Proof of Immortality II

[xtifr]

I'm sorry, I don't see how positing time travel or anything else like that gets you to infinity, since the entire possible number of combinations of particles in the volume of the habitable universe over the time period where life can occur is finite. Anything beyond that is simply quibbling over details. Yes, causality limits the possibilities, but even if we ignore causality, the possibility of Jabba existing is still finite. Nothing he's said, or, in my opinion, can say, will lead to or demonstrate his infinite improbability. That line of argument is devoid of reason. Period.

Even if I accept that Cleopatra might have slept with Jabba's dad, that doesn't get you one bit closer to infinity, because every finite number is infinitely far from infinity. Make your denominator as big as you want, Jabba. It's still infinitely smaller than infinity.

 

[Giordano]

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

But it would be a different Kansas, even if an exact duplicate, possibly because Kansas has a soul, self, sense of self, consciousness, experiencer (did it miss one?).

 

[Loss Leader]

I'm sorry, I don't see how positing time travel or anything else like that gets you to infinity, since the entire possible number of combinations of particles in the volume of the habitable universe over the time period where life can occur is finite.

But if we posit an infinitely large universe that exists for an infinite period of time, then the things science says about a finite universe would be wrong. Also, time travel and the ability to make Cleopatra sexually interested in someone who wasn't the Emperor of Rome. It's all so simple!

 

[jond]

Our house would be honoured.

You're not Edgar Froese, are you?

No, sir. But he is one of my early heroes.

 

[jond]

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.

Do you have any idea how much I love this place? Not a day goes by that I don't have a great laugh at *something*. Jet-powered monkey-navigated... Dude, don't leave us hanging!!!

 

[Slowvehicle]

Do you have any idea how much I love this place? Not a day goes by that I don't have a great laugh at *something*. Jet-powered monkey-navigated... Dude, don't leave us hanging!!!

+1. I must know...

 

[Loss Leader]

+1. I must know...

It's a Simpsons quote.

 

[Slowvehicle]

But it would be a different Kansas, even if an exact duplicate, possibly because Kansas has a soul, self, sense of self, consciousness, experiencer (did it miss one?).

..."observer"...?

 

[pakeha]

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). [ . . . ]

[ . . . ]Even if I accept that Cleopatra might have slept with Jabba's dad, that doesn't get you one bit closer to infinity, because every finite number is infinitely far from infinity. Make your denominator as big as you want, Jabba. It's still infinitely smaller than infinity.

Is there anyone here who doesn't get these points?
I'm possibly the most mathematically challenged person on the thread and I get it.

But if we posit an infinitely large universe that exists for an infinite period of time, then the things science says about a finite universe would be wrong. Also, time travel and the ability to make Cleopatra sexually interested in someone who wasn't the Emperor of Rome. It's all so simple!

cof cof.
Ah, if I may?
Neither Julius nor Anthony were ever Emperors of Rome [/pedantic and prolly annoying nit-pick]

 

[Jabba]

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?

- These are really interesting questions (Really. I'm not just trying to butter you up.), and I can see how one would think that P(me|A) would have to include the effects of previous events.
- And, in fact, we do need to include some such evidence, but it isn't the previous events that you're alluding to -- they're much less specific than are those to which you're referring. The previous events that "A" takes into account are 1) deaths "per capita," 2) the sparsity of evidence that there is anything left of the experiencer after death and 3) the abundance of evidence that there is not anything left of the experiencer after death.
- I'm sure that there is a better answer to your questions -- probably having to do with the different types of calculation(?) we might be doing -- but, I'll have to do more mental digging to come up with that answer...

 

[godless dave]

- These are really interesting questions (Really. I'm not just trying to butter you up.), and I can see how one would think that P(me|A) would have to include the effects of previous events.
- And, in fact, we do need to include some such evidence, but it isn't the previous events that you're alluding to -- they're much less specific than are those to which you're referring. The previous events that "A" takes into account are 1) deaths "per capita," 2) the sparsity of evidence that there is anything left of the experiencer after death and 3) the abundance of evidence that there is not anything left of the experiencer after death.
- I'm sure that there is a better answer to your questions -- probably having to do with the different types of calculation(?) we might be doing -- but, I'll have to do more mental digging to come up with that answer...

Are you or are you not talking about the likelihood of a particular individual existing? If you are, you have to consider all the factors that led to that person existing. That's how you come up with a likelihood.

 

[Akhenaten]

- These are really interesting questions (Really. I'm not just trying to butter you up.), and I can see how one would think that P(me|A) would have to include the effects of previous events.

How one would think?

You're the only one here who doesn't think this.

- And, in fact, we do need to include some such evidence, but it isn't the previous events that you're alluding to -- they're much less specific than are those to which you're referring.

How do you dare to invoke specificity when you are yourself unable to specify the nature of that for which you are claiming immortality?

The previous events that "A" takes into account are 1) deaths "per capita,"

Deaths per capita?

100 per 100. Some mystery about this, is there?

the sparsity of evidence that there is anything left of the experiencer after death

Sparsity? This is your new definition for zero, is it?

3) the abundant evidence that there is not anything left of the experiencer after death.

Are you attempting to switch sides or something?

- I'm sure that there is a better answer to your questions -- probably having to do with the different types of calculation(?) we might be doing -- but, I'll have to do more mental digging to come up with that answer...

All appearances lead to the conclusion that you don't even understand the question.

 

[Jabba]

I'm sorry, I don't see how positing time travel or anything else like that gets you to infinity, since the entire possible number of combinations of particles in the volume of the habitable universe over the time period where life can occur is finite. Anything beyond that is simply quibbling over details. Yes, causality limits the possibilities, but even if we ignore causality, the possibility of Jabba existing is still finite. Nothing he's said, or, in my opinion, can say, will lead to or demonstrate his infinite improbability. That line of argument is devoid of reason. Period...

xt,
- For now at least, I’m accepting that potential but unrealized combinations would have potential but unrealized combinations of their own.
- And even if the universe and all possible universes ran out of time and heat (which is hard for me to accept), there would still be an endless chain of potential experiencers that never had a chance of existence -- because all possible universes ran out of time and heat.
- I’ll read your response, but I may have to ignore it for a while – depending on how much Dave ties me up.

 

[godless dave]

xt,
- For now at least, I’m accepting that potential but unrealized combinations would have potential but unrealized combinations of their own.
- And even if the universe and all possible universes ran out of time and heat (which is hard for me to accept),

Why is this hard for you to except? That the universe will run out of heat (but not time) has been the standard cosmological model for almost twenty years, since astronomers calculated the geometry of the universe to be flat:

http://www.space.com/24309-shape-of-the-universe.html

 

[Jabba]

Are you or are you not talking about the likelihood of a particular individual existing? If you are, you have to consider all the factors that led to that person existing. That's how you come up with a likelihood.

- I'm talking about the likelihood of a person existing (that IS existing) given "A," and only "A." We're accepting that this person IS existing, and we want to know how that relates to the scientific theory. Does that support -- or undercut -- the scientific theory? Does that suggest that the scientific theory is wrong?

 

[carlitos]

What the hell?

 

[godless dave]

- I'm talking about the likelihood of a person existing (that IS existing) given "A," and only "A." We're accepting that this person IS existing, and we want to know how that relates to the scientific theory. Does that support -- or undercut -- the scientific theory? Does that suggest that the scientific theory is wrong?

Yes, and to calculate the likelihood of that person existing given "A", you need to include all the factors that A says led to her existence.

 

[Jabba]

Why is this hard for you to except? That the universe will run out of heat (but not time) has been the standard cosmological model for almost twenty years, since astronomers calculated the geometry of the universe to be flat:

http://www.space.com/24309-shape-of-the-universe.html

Dave,
- Assuming, for the moment at least, that you're correct about what the current standard cosmological model is, standard cosmological models have been wrong in the past. But mostly, that one universe would come and go and that be the sum total of existence is really hard to accept.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- Assuming, for the moment at least, that you're correct about what the current standard cosmological model is

You don't have to take my word for it. This information is widely available.

 

[Jabba]

Yes, and to calculate the likelihood of that person existing given "A", you need to include all the factors that A says led to her existence.

Dave,
- For the moment, I'll just say, "No, you don't." Not in Bayesian statistics.
- For now, a better explanation will have to wait. Talk to you soon.