Proof of Immortality II

[Jabba]

Dave,
- How many events have had to occur since the big bang in order for you to currently exist? Then, what is the random likelihood of each of those events occurring? (The random likelihood of all your ancestors existing back to the beginning of mankind being (again) just the tip of the iceberg.)
- How many zeros would have to follow the decimal point before the 1?- "Very small" just doesn't begin to express the teenyness of your random likelihood of currently existing.
- I'll get to Trebor's rock as soon as possible -- though starting tomorrow, we begin a trip and I'll be even slower than usual until the 18th.

A lot…

Dave,
- Before, you had said that the random likelihood was not unimaginable. So, use your imagination and suggest a number.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- Before, you had said that the random likelihood was not unimaginable. So, use your imagination and suggest a number.

I do not have enough data to come up with an accurate number.

Why does the number matter anyway?

 

[Jabba]

I do not have enough data to come up with an accurate number.

Why does the number matter anyway?

- Cause I said it was unimaginable, and you said it wasn't. You said you had a big imagination. Personally, I can't imagine enough zeros.

 

[godless dave]

It's not that I can't imagine a large number, it's that I don't have enough data to say what the number is in this case.

It's a very large number. A very small probability.

 

[Akhenaten]

You're not trying hard enough.

This is a rock ---->

This is your brain----->

No, those are smilies.

Please try to drag whatever your argument is into the real world.

Now. Which one is special to you? Which one, according to hypothesis A, determines whether you see the light of day or not?

Neither.

Would you be kind enough to explain, in a universal sense, how a brain coming into existence is different from a rock coming into existence? I'm not seeing it. Why are you calling the rock "random," but the brain of Jabba "prerequisite" and "specific?"

That's right. Your brain is special. To you. Not to me. My brain is special to me. But not to you. The rock isn't special to either of us. Neither is Jabba's brain. But Jabba's brain is special to him.

You're attempting to address, as always, an argument that hasn't been made.

It is also incredible that you seem to think "random" and "special" are mutually exclusive.

What's incredible is that you've not taken enough notice of Jabba's arguments to realise that in the Jabbaverse these two things are both mutually exclusive and synonymous.

Sometimes all of our thoughts are misgiven, as they say.

 

[pakeha]

- Cause I said it was unimaginable, and you said it wasn't. You said you had a big imagination. Personally, I can't imagine enough zeros.

Jabba, no matter how big the number, it still isn't infinity.
You know why, don't you?

 

[Akhenaten]

So is everyone else - to themself. Being special to yourself doesn't make you special.

Stark contradictions highlighted in blue and red.

No, those aren't stark contradictions. Those are fragments of a statement that, in toto, made perfect sense.

I'm somewhat taken aback that someone with even a passing acquaintance with this forum, and this particular discussion, would dare to attempt such a clumsy misrepresentation of an opposing point of view.

 

[Akhenaten]

Dave,
- Before, you had said that the random likelihood was not unimaginable. So, use your imagination and suggest a number.

7½.

Now, where's your evidence of immortal souls?

 

[Akhenaten]

I do not have enough data to come up with an accurate number.

Why does the number matter anyway?

- Cause I said it was unimaginable, and you said it wasn't.

1.0. There's a fairly broad boundary separating the language used in casual, spoken banter between acquaintances and that used in attempting to convey important philosophical/mathematical/scientific information.

1.1 Guess what?

2.3.5.1.1.0.0.1.3. Sense|<----------------------------------------> |Jabbanetics

6.1 "Cause" is a noun. "Because" is a conjunction.

d. Can you at least try to pretend that you're serious about this immortality thing?

You said you had a big imagination. Personally, I can't imagine enough zeros.

Imagine moar.

And when you have, perhaps you'll be so good as to inform us where "unimaginable zeros" should be inserted into Bayes' formula.

 

[Akhenaten]

It's not that I can't imagine a large number, it's that I don't have enough data to say what the number is in this case.

But what if you could?

It's a very large number. A very small probability.

So you now accept that the number is infinity and that the probability is zero?

I'm sorry for being so slow, but I think it's important to get this settled so that we're on the same page and it's impossible to move forward until this giant leap backwards is truly, effectively debated.

 

[pakeha]

I'm not sure which is called for in this case, O Pharaoh- Sickbay or the breakfast nook?

 

[Agatha]

Jabba, "I can't imagine that number of zeroes" is the classic argument from incredulity. Reality is not limited to what you can imagine.

 

[trebor]

So, conservatively, there would be at least 3.226x10²³! arrangements just of those atoms in 2-dimensional space. That's the smallest number it could be.

I can't even imagine such a number :O
Clearly this bit of rock is super special to exist despite such odds.

And why can't a rock be special to me? I chipped some of the Berlin Wall and have it in a little case. It's special to me.

This particular bit of rock is certainly special to me.

 

[xtifr]

Dave,
- Before, you had said that the random likelihood was not unimaginable. So, use your imagination and suggest a number.

I already suggested (several times) one over 10^80 factorial*. What's wrong with that? It may not be precise (there are reasons why it might be larger, but also reasons why it might be smaller), but it should surely be close enough for our little thought experiment here.

People have imagined some really boggling big numbers (much bigger than my 10^80 factorial). Graham's number, for example. There are indeed some limitations of the human mind when dealing with numbers of that size, but that doesn't mean the numbers can't be imagined in some sense. And there are those who argue that any number larger than a dozen or so can't actually be imagined properly (anything larger than that is really just perceived as "many" even if we can count that high).

* In case some readers aren't familiar with the concept, the factorial of x is when you multiply all the numbers between one and x; in this case, between one and 10^80. In other words, a really big number!

 

[carlitos]

Sometimes all of our thoughts are misgiven, as they say.

By coincidence, just today mrs. Carlito climbed a bit of the "stairway to heaven" sculpture in Puerto Vallarta.








What are the odds of that?

 

[Jabba]

I already suggested (several times) one over 10^80 factorial*. What's wrong with that? It may not be precise (there are reasons why it might be larger, but also reasons why it might be smaller), but it should surely be close enough for our little thought experiment here.

People have imagined some really boggling big numbers (much bigger than my 10^80 factorial). Graham's number, for example. There are indeed some limitations of the human mind when dealing with numbers of that size, but that doesn't mean the numbers can't be imagined in some sense. And there are those who argue that any number larger than a dozen or so can't actually be imagined properly (anything larger than that is really just perceived as "many" even if we can count that high).

* In case some readers aren't familiar with the concept, the factorial of x is when you multiply all the numbers between one and x; in this case, between one and 10^80. In other words, a really big number!

xt,
- I don't understand. A simple factorial is expressed with an explanation mark. And 80!, for instance, would be 79X78X77 etc

 

[Mojo]

I already suggested (several times) one over 10^80 factorial*. What's wrong with that? It may not be precise (there are reasons why it might be larger, but also reasons why it might be smaller), but it should surely be close enough for our little thought experiment here.

People have imagined some really boggling big numbers (much bigger than my 10^80 factorial). Graham's number, for example. There are indeed some limitations of the human mind when dealing with numbers of that size, but that doesn't mean the numbers can't be imagined in some sense. And there are those who argue that any number larger than a dozen or so can't actually be imagined properly (anything larger than that is really just perceived as "many" even if we can count that high).

* In case some readers aren't familiar with the concept, the factorial of x is when you multiply all the numbers between one and x; in this case, between one and 10^80. In other words, a really big number!

xt,
- I don't understand. A simple factorial is expressed with an explanation mark. And 80!, for instance, would be 79X78X77 etc

What don't you understand? You're clearly using exactly the same definition of a factorial as xtifr (although you are for some reason talking about 80! rather than 10⁸⁰!).

 

[zooterkin]

xt,
- I don't understand. A simple factorial is expressed with an explanation mark. And 80!, for instance, would be 79X78X77 etc

(Exclamation, not explanation. )

It would be 80x79x78 etc. to be more precise.

What don't you understand? You're clearly using exactly the same definition of a factorial as xtifr (although you are for some reason talking about 80! rather than 10⁸⁰!).

Was it 10⁸⁰! or 10^80!?

ETA: Never mind, you were right, I missed the footnote which made it clear.

 

[Aepervius]

You're not trying hard enough.

This is a rock ---->

This is your brain----->

Now. Which one is special to you? Which one, according to hypothesis A, determines whether you see the light of day or not?

That's right. Your brain is special. To you. Not to me. My brain is special to me. But not to you. The rock isn't special to either of us. Neither is Jabba's brain. But Jabba's brain is special to him.

It is also incredible that you seem to think "random" and "special" are mutually exclusive.

The stone is as special and unique. It is about mathematical and physical *counting* which do not care about human feeling. Just because we have feeling , a counting of something finite about probability does not suddenly make it more improbable.

Planet earth is stone cold unliving, but the summation of all its atom and their placement is pretty much unique, far more unique than any human brain and yet nobody, absolutely nobody in science will pretend the prior probability of earth coming into existence is 1/infinite.

The argument of Jabba fails on its head because we can find enormous physical entity which have an even less probability of coming into existence and have obviously no soul or identity. The earth. Saturn. A red giant. A galaxy. All those have had prior incredibly low probability to come up, even lower than jabba's brain. None are counted as 1/infinite.

The problem for Jabba is that he is making an enormous error which makes his whole tower fall like a card castle.

 

[Mojo]

The problem for Jabba is that he is making an enormous error which makes his whole tower fall like a card castle.

Don't worry, he has others, for example the false dilemma his proof of immortality his proof relies on.