Proof of Immortality II

[Pixel42]

What form of the fallacy do you think I'm committing?

The form where you note that the odds against any particular outcome are extraordinarily large, ignore the fact that some of those particular extraordinarily unlikely outcomes must occur, and then marvel at the fact that one of those extraordinarily unlikely outcomes did occur.

 

[Loss Leader]

Frankly, I doubt your story, for much the same reason I doubt the unique brain assumption. I find it unlikely that you actually bet $150 on snake eyes and hit it, unless you tried it a bunch of times, and if you tried it a bunch of times, you'd likely go broke before you hit it.

You don't seem to have a very good grasp of gambling. If there were 11 people in the game and each bet on a different number from 2-12, what would be the chance of one of them winning?

Some percentage of wagers will pay off, no matter how small the odds. Heck, the lottery pays off. Would you insist that someone who won the lottery had previously purchased 250 million losing tickets?

All you have to do is dodge the equivalent of 4 quadrillion bullets. It could happen.

It did happen. So ... yeah. It did happen. The odds were low (assuming a random universe) and we beat them. Beating the odds gives you no information as to what the odds were. Look:

Tom walks into a casino with $200.00. An hour later, he leaves with $300.00. What were the odds of the game he was playing? How many games did he play?

The information is insufficient to answer the question.

Why you're arguing otherwise is entirely mysterious.

 

[Toontown]

Sentience, not sentence.

No. I said sentence. I meant sentence.

 

[Toontown]

Because, according to Toontown, Jabba's existence was a predetermined target. I expect it's all part of God's plan, or something. Maybe it was the mice, and all the business with the cheese and the squeaking really is just a front.

Now, if he can just produce some evidence for his predeterminer...

No. The target was predetermined, not the hit on the target. The target was Jabba's brain. The target was hit if and only if a particular organization of atoms occurred at specific spacetime coordinates.

 

[zooterkin]

No. The target was predetermined, not the hit on the target. The target was Jabba's brain. The target was hit if and only if a particular organization of atoms occurred at specific spacetime coordinates.

Who determined it, and when?

 

[Toontown]

Who determined it, and when?

Who needed to determine it? It's a tautological fact, like 1=1. The brain inside Jabba's skull is unique.

When? Seriously?? Was there ever a time when Jabba had a choice of brains?

 

[Toontown]

Dude, if you had any practical understanding at all of probability, you would never have bet $150 on snake eyes. Your best shot at turning $150 into $4800 (if you're too lazy to walk over to a blackjack or baccarat table), is to put the $150 on "don't pass" or "don't come" and let it ride until you lose it or it grows to $4800. That way, you avoid the 8% house edge on prop bets.

You don't seem to have a very good grasp of gambling. If there were 11 people in the game and each bet on a different number from 2-12, what would be the chance of one of them winning?

Question: how is your response related to my statement that you quoted as if you were responding to it?

Question: Is my statement above wrong? If so, show the math. It isn't difficult.

But of course you won't show the math, because you know I'm right, and you're trying to show how little I understand about gambling. So showing the math really wouldn't work for you, would it.

Frankly, I doubt your story, for much the same reason I doubt the unique brain assumption. I find it unlikely that you actually bet $150 on snake eyes and hit it, unless you tried it a bunch of times, and if you tried it a bunch of times, you'd likely go broke before you hit it.

You wouldn't be lying to old Toontown, would you?

Some percentage of wagers will pay off, no matter how small the odds. Heck, the lottery pays off. Would you insist that someone who won the lottery had previously purchased 250 million losing tickets?

I know that, and I still doubt his story, for the simple reason that I consider it more likely that the story is false than it is that he actually bet the snake eyes one time and hit it.

OTOH, I don't doubt that he may have had a habit of making such plays, happened to get away with it once, and then selected that non-representative outcome as his story line, somehow thinking it was somehow an argument against something I said.

It did happen. So ... yeah. It did happen. The odds were low (assuming a random universe) and we beat them. Beating the odds gives you no information as to what the odds were.

The precise magnitude of the odds need not be known. It is more than sufficient to know that the odds against my specific brain's existence are in the quadrillions to cause me to question whether it really is either that or nothingness forever.

 

[Toontown]

The form where you note that the odds against any particular outcome are extraordinarily large, ignore the fact that some of those particular extraordinarily unlikely outcomes must occur, and then marvel at the fact that one of those extraordinarily unlikely outcomes did occur.

Yeah, I do that a lot. For example, every time I get one of those emails informing me that I have won a lottery that someone was kind enough to enter me into.

I never respond to such emails, even though I know people do win lotteries. No telling how manny billions I've lost that way. Right?

I suppose I should take Loss Leader's approach and say "Well look at that. It happened. I actually won a lottery. There is no other more likely explanation." But I just can't force myself to trust that much, prime the pump, have faith, and believe.

 

[Pixel42]

Yeah, I do that a lot. For example, every time I get one of those emails informing me that I have won a lottery that someone was kind enough to enter me into.

I never respond to such emails, even though I know people do win lotteries. No telling how manny billions I've lost that way. Right?

The actual equivalent would be someone who really did win the lottery marvelling at how unlikely that was, and thinking there must therefore be something wrong with probability theory.

 

[Toontown]

The actual equivalent would be someone who really did win the lottery marvelling at how unlikely that was, and thinking there must therefore be something wrong with probability theory.

That wouldn't be me. I would be extremely surprised, but I wouldn't have any other more likely explanation for all the money in my bank account. And I certainly wouldn't consider something being wrong with probability theory as a more likely alternative.

 

[Akhenaten]

That wouldn't be me. I would be extremely surprised, but I wouldn't have any other more likely explanation for all the money in my bank account. And I certainly wouldn't consider something being wrong with probability theory as a more likely alternative.

Do you have anything to offer as far as the argument pro/con immortality is concerned?

 

[Giordano]

I think this is clearly Toontown's problem: the chance of Carlitos winning the lottery is low, but certainly possible. The chances of any individual person (or several people) winning the lottery is high (1 in many games). So hearing that someone (any one) won the lottery is not surprising. In fact, the person who won is more likely to announce their result than the people who didn't win. So it is not surprising that whoever won the lottery announces that they won!

I don't gamble very much, because I know the odds are against me. But that doesn't mean that individual people don't sometimes win. In fact, one is more likely to hear of these people than those who lost (the casinos like to advertise winners, and people like to talk about how they won). If it is a long term good financial idea doesn't relate to this thread, but I have no reason to doubt it if someone says they won at some point. It happens every day (although the casinos still win enough money on average to more than break even), I once won $36 at the first spin of a Roulette Wheel, even though the odds against it were 37:1. I lost this money latter the same day, but that is not as good a story so I don't tell it.

To connect it with Jabba: the chance that there is a Gabba is low. In fact, there was not a Jabba for the first 10 billion years of the Universe and likely will not be another for the rest of the Universe after he dies (he may disagree, but that is the standard model). Once people evolved, there was a very good chance that the conceptus from his Mom and Dad would produce a human being of some kind. It could have looked back and announced "I'm Jim and it was extremely unlikely to produce Jim." It could have looked back and announced "I'm Jill and it was extremely unlikely to produce Jill." The chance of it being any given one of them is highly unlikely. No one could easily determine in advance if the conceptus would be Jim, Jill, or Jabba, but it was very likely that it would be one of them, or some other human being (John? Jack?). Classic Texas Sharpshooter (I am beginning to feel bad for the state of Texas: surely there are other states with this logical fallacy?).

So yes, if you want to bet that any given mating of his parents would produce Jabba in particular, the odds are low and it would be a poor bet, much worse than betting number 3 before the spin of a Roulette Wheel. But if one waits for the spin, the ball stops in number 3, and then you observe "Oh look it is number 3, the chances of that before the spin were 37:1," you would be technically right, but you only chose number 3 (Jabba) after the spin.

But enough, I begin to feel that we are in another rut like the first one, and there is no point for me to try to explain further.

 

[Giordano]

Toontown may be right and any continued effort of mine to continue to post here would be stupid.

 

[Pixel42]

That wouldn't be me. I would be extremely surprised, but I wouldn't have any other more likely explanation for all the money in my bank account. And I certainly wouldn't consider something being wrong with probability theory as a more likely alternative.

And yet when the lottery is the one where the prize is existence you do seem to think that an alternative explanation to "there must be winners, I'm one of them" is required.

 

[John Jones]

I'll be snoozing now.

Wake me up when there is some evidence of immortality.

 

[Jabba]

Dave,
- What is the number you would substitute for P(me|A) in the Bayes formula of P(A|me) = P(me|A)P(A)/(P(me|A)P(A)+P(me|~A)P(~A))?

I'd start with the number of human males of reproductive age alive in October of 1969 and the number of human females of reproductive age alive in October of 1969, then look up whatever math is necessary to give the number of possible male-female pairs.
This would be a gross overestimate of the denominator, because it would assume every male had a chance to mate with every female alive. I'd have to figure out how to narrow it down somehow to account for geography and eliminate the number of people of reproductive age who were infertile.
Once I did that, I'd have to figure out how many possible ways there were for paternal and maternal DNA to combine for each possible pair.
ETA: According to this site, the total world population in 1969 was 3,616,108,749. So that's our starting point.

Dave,
- In determining the number of potential experiencers, wouldn’t you have to count (at least) every possible combination of sperm cell and ovum throughout human history? All those potential experiencers from your Dad’s sperm cells and Cleopatra ova (all quintillion of them) just never had a chance.

It's precisely because they never had a chance that we don't need to count them. The only experiencers with a possibility of existing are the ones that could be created by a combination of sperms and eggs that were in existence at the same time.
My dad and Cleopatra weren't alive at the same time. There are no potential offspring from their union.
For all we know, my dad's existence was dependent on Cleopatra's existence centuries earlier.

Dave,
- Would you say that a sperm cell from you and an ovum from Kate Middleton, together, do not represent a potential brain, and therefore, a potential experiencer?

They do, because Kate Middleton and I are both alive and of reproductive age at the same time.

- Changing the wording probably won't help -- but, just in case...
- Would you say that a sperm cell from your dad and an ovum from Cleopatra, together, would represent a potential brain?

1) An impossible potential brain, because there was no way for the two of them to ever meet.
2) Time travel isn't possible so there's no reason to include it in our calculation.
(Normally this would be an opportunity to insert a joke about my dad's age, but I stopped doing that after my hairline receded farther than his).

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...

Why?

- 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.
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…

…
- 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 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.

Dave,
- If we were able to bring those reproductive cells together, we’d have a person just as real and distinct as you or me. This potential person, represented by the combination of one of your Dad’s sperm cells and one of Cleo’s ova, just never had a chance -- due, in part, to timing.
- And, that’s part of what we’re trying to count – how many potential persons, for one reason or another, could never occur?

- Moving right along…
- Let X equal the number of human sperm cells in all of history. Let Y equal the number of human ova in all of history. If we multiply the two together, we get Z. Z being the total number of potential human brains and experiencers in all of history. Each combination of sperm cell and ovum represents a potential human brain and experiencer.
- Unfortunately, I was just kidding about Z being the total number of potential human brains and experiencers anyway – Z is just the beginning. All those combinations of sperm cell and ovum that did not occur would also produce sperm cells or ova, had they occurred -- and to determine how many potential experiencers there are all together, we need to add these new potential combinations to the pile…
- Wait! There are more…

 

[zooterkin]

- And, that’s part of what we’re trying to count – how many potential persons, for one reason or another, could never occur?

Why?

We can calculate the upper limit for different humans by calculating the number of different DNA combinations, based on the size of the human genome. It may be very large, but it's still not infinite.

 

[Akhenaten]

Dave,

<snip>

Why do you have to repost an entire discussion as a foreword to reintroducing your many-times rebuffed assertion that some really big (albeit artificially inflated) number is the equivalent of infinity?

BTW, any progress with the evidence of immortal souls yet?

 

[George]

Unfortunately, I was just kidding about Z being the total number of potential human brains and experiencers anyway – Z is just the beginning. All those combinations of sperm cell and ovum that did not occur would also produce sperm cells or ova, had they occurred -- and to determine how many potential experiencers there are all together, we need to add these new potential combinations to the pile…

Is this a new level of idiocy or am I being attentive tonight.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Is this a new level of idiocy or am I being attentive tonight.

I think it may be a new high in lows.