[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Slowvehicle]

- The two posts to which I refer immediately below are provided verbatim at the bottom of this post -- I nee in this postto n In this post, I refer back


Agatha,
- I don't think THAT follows.
- My DNA is not exclusive to me if it also leads to my twin.

Good Morning, Mr. Savage (and Happy Mother's Day)!

I there is no way to tell, from your response to Agatha, whether you actually read Agatha's post.

"You" are a product of "your" DNA, and of your environment.

Re-stating your hypothetical will not change that fact.

 

[PixyMisa]

2) right now I'm trying to show that, according to the scientific model, there should be no limit to the number of selves (or, senses of selves) possible

You will never do this, because it is completely wrong.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Agatha,
- That's really what I'm trying to do right now -- it's just that 1) there are multiple premises in my syllogism, 2) right now I'm trying to show that, according to the scientific model, there should be no limit to the number of selves (or, senses of selves) possible, and 3) therefore, the likelihood of my current existence -- given the scientific model -- is at best, 7,000,000,000/∞.
- If I can do that, the scientific model must be wrong, and I do not exist for just one finite time.

Good Morning, Mr. Savage!

I do wish you would follow mathematical convention, or provide support for your idiosyncratic application.

1/∞ and 7,000,000,000/∞. are indistinguishably undetermined.

Not fractions that represent nearly infinitely small numbers", but undetermined and undeterminable.

Here's a fun idea: how about presenting some concrete, objective, empirical evidence that the "soul" exists, and is "immortal"?

 

[Mojo]

- If I can do that, the scientific model must be wrong, and I do not exist for just one finite time.

Non sequitur. Even if you could* do that, and proved "the scientific model" wrong, it wouldn't follow that you do not exist for one finite time, because there could be models other than "the scientific model" in which you only have one finite existence.

If you want to prove that you "do not exist for just one finite time" then it is not enough to disprove one particular model under which you exist for just one finite time. If you want to achieve this by disproving models, you would have to disprove every model in which you exist for just one finite time, including all such models that you haven't even thought of. You should be able to see that you would have something of a problem doing that, and even if you can't see the problem I'm sure that everyone else does.

If you want to prove that you are immortal, then you need to produce evidence for that. Not evidence against something that you imagine to be "the scientific model".



*You can't.

 

[Agatha]

Agatha,
- That's really what I'm trying to do right now -- it's just that 1) there are multiple premises in my syllogism, 2) right now I'm trying to show that, according to the scientific model, there should be no limit to the number of selves (or, senses of selves) possible, and 3) therefore, the likelihood of my current existence -- given the scientific model -- is at best, 7,000,000,000/∞.
- If I can do that, the scientific model must be wrong, and I do not exist for just one finite time.

Your understanding of science and the scientific model is wrong. Important note: if you have infinity in an equation which refers to finite matter and time, then it is your equation which is wrong. Matter and time are finite, and there is simply nothing that can alter that no matter how often you keep trying to put infinity into your 'syllogism'.

According to the scientific model, there IS a limit to the number of selves (by which I assume you mean consciousnesses) possible. The limit arises from the fact that matter is finite, time is finite, the permutations of DNA are finite, the possible sights, sounds, smells, touches, feelings and occurrences that a living neurosystem can experience is finite. A huge number, but finite.

The likelihood of your current existence as calculated before your birth will be different according to how long before your birth the calculation is done (unless we live in a deterministic universe). As we cannot test whether we live in a deterministic universe or not - we cannot run the universe from T=0 again to see if we get the same outcome - knowing this likelihood doesn't actually provide you with any useful information.

However, the likelihood of your existence in a non-deterministic universe will never be anything divided by infinity, nor will it ever be 0*. It will be a very small number, but so will the likelihood of the existence of anybody else not yet born. Just as if we were rolling a die with 1x10^{ginormous but finite number} sides, then the chance of any particular side is small. But it is certain that 'a' side will be the result.

Your assertion that 'senses of selves' pop out of nowhere with no prior representation, or that there is no limit to the numbers of 'senses of selves' is quite simply wrong, and until you accept that this part of your idea is flawed, then you will continue to get stuck at this part of your proof.

We are made of finite atoms, finite chemicals, finite amounts of matter and finite combinations of DNA. We can experience a finite number of sights, sounds, smells, touches, feelings and occurrences. We exist in a finite span of time, and we exist in a finite universe. Infinity has no place in any calculation you make.

Your sense of self is an illusion which is a product of your consciousness, which in turn is an emergent process of your living neurosystem, which in turn is a product of your DNA together with your experiences of every kind. Every aspect of you is based on something finite and bounded by matter and time. Further, your particular DNA is inherited from your parents so is necessarily limited to the recombinations which can be made from your mother's DNA and your father's DNA. Your DNA cannot be anything but a combination of your parents' DNA together with mutations. It's all finite.

*ETA as calculated prior to your birth.

 

[Mojo]

I nee in this postto

I hope you are in one of the states in which neeing in posttos is legal.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Non sequitur. Even if you could* do that, and proved "the scientific model" wrong, it wouldn't follow that you do not exist for one finite time, because there could be models other than "the scientific model" in which you only have one finite existence.

If you want to prove that you "do not exist for just one finite time" then it is not enough to disprove one particular model under which you exist for just one finite time. If you want to achieve this by disproving models, you would have to disprove every model in which you exist for just one finite time, including all such models that you haven't even thought of. You should be able to see that you would have something of a problem doing that, and even if you can't see the problem I'm sure that everyone else does.

If you want to prove that you are immortal, then you need to produce evidence for that. Not evidence against something that you imagine to be "the scientific model".



*You can't.

That's a hellaidea. Why hasn't anyone suggested that before?

 

[Giordano]

- The two posts to which I refer immediately below are provided verbatim at the bottom of this post -- I nee in this postto n In this post, I refer back


Agatha,
- I don't think THAT follows.
- My DNA is not exclusive to me if it also leads to my twin.

Please stop with the DNA already! I and other posters here have, in response to your very own questions, explained that your DNA does not alone determine your physical self or the differences in the physical bodies of two identical twins. This point is not even crucial to your argument
Please stop with your obvious error!

 

[Giordano]

Jabba,
How can you read Agatha's post and not realize that she is agreeing with you that DNA is not alone what determines sense of self, but she goes on to explain that experiences also play a role in determine the physical brain?

 

[Giordano]

Jabba,

You will never be able to divide any number by infinity in the scientific model of the Bayesian theorem. Never. That is not okay math. Oddly you don't have to, since you are arbitrarily picking numbers, a billion would work mathematically. It would be wrong for other reasons, but at least it doesn't violate math. Hint, try a billion.

 

[John Jones]

Jabba,

You will never be able to divide any number by infinity in the scientific model of the Bayesian theorem. Never. That is not okay math. Oddly you don't have to, since you are arbitrarily picking numbers, a billion would work mathematically. It would be wrong for other reasons, but at least it doesn't violate math. Hint, try a billion.

Jabba is probably at his mother's house celebrating Mother's Day.

What are the chances that HIS mother died before today, therefore immortality?

 

[xtifr]

2) right now I'm trying to show that, according to the scientific model, there should be no limit to the number of selves (or, senses of selves) possible

No. The total number of particles in the universe is finite, and the total number of ways they can be arranged is finite, so there is a limit to the possible number of selves.

It doesn't matter whether they're perfect copies or not. Separate individuals have a separate sense of self, but there are still only a finite number of possible separate individuals that can exist, even in theory, in our universe.

You need to give up on trying to show that the standard model allows dividing by infinity, because it doesn't!

If your proof can't work without that, it's done and you're done. Proof failed. Otherwise, just substitute "really big number" and move on.

eta: suddenly, since I started focusing on the finite nature of the universe, I've stopped being Least Credulous Poster. Very curious.

 

[Slowvehicle]

No. The total number of particles in the universe is finite, and the total number of ways they can be arranged is finite, so there is a limit to the possible number of selves.

It doesn't matter whether they're perfect copies or not. Separate individuals have a separate sense of self, but there are still only a finite number of possible separate individuals that can exist, even in theory, in our universe.

You need to give up on trying to show that the standard model allows dividing by infinity, because it doesn't!

If your proof can't work without that, it's done and you're done. Proof failed. Otherwise, just substitute "really big number" and move on.

eta: suddenly, since I started focusing on the finite nature of the universe, I've stopped being Least Credulous Poster. Very curious.

Sic transit probabile...

 

[John Jones]

Agatha,
- That's really what I'm trying to do right now -- it's just that 1) there are multiple premises in my syllogism, 2) right now I'm trying to show that, according to the scientific model, there should be no limit to the number of selves (or, senses of selves) possible, and 3) therefore, the likelihood of my current existence -- given the scientific model -- is at best, 7,000,000,000/∞.
- If I can do that, the scientific model must be wrong, and I do not exist for just one finite time.

No, no, no, no, no!

You don't get to:

1) Discredit the scientific model when you don't even know what it is.

2) Offer some discredited opinion B as proof that your crackpottery must be correct because the scientific model A is not bullet-proof.

Stop talking and start thinking.

 

[John Jones]

[...]

If your proof can't work without that, it's done and you're done. Proof failed. Otherwise, just substitute "really big number" and move on.

eta: suddenly, since I started focusing on the finite nature of the universe, I've stopped being Least Credulous Poster. Very curious.

Jabba,

I hope you were paying attention.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Good Evening, Mr. Savage!

I trust you and yours have passed a pleasant Mother's Day. Mine has been quiet. My partner is out of town, doing some prints with some friends. It's no problem; neither of us is, or ever could be, a mother, so he day is just another Sunday.

On a lark, however, I looked up your "Bunch of Questions" thread form 2012. I don't know what I expected to find, really--and I'm not surprised at what I did, in fact, find.

Your approach on that thread was exactly the approach you used in the Shroud^TM threads, and this one; that is, redefine words our of all recognition, misstate the oppositng arguments, pretend to agreement when there is none...a very familiar metier. The oddest, and saddest, thing about reading the whole tread is that it could have been inserted, whole, in any of your other opi, without causing the slightest ripple.

It seems, sir, that you have not learned anything in the years you have been here--nothing of science, of technology, of "effective debate", or of information exchange. As I said, it makes me sad for you. It made me wonder, all over again, why you are here.

You might find it interesting to go back and read all three of the other threads, at a sitting. It might even encourage you to self-reflection, or even help you consider a different approach (since this one is, and has been, singularly unproductive).

Ah, well. You'll likely not read this, and even more likely not substantively respond if you do.

Here is something to which you can respond, if you choose: Why not simply present your practical, empirical, objective evidence that the "soul" exists, and is "immortal"? It might even be fun.

 

[John Jones]

Good Evening, Mr. Savage!

[...]

Here is something to which you can respond, if you choose: Why not simply present your practical, empirical, objective evidence that the "soul" exists, and is "immortal"? It might even be fun.

That would be quite revolutionary! Evidence presented on a skeptical and evidence-leaning forum!

Jabba, go for it! You could redeem your reputation (It could happen). Think of the benefits to your grandchildren!

 

[HighRiser]

Agatha,
- That's really what I'm trying to do right now -- it's just that 1) there are multiple premises in my syllogism, 2) right now I'm trying to show that, according to the scientific model, there should be no limit to the number of selves (or, senses of selves) possible, and 3) therefore, the likelihood of my current existence -- given the scientific model -- is at best, 7,000,000,000/∞.
- If I can do that, the scientific model must be wrong, and I do not exist for just one finite time.

Jabba, I mean no offence to you, personally, but I don't understand your apparent obstinance.

Your just-so argument is without merit and you've done absolutely nothing to support it since its presentation. You repeat the same things over and over again, changing and redefining terms, but not expounding on the underlying concepts. It seems to me that this is obvious to everyone involved save one; you.

I think the reason you're having so much difficulty supporting the premises of your 'syllogism' is that an unorganized collection of foggy fantasies is not a syllogism. Sorry, but there it is.

Your statements about what you call 'the scientific model' don't have any basis in science, and your math has basic flaws that aren't allowed in mathematics. Our peers who are educated in science and math have stated as much at length and repeatedly, but you have not even attempted any rebuttal of their critiques of your position.

I don't get the impression that you understand science well enough to falsify anything contained in it, or have a coherent concept your own position.

 

[Agatha]

Jabba, I mean no offence to you, personally, but I don't understand your apparent obstinance.

Your just-so argument is without merit and you've done absolutely nothing to support it since its presentation. You repeat the same things over and over again, changing and redefining terms, but not expounding on the underlying concepts. It seems to me that this is obvious to everyone involved save one; you.

I think the reason you're having so much difficulty supporting the premises of your 'syllogism' is that an unorganized collection of foggy fantasies is not a syllogism. Sorry, but there it is.

Your statements about what you call 'the scientific model' don't have any basis in science, and your math has basic flaws that aren't allowed in mathematics. Our peers who are educated in science and math have stated as much at length and repeatedly, but you have not even attempted any rebuttal of their critiques of your position.

I don't get the impression that you understand science well enough to falsify anything contained in it, or have a coherent concept your own position.

In short: "Your theories are the worst kind of popular tripe, your methods are sloppy, and your conclusions are highly questionable! You are a poor scientist, Dr. Venkman!"

Please read HighRiser's post and understand that it's not an attack on you personally, Jabba, but on your argument.

You need to fully understand the scientific model you are arguing against, but your insistence that infinity belongs anywhere in the scientific model of consciousness shows that in fact your understanding is flawed.

I recognise how hard it is to give up a cherished and long held belief or theory, and how it must feel that your audience here just don't understand what you are trying to convey. But we do understand, and we (just like others have done when you have propounded this theory on other boards) do not accept your 'syllogism' because it is neither logical nor accurate.

I don't expect you to be willing or able to easily* discard something that obviously has a great emotional appeal to you, and which satisfies your personal need to overcome the fear of your oblivion after your death. However, reality and facts simply don't bend to accommodate our personal needs and wishes. A comforting fantasy remains a fantasy, no matter how much you wish it to be true.

In order to overturn literally thousands of years of scientific understanding, you need to be 'on the same page' as the scientific understanding, and as long as you keep trying to push infinity as a concept into a model that deals exclusively with finite realities, you can never be on the same page or even in the same book.

I understand you have grandchildren and I hope they bring you great joy. My heartfelt and sincere advice to you is to enjoy your life and your family, to believe whatever makes you feel happy and content, and not to waste your time trying to argue against a scientific model that you don't yet fully comprehend.

*split infinitives are acceptable these days, apparently.

 

[Aepervius]

3) therefore, the likelihood of my current existence -- given the scientific model -- is at best, 7,000,000,000/∞.

How often were you told that this "∞" usage of yours is not only mathematically wrong but also wrong because of the finite combination of atoms in the volume of the brain (not even counting the finite possibility of neuron linking) ?

Welp.