Proof of Immortality II

[Mojo]

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".

Jabba wants infinity in his fomula because of this:

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

All we have is a single result that is consistent with scientific models of the universe (or rather that scientific models of the universe are consistent with, having been designed to fit the evidence). Jabba wants the result to be impossible, so he sticks infinity into his denominator.

There are a number of problems with this. If he puts infinity into his denominator to allow for an infinite number of possible "selves", then it needs to be there whether or not the "selves" are mortal. In fact, if he's going to assume that "selves" have some sort of existence independently of the body, and try to work out the likelyhood of his particular "self" somehow occupying his body, the likelyhood is the same for both situations, because there are going to be the same number of "potential selves" competing for his single body whether they are mortal or immortal.

In fact the only thing Jabba's argument would lead to, were it valid, is that it isn't possible for him to exist by chance, and he must therefore be a predestined result of a designed universe. This gets him no nearer to "essentially proving immortality", because there is no reason that he could not have been designed with a single finite existence, and no evidence of "selves" outliving their bodies, designed or not.

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?

The problem is that because his "scientific model" is a strawman he's asking the wrong question. The actual scientific model of consciousness doesn't predict the existence of Jabba's particular "self", it just says that consciousness is the result of brain processes. All it says regarding Jabba's particular "self" is that it is the result of Jabba's particular brain processes.

The question he should really be asking, as far as a Bayesian analysis of Jabba's claim of immortality is concerned, is:

"Given that Jabba's consciousness exists, and given that all the human consciousnesses we are aware of are the result of functioning human neurosystems, and that all the human neurosystems we are aware of eventually stop functioning, what is the likelyhood that Jabba's consciousness is immortal?"

 

[Mojo]

The question he should really be asking, as far as a Bayesian analysis of Jabba's claim of immortality is concerned, is:

"Given that Jabba's consciousness exists, and given that all the human consciousnesses we are aware of are the result of functioning human neurosystems, and that all the human neurosystems we are aware of eventually stop functioning, what is the likelyhood that Jabba's consciousness is immortal?"

As Jabba said, "the Bayesian formula is about -- how the addition of new evidence affects the probability of an existing model." So far Jabba has failed to supply any "new evidence" for us to consider. What we need now is for Jabba to actually submit some evidence for immortality.

 

[Humots]

As Jabba said, "the Bayesian formula is about -- how the addition of new evidence affects the probability of an existing model." So far Jabba has failed to supply any "new evidence" for us to consider. What we need now is for Jabba to actually submit some evidence for immortality.

I think Jabba's argument amounts to:

(1) The Scientific Model says that we all have one single limited life to live.
(2) The Scientific Model says that the existence of Jabba is extremely improbable, if not totally impossible (the 1/infinity bit).
(3) Jabba, against all odds, exists. This is Jabba's "evidence".

Therefore, the Scientific Model is wrong about (2), so the Scientific Model must be wrong about everything, including (1).

So, we are all immortal. Bayes is thrown in to make it "mathematical".

 

[Mojo]

I think Jabba's argument amounts to:

(1) The Scientific Model says that we all have one single limited life to live.
(2) The Scientific Model says that the existence of Jabba is extremely improbable, if not totally impossible (the 1/infinity bit).
(3) Jabba, against all odds, exists. This is Jabba's "evidence".

Therefore, the Scientific Model is wrong about (2), so the Scientific Model must be wrong about everything, including (1).

So, we are all immortal. Bayes is thrown in to make it "mathematical".

It would be interesting to apply Jabba's reasoning to the example given here. I think it would go something like:

(1) The scientific model says that the baby is a boy or a girl.
(2) There are an infinite number of potential boys and girls.
(3) Therefore the likelyhood of this baby being a particular boy or girl is one over infinity.
(4) The baby exists.
(5) Therefore the scientific model is wrong, and the baby is a dog.

 

[Loss Leader]

If he puts infinity into his denominator to allow for an infinite number of possible "selves", then it needs to be there whether or not the "selves" are mortal.

See, that's the thing. He only wants infinity on one side of the equation. He wants the scientific model to allow for infinite people but then, on the non-scientific side, he wants to throw all that out and forget it ever happened.

Of course, crossing over into not-the-scientific-model does nothing for him because he cannot calculate the odds that his particular not-scientific-model is correct. ANY other not-scientific hypothesis is just as valid as his immortality thing.

It's all just so ... sad.

 

[Mojo]

(3) Jabba, against all odds, exists. This is Jabba's "evidence".

The problem being that it is not evidence for immortality.

 

[Mojo]

It's all just so ... sad.

Given the extremely low prior probability that human consciousness is immortal, and Jabba's oddly recursive and repetitive posting style, I'm beginning to suspect that the whole thread is some sort of elaborate Turing test and Jabba is trying to "essentially prove" that he is (at least potentially) immortal by failing it.

 

[Giordano]

Actually I have trouble envisioning (imagining) more than 5 objects without breaking them down into smaller groups. For example I tend to "see" in my mind 6 blocks as 2 groups of 3. Therefore anything more than 5 is unimaginable to me in this regard. Is that what Jabba means?

 

[Giordano]

It would be interesting to apply Jabba's reasoning to the example given here. I think it would go something like:

(1) The scientific model says that the baby is a boy or a girl.
(2) There are an infinite number of potential boys and girls.
(3) Therefore the likelyhood of this baby being a particular boy or girl is one over infinity.
(4) The baby exists.
(5) Therefore the scientific model is wrong, and the baby is a dog.

Whoops: same problem with dogs. I guess everything I thought I knew is actually wrong. It's proven by Math!

 

[Slowvehicle]

It would be interesting to apply Jabba's reasoning to the example given here. I think it would go something like:

(1) The scientific model says that the baby is a boy or a girl.
(2) There are an infinite number of potential boys and girls.
(3) Therefore the likelyhood of this baby being a particular boy or girl is one over infinity.
(4) The baby exists.
(5) Therefore the scientific model is wrong, and the baby is a dog.

This wins one interwebz of your very own. Watch your inbox.

 

[John Jones]

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

[...]

HA HA HA HA HA! Which numbers?

Jabba, you haven't provided any evidence of immortality under any constructs whatsoever.

 

[Jabba]

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.

Dave,
- I will now try to show that I am one of 7 billion preset tiny targets on an unimaginably large wall.

 

[Akhenaten]

Dave,
- I will now try to show that I am one of 7 billion preset tiny targets on an unimaginably large wall.

You say that as though you're moving on from some previously demonstrated point.

Who do you think you're fooling?

For starters, how do you justify completely ignoring the people who have pointed out that including "unimaginable" in your alleged calculations is symptomatic of a classic argument from incredulity?

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- I will now try to show that I am one of 7 billion preset tiny targets on an unimaginably large wall.

Whenever you're ready.

 

[tsig]

Dave,
- I will now try to show that I am one of 7 billion preset tiny targets on an unimaginably large wall.

You're just a brick in the wall.

 

[Loss Leader]

Dave,
- I will now try to show that I am one of 7 billion preset tiny targets on an unimaginably large wall.

Oh, now you're doing that? I thought you would do it the last time you said you would. But, I'm glad to hear that now is now, now.

 

[Giordano]

Dave,
- I will now try to show that I am one of 7 billion preset tiny targets on an unimaginably large wall.

Oh, you are such a tease.

 

[Giordano]

Dave,
- I will now try to show that I am one of 7 billion preset tiny targets on an unimaginably large wall.

Be certain to explain and prove the "preset" part- your last "explanation" had many serious flaws. And remember that you are trying to make yourself a preset special target among these 7 billion.

 

[Agatha]

Doesn't the notion of you (or anyone) being one 'preset' target in 7 billion conflict with your earlier assertions that the chance of any particular individual coming into existence is of the order of one in <an unimaginably large number, or infinity>?

One in seven billion is considerably less than one in <great big number with lots more zeros>. And it's likely that one would have to remove the chance of the preset 'you' (being a white American) being born to black or Asian parents, so that seven billion number is rapidly tumbling to something much smaller.

 

[John Jones]

Dave,
- I will now try to show that I am one of 7 billion preset tiny targets on an unimaginably large wall.

Two years after you started this ludicrous topic, and you will now try to show something?

Start showing the existence of immortal souls.