Proof of Immortality II

[Jabba]

766

747
751- Good.
- If time is actually infinite (and, as far as I know, no one has proven otherwise), wouldn’t the ‘number’ of potential brains also be infinite.

767

...2. (Major point): Even if time were infinite, entropy still exists, and means the universe is going to experience heat-death at some point. After which, brains can no longer exist. And that's going to happen within a finite amount of time…

xt,
- How about if the whole universe (including time, matter and energy) were infinite, or infinitely repetitive, would the number of potential brains be infinite?

 

[Akhenaten]

766

767xt,
- How about if the whole universe (including time, matter and energy) were infinite, or infinitely repetitive, would the number of potential brains be infinite?

No. They'd all be eaten by the infinite horde of zombies.

 

[Agatha]

766

767xt,
- How about if the whole universe (including time, matter and energy) were infinite, or infinitely repetitive, would the number of potential brains be infinite?

No. But if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a bus.

Jabba, how about providing some evidence for the existence of immortal souls?

 

[Slowvehicle]

No. But if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a bus.

Jabba, how about providing some evidence for the existence of immortal souls?

What a great idea! Perhaps Mr. Savage might deign to answer.

 

[jond]

What a great idea! Perhaps Mr. Savage might deign to answer.

Indeed, it is a capital idea! I wonder what it will take to get him to address this issue?

 

[Mojo]

How about if the whole universe (including time, matter and energy) were infinite, or infinitely repetitive, would the number of potential brains be infinite?

There's a clue for you.

 

[Loss Leader]

How about if the whole universe (including time, matter and energy) were infinite, or infinitely repetitive, would the number of potential brains be infinite?

And if Stargate were real, would Urgo really have looked like Dom DeLuise?

 

[pakeha]

[ . . . ]- 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.

[ . . . ]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. [ . . . ]

[ . . . ]How about if the whole universe (including time, matter and energy) were infinite, or infinitely repetitive, would the number of potential brains be infinite?

Jabba, is this really your idea of a meaningful discourse?

 

[godless dave]

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…

This does not describe any kind of probability I'm familiar with.

Events in the future cannot influence events in the past, so they are not relevant for a probability calculation.

The existence of a particular human consciousness depends only on the events that led to its existence.

 

[xtifr]

766

767xt,
- How about if the whole universe (including time, matter and energy) were infinite, or infinitely repetitive, would the number of potential brains be infinite?

A. This is irrelevant. You're trying to disprove the scientific model, not some imaginary fantasy world. Imaginary fantasy worlds are easy to disprove. Showing that immortality is more likely than a particular imaginary fantasy world is not a difficult achievement.

B. As I said before, several times, if the universe were infinite and infinitely variable, your chance of existence would be one. The number of potential brains would go to infinity, but so would the number of brains that would actually exist, and inf./inf. equals one. This is a variant of what's known as the Infinite Monkey theorem, which I've also pointed you at several times. If you've forgotten the link, it's here.

If you're going to talk about infinity, and you don't know the Infinite Monkey theorem, it's no wonder you're getting confused. It's pretty basic. I'm pretty sure I first encountered it in grade school.

 

[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.

837-862&863!

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.

890

This does not describe any kind of probability I'm familiar with.
Events in the future cannot influence events in the past, so they are not relevant for a probability calculation.
The existence of a particular human consciousness depends only on the events that led to its existence.

Dave,
-I guess that I don’t understand your question. What are the events in the future that I am using to determine probability?

 

[Akhenaten]

837

837-862&863!

890Dave,
-I guess that I don’t understand your question.

Good guess.

What are the events in the future that I am using to determine probability?

Mostly, the incredibly unlikely event that everyone you've been inflicting your nonsense on for the last two years will suddenly change their minds and accept that infinity is a real number.

 

[godless dave]

837

837-862&863!

890Dave,
-I guess that I don’t understand your question. What are the events in the future that I am using to determine probability?

The number of potential brains that could exist throughout the life of the universe.

766
- I'm saying that if time is actually infinite, the number of potential brains would also be infinite.

 

[Slowvehicle]

837

837-862&863!

890Dave,
-I guess that I don’t understand your question. What are the events in the future that I am using to determine probability?

Jab,
-I guess I don't understand your evasion. What has any of this to do with the existence of the "soul", and its "immortality"?

 

[jond]

Jab,
-I guess I don't understand your evasion. What has any of this to do with the existence of the "soul", and its "immortality"?

Given that Jabba asked for and immediately ignored/avoided/ran away from this critical piece of the equation, I suggest that we all declare "victory" (Jabba style) and ignore him entirely until he provides the evidence in support of the "soul" and its "immortality."

 

[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 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.

Dave,
-I guess that I don’t understand your question. What are the events in the future that I am using to determine probability?

Seriously?

See the highlighted (and particularly the bolded) portion of your own post, which you quoted, where you state that you take into account the probabilities of "inferences about the future which may or may not be true".

 

[pakeha]

837

837-862&863!

890Dave,
-I guess that I don’t understand your question. What are the events in the future that I am using to determine probability?

Other posters have amply answered your question.
My astonishment stems from the fact that I, pakeha, have learned a great deal from this thread and that you, Jabba, have not.
Why is this, Jabba?

 

[Loss Leader]

837

837-862&863!

890Dave,
-I guess that I don’t understand your question. What are the events in the future that I am using to determine probability?

Jabba - You know the happiest part of my day? It's when I log on and see that there are no new posts in this thread. And then I think to myself, "Maybe Jabba has finally gotten it. Good for him." That day turns into two and then three days.

But now you're back, ignoring everything that's been said and repeating everything you've already failed at. It's the worst part of my day.

 

[Toontown]

B. As I said before, several times, if the universe were infinite and infinitely variable, your chance of existence would be one.

No. The probability of a specific brain is the probability that a particular organization of atoms would occur at particular spacetime coordinates. The number of other brains or the total number of spacetime coordinates has no bearing on it. One particular organization, one particular place, one particular time, or bust.

The number of potential brains would go to infinity, but so would the number of brains that would actually exist, and inf./inf. equals one. This is a variant of what's known as the Infinite Monkey theorem, which I've also pointed you at several times.

No. The Infinite Monkey theorem is valid. What you said is not valid. What the infinite monkey would eventually type would be identical to Shakespeare's works, not the actual original works.

 

[Akhenaten]

No. The probability of a specific brain is the probability that a particular organization of atoms would occur at particular spacetime coordinates. The number of other brains or the total number of spacetime coordinates has no bearing on it. One particular organization, one particular place, one particular time, or bust.


No. The Infinite Monkey theorem is valid. What you said is not valid. What the infinite monkey would eventually type would be identical to Shakespeare's works, not the actual original works.

Do you have some evidence for the existence of immortal souls?

Perhaps you could pass it along to Jabba.