal beliefs proposed as truths with flawed math.

But in the absence of data, we assume a boolean distribution — Devans99

No we don't, you do. And you make conclusions based on the value you like. It's pure belief dressed in flawed logic.

The 1% estimates have sufficiently small impact of the overall analysis that guessing them does not matter too much. I have given you the calculations for the two that matter. Those calculations are a step removed from a blind guess, which is what most people do. — Devans99

This is utter nonsensical support of why you end up with those numbers. There's no math here, just made up numbers.

Here's a number: 7,37.
Do what you like with it, it's a number I find very probable to support a very large number of things.
- That's the logic proposed in your argument.

Dude, this is about life after death not God. Two different questions. Life after death is possible without God as pointed out in the OP. — Devans99

Life after death is just as much of a belief fantasy as the existence of God. Just as a conclusion that the universe is an apple pie with us being crust crumbs. There's a 7,37% chance of us being crumbs, because of the logic I just invented, supported by a boolean distribution calculation.

That's not a deductive argument, so no. Read the answers in that thread given to you. You ignore them and start new threads in which you conclude your previous arguments to be final and concluded without ever addressing the problems people raise. You end up just having personal beliefs proposed as truths with flawed math. — Christoffer

I read all responses. No-one came up with any valid counter arguments. I assigned a 50% probability that eternalism is true so no I am not concluding I'm correct.

Do you think I'm stupid enough to keep posting about it if it has been rebutted?

Would you like to offer a valid counter argument?

"But in the absence of data, we assume a boolean distribution
— Devans99

No we don't, you do. And you make conclusions based on the value you like. It's pure belief dressed in flawed logic. — Christoffer

Take a coin toss. You can assume it comes up heads, tails, or heads half the time. Which is the most correct assumption? Half the time is. So when doing a probability analysis, if you have no data for a particular sub-proposition, all you can do is assign a 50% probability.

Life after death is just as much of a belief fantasy as the existence of God — Christoffer

That is a very high level statement with no justification. See the OP for an example of how to argue an inductive proposition.

No-one came up with any valid counter arguments. — Devans99

The counter-argument is that you have no support for your math premises. How are those not valid counter-arguments? Produce actual support for your premises first.

Do you think I'm stupid enough to keep posting about it if it has been rebutted? — Devans99

No, I think you have a cognitive bias towards your own ideas to the degree that you won't listen to actual counter arguments made. You've received countless of counters to your arguments without actually addressing them fully. Do you think all of us are stupid enough to continue counter-arguing if we didn't see the holes in your reasoning? If you want us to agree with your conclusions you need to actually address the criticism you get, not just tell us your conclusion once more.

You can't hammer in the nail perfectly if you already bent it, it's still gonna be bent, regardless of how hard you smash it. You need a new nail.

Take a coin toss. You can assume it comes up heads, tails, or heads half the time. Which is the most correct assumption? Half the time is. So when doing a probability analysis, if you have no data for a particular sub-proposition, all you can do is assign a 50% probability. — Devans99

Yes, because you have the coin (data) and you have two sides (data) and you have physical conditions like air density, spin, force, energy (data) to conclude with a probability of a certain event.

That has nothing to do with a concept that is hypothetical without any data to support it. You try to use this example of probability as an example comparable to a conclusion made from not even having a coin.

So you have a belief of something and then you draw probabilities for that belief. That is NOT the same as having an actual coin with actual measurable data to draw probabilities from.

How this isn't obvious to you I don't know.

That is a very high level statement with no justification. See the OP for an example of how to argue an inductive proposition. — Devans99

Life after death has no support in science, so it's a belief. If you want to put "life after death" on a higher plane of hypothetical truth than the existence of God, you need to first prove it to have scientific validity as a concept, which it hasn't. What you believe is more or less true between the existence of God and life after death is totally irrelevant. It's therefore not a high-level statement, it's a logical conclusion of the nature of the argument.

You still have no valid premises and no support for your probability numbers. And you are referring to yourself as a foundation for the validity of those premises, i.e cognitive bias.

Stop hammering that bent nail.

You've received countless of counters to your arguments without actually addressing them fully. — Christoffer

I do address all counter arguments fully. If you disagree, provide a link to such an unaddressed counter argument.

Yes, because you have the coin (data) and you have two sides (data) and you have physical conditions like air density, spin, force, energy (data) to conclude with a probability of a certain event. — Christoffer

Ok, so say someone gave you 100 boolean propositions. You don't know what the propositions are but you have to guess how many are true. What would be your guess?

- 0 true
- 50 true
- 100 true

You would guess 50. So when you truly have no data about a proposition, it is correct to assume 50% likelihood of truth.

Life after death has no support in science, so it's a belief. — Christoffer

Eternalism is support for the life after death proposition. Eternalism is supported by science, see for example the Quantum Eraser experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_eraser_experiment).

I do address all counter arguments fully. If you disagree, provide a link to such an unaddressed counter argument. — Devans99

You haven't, you refer back to your original statements or other arguments you've made which are flawed, as per all the counter-arguments you've received in them.

Just because you say you've countered the counter-arguments, doesn't mean that you have.
It's like me saying that my conclusion is that I'm right, so you can't say I'm wrong. That's delusional.

Ok, so say someone gave you 100 boolean propositions. You don't know what the propositions are but you have to guess how many are true. What would be your guess?

- 0 true
- 50 true
- 100 true

You would guess 50. So when you truly have no data about a proposition, it is correct to assume 50% likelihood of truth. — Devans99

This doesn't adress the counter-arguments I gave.

And a boolean proposition is not the same as attaching your personal conviction or belief to such a calculation and concluding it to hold up. You have no data to support anything, no science, no nothing, but mix and match science and math in a way that fits your narrative. Then ignoring everything people counter-argue about it.

Eternalism is supported by science — Devans99

The conclusions you make are not. You cannot take one conclusion and twist it into your own true conclusion.

Why do you keep spamming the same answers over and over? People all over the forum keep countering your logic and you keep ignoring all of them and start new threads referring back to your own previous threads with a conclusion that they are correct, ignoring every counter-argument you got in those threads.

I'm sorry, but you are not able to participate in a philosophical dialectic since you do not even try and falsify your own arguments. You just spam your convictions over and over and ignore the things said. Before this discussion can move forward, you need to address the actual counter-arguments given, not ignore them and repeat yourself. I cannot continue the discussion with someone who won't understand the counter-arguments.

If you are actually working on papers to be published, please do so and listen to the feedback on those publications. It will be relentless I'm afraid. And maybe then you'll understand the counter-arguments given in all your threads on this forum.

You haven't, you refer back to your original statements or other arguments you've made which are flawed, as per all the counter-arguments you've received in them.

Just because you say you've countered the counter-arguments, doesn't mean that you have.
It's like me saying that my conclusion is that I'm right, so you can't say I'm wrong. That's delusional. — Christoffer

Yet you cannot provide any evidence of these alleged unaddressed counter-arguments.

This doesn't adress the counter-arguments I gave — Christoffer

Why?

Why do you keep spamming the same answers over and over? People all over the forum keep countering your logic and you keep ignoring all of them and start new threads referring back to your own previous threads with a conclusion that they are correct, ignoring every counter-argument you got in those threads. — Christoffer

No-one can provide me a link to these mysterious counter arguments.

I'm sorry, but you are not able to participate in a philosophical dialectic since you do not even try and falsify your own arguments. — Christoffer

What I am trying to do with these posts is to falsify my own arguments. I have not succeeded so far.

I have not succeeded so far. — Devans99

Because you won't actually listen to people. It's called cognitive bias. I'm not the only one who countered your arguments, I might be the only one stupid enough to keep answering. But you're trapped in circular reasoning and everyone tries to give you a way out, but you're stuck in that circle. Then people stop trying and leave you there, still convinced to be correct in your conclusion.

Let's put it this way: if I died and discovered an afterlife, I would be extremely surprised. And your conclusion that there's roughly one third of a chance of there being an afterlife seems frankly laughable. You must have gone wrong somewhere in your reasoning.

Isn't that a serious cognitive bias towards your own convictions? — Christoffer

He screams cognitive bias. Perhaps more than any other member of this forum that I have encountered.

If past-real eternalism is true, we are all, in a sense, eternal beings. That is not a long step from life after death.

He screams cognitive bias. Perhaps more than any other member of this forum I have encountered. — S

There is an element of devil's advocate. I do not have 100% conviction in the correctness of any of my ideas. Yet I need to argue in support of those ideas to find out if they are true or not.

Do you think I'm stupid enough to keep posting about it if it has been rebutted? — Devans99

Are you sure you want an honest answer to that question?

We have been through this before. You claim my points have been rebutted but you never give counter arguments or links to counter arguments. That is not a productive exercise from my perspective. Try to stay on topic.

We have been through this before. You claim my points have been rebutted but you never give counter arguments or links to counter arguments. That is not a productive exercise from my perspective. Try to stay on topic. — Devans99

The topic can't even begin to proceed in any productive manner until you acknowledge the counterarguments. That's your step 1. And note well that step 1 doesn't require that me or anyone else do anything at all. You can, and you should, help yourself. I've said this before, but it is actually immoral not to do so, but instead to pass the buck to others.

WHAT COUNTER ARGUMENTS?

This is getting very frustrating. The people who don't agree with me on this site use this strategy of claiming that my arguments have been countered but will not provide evidence. The only natural conclusion is that there is no such evidence.

It would be better to actually try engaging with my arguments.

I'm not sure anyone here can help you. I'm leaning towards the assessment that you are beyond help, at least from a philosophy forum.

I think the odds of me winning the lottery are 800% x10 because a bunch of stuff I just made up in my head. Looks like I need to go get a lottery ticket.

Typical. No counter arguments. Please, for example, point out what you think 'I just made up in my head'.

Are you willing to commit suicide with a 28% chance? I'm not going to hold my breath...

You can't just imagine a poor argument and some fairy tales into existence and then tell everyone they're losing a battle against what you've mistaken as valid because they can't prove leprechauns don't exist.

And probability is way beyond your imagination, go spend a lifetime learning how it actually works.

Sometimes it's hard to tell whether people are just trolling.

Again, no counter argument. You can't just say its a poor argument and not say why. This is a philosophy forum.

.

You must be trolling. There's no way you're this oblivious to reality. Stop wasting people's time.

How would you explain the results of the quantum eraser experiment if it is not past real eternalism?

How would you explain a start of time with presentism? - It is impossible.

Why does 'now' not feature in the laws of physics?

Try to keep an open mind please...

This is a philosophy forum. — Devans99

Then why are you here?