Proof of Immortality II

[Giordano]

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

Optimist!

 

[Jabba]

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.


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.



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.

xt,
- What you had said confused me, and I needed to understand what you were saying, before I could feel comfortable moving on.

 

[Loss Leader]

xt,
- What you had said confused me, and I needed to understand what you were saying, before I could feel comfortable moving on.

Terrific. Move on. Why are you special?

 

[Giordano]

Terrific. Move on. Why are you special?

Or just stop posting and think about and research it until you do understand the rest of xt's post. Don't even try to formulate a reply if you don't understand to what you are replying.

But yes, just telling us why you are so special, as you have repeatedly promised, would be a good idea that would not require that you understand the rest of xt's post. Please go ahead.

 

[Mojo]

But yes, just telling us why you are so special, as you have repeatedly promised, would be a good idea that would not require that you understand the rest of xt's post. Please go ahead.

Presenting some evidence for the existence of an immortal soul might be a good idea as well. At least it would make a change.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Dear Mr. Savage:

Any chance you might consider presenting your evidence that the "soul" exists, and is "immortal"?

 

[Toontown]

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.

You need to clarify what you think Jabba is. Because what you said there opens a Pandora's box which could release a multitude of Jabbas.

The probability that a unique organization of atoms will form at unique spacetime coordinates is not affected by the size of the universe, except to the extent that the prerequisite atoms and the prerequisite spacetime location must exist and the universe must be sufficiently complex to allow a history leading to said unique organization at said unique coordinates. Which would only make the unique organization possible. Barely possible. Nowhere near probability 1. Very close to zero.

However, the probability that a universe with infinite time and resources will produce a multitude of Jabba clones at various times and places, converges on 1.

 

[Jabba]

- 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.

Mojo,
- I changed my mind...
- I'm pretty sure that the real answer is that the need for all those events to occur is based upon the "A" hypothesis being true. All those things don't have to happen if "A" is not true.

 

[Jabba]

- Regarding the ME/someone-anyone issue
- In other words, the Texas Sharpshooter issue.

- First, when we talk about the extreme unlikeliness of a particular event, people will say, "Well, those things happen" (or something to that effect)! What they are indirectly referring to is the famous quote by Sherlocke Holmes, i.e., "...when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth".
The Sign of the Four, ch. 6 (1890)
Sherlock Holmes in The Sign of the Four (Doubleday p. 111)given a particular hypothesis)

- The trouble is that such requires eliminating only the impossible, and my question is, "Are we sure that we have done only that?" My claim is that we have unconsciously, unwittingly, eliminated more than the impossible. And, when we can appreciate just HOW unlikely a particular existence is -- given our particular scientific hypothesis -- we need to rethink what we've eliminated. Can we rightfully eliminate all opposing hypotheses?

- My claim is that we can't, and that it doesn't take much prior probability -- re an opposing hypothesis -- in order for that probability to trump the posterior probability of "A" (given the unimaginable unlikeliness of Me under "A").

- So, at this point, I need to show that I deserve such an unimaginable unlikeliness under "A" -- i.e., that before my shooting there was reason why I should be considered a bonafied target.

 

[Loss Leader]

I will now try to show why I'm special.

<fails to state why he's special>

<fails to state why he's special>

- So, at this point, I need to show that I deserve such an unimaginable unlikeliness under "A" -- i.e., that before my shooting there was reason why I should be considered a bonafied target.

Please, please do the thing you said you were going to do. Tell us why you're special.

 

[Giordano]

- Regarding the ME/someone-anyone issue
- In other words, the Texas Sharpshooter issue.

- So, at this point, I need to show that I deserve such an unimaginable unlikeliness under "A" -- i.e., that before my shooting there was reason why I should be considered a bonafied target.

Yes, that would help. And you just stated that you would show this rationale on your very next post (somewhat paradoxically, you promised this several times). Please go ahead. In fact, I am particularly curious as to your argument in this regard.

 

[Akhenaten]

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

xt,
- What you had said confused me, and I needed to understand what you were saying, before I could feel comfortable moving on.

Mojo,
- I changed my mind...

Srsly?

 

[Jabba]

- Why I can be considered as a target prior to the shooting. I need to show that I can be legitimately “singled out,” or “set apart” from the “crowd.” I shouldn’t be counted as just someone/anyone.

1. According to the scientific model I, personally, did not have to ever exist.
2. In fact, according to that model, it was unimaginably unlikely that I, personally, would ever exist.
3. But then, if I had never existed, there “might as well” have never been anything -- ever. It would be “as if” nothing had ever existed, or would ever exist.
4. In fact, if I didn’t exist now, there “might as well” have never been anything.
5. And, in fact again, nothing makes sense! Nothing is the only thing that would make sense!
6. And then, I’m the only thing, process or illusion that I know does exist. I don’t know what I am, but I do exist in one form or another.
7. I do not know that you exist in the same way. I don’t know that you are a thing, process or illusionist. You could be just MY illusion.
8. These things may not totally set me apart, but, they do set me apart to some extent, and I don’t need to be totally set apart in order to be considered special enough to have been one of 7 billion tiny targets on an unimaginably large wall of an unimaginable barn.

- That ought to get us started.

 

[godless dave]

3.But then, if I had never existed, there “might as well” have never been anything -- ever. It would be “as if” nothing had ever existed, or would ever exist.
4. In fact, if I didn’t exist now, there “might as well” have never been anything.

I don't understand either of those.

 

[Akhenaten]

I don't understand either of those.

I find myself somewhat surprised that you're essentially potentially saying that it's hypothetically possible that there's an impossibly random likelihood that you understand the rest of it.

 

[Akhenaten]

<snip, dude>

6. And then, I’m the only thing, process or illusion that I know does exist. I don’t know what I am, but I do exist in one form or another.
7. I do not know that you exist in the same way. I don’t know that you are a thing, process or illusionist. You could be just MY illusion.


<wow, man. deep>

I'll have what he's having.

 

[zooterkin]

Are we beyond the event horizon of the formless yet?

 

[Akhenaten]

8. These things may not totally set me apart, but, they do set me apart to some extent, and I don’t need to be totally set apart in order to be considered special enough to have been one of 7 billion tiny targets on an unimaginably large wall of an unimaginable barn.

This garbage is far more explanatory than you realise, Jabba.

Unfortunately it's explanatory of something far, far away from the point you were hoping to make.

- That ought to get us started.

I'll bet the irony of typing that two years after creating the OP of this benighted thread completely escapes you.

 

[pakeha]

- Why I can be considered as a target prior to the shooting. I need to show that I can be legitimately “singled out,” or “set apart” from the “crowd.” I shouldn’t be counted as just someone/anyone.

1. According to the scientific model I, personally, did not have to ever exist.
2. In fact, according to that model, it was unimaginably unlikely that I, personally, would ever exist.
3. But then, if I had never existed, there “might as well” have never been anything -- ever. It would be “as if” nothing had ever existed, or would ever exist.
4. In fact, if I didn’t exist now, there “might as well” have never been anything.
5. And, in fact again, nothing makes sense! Nothing is the only thing that would make sense!
6. And then, I’m the only thing, process or illusion that I know does exist. I don’t know what I am, but I do exist in one form or another.
7. I do not know that you exist in the same way. I don’t know that you are a thing, process or illusionist. You could be just MY illusion.
8. These things may not totally set me apart, but, they do set me apart to some extent, and I don’t need to be totally set apart in order to be considered special enough to have been one of 7 billion tiny targets on an unimaginably large wall of an unimaginable barn.

- That ought to get us started.

Is this the sort of musings that makes sense in the breakfast nook?

 

[Akhenaten]

Are we beyond the event horizon of the formless yet?

And plunging headlong into the time cube.