Proof of Immortality II

[zooterkin]

- Here, we’re really asking about the random likelihood of all the necessary events (for me to currently exist), actually occurring, given the scientific consensus that we each have but one, finite, life to live.

Why do you believe the scientific consensus is wrong? What evidence do yo have for either single, infinite lives, or multiple ones? And what exactly would you mean by multiple ones? What is it that is experiencing the multiple lives?

 

[Akhenaten]

- Here, we’re really asking about the random likelihood of all the necessary events (for me to currently exist), actually occurring, given the scientific consensus that we each have but one, finite, life to live.

No we're not.

In fact, you're adamantly refusing to acknowledge that the events leading to your existence are an integral part of the scientific thingy which you're describing as a "given".

Dave,
- I should probably already know the answer to the following question, but I don’t.
- Do you now accept that Bayes does not use the kind of probability (or, “likelihood”) that you have been assuming that it does?

Is it ever going to occur to you that the agreement of the LCP is the very least of the things by which the success of your argument is measured?

 

[Jabba]

Why would the likelihood of these events occurring be any different if you didn't have one finite life to live?

Mojo,
- Given an infinity of finite lives to live (or, even just two finite lives to live), or one infinite life to live, the likelihood of my current existence would be greater than it is with just one, finite, life to live.

 

[jsfisher]

Mojo,
- Given an infinity of finite lives to live (or, even just two finite lives to live), or one infinite life to live, the likelihood of my current existence would be greater than it is with just one, finite, life to live.

How would that work if you had your way with the denominator being infinity?

 

[Akhenaten]

Mojo,
- Given an infinity of finite lives to live (or, even just two finite lives to live), or one infinite life to live, the likelihood of my current existence would be greater than it is with just one, finite, life to live.

You're still using your foregone conclusion as a factor in calculating the likelihood of arriving at that conclusion.

 

[godless dave]

- Here, we’re really asking about the random likelihood of all the necessary events (for me to currently exist), actually occurring, given the scientific consensus that we each have but one, finite, life to live.

Yes, that's what I've been saying.

Dave,
- I should probably already know the answer to the following question, but I don’t.
- Do you now accept that Bayes does not use the kind of probability (or, “likelihood”) that you have been assuming that it does?

The kind of likelihood you're talking about in the first part of your post - that I quoted above - is exactly what I assumed it uses:

the random likelihood of all the necessary events (for me to currently exist), actually occurring, given the scientific consensus that we each have but one, finite, life to live.

 

[godless dave]

Mojo,
- Given an infinity of finite lives to live (or, even just two finite lives to live), or one infinite life to live, the likelihood of my current existence would be greater than it is with just one, finite, life to live.

Why?

 

[carlitos]

- Here, we’re really asking about the random likelihood of all the necessary events (for me to currently exist), actually occurring, given the scientific consensus that we each have but one, finite, life to live.

But your existence isn't random. Your great grandparents met each other because they lived in the same town or something. Why has "random" entered this discussion?

 

[Mojo]

- Here, we’re really asking about the random likelihood of all the necessary events (for me to currently exist), actually occurring, given the scientific consensus that we each have but one, finite, life to live.

Why would the likelihood of these events occurring be any different if you didn't have one finite life to live?

Mojo,
- Given an infinity of finite lives to live (or, even just two finite lives to live), or one infinite life to live, the likelihood of my current existence would be greater than it is with just one, finite, life to live.

You're not answering the question I asked. Whether you have one finite life or not, the same set of events are necessary for you to exist. Why would the mortal status of you soul have any effect on their likelyhood?

 

[Loss Leader]

Mojo,
- Given an infinity of finite lives to live (or, even just two finite lives to live), or one infinite life to live, the likelihood of my current existence would be greater than it is with just one, finite, life to live.

Not in the infinite universe you've been pining for. In a universe with infinite time and resources, the likelihood of you coming into existence is 1.

 

[Giordano]

It has taken Jabba only 2 years to finally understand that in duplicating someone, you end up with two separate people but identical people, and that transporters, if they exist at some point, will likely create a duplicate who correctly believes that "he" is the original person (of course the original person believes that "he" is the original, too, but the transporter will have to get rid of the original to avoid marital confusion on return to Earth). Of course if Jabba even tried to understand all the posts here, he would have figured this out years ago. And apparently, Jabba is still uncertain and will need to consider this longer.

So although I am tempted to respond to his more recent posts, I figure that everything I might want to say has been said here. In many different ways. Often better than I could say it. So I have time- I'll just wait for Jabba to get around to reading and understanding these pre-existing posts. It might take years too, but who knows, maybe Jabba now understands the value of doing this and it will happen in less time.

 

[Jabba]

- At least in a sense, for me, that’s the main issue here -- and the one that I will now try to address. Which number replaces P(me|A)? Is it the likelihood of ME currently existing – or, is it the likelihood of someone/anyone currently existing?
- 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.
- I’ll be back.

…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.

xt,
- Apparently, this is another instance where I didn't read carefully enough... Sorry about that...
- I had thought you were saying that my CLAIM was nonsense – my claim being, “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.” Now, I see that you were just saying that any claim that I am special would be nonsense.

- If I've got it right this time, I will now try to show why I'm special.
- OK?

 

[Giordano]

- If I've got it right this time, I will now try to show why I'm special.
- OK?

I think you said exactly that before. Without any followup. Now would be a good time to present your argument. If you have one.

 

[Akhenaten]

xt,
- Apparently, this is another instance where I didn't read carefully enough... Sorry about that...

Now try to imagine how your argument appears to those of us who can't help but notice that you've not even bothered to read most of the thread at all.

- I had thought you were saying that my CLAIM was nonsense – my claim being, “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.” Now, I see that you were just saying that any claim that I am special would be nonsense.

No, your claim is that you can use Bayesian statistics to prove immortality (which is, in fact, nonsense).

The above, more recent nonsense is nothing more than an attempt to cover up the fact that you really have no idea what your claim is any more.

- If I've got it right this time, I will now try to show why I'm special.

The record shows that being right or wrong has no bearing whatsoever on where your argument will spear off to next.

In any case, the special thing has long been established. Why labour the point?

- OK?

No.

Start again from the beginning.

 

[Akhenaten]

I think you said exactly that before. Without any followup.

He's said pretty much everything before. The only variation is the occasional introduction of new words and phrases that mean exactly the same nothing.

Now would be a good time to present your argument. If you have one.

Two years ago would have been a better time to at least have explained the nature of the entity for which immortality is being claimed.

 

[pakeha]

Mojo,
- Given an infinity of finite lives to live (or, even just two finite lives to live), or one infinite life to live, the likelihood of my current existence would be greater than it is with just one, finite, life to live.

Why do you reckon that, Jabba?
How do you calculate the liklihood factoring in infinity, given that infinity isn't a number?

 

[jond]

It has taken Jabba only 2 years to finally understand that in duplicating someone, you end up with two separate people but identical people, and that transporters, if they exist at some point, will likely create a duplicate who correctly believes that "he" is the original person (of course the original person believes that "he" is the original, too, but the transporter will have to get rid of the original to avoid marital confusion on return to Earth). Of course if Jabba even tried to understand all the posts here, he would have figured this out years ago. And apparently, Jabba is still uncertain and will need to consider this longer.

So although I am tempted to respond to his more recent posts, I figure that everything I might want to say has been said here. In many different ways. Often better than I could say it. So I have time- I'll just wait for Jabba to get around to reading and understanding these pre-existing posts. It might take years too, but who knows, maybe Jabba now understands the value of doing this and it will happen in less time.

Given what followed, I suspect you are being overly generous.

 

[xtifr]

- Here, we’re really asking about the random likelihood of all the necessary events (for me to currently exist), actually occurring, given the scientific consensus that we each have but one, finite, life to live.

That's actually somewhat ambiguous. Despite what the religious, with their belief in souls, like to think, life doesn't really start at conception, because eggs and sperm are both alive. So, from a scientific POV, life is pretty much a continuous process, with multiple endings, but basically one beginning.

And from a certain POV (which is reasonably scientific), we're hive-minds; a whole collection of separate living cells that cooperate to form (among other things) a consciousness.

This is not necessarily directly relevant, but I mention it just to remind you to not try to apply overly-simplistic, pre-scientific thinking to your analysis. Pre-scientific models are deeply embedded in everyday language, which is why everyday language isn't necessarily a good guide to what's actually going on. You need to learn what the scientific model actually says, even when it doesn't fit your intuition.

xt,
- Apparently, this is another instance where I didn't read carefully enough... Sorry about that...
- I had thought you were saying that my CLAIM was nonsense – my claim being, “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.” Now, I see that you were just saying that any claim that I am special would be nonsense.

Not necessarily any claim--I mean, I'd accept such a claim if it was supported by some sort of evidence--but basically, yes, that's right.

You'll certainly need something better than "I actually do exist", though, since that's post-facto reasoning.

- If I've got it right this time, I will now try to show why I'm special.
- OK?

A-a-and you're back to telling us what you're going to tell us. This is really tiresome, Jabba. If you're going to tell us something, just tell us. Don't waste days saying that you're going to say something.

 

[Loss Leader]

- If I've got it right this time, I will now try to show why I'm special.
- OK?

Okay. Go!

 

[abaddon]

Okay. Go!

Prediction. Jabba's next post will at best be a description of how he might demonstrate his "specialness" at an unspecified future point.