Proof of Immortality II

[Giordano]

- There is no P(me) is 1 in the Bayesian formula. We're taking an event that has already happened and we estimate how that event effects the truth value of an existing theory.

Actually you are wildly miscalculating what the standard model predicts, so you can't say that the fact you are here is impossible given the predictions of the standard model.

 

[Jabba]

But to calculate the probability, you still need to look at the conditions at the time of the event occurring.

- Bayes talks about the "probability" of the theory, and the "likelihood" of the event.
- Here, I think that you're referring to the likelihood of the event. But the Bayes formula refers only to the likelihood of the event, given that the theory is true (and separately, given that the theory is not true). It does not consider the conditions at the time of the event occurring.

 

[godless dave]

- Here, I think that you're referring to the likelihood of the event. But the Bayes formula refers only to the likelihood of the event, given that the theory is true (and separately, given that the theory is not true). It does not consider the conditions at the time of the event occurring.

You're right, I was confusing likelihood and probability; the P in the formula threw me off.

Any calculation of the likelihood of an event has to consider the conditions at the time of the event occurring, if the event in question depends on other events (which creation of a human being does).

 

[pakeha]

jond and Pakeha,
- Sorry. I shouldn't have responded to your earlier objections. I can't really deal with more than one sub-issue at a time, and I'm currently struggling to show that something can be impossible and potential at the same time...

No worries, Jabba.

- ISOW, impossible does not rule out potential.

How not? According to godless dave

Any calculation of the likelihood of an event has to consider the conditions at the time of the event occurring, if the event in question depends on other events (which creation of a human being does).

 

[carlitos]

- ISOW, impossible does not rule out potential.

I don't know what "ISOW" means, but the rest of this is really stupid. An impossible thing has zero potential.

 

[Jabba]

You're right, I was confusing likelihood and probability; the P in the formula threw me off.

Any calculation of the likelihood of an event has to consider the conditions at the time of the event occurring, if the event in question depends on other events (which creation of a human being does).

Dave,
- How would you include "conditions at the time of the event" in the formula?
- The formula: P(A|me) = P(me|A) P(A)/(P(me|A) P(A) + P(me|~A) P(~A))

 

[jsfisher]

Dave,
- How would you include "conditions at the time of the event" in the formula?
- The formula: P(A|me) = P(me|A) P(A)/(P(me|A) P(A) + P(me|~A) P(~A))

Since A is "the scientific model" and ~A is anything else, and since "anything else" doesn't require Jabba be immortal, why is this formula so important to you, Jabba?

 

[Akhenaten]

- But they do involve the impossibility of traveling through time.

One can but wonder at the level of compartmentalisation that allows a mind to simultaneously consider time travel to be impossible and immortality to be a valid proposition.

And, they do it the same way that an offspring of your dad and Cleo would require traveling through time

That would be the least of the requirements.

-- i.e., to produce one of the brains that you accept as potential but never realized would also require going back in time and changing something.

What????

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- How would you include "conditions at the time of the event" in the formula?
- The formula: P(A|me) = P(me|A) P(A)/(P(me|A) P(A) + P(me|~A) P(~A))

They would have to be part of P(me|A). How else would you get P(me|A)? How else would you calculate a likelihood for any event that depends on previous events?

 

[Loss Leader]

I'm currently struggling to show that something can be impossible and potential at the same time...

Let me know how that goes.

What is the potential of rolling a 9 and a 13 with two six-sided die?

 

[Akhenaten]

Has this got anything to do with proving immortality?

Of course not. Jabba has gone so far down the Jabbanetic™ rabbit hole that the question of immortality has long been forgotten.

The very question of what it is that's supposed to be immortal remains not just unanswered, but unaddressed.

 

[Akhenaten]

Pharaoh: I wonder if I might someday be allowed to borrow that phrase (Vortex of Random Obliviousness) for a song title. It would go well as a follow up to Event Horizon of the Formless.

Our house would be honoured.

You're not Edgar Froese, are you?

 

[Akhenaten]

jond and Pakeha,
- Sorry. I shouldn't have responded to your earlier objections. I can't really deal with more than one sub-issue at a time, and I'm currently struggling to show that something can be impossible and potential at the same time...

Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.

- the Queen of Hearts​

Undoubtedly Her Majesty was speaking from the breakfast nook.

I'll have what she's having.

 

[Akhenaten]

I keep throwing 2 conventional six sided dice, Jabba. Every time I do, I get a number between 2 and 12.

I think rolling a 75 is an impossible outcome, so I don't factor it into my probability calculations when determining how likely each possible outcome is.

But by your logic, rolling 75 with just two dice is a potential (though impossible) outcome, and I should factor it in somehow. What value should I add to my denominator to take into account the potential outcome of 75?

A petunia!

​

 

[abaddon]

One can but wonder at the level of compartmentalisation that allows a mind to simultaneously consider time travel to be impossible and immortality to be a valid proposition.

I am unsure what to do with this. On the one hand oh Pharoah, you are most perspicatious.

On the other hand, I cannot see Jabba acknowledging that he is cherry picking amongst impossibilities on the basis of which impossibility he best likes whilst discarding those he does not. He will happily discount time travel as a possibility, while equally requiring it as a requisite for his argument.

Jabba's arguments have not only jumped the shark, they have gone " blasting across the alkali flats in a jet-powered, monkey-navigated... and it goes on like this."

I cannot explain why Jabba seems unaware how his arguments fail, nor how he seemingly cannot comprehend how far he has lurched from his original claims.

If everyone ceased posting in this thread, then this thread would die. But Jabba would immediately declare victory over JREF. He seems entirely oblivious that the entire site is being shut down shortly.

 

[Akhenaten]

I'm not talking about going back in time and changing something - ie., my dad marrying his high school sweetheart instead of my mom, I'm talking about time travel of one of the sexual partners - Cleopatra traveling forward in time to mate with my dad, or my dad traveling backward in time to mate with Cleopatra.

Dave,
- Yeah. You're right -- these are not the same.

You don't say?

- But then, your dad marrying his HS sweetheart would also require time travel, which as you say is impossible.

Not only would the LCP never have made such a ridiculous assertion but it flies in the face of the reality that many of us have indeed enjoyed this most delightful of experiences.

IOW, something you do accept as potential is also something you accept as impossible.

Blegfackle!

You are the only one who has accepted this ridiculous equivocation.

- ISOW, impossible does not rule out potential.

- ISOPROPYL, yes it does.

 

[Akhenaten]

- There is no P(me) is 1 in the Bayesian formula.

Nothing that you've proposed during the last two years is in the Bayesian formula.

Particularly absent, insofar as this discussion is concerned, is a credible value equating to (me).

We're taking an event that has already happened and we estimate how that event effects the truth value of an existing theory.

What existing theory would that be?

 

[Akhenaten]

Now we are talking about trans-time mating- this isn't Kansas anymore is it?

But if we could create an exact replica of Kansas . . .

 

[Akhenaten]

Dave,
- How would you include "conditions at the time of the event" in the formula?
- The formula: P(A|me) = P(me|A) P(A)/(P(me|A) P(A) + P(me|~A) P(~A))

I'd go with serving it as a side dish with a drizzle of balsamic vinegar and some freshly crushed garlic, although that might just be because I have a head cold and I'm craving aromatics.

 

[John Jones]

- There is no P(me) is 1 in the Bayesian formula. [...]

Citations, or it never happened.