Proof of Immortality II

[John Jones]

Any chance we'll get to see any proof of immortality before we die?

 

[Jabba]

837

Why is the denominator infinity?
I'm no math genius, especially when it comes to statistics and probability, but as far as I know, when you calculate the likelihood of something existing, you would take into account the conditions that existed prior to it existing, not conditions that may exist in the future.

Dave,
- I think that the following will lead us in the right general direction, but will require some (a lot of?) tweaking along the way.
- Probability is based upon the information we have. But the info we have leads us to inferences about the future that may, or may not, be true. We can add such inferences to the info we have, and come to new inferences -- we just need to take into account the probability of the different inferences we’re making…
- Here, we need to take into account the probability that the universe is singular and finite, and see how that affects our conclusions.

- For the moment, I’m trying to show that infinity is the proper denominator in our formula -- even if the universe is finite, and singular.

 

[Jabba]

837

Why is the denominator infinity?
I'm no math genius, especially when it comes to statistics and probability, but as far as I know, when you calculate the likelihood of something existing, you would take into account the conditions that existed prior to it existing, not conditions that may exist in the future.

Dave,
- I think that the following will lead us in the right general direction, but will require some (a lot of?) tweaking along the way.
- Probability is based upon the information we have. But the info we have leads us to inferences about the future that may, or may not, be true. We can add such inferences to the info we have, and come to new inferences -- we just need to take into account the likelihood of the different inferences we’re making…
- Here, we need to take into account the probability that the universe is singular and finite, and see how that affects our conclusions.

- Here, I’m trying to show that infinity is the proper denominator, whether the universe is finite and singular or not.

 

[HighRiser]

Except you've not shown anything. No evidence. No explanation of the logic.

What you have done is restate your baseless assumptions over and over again.

 

[Akhenaten]

775

790xt,
- I thought that I had answered this a while back… Sorry.

It was only posted two days ago. Are you really having that much trouble following the thread?

This seems especially ludicrous given that xtifr is one of the current LCPs.

- In your analogy, you equate “potential runners” to “potential experiencers.” I don’t understand that equation.

Stop the presses!

I’d equate runners to brains, and say that there would be limited pools of potentials for both runners and brains.

And then go on to claim that a limited pool of brains can produce an infinite pool of selves.

 

[Slowvehicle]

837Dave,
- I think that the following will lead us in the right general direction, but will require some (a lot of?) tweaking along the way.
- Probability is based upon the information we have. But the info we have leads us to inferences about the future that may, or may not, be true. We can add such inferences to the info we have, and come to new inferences -- we just need to take into account the probability of the different inferences we’re making…
- Here, we need to take into account the probability that the universe is singular and finite, and see how that affects our conclusions.

- For the moment, I’m trying to show that infinity is the proper denominator in our formula -- even if the universe is finite, and singular.

Division by infinity is not an actual mathematical thing.

 

[jond]

Jabba,

Should I assume at this point that you are not going to answer my question?

 

[jond]

Here again is the post I'd like you to address, in case you missed it:

The "self"/"experiencer"/"consciousness"/"soul" or whatever word you wish to use does not exist as a separate entity. It is an emergent property, an ongoing process of the brain. When the brain stops working, the process stops. End of story. Which means: unless and until you demonstrate that the "self"/"experiencer"/"consciousness"/"soul" or whatever word you wish to use actually exists as a separate entity, the rest of your "theory" is completely shot.

Probability doesn't enter into it, regardless of whether or not infinity is a number. Impossible duplication scenarios don't enter into it (though the emergent property piece of the equation answers your impossible duplication situation as has been pointed out numerous times). You need to provide evidence that the self/soul exists as a separate entity. Without it, there is nothing that can be "immortal."

Please also note that several other posters have equally requested that you provide evidence that the soul exists and is immortal.

 

[Akhenaten]

837Dave,
- I think that the following will lead us in the right general direction, but will require some (a lot of?) tweaking along the way.

Nothing that you've suggested in the last two years has even been in the same plane as the right direction. What needs tweaking is your lack of understanding of the importance of evidence.

Probability is based upon the information we have.

Indeed. And the probability that souls are immortal needs to be calculated on the basis that souls exist at all.

You're pretty much trying to calculate the probability that unicorn manure is good for growing aliantha here, and that's before even considering your fatal mistake of trying to include infinity as a real number in your stupid formula.

But the info we have leads us to inferences about the future that may, or may not, be true.

We? Us?

The information that we have Jabba is that there is not the slightest inkling of evidence to support the existence of souls. Attempting to draw inferences about the probable life span of something that hasn't been shown to exist in the first place is abjectly futile.

We can add such inferences to the info we have, and come to new inferences -- we just need to take into account the probability of the different inferences we’re making…

No, YOU need to take into account that you're drawing new inferences about something that doesn't (according to the evidence that you have so far produced) actually exist.

- Here, we need to take into account the probability that the universe is singular and finite, and see how that affects our conclusions.

We have. It affects your conclusions by completely demolishing them.

- For the moment, I’m trying to show that infinity is the proper denominator in our formula -- even if the universe is finite, and singular.

For the moment? You've been trying to show this idiocy to hold true for the last two years and simply refuse to acknowledge that you've been shown to be completely wrong numerous times on every occasion that you've posted it.

 

[Akhenaten]

Jabba,

Should I assume at this point that you are not going to answer my question?

Even if, against all odds, he quotes your post, adds a meaningless number to it and then adds some words underneath it, there's not the slightest chance that he'll actually answer your question.

Jabbanetics™ is entirely based on providing answers to the questions Jabba wants you to ask, not the ones that you do ask.

 

[jond]

Even if, against all odds, he quotes your post, adds a meaningless number to it and then adds some words underneath it, there's not the slightest chance that he'll actually answer your question.

Jabbanetics™ is entirely based on providing answers to the questions Jabba wants you to ask, not the ones that you do ask.

I know, I've just had this weird sense of optimism lately. I'm hoping it will turn on a light and get him to understand. Maybe I should lay off the strong cheese?

 

[Agatha]

837Dave,
- I think that the following will lead us in the right general direction, but will require some (a lot of?) tweaking along the way.
- Probability is based upon the information we have. But the info we have leads us to inferences about the future that may, or may not, be true. We can add such inferences to the info we have, and come to new inferences -- we just need to take into account the likelihood of the different inferences we’re making…
- Here, we need to take into account the probability that the universe is singular and finite, and see how that affects our conclusions.

- Here, I’m trying to show that infinity is the proper denominator, whether the universe is finite and singular or not.

Jabba, can you see that you didn't answer godless dave's question?

gd: Why is infinity the denominator?

J: Because I put infinity as the denominator.

You utterly failed to explain why infinity (once again, it's not a number, it's a concept) is in your equation.

You cannot meaningfully have infinity as your denominator, any more than you can divide by freedom, purple or Mahler's 6th Symphony. As your denominator gets larger, the outcome tends toward zero and that holds true whether your numerator is one, a million or even infinity. Because infinity is not a number, so normal rules of operation do not apply to it. Infinity over infinity is not 1.

That said, this back and forth about impossible thought experiments of replicating brains, and trying to define the soul into existence is going absolutely nowhere. We are no further forward than we were when you opened this thread, except that many of us have spent time in the interim reading books and articles about the nature of consciousness. Sadly, it does not appear that you have done the same self-education.

Here's an idea - how about providing some evidence for the existence of souls? Along the way, you could consider providing evidence that any part of a person's consciousness (a process) can survive the death of the neurosystem.

If an analogy can help you work out what evidence you need, it would be similar to the evidence for how the "running" survives when the race is over and all the competitors are standing still. Or similar to the evidence for how the unique shape of one individual snowflake survives the melting of that snowflake.

If we must list just one question/comment to which you might respond, it would be this: "On what evidence do you base your claim for the existence of immortal souls?"

Please forgive any perceived snark in this post, it is merely borne of frustration at the way almost everything posted (even the information posted by your current LCPs) is ignored by you, Jabba.

 

[Butter!]

I still say the concept of a truly immortal soul is about a million times more horrifying than simply acknowledging that someday our consciousness will be replaced with placid, unaware nothingness.

Jabba, have you considered that?

Either way - Give it up, dude. This is the most meaningless, looping tautology to which I've ever born witness.

 

[abaddon]

Quit asking questions.

Jabba will not answer them.

 

[Loss Leader]

In your analogy, you equate “potential runners” to “potential experiencers.” I don’t understand that equation. I’d equate runners to brains, and say that there would be limited pools of potentials for both runners and brains.

A runner is a person in the process of running. A brain is a thing. You equate them here because you want souls to be infinite without runners, avocados, cars or anything else to qualify.

The correct analogy for runner is thinker (or experiencer). A person in the process of experiencing is an experiencer.

So, one again, does your theory predict an infinite amount of potential runners? Does your theory mean that any individual runner is immortal?

Why or why not?

 

[xtifr]

775

790xt,
- I thought that I had answered this a while back… Sorry.
- In your analogy, you equate “potential runners” to “potential experiencers.” I don’t understand that equation. I’d equate runners to brains, and say that there would be limited pools of potentials for both runners and brains.

I phrased it that way to highlight your somewhat misleading use of "experiencer". The experiencer is the brain. An experiencer is not something separate from the person experiencing, any more than a runner is something separate from the person running.

The thing you are arguing for, no matter what bizarre name you make up for it next, is not part of the scientific model, so you cannot use it to show that the scientific model is self-contradictory. Furthermore, I don't believe the thing you're trying to describe exists. If you want to change my mind on that, you have to present actual evidence, and people smarter than you or I have been trying and failing to find any concrete evidence of its existence for ages.

If your argument still works without using infinity as a denominator in your probability equation, I strongly urge you to give up on this infinity nonsense and go to the next step in your proof. Because so far, nothing you nor any of the best religious scholars in the world have said constitutes actual evidence for the existence of a soul.

We've been stuck on this point for, what, over two years now? And you've made no progress at convincing anyone that the denominator should be infinity. If your proof works without that assumption, just skip it and move on! Otherwise, I predict we'll still be arguing this same tired point until one of us finally gets a chance to test your hypothesis by dying of old age!

Aside: you've recently brought up infinite time and/or infinite numbers of multiverses. The problem there is that if you have infinite time or universes in which people can appear, your denominator does indeed go to infinity, but so does your numerator! And inf./inf. equals one. That whole line of argument is utterly and completely pointless.

 

[John Jones]

837Dave,
- I think that the following will lead us in the right general direction, but will require some (a lot of?) tweaking along the way.
- Probability is based upon the information we have. But the info we have leads us to inferences about the future that may, or may not, be true. We can add such inferences to the info we have, and come to new inferences -- we just need to take into account the likelihood of the different inferences we’re making…
- Here, we need to take into account the probability that the universe is singular and finite, and see how that affects our conclusions.

- Here, I’m trying to show that infinity is the proper denominator, whether the universe is finite and singular or not.

You have shown nothing of the sort. When will you start providing evidence of immortality? Will we see some of it in our lifetime?

 

[Toontown]

Heat death isn't an assumption, it's a projection based on what we currently know about the universe.

Some of what we know could be wrong, and a cyclical model could be correct. But since the Big Bang is a singularity, and any future ones would be as well, cyclical universes would be causally disconnected from each other.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model

1. A cyclical model is neither the only nor the most likely alternative to a ridiculously anomalous one-off which expands until it suffers heat death, followed by eternal Nothingness. The eternal inflation model, for example, has big bangs happening all over an eternally inflating hyperspace. And that's the model which most successfully predicted current observations, while the cyclical model is effectively ruled out by current observations. And the one-off big bang assumption is gravely wounded by observation as well. But you can still be right, if the current data is somehow botched.

2. At least a level 1 multiverse is practically guaranteed by the observationally measured flatness of spacetime. A level 1 is so giganogargantuan that it repeats itself, and any non-positive curvature mathematically requires it to be infinite. A level 1, BTW, is a single universe, bound by the same space and the same physics. It's just giganogargantuan.

3. Causal connection has no bearing on whether things exist or not. Things exist if they exist, causally connected or not.

 

[Mojo]

Probability is based upon the information we have.

What information do you have regarding your own existence?

 

[tsig]

And then?

Hey! Free Eye!

I lost my I once, it was terribly depersonalizing.