Proof of Immortality II

[Akhenaten]

Dave,
- Still not sure how the factorial comes in, but if we're talking about1/
100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, we're going in the right direction.

We aren't going anywhere. You are still hoping that the Unheard Voice of the Rational Majority™ will eventually cave in and concede that <really huge number that Jabba can't even imagine, much less count up to> might just as well be referred to as infinity.

Accroches-toi a ton reve.

 

[Jabba]

Whether it's a thousand, ten thousand, a million or ten million zeros (or more) it still won't get you to infinity, because you cannot get there by counting. Infinity is NOT
a number.

- At this point, I'm just trying to get into the vicinity of "unimaginable." My claim will b that the closer I can get to P(me|A) being unimaginably small, the stronger my case will be -- that the less "special" I will need to be in order to make my point. I'll try to explain as we go along.

 

[jsfisher]

- At this point, I'm just trying to get into the vicinity of "unimaginable." My claim will b that the closer I can get to P(me|A) being unimaginably small, the stronger my case will be -- that the less "special" I will need to be in order to make my point. I'll try to explain as we go along.

What makes you think P(me|~A), unconstrained by the laws of our reality, won't be unimaginably smaller?

 

[Akhenaten]

No matter how far you go in that direction you will never get to infinity.

Without any intention to gainsay you, I'd just like to point out (again) that Jabba can't get to infinity in either direction.

If I had the faintest of hopes that he'd ever answer me I'd ask him why his argument is solely dependent on infinity having started at some as-yet-to-be-defined point in the past (which he's loosely described as 'the beginning of mankind') and what would be the ramifications of an infinite past.

 

[Akhenaten]

10⁸⁰! is a much bigger number than 10⁸⁰ but it is still a number. Not infinity.

Mojo,
- How many zeros?

My daughter was fond of asking me questions like this when she's was four.

Strangely enough, it never occurred to me until now that we were conducting Truly Effective Debate™.

 

[pakeha]

Mojo,
- How many zeros?

To sig or not to sig. That is the question.

- At this point, I'm just trying to get into the vicinity of "unimaginable." My claim will b that the closer I can get to P(me|A) being unimaginably small, the stronger my case will be -- that the less "special" I will need to be in order to make my point. I'll try to explain as we go along.

What?

 

[Akhenaten]

Mojo,
- How many zeros?

What difference does it make?

In reality, none whatsoever, but in the Jabbaverse it's another important nanostep along the current fibril of the most recent filament of the twiglet attached to a remote branch projecting from the tree which represents the discussion which was once taking place here.

 

[tsig]

Akhenaten grabs a fresh tsig from the infinite stockpile in the kitchen cupboard

All better!

:

 

[Akhenaten]

- At this point, I'm just trying to get into the vicinity of "unimaginable."

I've been unable to locate an online source which explains where "unimaginable" should be inserted into Bayes' formula.

Can you help me out there?

My claim will b that the closer I can get to P(me|A) being unimaginably small, the stronger my case will be -- that the less "special" I will need to be in order to make my point.

Your point, Jabba, was supposed to be that something-or-other is immortal and until you at least make some effort to explain what that something-or-other is then your silly excursions into kindergarten-level addings-up won't help you at all.

I'll try to explain as we go along.

Haven't you been doing that for the last two years?

How long do you think it will be until you actually, like, succeed in explaining something?

 

[Slowvehicle]

- At this point, I'm just trying to get into the vicinity of "unimaginable." My claim will b that the closer I can get to P(me|A) being unimaginably small, the stronger my case will be -- that the less "special" I will need to be in order to make my point. I'll try to explain as we go along.

Or, you could simply present the evidence that has convinced you that the "soul" exists, and is "immortal"...

 

[Slowvehicle]

To sig or not to sig. That is the question.

Go on...get siggy widdit!

 

[xtifr]

Mojo,
- How many zeros?

Infinitely fewer than infinity! But, as I pointed out before, the same is true of Graham's number^WP, which is all the unimaginable you could want. Nobody cares about the limits of your imagination or ours!

Any finite number is infinitely smaller than infinity!

Let's put it this way. 10⁸⁰! is so large that it cannot be written out in full in this universe, because there aren't enough atoms. But it's just as far from being infinity as 3 is.

∞ - 3 = ∞
∞ - 10⁸⁰ = ∞
∞ - 10⁸⁰! = ∞
∞ - G* = ∞

* Graham's number

I think there's no argument that the number of potential people that could exist is an unimaginable number. Just say "unimaginable number" and move on. But stop trying to say that because it's unimaginable, that it might as well be infinity, because that's complete nonsense. Complete, utter, unbelievable, idiotic nonsense.

 

[godless dave]

- At this point, I'm just trying to get into the vicinity of "unimaginable." My claim will b that the closer I can get to P(me|A) being unimaginably small, the stronger my case will be -- that the less "special" I will need to be in order to make my point.

Your claim is wrong. The likelihood of my existence being small under the scientific model in no way implies that the scientific model is wrong. This is because the scientific model predicts a large number of possible outcomes, each individually unlikely.

If you roll a die with 10⁸⁰! sides, you aren't surprised when one of those sides comes up.

 

[godless dave]

Also, by stating that you are going after "unimaginable", you are pretty much admitting that you're using an argument from incredulity.

 

[Hokulele]

Jabba, I think the main problem right now is that you don't seem to have the correct concept of what infinity entails.

Which number do you believe is closer to infinity, 1 or 1000?

One book you may really enjoy that makes this term a lot clearer is Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea by a gentleman named Charles Seife. It is one of my all-time favorite math books, definitely written for the layperson. The research and detail into the math and history of both the concepts of zero and infinity are excellent, and he branches off into the psychological, philosophical, and religious implications of these ideas.

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/329336.Zero

It really is excellent, and given your wide range of interests, may be something you would really enjoy.

 

[Loss Leader]

My claim will b that the closer I can get to P(me|A) being unimaginably small, the stronger my case will be -- that the less "special" I will need to be in order to make my point. I'll try to explain as we go along.

Jabba -

First of all, I'm so sorry to see you back. I had hoped that your absense of a couple days meant that you'd moved on to more worthy topics.

Second, your post above contains a contradiction. The smaller the chance that you would be born, the more special you would need to be. There's a whole side of a barn full of people. One person gets hit and then considers himself amazed to have been hit. But the chance that somebody would be hit, overall, increased.

It hardly matters. We can't run this universe over from the beginning. So, from our one data point, we can't extrapolate anything.

 

[Jabba]

Don't have any time to write, except to say that I'm happy with the numbers you're suggesting...

I'll be back.

 

[Akhenaten]

Don't have any time to write, except to say that I'm happy with the numbers you're suggesting...

What numbers that who is suggesting?

I'll be back.

Why?

 

[Giordano]

Don't have any time to write, except to say that I'm happy with the numbers you're suggesting...

I'll be back.

Which numbers? In any case, please remember the distinction between the probability of Jabba in particular existing, and the probability of someone, anyone, existing "in place of you" when using these numbers. Don't use one in place of the other. Also, it would help if you explained why, in this context, your unique fingerprints are any different from your unique "sense of self." Or that unique hunk of rock that we were discussing.

Finally, to get back to your OP, would you please explain what is immortal about you that overcomes your fear of death, if it is not your personality, your appearance, your loves, your hates, or even your gender and your sense of who you are?

 

[Agatha]

- At this point, I'm just trying to get into the vicinity of "unimaginable." My claim will b that the closer I can get to P(me|A) being unimaginably small, the stronger my case will be -- that the less "special" I will need to be in order to make my point. I'll try to explain as we go along.

Even a number so large that nobody can imagine it is infinitely far from infinity. You cannot get infinity into your formula by proposing "unimaginable" as a sort of shorthand for "infinity".

And as godless dave so rightly points out, an argument which relies on something being unimaginable is the classical logical fallacy of argument from incredulity.

Instead of this ever-circling discussion about infinity and imaginable or unimaginable numbers, would it not be more productive in the context of this thread to actually start posting some evidence for immortality, consciousness surviving death or the existence of the soul?