jond
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 3,440
I'm guessing that in a new life would be more likely.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Proof of Immortality II
- Thread starter Slowvehicle
- Start date
- Status
I'm guessing that in a new life would be more likely.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
935
962
982
- Re # 1: I agree. It is an impossible combination; and, it does represent a potential brain, and experiencer. In 935 above, I'm trying to say the same thing that you say here. I say, "All those potential experiencers from your Dad’s sperm cells and Cleopatra ova (all quintillion of them) just never had a chance." They represent potential experiencers that never had a chance -- i.e., were impossible.
- Re #2: I think that this is our basic divergence in determining the correct number to use for potential persons/brains/experiencers in our formula. I say that these combinations represent real, potential persons/brains/experiencers that were never conceived because of the time factor. How many more were never conceived because of the distance factor -- or any number of other factors? Whatever, these were all potential P/B/Es and should be included in our formula...
962
982
Dave,
- Re # 1: I agree. It is an impossible combination; and, it does represent a potential brain, and experiencer. In 935 above, I'm trying to say the same thing that you say here. I say, "All those potential experiencers from your Dad’s sperm cells and Cleopatra ova (all quintillion of them) just never had a chance." They represent potential experiencers that never had a chance -- i.e., were impossible.
- Re #2: I think that this is our basic divergence in determining the correct number to use for potential persons/brains/experiencers in our formula. I say that these combinations represent real, potential persons/brains/experiencers that were never conceived because of the time factor. How many more were never conceived because of the distance factor -- or any number of other factors? Whatever, these were all potential P/B/Es and should be included in our formula...
How can they be potential if they are impossible? This is not Schrodingers's immortality where something can be simultaneously a potential outcome and an impossible outcome.
Take a roll of one 6-sided die. The potential outcomes are 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1. 0 is not a potential outcome, nor is any number over 6. We don't include potential outcomes of 27, 0 or 587 when calculating the probability of getting a particular outcome - our denominator is 6 as we only consider the number of ways of getting the numbers 1 to 6 inclusive.
Why do you want to include impossible outcomes in your denominator? Do you consider the chance of getting an impossible 7 when rolling a 6-sided die? If not, why do you include an impossible outcome in your "experiencer" calculation?
Take a roll of one 6-sided die. The potential outcomes are 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1. 0 is not a potential outcome, nor is any number over 6. We don't include potential outcomes of 27, 0 or 587 when calculating the probability of getting a particular outcome - our denominator is 6 as we only consider the number of ways of getting the numbers 1 to 6 inclusive.
Why do you want to include impossible outcomes in your denominator? Do you consider the chance of getting an impossible 7 when rolling a 6-sided die? If not, why do you include an impossible outcome in your "experiencer" calculation?
Last edited:
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Srsly?
Please show the steps linking "impossible" with "potential".
I'm sure they'll be fascinating.
Then why not rely on the quote button? Your attempts at paraphrasing suck large, I'm afraid to say.
Which is to say, they had no potential.
Can you really not see that this is self-contradictory balderdash?
Once you start counting impossible combinations as having potential, how do you know where to stop?
I'm truly astounded that you think such a ridiculous line of reasoning is in any way valid.
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
Why?
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
Okay, Jabba, then what odds would you give for the potential of a child to be born of my father and Cleopatra?
You want to add these odds into the total odds of a particular person coming to exist. So, what odds would you give that particular person?
You agree that the pairing is impossible. The odds of it happening are, by your own admission, zero. Impossible things cannot happen.
So, go ahead and add all the impossible scenarios imaginable to your odds. Since they're all zero, they won't change the total odds in any way whatsoever.
If I want to calculate the odds of rolling a 12 with two six-sided die, my denominator must include every possible combination of two sets of 1-6 : 36 possible combinations. Should I also include the chance of me rolling a 9 on one die and a 14 on the other? Sure, I can if I want. The odds of that are zero. So, there are still only 36 possible combinations.
But I have to congratulate you on actually correctly working in the concept of infinity to your calculations. If the total number of possible outcomes is finite, the total number of impossible outcomes actually is infinite. You've added an infinite number of zeros. Excellent work. Please keep me updated on how many zeros you need to add together to get anything other than zero.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
What?
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
What what what?
Jabba, what are the odds of rolling a 9 with one conventional 6-sided die? If you think it's not zero, please explain why.
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
Fortune does not include time travel.
HighRiser
Graduate Poster
Bravo!
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
- Here’s my story.
1. I’m trying to essentially prove immortality using Bayesian Statistics.
2. More specifically, I’m trying to essentially prove that the scientific belief (A) -- that each of us humans has only one finite life to live -- is wrong.
3. More specifically yet, I’m trying to essentially prove that the scientific belief that each potential human has only one finite life to live, at most, is wrong.
4. I’ve been saying “essentially” because I’m only trying to show that the truth value of that scientific belief is extremely improbable – probably so improbable, as to approach zero. (If you guys know what I mean by this, but I’m not expressing it correctly, please let me know how it should be expressed.
)
5. My current, more specific objective is to clarify what I mean by “potential,” and to show why that particular meaning is the appropriate meaning to use in the current dispute re how many different, potential human brains and experiencers there are.
6. The formula I’m using: P(A|me) = P(me|A)P(A)/((P(me|A)P(A)+P(me|~A)P(~A)).
7. The most important term in this formula – the one that I think simply trumps all others -- and the one that I’m currently addressing, is P(me|A).
8. In order to determine the appropriate numerical entry for P(me|A) we need first to determine the number of actual human brains/experiencers currently existing, and divide that by the overall number of “potential” human brains/experiencers.
9. My claim so far is that the overall number of potential human brains is infinite. (I accept that, technically speaking, infinity is not a “number” -- yet, it is a concept that I need to interject into this formula…)
10. I may have to abandon the infinity effort as my argument for infinity may be too difficult to communicate effectively (or, it might even be wrong).
11. I’ve stuck with the infinity argument, so far, because I figured that the unimaginably-large-number argument requires that I show that I am a “special case” – and, that you guys are special cases -- is even more difficult to communicate effectively than is the infinity argument…
12. And, here we are.
991
996
998
1004
- Again … now this could be where I’ll have to agree to disagree. This could be one of our basic divergences. I still think that my reasoning is correct -- I, simply, may not be able to communicate it effectively.
- Though, I’ll try anyway.
- I’m suggesting that these potential persons who never had a chance due to timing are just as real (as potentials) as are those potential persons which in your figuring did have a chance due to timing.
- “And there -- but for fortune -- go you or (sic) I.”
- And in reality, if you look more closely, you’ll suspect that the only ones who really had a chance (those that were not impossible) were those who were actually conceived…
1. I’m trying to essentially prove immortality using Bayesian Statistics.
2. More specifically, I’m trying to essentially prove that the scientific belief (A) -- that each of us humans has only one finite life to live -- is wrong.
3. More specifically yet, I’m trying to essentially prove that the scientific belief that each potential human has only one finite life to live, at most, is wrong.
4. I’ve been saying “essentially” because I’m only trying to show that the truth value of that scientific belief is extremely improbable – probably so improbable, as to approach zero. (If you guys know what I mean by this, but I’m not expressing it correctly, please let me know how it should be expressed.
) 5. My current, more specific objective is to clarify what I mean by “potential,” and to show why that particular meaning is the appropriate meaning to use in the current dispute re how many different, potential human brains and experiencers there are.
6. The formula I’m using: P(A|me) = P(me|A)P(A)/((P(me|A)P(A)+P(me|~A)P(~A)).
7. The most important term in this formula – the one that I think simply trumps all others -- and the one that I’m currently addressing, is P(me|A).
8. In order to determine the appropriate numerical entry for P(me|A) we need first to determine the number of actual human brains/experiencers currently existing, and divide that by the overall number of “potential” human brains/experiencers.
9. My claim so far is that the overall number of potential human brains is infinite. (I accept that, technically speaking, infinity is not a “number” -- yet, it is a concept that I need to interject into this formula…)
10. I may have to abandon the infinity effort as my argument for infinity may be too difficult to communicate effectively (or, it might even be wrong).
11. I’ve stuck with the infinity argument, so far, because I figured that the unimaginably-large-number argument requires that I show that I am a “special case” – and, that you guys are special cases -- is even more difficult to communicate effectively than is the infinity argument…
12. And, here we are.
991
996
998
1004
Dave,
- Again … now this could be where I’ll have to agree to disagree. This could be one of our basic divergences. I still think that my reasoning is correct -- I, simply, may not be able to communicate it effectively.
- Though, I’ll try anyway.
- I’m suggesting that these potential persons who never had a chance due to timing are just as real (as potentials) as are those potential persons which in your figuring did have a chance due to timing.
- “And there -- but for fortune -- go you or (sic) I.”
- And in reality, if you look more closely, you’ll suspect that the only ones who really had a chance (those that were not impossible) were those who were actually conceived…
Last edited:
jond
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 3,440
At least you're beginning to see that infinity is not a number.
Jabba: do you think brains are immortal? If not, what is there that could possibly be immortal?
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
And I'm asking why you are suggesting that.
Remember that it's not "just" timing - although that should be enough - it's also causality. For all we know, Cleopatra could be one of my father's ancestors.
Last edited:
Ladewig
I lost an avatar bet.
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2001
- Messages
- 28,828
Are you making progress?
Is your goal to get all the posters on the JREF to accept your argument? Half the posters? A handful of posters?
Are you of the opinion that you are close to succeeding?
- Status