Proof of Immortality II

[Akhenaten]

…No, that's just the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy again. As Giordano so aptly put it…

- At least in a sense, for me, that’s the main issue here -- and the one that I will now try to address.

I think it's time for you to move away from your recently-adopted phrase, "in a sense".

You should consider using the phrase for which it serves as a euphemism, "according to Jabbanetics®". It won't advance your argument one iota, but you might at least pick up a point or two for finally being honest.

Which number replaces P(me|A)? Is it the likelihood of ME currently existing – or, is it the likelihood of someone/anyone currently existing?

It doesn't matter what number you use since your definitions of both "me" and "A" are entirely bogus.

I still acknowledge the efforts of those who are soldiering on, pretending that your "me" represents nothing more than an extant living neurosystem and its emergent consciousness and that "A" represents an actual scientific model but frankly, it's getting harder every day to do so.

- In order for the answer to be the former requires that I be someone “special” – such as the one being circled before the shot was fired.

Or, more succinctly, being the one referred to as "me" in your bastardised version of Bayes' formula.

- I’ll be back.

In common with us all, no you won't.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- You have it backwards. Can you show me where I said that?

Right here:

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…?

 

[Akhenaten]

Zoo,
- But, if we need to count that first level of potential persons, how about the next level? And, the next?

Why did you ignore this question?

Is there anything that would bring YOU back to life?

 

[Akhenaten]

- But Mojo, what if you can add finite numbers together infinitely?

Then you'd be right and every endeavour in the field of mathematics would be wrong.

Want to guess where the smart money is?

 

[Akhenaten]

Agatha,
- But, what about things that are impossible under the wrong circumstances, but possible under the right circumstances?

We'd end up in an endless discussion about the definition of "impossible".

Oh, wait . . .


We're already there.

 

[Akhenaten]

personally, I think that I have begun to justify my claim (for anyone of your apparent intelligence that is not also a committed skeptic).

How all-consumingly rude. First of all, you assume that there is a position called "committed skeptic" that simply rules things out no matter what words are said to them. As a lawyer, I care very much about facts, what they preponderate, and what it means when statements are irreconcileable.

Second, you assume that everyone in this thread but you shares the same background as "committed skeptics." We do not. We are all of various age, religions, locations, cultures, education and experience. When we come together on a topic, it's not because we're all in the same room conferring with each other.

In fact, one of the great weaknesses of your so-called effective debate is that you assume that there are two sides that caucus before coming together to slowly talk past each other. There is no consensus. We do not communicate with each other behind the scenes.

I object to your ideas because they make no sense. If they made sense, I'd agree with you. But they do not. They are a confusion of illogical and contradictory nonsense that add up to nothing. It's not my position as a committed skeptic that tells me this. Quite the opposite: it's my understanding of this that, in a small way, makes me a skeptic.

There is no such number as infinity. You cannot get to it by counting. If you count finite numbers for an infinite time, you would have infinity - BUT that infinity comes from you having introduced infinity into your calculation. It does not come from the sum of the finite numbers.

There are not infinite possible people. Impossible people are not possible people. You have shown nothing. You are wrong.

Geeze I wish I'd said that.

 

[jsfisher]

- But Mojo, what if you can add finite numbers together infinitely?

If you are going to count things to make up your denominator, then those things you count must all be equally likely.

Impossible things count for naught.

 

[Giordano]

But what if we added zeros to one another an infinite number of times? Wait, I think I remember that from math classes...

 

[jsfisher]

But what if we added zeros to one another an infinite number of times? Wait, I think I remember that from math classes...

Normal zeroes or jumbo zeroes?

 

[Loss Leader]

If you are going to count things to make up your denominator, then those things you count must all be equally likely.

Impossible things count for naught.

They don't, necessarily. But they all have to be weighted correctly. Things that are impossible should, in my opinion, be given a weight of zero. It's possible to think differently but those who do are wrong.

 

[xtifr]

1536xt,
- Try this on for size. What if the denominator includes all the potential combinations from the first set of potential combinations?

Is that even English? What do you mean "first set"? The denominator I'm allowing (though it's ridiculously larger than it should be if we take causality into effect), includes all possible combinations! That is all the combinations. There's no first set and second set. I'm allowing all combinations! Every single one!

And its still a finite number.

If we were talking about rolling two dice, the total number of possible combinations is 36. You don't take "all the potential combinations from that first set of combinations" to calculate the probability of getting a particular result. You've already got all the possible combinations. "All the potential combinations from the first set of potential combinations" is simply gibberish.

Re: the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy:

Which number replaces P(me|A)? Is it the likelihood of ME currently existing – or, is it the likelihood of someone/anyone currently existing?

It's the former. Which is, I grant, an incredibly tiny number. But distinctly non-zero.

- In order for the answer to be the former requires that I be someone “special” – such as the one being circled before the shot was fired.

Nonsense. Utterly and completely false. There's nothing special at all here. You are simply one of the many possible arrangements of particles that happened to have occurred. (Because causality, but we're ignoring causality for the moment, in order to try to give you every possible advantage.) Asserting that you're somehow special and pre-chosen doesn't make you special and pre-chosen. You are where the bullet happened to hit. And drawing a circle around yourself and claiming that you're the target is the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy exactly.

 

[Jabba]

Hold on. I thought you said P(me|A) wasn't the likelihood of you existing, it was the probability of A being correct given that you exist.

Dave,
- You have it backwards. Can you show me where I said that?

Right here:

- The following is “Right here.”

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…?

Dave,
- I don’t see such a claim in that passage. Please be more specific.

 

[Jabba]

- But Mojo, what if you can add finite numbers together infinitely?

You won't live long enough. It's not as if you're immortal.

- Cute. (Really...)
- The word, "can," was misleading. Sorry about that.
- By "can," I really meant "logically legitimate."
- I'm just saying that all those potential people who never existed would have had reproductive cells, that combined, would have produced more reproductive cells, etc., etc. -- with no end of logically legitimate potential selves. Each combination of potential reproductive cells represent 'many' new potential selves, with even more potential combinations, etc., etc. I'm saying that potential selves are just as numerous as the digits in the square root of 2.
- I doubt that explanation will fully communicate, but maybe, it will get us started...

 

[Mojo]

I'm just saying that all those potential people who never existed would have had reproductive cells, that combined, would have produced more reproductive cells, etc., etc.

The human genome is of finite length, so has a finite number of possible sequences of base pairs. Combining any two of those possible sequences would produce one of the same set of possible sequences. There would still be a finite number of them.

 

[Pixel42]

with no end of logically legitimate potential selves.

Nope.

As has been pointed out to you many times, human DNA has a finite number of base pairs, and therefore a finite number of possible combinations. You can include as many hypothetically possible (or even impossible) people and their hypothetical progeny as you like, the number you get to will never be infinite.

 

[Mojo]

- Cute. (Really...)

I didn't think it was worth bothering to answer your question properly because Loss Leader had already done so:

There is no such number as infinity. You cannot get to it by counting. If you count finite numbers for an infinite time, you would have infinity - BUT that infinity comes from you having introduced infinity into your calculation. It does not come from the sum of the finite numbers.

I had forgotten that you were likely to have ignored his response.

 

[pakeha]

- Cute. (Really...)
- The word, "can," was misleading. Sorry about that.
- By "can," I really meant "logically legitimate."
- I'm just saying that all those potential people who never existed would have had reproductive cells, that combined, would have produced more reproductive cells, etc., etc. -- with no end of logically legitimate potential selves. Each combination of potential reproductive cells represent 'many' new potential selves, with even more potential combinations, etc., etc. I'm saying that potential selves are just as numerous as the digits in the square root of 2.
- I doubt that explanation will fully communicate, but maybe, it will get us started...

As to the hilited bit: no. Just no.
Please keep in mind that what you're talking about isn't a self, but rather a sense of self. This sense of self isn't an independent 'thing' but more akin to the glow of a light bulb when functioning.

The human genome is of finite length, so has a finite number of possible sequences of base pairs. Combining any two of those possible sequences would produce one of the same set of possible sequences. There would still be a finite number of them.

A good point- in any case, those possible sequences can never add up to infinity.

 

[Mojo]

I don’t see such a claim in that passage. Please be more specific.

OK, how about here:

- Firstly, I'm claiming that my conscious existence right now is extremely improbable.
- But then, what specific event is not extremely improbable? Extremely improbable events happen all the time. They HAVE to happen. I should get used to it.
- Yet, certain "kinds" of improbable events rightfully give us pause... We think, "This is an interesting coincident..." I'm claiming that such events give us pause because we can think of at least one other somewhat plausible explanation. We don't have to accept that such events are random and just happen. I'm claiming that such is the case right here. Your existence right now, according to the "scientific" model, is SO improbable that almost any potential explanation would rightfully supercede it.

You were trying to "essentially prove immortality" by using Bayesian statistics to prove that something you call "the scientific model" (and which you were defining as "A") is very improbable, or even impossible, remember? We can still see the first part of the thread.

 

[jsfisher]

...
- I'm just saying that all those potential people who never existed would have had reproductive cells, that combined, would have produced more reproductive cells, etc., etc. -- with no end of logically legitimate potential selves.

No, still finite. The reproductive cells themselves are not infinitely variable, so neither can their paired combinations.

Each combination of potential reproductive cells represent 'many' new potential selves, with even more potential combinations, etc., etc.

Still finite.

I'm saying that potential selves are just as numerous as the digits in the square root of 2.

And what you are saying is still wrong.

 

[Giordano]

- Cute. (Really...)
- The word, "can," was misleading. Sorry about that.
- By "can," I really meant "logically legitimate."
- I'm just saying that all those potential people who never existed would have had reproductive cells, that combined, would have produced more reproductive cells, etc., etc. -- with no end of logically legitimate potential selves. Each combination of potential reproductive cells represent 'many' new potential selves, with even more potential combinations, etc., etc. I'm saying that potential selves are just as numerous as the digits in the square root of 2.
- I doubt that explanation will fully communicate, but maybe, it will get us started...

Nope. Read the other posts if you wish to know why.
Seriously, if you are serious I suggest that you should read a book, or take a course, on statistics. Now. You may have forgotten some things since your certification years ago. In any case it would help make your arguments more in tune with current thinking.