Proof of Immortality II

[Jabba]

You can, but it seems awfully high, and I thought you were aiming for a low probability. I was suggesting 1/(10⁸⁰!), which you're also free to use. As I've said multiple times, I, personally, will accept any finite denominator. I don't even need specificity--I would accept "1/unimaginably-big-number".

xt,
- Sorry about that. I meant to include the factorial...

 

[Akhenaten]

xt,
- Sorry about that. I meant to include the factorial...

Deck chairs/Titanic, Jabba.

Any chance of you addressing the subject of immortality?

 

[godless dave]

Didn't you tell me in a prior post that likelihood is not the same as probability? And perhaps you can explain how a model that calculates the probability of a future event can be negated by a specific result? For example, the current model of 6-sided die throwing predicts a 1/6 probability of throwing a 2. If I throw a die and see a 3, does that mean my model of die tossing has a 5/6 chance of being incorrect?

In my limited understanding of Bayesian statistics, if you rolled the die 1000 times and it came up 3 every time, you could use Bayesian statistics to compare two models, one being that it's a standard die, and the other being that the die is loaded to roll 3s.

 

[Toontown]

People who don't exist don't have the capability of being surprised or not.

Which means nothing.

It is, however, convenient that people who don't exist would have no cause to be surprised even if they could be surprised, since it is not nonexistence, but existence, which is surprising.

I'm not talking about my number coming up. I'm talking about a number coming up. It's not "my" number until I already exist.

Why? That's not what Jabba was talking about.

It's not "my" number until I already exist.

Why not? Could some other brain have been you?

Unless some other brain could have been you, then that one was, is, and will always be your number.

What are the odds of Lou Gehrig getting Lou Gehrig's disease?

Irrelevance aside, I don't know. But it's the same odds as before they named the disease after him. Which also means nothing.

 

[Giordano]

In my limited understanding of Bayesian statistics, if you rolled the die 1000 times and it came up 3 every time, you could use Bayesian statistics to compare two models, one being that it's a standard die, and the other being that the die is loaded to roll 3s.

Absolutely correct, but we have only one Jabba (I think) so thus are looking at only one roll of the die. Of course it gets more complicated than that, with the real point being that Jabba is only "special" in retrospect, and we in essence would count any number (any person) that comes up on the die in the proper calculations.

 

[Toontown]

Wrong. You show surprise because you did not expect your name to come up. This is where the fallacy is as well as expecting number to come up it is similar. This is because in both case you associate a special value sentimentally to that side. Once you realize every side has the same intrinsic value, then your name coming up cease to be surprising, and becomes as banal as side 238727842389423894723897423894728947238947 coming up. They are both as likely to come up. And surprise stops because ONE side has to come up.

I can only conclude, then, that you would remain staunchly unastonished if a small meteor were to lop off one of your toes.

After all, you reason, the meteor had to go somewhere. Why not through your toe? And it isn't as if there is anything different between your toe and any other place in the universe. And once you realize that your toe's location has the same intrinsic value as any other toe-sized part of the universe, then your toe being lopped off by a meteor ceases to be surprising, and becomes as banal as a random spot on Mars being hit. They are both as likely to be hit. And surprise stops because the meteor had to go SOMEwhere.

Of course, the fact that it was your toe, and not some random location in the universe, would imbue the event with a conditional probability which would warrant surprise. However, it is apparent that you do not acknowledge the existence of conditional probability. Which, quite frankly, kind of makes me want to play poker with you.*

*But not talk to you. Especially about anything involving probability.

 

[godless dave]

Which means nothing.

It means everything. "You" beat the odds before there is even a "you" to beat anything.

It is, however, convenient that people who don't exist would have no cause to be surprised even if they could be surprised, since it is not nonexistence, but existence, which is surprising.

Why is it surprising?

Why? That's not what Jabba was talking about.

It's precisely what he's talking about.

Why not? Could some other brain have been you?

Unless some other brain could have been you, then that one was, is, and will always be your number.

Before I existed it wasn't my number because there was no me to have a number.

Irrelevance aside, I don't know. But it's the same odds as before they named the disease after him.

Exactly my point.

 

[godless dave]

I can only conclude, then, that you would remain staunchly unastonished if a small meteor were to lop off one of your toes.

After all, you reason, the meteor had to go somewhere. Why not through your toe? And it isn't as if there is anything different between your toe and any other place in the universe. And once you realize that your toe's location has the same intrinsic value as any other toe-sized part of the universe, then your toe being lopped off by a meteor ceases to be surprising, and becomes as banal as a random spot on Mars being hit. They are both as likely to be hit. And surprise stops because the meteor had to go SOMEwhere.

Of course, the fact that it was your toe, and not some random location in the universe, would imbue the event with a conditional probability which would warrant surprise. However, it is apparent that you do not acknowledge the existence of conditional probability. Which, quite frankly, kind of makes me want to play poker with you.

But not talk to you. Especially about anything involving probability.

I would be surprised that it hit my toe instead of one of the other places it could hit, but that surprise is not enough reason to think something aimed that meteorite at my toe.

 

[Giordano]

I can only conclude, then, that you would remain staunchly unastonished if a small meteor were to lop off one of your toes.

After all, you reason, the meteor had to go somewhere. Why not through your toe? And it isn't as if there is anything different between your toe and any other place in the universe. And once you realize that your toe's location has the same intrinsic value as any other toe-sized part of the universe, then your toe being lopped off by a meteor ceases to be surprising, and becomes as banal as a random spot on Mars being hit. They are both as likely to be hit. And surprise stops because the meteor had to go SOMEwhere.

Of course, the fact that it was your toe would imbue the event with a conditional probability. However, it is apparent that you do not acknowledge the existence of conditional probability. Which, quite frankly, kind of makes me want to play poker with you.

As noted before, one might be unpleasantly surprised to have a meteorite (not "meteor" once it hits something) remove my toe of all the places in the universe it might have hit. But one should not think that loping off your toe was any more probable (or less probable) than any other place that it might have hit. My apologies if you really meant meteor: yes, I would be surprised if my toe was removed by a meteor without it actually hitting anything solid, but I suppose the heating effects....

 

[Toontown]

Absolutely correct, but we have only one Jabba (I think) so thus are looking at only one role of the die. Of course it gets more complicated than that, with the real point being that Jabba is only "special" in retrospect, and we in essence would count any number (any person) that comes up on the die in the proper calculations.

Wrong. The formula can only conceivably apply to the user. Of course, anyone could use the formula, but only on themselves.

It is entirely conditional probability, nothing else, and nothing but. Not unlike the probability you might estimate on your chances of winning a poker hand, based on your cards. Such a probability would apply to no one else at the table.

 

[Giordano]

Perhaps Toontown would be willing to explain if he sees the probability of Jabba's particular "sense of self" or brain being any less likely by Toontown's calculations than the probability of Jabba's particular fingerprints? I ask because my same request to Jabba has long gone unanswered. And I think that the answer is highly relevant to Jabba's ideas of reincarnation of his unique "sense of self" being special compared to his unique fingerprints.

 

[Toontown]

Look up.

 

[Giordano]

Wrong. The formula can only concievably apply to the user. Of course, anyone could use the formula, but only on themselves.

It is entirely conditional probability, nothing else, and nothing but. Not unlike the probability you might estimate on your chances of winning a poker hand, based on your cards. Such a probability would apply to no one else at the table.

So I can't use the formula to calculate the chances of a meteorite lopping off my wife's toe? Why not? Wouldn't this be the same probability of a meteorite loping off my toe (more or less- my toe is a bit larger than my wife's).

And yes, the probability of a meteorite lopping off my toe in particular is much less than it loping off the toe of anyone at random among the 7 billion people on Earth, and both events are less probable than it striking the Earth somewhere else. But like card games, we are attributing a special significance to specific narrow outcomes of what is a much larger, more nearly random event.

 

[Toontown]

Before I existed it wasn't my number because there was no me to have a number.

Nothing ever happens before it happens. What you are basing your argument on is meaningless.

It was your number, and that's why you began to exist when it came up. Given hyothesis A, of course.

 

[Giordano]

Look up.

I did, so can I assume that, like I concluded, the probabilities are the same? What do you think given that your prior posts indicate that I have a poor grip on statistics?

 

[godless dave]

Nothing ever happens before it happens. What you are basing your argument on is meaningless.

It was your number, and that's why you began to exist when it came up. Given hyothesis A, of course.

And before I existed, it was no more special than any other number. After I exist it isn't either, it only seems special to me because it's mine.

 

[Giordano]

Nothing ever happens before it happens. What you are basing your argument on is meaningless.

Isn't the heart of probability to try to predict the probability of certain events occurring before they happen?

 

[Toontown]

So I can't use the formula to calculate the chances of a meteorite lopping off my wife's toe? Why not? Wouldn't this be the same probability of a meteorite loping off my toe (more or less- my toe is a bit larger than my wife's).

The formula doesn't calculate the chances of anything happening. The formula can do no more than serve as a guide about what to believe, based on what has happened.

At any rate, that would make as much sense as calculating your wife's chance of winning the poker hand if she were at the table with the same cards, instead of you. Why would you do that? She's not there. You are. You're the one who needs to know what your chances are. Yours. Not someone else's.

 

[tsig]

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

Well played.

Good show.

Well done.

 

[tsig]

Well played, sir!

Good Form!

Ninjaed.