Proof of Immortality II

[godless dave]

In fact, if you're not including the likelihood of your existence, why is "me" in the formula at all? Bayes is used for calculating the probability of a hypothesis being true.

 

[xtifr]

Giordano,
- Roughly speaking, what are the different values you would insert?

When making a similar argument to the one Giordano just made, I suggested using 10^80 factorial. This is probably too large, which would seem to unfairly weight things in your favor, but I don't really care. It's finite, which is the important thing, and the simple fact is that we don't know enough about the universe to get all that much closer of an approximation. Also, the exact value doesn't exactly matter. Finite vs. infinite is all I care about. As I've been saying for well over a year, I will accept any finite number of your choice!

I'll say it again: for the sake of argument, I will accept any finite number you want!

Would you prefer Graham's number^WP? I think it's certainly too large, but it's finite, so I'll accept it if you want it.

 

[Loss Leader]

When making a similar argument to the one Giordano just made, I suggested using 10^80 factorial. This is probably too large, which would seem to unfairly weight things in your favor, but I don't really care. It's finite, which is the important thing, and the simple fact is that we don't know enough about the universe to get all that much closer of an approximation. Also, the exact value doesn't exactly matter. Finite vs. infinite is all I care about. As I've been saying for well over a year, I will accept any finite number of your choice!.

This is all assuming that we live in a random universe. The fact is that we can't run the universe again from the start. It might turn out exactly the same. The universe, by necessity of its design, might always produce exactly the same results.

But I, too, will accept any finite number.

 

[Giordano]

Giordano,
- Roughly speaking, what are the different values you would insert?

Are we calculating the possibility of you in particular, or just any human "self?" I and others have explained why only the latter is relevant in this case. I would be happy to agree in the absence of any math that you are only one of a kind. If you believe, however, that the former is more relevant in terms of the math, perhaps you would be willing to explain how the math is any different for fingerprints verses "selves?"

By the way- you responded to a post of mine! I and both thrilled and worried.

 

[jond]

Giordano, dude! You got the call!

 

[Slowvehicle]

Giordano, dude! You got the call!

<jealous>

 

[John Jones]

Giordano, quick before the spell is broken!

Ask him for evidence that immortality or souls even exist!

 

[Giordano]

Gee- I should have had an acceptance speech prepared. I feel so... puzzled. Like any survivor: why me?


Okay, in for a pence, in for a pound. Jabba: would you please provide any evidence that you have for the existence of immortal souls (or even for non-physical souls)? Thanks!

 

[JoeMorgue]

I strongly doubt that this was ever the OP's intention.

More likely the whole epic mess is nothing more than an attempt to demonstrate that the principles of Truly Effective Debate™ can be employed to prove any proposition, no matter how ridiculous it is draw out even the most insubstantial discussion to whatever lengths are demanded by its proponent's need for attention..

I feel the need to point out that I maintain absolutely zero illusions as to any chance of ever getting a direct answer out of Jabba. The question as to whether Jabba has any intent of ever engaging on any reasonable argument was settled so long ago it might actually prove immortality as ironically enough anyone who remembers a time when arguing Jabba held any hope is probably a bonafide Highlander. He's either engaged in some amazingly dedicated act of trolling or beyond help which to me honestly amounts to the same thing when all is said and done. He's trolling us or trolling himself.

At this point any and all interactions with Jabba are not for his benefit. They are a mixture of practice for when I ever get around to arguing with someone that is capable of taking in and processing information in any way and on any level and for the benefit of anyone watching so they can see how utterly beyond the pale someone can get when it comes to their Woo.

 

[Resume]

One of the problems with a Jabba thread is that it seems to be going on forever.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I've not been in this thread for a while. Can anybody tell me whether Jabba's pet mathematician met him for lunch and told him he was right?

 

[John Jones]

I've not been in this thread for a while. Can anybody tell me whether Jabba's pet mathematician met him for lunch and told him he was right?

Neither of the educators/authors he contacted met with him nor supported his position.

 

[Jabba]

Dave,
- I’ll give it a try now.
- First, you should probably look up Bayesian probability. Here’s a little bit from Wikipedia:
Bayesian probability belongs to the category of evidential probabilities; to evaluate the probability of a hypothesis, the Bayesian probabilist specifies some prior probability, which is then updated in the light of new, relevant data (evidence).[1] The Bayesian interpretation provides a standard set of procedures and formulae to perform this calculation.
In contrast to interpreting probability as the "frequency" or "propensity" of some phenomenon, Bayesian probability is a quantity that we assign for the purpose of representing a state of knowledge,[2] or a state of belief.[3] In the Bayesian view, a probability is assigned to a hypothesis, whereas under the frequentist view, a hypothesis is typically tested without being assigned a probability.
- Next, if you analyze the Bayesian formula I’m using, you see that there is no place to include all the factors that led to my existence.
- The formula: P(A|me) = P(me|A) P(A)/(P(me|A) P(A) + P(me|~A) P(~A))
- Here, we are NOT asking for the likelihood of my existence – we already know that I exist. What we’re really asking is, “What is the random likelihood that I would exist if the theory at issue is true?” Or better yet, “What is the random likelihood that all the events necessary for my existence to occur would, themselves, occur IF THE THEORY AT ISSUE IS TRUE?”
- I think I’ll leave it there for now.
- So once again, does that help…?

In fact, if you're not including the likelihood of your existence, why is "me" in the formula at all? Bayes is used for calculating the probability of a hypothesis being true.

Dave,
- "me" is the new, relevant data (evidence) included in the formula. It is "new" in the sense that it isn't part of the evidence determining the prior probability of "A."

 

[Jabba]

xtifr and Giordano,
- How about helping me explain the Bayesian interpretation to Dave?
- Do that, and I'll gladly move on to your point. I plan on getting to your point eventually, anyway -- but, one point at a time.
- I still claim that according to the scientific model, potential selves/experiencers are infinite -- but, I can also put that off for awhile.

 

[Agatha]

What evidence have you used in determining the prior probability of A?

I assume by "A" you mean the scientific model of existence and mortality, though I'd welcome clarification on exactly what you do mean by "A".

 

[Loss Leader]

- I still claim that according to the scientific model, potential selves/experiencers are infinite --

... even though such things do not exist, and are running processes of a complex system.

... and even though your thinking doesn't distinguish between two separate but identical selves any more than it does two separate but identical volkswagens, dinosaurs, runners, bottles of beer or anything else.

... and even though infinity isn't a number.

.... and even though the chance of any one person being selected from an infinite pool wouldn't necessarily be 1/inf. if the odds of each individual were weighted differently (like the fact that many, many selves have a zero chance of ever coming into being).

 

[Agatha]

- I still claim that according to the scientific model, potential selves/experiencers are infinite -- but, I can also put that off for awhile.

You would be incorrect in that claim, though. The scientific model does not suggest that at all. However, even if you were correct, this would not be evidence that immortality is anything other than a fantasy. Even if by some coincidence, another person was born with your exact DNA, they would not be you.

The scientific model recognises that infinity is a concept, not a number.
The scientific model recognises that human DNA has a finite number of arrangements.
The scientific model recognises that consciousness is an emergent process of a living neurosystem, which ceases at the death of the organism.
The scientific model recognises that the persistent sense of identity is an illusion.
The scientific model recognises that duplicating a person's brain is impossible at our current state of knowledge.

 

[Giordano]

xtifr and Giordano,
- How about helping me explain the Bayesian interpretation to Dave?
- Do that, and I'll gladly move on to your point. I plan on getting to your point eventually, anyway -- but, one point at a time.
- I still claim that according to the scientific model, potential selves/experiencers are infinite -- but, I can also put that off for awhile.

Thanks for the offer, but:
1. I think someone should explain the Bayesian approach to you first. And the Standard Model. You don't seem to understand either.
2. You never have returned to any of the multiple points you have promised to return to in the past. Why on Earth should I believe you now?
3. I will not further participate in any discussion where you specifically address me and ignore most everyone else's posts. This is basic web politeness.

 

[Jabba]

What evidence have you used in determining the prior probability of A?

I assume by "A" you mean the scientific model of existence and mortality, though I'd welcome clarification on exactly what you do mean by "A".

Agatha,
- "A" is the scientific model, and (currently) specifically, it is that each potential self exists for one, finite time, at most.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- "me" is the new, relevant data (evidence) included in the formula. It is "new" in the sense that it isn't part of the evidence determining the prior probability of "A."

OK, I understand how it's new data. However, it's an expected outcome that fits in with the model, so if anything, shouldn't it increase the probability that the model is correct?