Proof of Immortality II

[George]

766
- How about if the whole universe (including time, matter and energy) were infinite, or infinitely repetitive, would the number of potential brains be infinite?

On the subject of infinite repetition...







I thought I'd bung them in while I still have

 

[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

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.

892

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?

894

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

Dave,

- I think that I finally understand your dilemma – though effectively answering it may be beyond my ability…

- I think that the correct answer is that the SM (Scientific Model) would hold that the number of events that had to occur -- since the big bang (at least) -- in order for your brain to currently exist is absolutely unimaginably large, and the number of such events that we can identify are very few.
- Consequently, we cannot base the probability of your particular brain to currently exist purely on the events that led to its existence -- and what we do instead is base it on what we do know, or believe, about those events, and then treat the rest as random…
- So, given A, B and C, what is the probability that your particular brain would currently exist? To answer that question, we need to include an estimate of the number of potential separate brains possible -- in all of time (including the future). We currently have about seven billion of such brains existing, and the likelihood of your particular (separate) brain currently existing is consequently seven billion over the number of potential separate brains possible.

- Good luck.

 

[Jabba]

LossLeader,
- Happy to make your day.

 

[godless dave]

- I think that the correct answer is that the SM (Scientific Model) would hold that the number of events that had to occur -- since the big bang (at least) -- in order for your brain to currently exist is absolutely unimaginably large, and the number of such events that we can identify are very few.
- Consequently, we cannot base the probability of your particular brain to currently exist purely on the events that led to its existence -- and what we do instead is base it on what we do know, or believe, about those events, and then treat the rest as random…
- So, given A, B and C, what is the probability that your particular brain would currently exist? To answer that question, we need to include an estimate of the number of potential separate brains possible -- in all of time (including the future).

Why? None of the potential brains in the future have any bearing on my brain existing.

 

[Akhenaten]

837

837-862

890

892

894Dave,

- I think that I finally understand your dilemma – though effectively answering it may be beyond my ability…

You don't even appear to understand who it is that's facing a dilemma so it's little surprise that you have no answer for it.

- I think that the correct answer is that the SM (Scientific Model) would hold that the number of events that had to occur -- since the big bang (at least) -- in order for your brain to currently exist is absolutely unimaginably large, and the number of such events that we can identify are very few.

Unimaginable by whom? In any case, "absolutely unimaginably large" ≠ infinity.

BTW, your usage of "since the big bang (at least)" betrays a massive misunderstanding on your part of the nature of the Universe.

- Consequently, we cannot base the probability of your particular brain to currently exist purely on the events that led to its existence -- and what we do instead is base it on what we do know, or believe, about those events, and then treat the rest as random…

We do no such thing. It's your fantasy.

- So, given A, B and C, what is the probability that your particular brain would currently exist?

1

To answer that question, we need to include an estimate of the number of potential separate brains possible -- in all of time (including the future).

Even if that was true (or even feasible) it still doesn't justify your own estimate of there being an infinite number.

We currently have about seven billion of such brains existing, and the likelihood of your particular (separate) brain currently existing is consequently seven billion over the number of potential separate brains possible.

As wrong as that is, it's still nothing like the claim that you now seem to be backing away from that the likelihood is 1/∞.

- Good luck.

What an ironic (not to mention arrogant) thing for someone who's espousing the infallibility of mathematically derived probabilities to say.

 

[Akhenaten]

LossLeader,
- Happy to make your day.

Why not drop the trolling and just present your evidence of immortal souls?

 

[Loss Leader]

Dave,

- I think that I finally understand your dilemma – though effectively answering it may be beyond my ability…

- I think that the correct answer is that the SM (Scientific Model) would hold that the number of events that had to occur -- since the big bang (at least) -- in order for your brain to currently exist is absolutely unimaginably large, and the number of such events that we can identify are very few.
- Consequently, we cannot base the probability of your particular brain to currently exist purely on the events that led to its existence -- and what we do instead is base it on what we do know, or believe, about those events, and then treat the rest as random…
- So, given A, B and C, what is the probability that your particular brain would currently exist? To answer that question, we need to include an estimate of the number of potential separate brains possible -- in all of time (including the future). We currently have about seven billion of such brains existing, and the likelihood of your particular (separate) brain currently existing is consequently seven billion over the number of potential separate brains possible.

- Good luck.

Why wish Dave good luck? It's your theory. You are responsible for computing this. Good luck to you. (You'll need it.)

 

[pakeha]

[ . . . ]
- Consequently, we cannot base the probability of your particular brain to currently exist purely on the events that led to its existence -- and what we do instead is base it on what we do know, or believe, about those events, and then treat the rest as random…
- So, given A, B and C, what is the probability that your particular brain would currently exist? To answer that question, we need to include an estimate of the number of potential separate brains possible -- in all of time (including the future). We currently have about seven billion of such brains existing, and the likelihood of your particular (separate) brain currently existing is consequently seven billion over the number of potential separate brains possible.

- Good luck.

No, Jabba.
Can't you see what you've written is nonsense?

 

[Mojo]

I think that the correct answer is that the SM (Scientific Model) would hold that the number of events that had to occur -- since the big bang (at least) -- in order for your brain to currently exist is absolutely unimaginably large, and the number of such events that we can identify are very few.
- Consequently, we cannot base the probability of your particular brain to currently exist purely on the events that led to its existence -- and what we do instead is base it on what we do know, or believe, about those events, and then treat the rest as random…
- So, given A, B and C, what is the probability that your particular brain would currently exist? To answer that question, we need to include an estimate of the number of potential separate brains possible -- in all of time (including the future). We currently have about seven billion of such brains existing, and the likelihood of your particular (separate) brain currently existing is consequently seven billion over the number of potential separate brains possible.

You are indulging in the Texas sharpshooter fallacy again. Before the sharpshooter takes his shot, the probability of his hitting a particular point on the barn door may be extremely low, but he's going to hit it somewhere. You are taking the universe as it already is, drawing a target around it, and saying "it's really unlikely that it would turn out like this". That is only valid if the particular result was determined in advance, and it wasn't. Your assigning of a high level of improbability to something that has already happened and then using this as a starting point in your argument is exactly like the Texas sharpshooter painting a target around the random bit of the barn he's hit and claiming it shows what a good shot he is.

 

[Mojo]

Jabba: here's a bet.

With both of us present, one of us flips a coin, and then after it has landed I tell you whether it is heads or tails. If I'm correct you pay me $1, if I'm wrong I pay you $100. The probability of the coin landing a particular way up is 50%, but you're getting odds of 100 to one.

Would you accept the bet? If not, why not?

 

[Filippo Lippi]

I bet you a pint (when do you play Mansfield?) that he dodges your bet

 

[carlitos]

I’m trying to show that infinity is the proper denominator in our formula

Infinity is not a number. You may as well use "truth" or "justice" as the denominator of a fraction; it's complete nonsense.

 

[Jabba]

837
837-862
890
892
894Dave,
- I think that I finally understand your dilemma – though effectively answering it may be beyond my ability…
- I think that the correct answer is that the SM (Scientific Model) would hold that the number of events that had to occur -- since the big bang (at least) -- in order for your brain to currently exist is absolutely unimaginably large, and the number of such events that we can identify are very few.
- Consequently, we cannot base the probability of your particular brain to currently exist purely on the events that led to its existence -- and what we do instead is base it on what we do know, or believe, about those events, and then treat the rest as random…
- So, given A, B and C, what is the probability that your particular brain would currently exist? To answer that question, we need to include an estimate of the number of potential separate brains possible -- in all of time (including the future). We currently have about seven billion of such brains existing, and the likelihood of your particular (separate) brain currently existing is consequently seven billion over the number of potential separate brains possible.
- Good luck.

Why? None of the potential brains in the future have any bearing on my brain existing.

- Let’s try it this way.
- The “odds” of something happening depends, in part, upon the number of alternatives possible. For instance, the odds of getting a total of seven when rolling a pair of dice depends, in part, upon the number of combinations possible.
- I’m just claiming that the odds of your experiencer existing at any particular time depends, in part, upon the number of potential alternative experiencers – which includes all those potential alternatives that have not yet been “rolled.”

 

[Resume]

So are we living forever yet or not?

If so, I'm gonna adjust my 401k contributions.

 

[carlitos]

- Let’s try it this way.
- The “odds” of something happening depends, in part, upon the number of alternatives possible. For instance, the odds of getting a total of seven when rolling a pair of dice depends, in part, upon the number of combinations possible.
- I’m just claiming that the odds of your experiencer existing at any particular time depends, in part, upon the number of potential alternative experiencers – which includes all those potential alternatives that have not yet been “rolled.”

You didn't get the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy thing, did you.

The odds of something happening, that already happened, are 1:1.

 

[Loss Leader]

I’m just claiming that the odds of your experiencer existing at any particular time depends, in part, upon the number of potential alternative experiencers – which includes all those potential alternatives that have not yet been “rolled.”

Well, why don't you start by proving that there is such a thing as an "experiencer"? Because if there isn't, the odds of one existing are zero.

 

[godless dave]

- Let’s try it this way.
- The “odds” of something happening depends, in part, upon the number of alternatives possible. For instance, the odds of getting a total of seven when rolling a pair of dice depends, in part, upon the number of combinations possible.

The number of combinations possible on that roll, not on all rolls in the future.

The only possible experiencers at a given point in time are those that can be created by sexual reproduction of all the living humans of reproductive age at that point in time. That's a finite number.

My grandfather couldn't have been born in 1980, because his parents weren't alive then.

My niece couldn't have been born in 1970, because her parents weren't alive yet.

 

[Akhenaten]

- Let’s try it this way.

Because finding out how many different ways you can state exactly the same drivel is a such rich and rewarding pastime.

- The “odds” of something happening depends, in part, upon the number of alternatives possible.

There can only ever be two alternatives. It's what the word means.

I'm surprised a qualified statistician would be unaware of this.

For instance, the odds of getting a total of seven when rolling a pair of dice depends, in part, upon the number of combinations possible.

It also depends entirely on the numbers that actually exist on the dice in question.

It most definitely doesn't depend on the possibility that one of the dice might potentially have a nine on one of its surfaces.

- I’m just claiming that the odds of your experiencer existing at any particular time depends, in part, upon the number of potential alternative experiencers – which includes all those potential alternatives that have not yet been “rolled.”

Yes, we know that's what you're claiming.

Rewriting it over and over using steadily more incoherent levels of gibberish and increasingly borked analogies isn't going to change the fact that you have no evidence that the thing for which you're attempting to prove immortality even exists in the first place.

 

[Agatha]

- Let’s try it this way.
- The “odds” of something happening depends, in part, upon the number of alternatives possible. For instance, the odds of getting a total of seven when rolling a pair of dice depends, in part, upon the number of combinations possible.
- I’m just claiming that the odds of your experiencer existing at any particular time depends, in part, upon the number of potential alternative experiencers – which includes all those potential alternatives that have not yet been “rolled.”

No. That is not just the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy but also a variant of the Gambler's fallacy.

Re the highlighted "in part" - this is also incorrect. If you roll a pair of dice, the only thing affecting the odds is the number of combinations possible. The odds of rolling a seven from rolling a pair of dice is [the number of ways of rolling seven]/[the total number of possible combinations]. No other information about what was rolled in the past or that might be rolled in the future affects this. This holds true whether a seven hasn't come up for 165,450,681* rolls, or if a seven was the result of the previous roll.

*or any other number. Not infinity because that isn't a number.

What do you mean by 'experiencer'? If you mean the consciousness of an individual, then quantifying the odds of a particular 'experiencer' is meaningless, because consciousness isn't an object, it's a dynamic, constantly changing process.

If you mean a particular brain, the odds of the DNA combination forming that person is dependent on the parents' DNA. The structure and connections of that brain depends on the experiences and memories from the moment that neural connections begin, while the foetus is in the womb, right up to the present.

Either way, an analogy to dice rolls is mismatched. Either way, any reference to events in the future is inapplicable.

The chance of any one consciousness or particular brain arising can never be a number divided by all the possible consciousnesses or brains. A short thought experiment along the lines of whether a white couple living in New York in 2014 could conceive an foetus which develops an identical brain to Nelson Mandela, or whether the neurosystem of that foetus could have an emergent property of an identical consciousness to that of Nelson Mandela (I give both alternatives because it is not in the least bit clear what you mean by the word 'experiencer').

However, it seems to me that this line of thought about the 'odds' of an 'experiencer' has little or no bearing on the question of whether you can provide any evidence for immortality, 'souls', or consciousness surviving the death of the neurosystem. Perhaps you could favour us with your thoughts on this evidence?

 

[jond]

No. That is not just the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy but also a variant of the Gambler's fallacy.

Re the highlighted "in part" - this is also incorrect. If you roll a pair of dice, the only thing affecting the odds is the number of combinations possible. The odds of rolling a seven from rolling a pair of dice is [the number of ways of rolling seven]/[the total number of possible combinations]. No other information about what was rolled in the past or that might be rolled in the future affects this. This holds true whether a seven hasn't come up for 165,450,681* rolls, or if a seven was the result of the previous roll.

*or any other number. Not infinity because that isn't a number.

What do you mean by 'experiencer'? If you mean the consciousness of an individual, then quantifying the odds of a particular 'experiencer' is meaningless, because consciousness isn't an object, it's a dynamic, constantly changing process.

If you mean a particular brain, the odds of the DNA combination forming that person is dependent on the parents' DNA. The structure and connections of that brain depends on the experiences and memories from the moment that neural connections begin, while the foetus is in the womb, right up to the present.

Either way, an analogy to dice rolls is mismatched. Either way, any reference to events in the future is inapplicable.

The chance of any one consciousness or particular brain arising can never be a number divided by all the possible consciousnesses or brains. A short thought experiment along the lines of whether a white couple living in New York in 2014 could conceive an foetus which develops an identical brain to Nelson Mandela, or whether the neurosystem of that foetus could have an emergent property of an identical consciousness to that of Nelson Mandela (I give both alternatives because it is not in the least bit clear what you mean by the word 'experiencer').

However, it seems to me that this line of thought about the 'odds' of an 'experiencer' has little or no bearing on the question of whether you can provide any evidence for immortality, 'souls', or consciousness surviving the death of the neurosystem. Perhaps you could favour us with your thoughts on this evidence?

The odds of Jabba addressing this post are less than the odds that souls exist and are immortal.