Proof of Immortality II

[AdMan]

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.

^This.

Jabba, please stop telling us what you intend to do, and just do it. I guess you think you're playing your Perry Mason/lawyerly game, but believe me, it's not working and hasn't worked in two years.

 

[Jabba]

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.

Xt,
- I still think that the appropriate concept to be used in the logic here is infinity.
- But for now, I'm just trying to establish the "kind" of number we're talking about if infinity is not appropriate...

 

[George]

Xt,
- I still think that the appropriate concept to be used in the logic here is infinity.
- But for now, I'm just trying to establish the "kind" of number we're talking about if infinity is not appropriate...

Hay Jabs, didn't I read somewhere in this thread that you can't get to infinity by using numbers? Or are you just setting the scene for the next two years?
Listen Jabs, herein lies wisdom. Do a Jimmy Hendricks on that computer of yours, burn the bastard. Now go out and score some weed or something or get ye to the pub and get drunk. You know, be somebody!

 

[Mojo]

I still think that the appropriate concept to be used in the logic here is infinity.

No matter how many times you repeat this, it will still be wrong. Remember how Einstein defined insanity?

 

[Akhenaten]

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

Xt,
- I still think that the appropriate concept to be used in the logic here is infinity.
- But for now, I'm just trying to establish the "kind" of number we're talking about if infinity is not appropriate...

1.0 You lied.
1.1 You're still as wrong as you've always been.
6.3.1.1.1.3 "Kind" added to the Jabbanetics List of Redefined Words™.

 

[Agatha]

Infinity is not any kind of number, Jabba. It's not a flippin' number at all. Not. A. Number.

 

[Loss Leader]

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

Xt,
- I still think that the appropriate concept to be used in the logic here is infinity.
- But for now, I'm just trying to establish the "kind" of number we're talking about if infinity is not appropriate...

Time from "now" to now, 18 hours and counting.

 

[Toontown]

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

You are if the side that comes up has your name on it. If you have a lick of sense.

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

You're supposed to be incredulous if the side with your name on it comes up. That's called "plain, common sense".

But you're not supposed to be incredulous if some other side comes up. After all, as you are all so fond of repeatedly chanting, one of them was bound to come up.

But not that particular one. Given hypothesis A, the odds against that particular one coming up were giganogargantuan. You should never, ever, have seen that side of the die. You never should have seen anything, given hypothesis A.

 

[Giordano]

You know what is plain common sense: that the Earth is flat and the Sun revolves around it. Also plain common sense is that if I flip a coin 5 times and it comes out heads each time, it is due to come out tails next time. Plain common sense.

 

[Hokulele]

You are if the side that comes up has your name on it. If you have a lick of sense.

Gambler's Fallacy, writ large.

 

[Akhenaten]

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

You are if the side that comes up has your name on it. If you have a lick of sense.

Why?

Why would your name coming up be any more surprising than, say, that bloke that you just met at bingo last week, or the milkman, or your sister's hairdresser's best friend's mother?

Why is it so sensible to see mathematical significance in a random event for no other reason than that your name happened to come up?

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

You're supposed to be incredulous if the side with your name on it comes up. That's called "plain, common sense".

But you're not supposed to be incredulous if some other side comes up. After all, as you are all so fond of repeatedly chanting, one of them was bound to come up.

You're entertaining some very strange suppositions there, Toontown.

But not that particular one. Given hypothesis A, the odds against that particular one coming up were giganogargantuan. You should never, ever, have seen that side of the die. You never should have seen anything, given hypothesis A.

Your hypothesis A appears to be wrong. You should probably consider a revision.

 

[godless dave]

You are if the side that comes up has your name on it. If you have a lick of sense.



You're supposed to be incredulous if the side with your name on it comes up. That's called "plain, common sense".

But you're not supposed to be incredulous if some other side comes up. After all, as you are all so fond of repeatedly chanting, one of them was bound to come up.

But not that particular one. Given hypothesis A, the odds against that particular one coming up were giganogargantuan. You should never, ever, have seen that side of the die. You never should have seen anything, given hypothesis A.

Gambler's fallacy, special pleading, or argument from incredulity?

 

[Akhenaten]

Gambler's fallacy, special pleading, or argument from incredulity?

I'm betting, in this particular case, that I just can't believe it.

 

[Aepervius]

You are if the side that comes up has your name on it. If you have a lick of sense.



You're supposed to be incredulous if the side with your name on it comes up. That's called "plain, common sense".

But you're not supposed to be incredulous if some other side comes up. After all, as you are all so fond of repeatedly chanting, one of them was bound to come up.

But not that particular one. Given hypothesis A, the odds against that particular one coming up were giganogargantuan. You should never, ever, have seen that side of the die. You never should have seen anything, given hypothesis A.

Thank you for showing why common sense FAIL. Having your name show up on 10^80! sided die is something which has a chance of 1/1/10^80! happening. It might be surprising for common folk, but mathematically it is only a possibility and has AS MANY CHANCE as the 10^80! -1 others.

Having your name show up does not mean unicorn or soul exists. It only means that at that die throw it simply landed on that face as perfectly acceptable dice throw possibility.

It does not show the die as loaded it does not show the die as special, it does only show that our MIND is associating value with the die throw that aren't there.

heck the die could show *ANY* number like, say, 7, out of the 10^80! and people would get excited and say "see 7 lucky numbers !". Whatever. The die does not care.

Gambler fallacy thanks for other psoter reminding me of the term and why people lose money at las vegas and lottery is how I call it.

 

[Giordano]

Gambler's fallacy, special pleading, or argument from incredulity?

And Texas Sharpshooter fallacy! All four at once.

 

[Mojo]

But not that particular one. Given hypothesis A, the odds against that particular one coming up were giganogargantuan. You should never, ever, have seen that side of the die.

It had exactly the same chance of coming up as any other side. If "you should never, ever, have seen that side of the die", then you shouldn't ever see any side come up.

 

[Mojo]

You are if the side that comes up has your name on it.

This requires a pre-existing person to observe their own name come up. Jabba's existence is, as far as this analogy is concerned, contingent upon his name coming up. Before his name came up on the die, he didn't exist; if another name had come up, another person would exist in his place. If a name coming up results in the named person's existence, then the person who exists, whoever they are, shouldn't be surprised to see their name.

ETA:

To put it another way, imagine we have an N-sided die with a name on each side, each of which is the name of one of N people who are in the next room. We throw the die, and then call in the person whose name has come up to look at the die. They are aware of this procedure. Should they be surprised to see their name?

 

[Giordano]

I find it interesting that Toontown uses the term "supposed to be." Does this mean that "he" knows better based on the math, but that the expectation is that an "ignorant person" is supposed to be surprised if their name comes up?

 

[Mojo]

And thank you for demonstrating your own fallacy, wherein you compare the probability of one particular, significant event to the combined probabilities of all other insignificant events, ludicrously imply they are equal...

Nope, he was implying that the probability of one particular side coming up is equal to the probability of any other particular side coming up, not the combined probabilities of all the other sides.

 

[pakeha]

Xt,
- I still think that the appropriate concept to be used in the logic here is infinity. [ . . . ]

Could you explain why?