Proof of Immortality II

[Loss Leader]

- Fine. I’m just arguing that the sense (statement) in which the perfect copy would be a different person is the appropriate sense to use in this case.

Hey, Jabba - guess how you can't get to infinity?

Did you say "by counting"? Give yourself ten points.

 

[Jabba]

1638

- Yes. But, probability is a complicated, confusing mess when viewed beneath the surface…
- The KIND of probability that you have in mind includes such conclusions as the odds that the Jets will beat the Raiders this Sunday, or the percent probability that it will rain in Baton Rouge tomorrow. In making such predictions, we try to take every existing factor, we can, into account. Our bankroll may depend upon it.
- But, that isn’t the KIND of probability we’re seeking in P(me|A). Here, we’re really asking about the likelihood of all the necessary events (for me to currently exist), actually occurring, given the scientific consensus that each potential self has but one, finite life to live (at most).
- (Actually, I haven't been able to find any scientists talking about potential selves (or, potential self processes) -- so, I'm just assuming that "each potential self has but one, finite life to live (at most)" is the unspoken consensus.)

I've bolded the part that agrees with what I said earlier...

Dave,
- You're right. I left out an important word: "random." I should have said, "...the random likelihood of all the necessary events (for me to currently exist), actually occurring...
- Does that make a difference for you?

 

[zooterkin]

- But, reproducing my particular sequence of base pairs would not bring me back to consciousness. The result would be somebody else.

Jabba, what circumstances would bring you back to consciousness?

 

[godless dave]

1638



Dave,
- You're right. I left out an important word: "random." I should have said, "...the random likelihood of all the necessary events (for me to currently exist), actually occurring...
- Does that make a difference for you?

Not in the slightest.

 

[jsfisher]

- Fine. I’m just arguing that the sense (statement) in which the perfect copy would be a different person is the appropriate sense to use in this case.

In what way would the two be different? What test could be used to distinguish one from the other?

 

[Toontown]

Hey, Jabba - guess how you can't get to infinity?

Did you say "by counting"? Give yourself ten points.

Jabba doesn't need to count his way to infinity. He's already in it.

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...-universe-its-very-flat-and-probably-infinite

The evidence keeps piling up. Boomerang, WMAPS, now BOSS. The burden of proof keeps weighing increasingly heavily upon those who assert a finite universe.

 

[Toontown]

Since you can be certain of neither what Jabba meant nor what I think he meant, how about we let Jabba himself clarify what he may have meant then move on from there?

I'm sure I understand what Jabba meant and what you think he meant.

You stay here and wait for clarification. I'll go on alone.

In what way would the two be different? What test could be used to distinguish one from the other?

You could locate both of them. Each would be occupying different spacial coordinates.

 

[carlitos]

1638



Dave,
- You're right. I left out an important word: "random." I should have said, "...the random likelihood of all the necessary events (for me to currently exist), actually occurring...
- Does that make a difference for you?

Ah, random. It sounds like Jabba is cribbing from some evolution-denial sources now. Were the marriages of your great-great-great-great-great grandparents random, Jabba? I bet they weren't.

 

[jsfisher]

I'm sure I understand what Jabba meant and what you think he meant.

You stay here and wait for clarification. I'll go on alone.

There's a prize you might want to consider.

You could locate both of them. Each would be occupying different spacial coordinates.

And which one is the copy?

 

[Toontown]

Ah, random. It sounds like Jabba is cribbing from some evolution-denial sources now. Were the marriages of your great-great-great-great-great grandparents random, Jabba? I bet they weren't.

The initial locations and momentums of the elementary particles which eventually cooled into hydrogen gas which eventually lumped into stars which eventually formed the Milky Way galaxy, which eventually formed the Sol system, which eventually formed the planet upon which Jabba's ancestors eventually came to exist...

...were random.

As were the genetic mutations and recombinations which brought about said ancestors.

A couple of elementary particles get slightly different random nudges from other particles at t=10^-40, and none of the above happened.

So, yeah. The pairings of Jabba's various ancestors were random. And that's just the tip of the random iceberg.

 

[Toontown]

And which one is the copy?

The one in the copy vat is the copy. Not that it matters a whit. The point was, and remains, the two of them are different individuals, as evidenced by their different spacial locations.

Has it yet occurred to anyone except me that it really shouldn't take weeks and weeks to agree that identical copies are different individuals?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Jabba doesn't need to count his way to infinity. He's already in it.

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...-universe-its-very-flat-and-probably-infinite

The evidence keeps piling up. Boomerang, WMAPS, now BOSS. The burden of proof keeps weighing increasingly heavily upon those who assert a finite universe.

And that the ever loving chuff does the size of the universe have to do with immortality?

 

[Giordano]

Can we have a thread about immorality? That is likely to be more interesting.

 

[jsfisher]

The one in the copy vat is the copy. Not that it matters a whit. The point was, and remains, the two of them are different individuals, as evidenced by their different spacial locations.

That's no different that putting a name tag on one that says, "Hello, my name is Bob." It is just an artificial bit of labeling applied after the fact. It manufactures a difference where none existed before.

Has it yet occurred to anyone except me that it really shouldn't take weeks and weeks to agree that identical copies are different individuals?

How are they different?

 

[Giordano]

The one in the copy vat is the copy. Not that it matters a whit. The point was, and remains, the two of them are different individuals, as evidenced by their different spacial locations.

I tried to do that, but Jabba's copy kept getting out. But you are right, it doesn't matter a whit.

I would rather get this thread back to immortality, although I suspect this is not possible. What if we just ask Jabba again what exactly is immortal in his own view of reincarnation? What would it be about him that represents him "living again" under his theory even more than his hypothetical copying under the SM?

 

[xtifr]

- Fine. I’m just arguing that the sense (statement) in which the perfect copy would be a different person is the appropriate sense to use in this case.

They both are. Choosing one over the other (calling them the same or calling them different) is misleading. Unless you can take into account both perspectives, you're going to get off-track and can easily leap to incorrect conclusions.

Again (I'll keep saying it, even though I'm losing hope that it will ever get through), teleportation is indistinguishable from destroying the original when creating the copy! Because the copy is the same person, even though it's a separate individual.

And as far as them being different goes, there's still a finite number because the habitable portion of spacetime is finite. The number of potential quasi-identical individuals that can exist is limited by the domain in which they can exist. So even the sense you prefer (while misleadingly ignoring the other sense) doesn't further your argument.

 

[Loss Leader]

Jabba doesn't need to count his way to infinity. He's already in it.

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...-universe-its-very-flat-and-probably-infinite

The evidence keeps piling up. Boomerang, WMAPS, now BOSS. The burden of proof keeps weighing increasingly heavily upon those who assert a finite universe.

The eventual length of the universe doesn't matter. All that counts is that there has been a finite amount of time since the beginning of the universe to now, and a finite amount of matter and energy available for making people.

 

[Jabba]

They both are. Choosing one over the other (calling them the same or calling them different) is misleading. Unless you can take into account both perspectives, you're going to get off-track and can easily leap to incorrect conclusions.

Again (I'll keep saying it, even though I'm losing hope that it will ever get through), teleportation is indistinguishable from destroying the original when creating the copy! Because the copy is the same person, even though it's a separate individual.
And as far as them being different goes, there's still a finite number because the habitable portion of spacetime is finite. The number of potential quasi-identical individuals that can exist is limited by the domain in which they can exist. So even the sense you prefer (while misleadingly ignoring the other sense) doesn't further your argument.

xt,
- Mostly, I haven't responded cause I don't really understand your point. Are you just saying that teleportation would be problematic cause you wouldn't get the same person out that you put in?

 

[abaddon]

xt,
- Mostly, I haven't responded cause I don't really understand your point. Are you just saying that teleportation would be problematic cause you wouldn't get the same person out that you put in?

The problem is that you couldn't tell one way or the other. There is no way to tell.

The same applies to the impossible perfect cloning experiment. After the cloning you couldn't tell which was which.

 

[xtifr]

The eventual length of the universe doesn't matter. All that counts is that there has been a finite amount of time since the beginning of the universe to now, and a finite amount of matter and energy available for making people.

Moreover, an infinite universe doesn't help if the habitable portion (where protons still exist) is finite, which seems to be the case no matter how long the "dark" period after all matter is gone might last. An infinity of entropy-maximized void doesn't offer a lot of opportunities for Jabba's to appear.

(An infinite universe that could contain an infinite amount of life is a whole separate issue too, of course, since that would take us into infinite-monkey territory, where Jabba's probability would become one, since the numerator as well as the denominator of his probability would be infinity.)

edited to add this response:

xt,
- Mostly, I haven't responded cause I don't really understand your point. Are you just saying that teleportation would be problematic cause you wouldn't get the same person out that you put in?

I said "indistinguishable" because I meant indistinguishable. Whether you consider it the "same person" is entirely arbitrary. There is no meaningful difference between the copy and the original. The copy is a both a different person and the same person! Trying to pretend that it's just one or the other will mislead you.