Proof of Immortality II

[Giordano]

ETA - In any case, do we all agree that whatever actual numbers are used in the equation, they are not infinity?

Yes for my vote!

 

[Toontown]

Here's a question that I asked a couple of pages back, which didn't seem to get addressed:

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?

ETA: I've spotted a way that Toontown could misunderstand the question, so I'll put it another way:

What is the probability that the person called into the room will see their own name?

Wrong question.

What is the probability that person x, specifically, will be called into the room?

Yes, there was always a probability that person x could be called, else no one could be called.

Should person x be surprised if called? Maybe. Depends on the magnitude of N.

 

[John Jones]

ETA - In any case, do we all agree that whatever actual numbers are used in the equation, they are not infinity?

Yes.

 

[Akhenaten]

- In any case, do we all agree that whatever actual numbers are used in the equation, they are not infinity?

For values of "we" that include "the mathematical reality of an uncaring Universe", yes.

 

[Mojo]

Wrong question.

What is the probability that person x, specifically, will be called into the room?

Yes, there was always a probability that person x could be called, else no one could be called.

Is "person x" being called consistent with the hypothesis that the die is random?

Should person x be surprised if called?

Yes, that is precisely how I thought you would manage to misunderstand the question.

Maybe. Depends on the magnitude of N.

The question I asked has nothing to do with the value of N. There is a person in a room. They know that if they are in the room it is because their name has come up on a die that is in the room with them. Should they be surprised to see their name on the die?

 

[Toontown]

The question I asked has nothing to do with the value of N. There is a person in a room. They know that if they are in the room it is because their name has come up on a die that is in the room with them. Should they be surprised to see their name on the die?

Your semantic niggle doesn't work.

The person is only in the room because that name came up. The name is only there because it came up. The prior probability of that name coming up remains 1/N, all semantic niggling notwithstanding.

Therefore, the maginitude of N might well justify extreme surprise at knowing that name is on the die. Whether the person actually looks at the name or not is a semantic, niggling irrelevance.

 

[Jabba]

Dave,
- I'm not saying that we should trash A. I'm just saying that we have new evidence against A -- and unless we were totally sure about A before gaining this new evidence, we need to apply the new evidence to our prior probability of A in order to determine the post probability of A.

What new evidence is that?
It can't be your existence, because your existence is consistent with A. That one person exists and billions of potential people - people who could have existed if events had happened slightly differently - do not is exactly what the scientific model of human consciousness predicts...

- My current existence IS what I'm proposing as "new evidence." I'm claiming that I should not be counted as just someone/anyone -- I am set apart, a special case, a target. My sub-claims:

1. “Consciousness” is an extremely difficult subject to discuss -- or just think about -- effectively.
2. Probability is a complex and obscure subject all by itself.

3. Being “set apart” is not just is or isn’t. It exists in degrees, and the degree to which an event is set apart, relates to the probability required to make it significant.
4. The degree to which my specific, current existence is set apart may be very small, but the probability of my specific, current existence is unimaginably small.

5. Why my specific, current existence should be set apart:
5.1. I am the only eye on the universe that I have. If I never existed, there might as well be nothing -- forever. And, the odds of me ever existing were, at least, 1080! : 1.
5.2. I am also the only thing, process or illusion that I know actually exists (in one form or the other).
5.3. The likelihood of “now” being between 1942 and 2014 (say) is also unimaginably small. And, the likelihood of my specific, current existence is something like 10^80! * 10^80!!
5.4. Ultimately, we’re trying to compare two probabilities – the likelihood that I would be so lucky as to currently exist, given “A,” versus the prior probability of “~A.” It seems obvious that the latter is MUCH greater.
5.5. This last claim is probably the key to my argument – it’s probably the implications buried in this claim that make my specific, current existence a “special” case.

- I'll be back.

 

[jsfisher]

- My current existence IS what I'm proposing as "new evidence."

...and that's what makes it a Texas Sharp-shooter Fallacy. You (or anyone else, for that matter) asking a question about your specific existence already presupposes your existence. If you didn't exist, then the question of your existence would not arise.

 

[Giordano]

- My current existence IS what I'm proposing as "new evidence."

I thought you were at least as old as I was. Were you just born? If so, congratulations on your typing skills!

 

[Giordano]

I am set apart, a special case, a target.

Does that work with the math you just proposed in your last post to me, or are you just one of 7 billon?

 

[Akhenaten]

- My current existence IS what I'm proposing as "new evidence." I'm claiming that I should not be counted as just someone/anyone -- I am set apart, a special case, a target.

Immortal?

Any chance of you getting back to that claim?

My sub-claims:

1. “Consciousness” is an extremely difficult subject to discuss -- or just think about -- effectively.

Luckily for us it's not the topic here, so we can just concentrate on "immortality".

2. Probability is a complex and obscure subject all by itself.

As above.

3. Being “set apart” is not just is or isn’t. It exists in degrees, and the degree to which an event is set apart, relates to the probability required to make it significant.

Also, fortuitously, irrelevant to this particular topic.

4. The degree to which my specific, current existence is set apart may be very small, but the probability of my specific, current existence is unimaginably small.

Whatever you reckon.

Immortality?

5. Why my specific, current existence should be set apart:
5.1. I am the only eye on the universe that I have. If I never existed, there might as well be nothing -- forever.

Bayes supports this, does he?

And, the odds of me ever existing were, at least, 1080! : 1.

Pathetic underestimate. Please show your working

5.2. I am also the only thing, process or illusion that I know actually exists (in one form or the other).

As luck would have it, there are seven billion second opinions available.

5.3. The likelihood of “now” being between 1942 and 2014 (say) is also unimaginably small.

No. The likelihood of "now" being 2014 is 100%, no matter what you say.

And, the likelihood of my specific, current existence is something like 10^80! * 10^80!!

No it's not. That's just an arbitrary number that people came up with to counter your droning on about infinity or some "unimaginably" large number.

If you're actually going to use 10^80! * 10^80!! as the basis of your argument in support of immortality then you'll need to show the working by which you arrived at such a figure.

5.4. Ultimately, we’re trying to compare two probabilities – the likelihood that I would be so lucky as to currently exist, given “A,” versus the prior probability of “~A.” It seems obvious that the latter is MUCH greater.

We? No.

Ultimately you are trying to prove immortality.

5.5. This last claim is probably the key to my argument – it’s probably the implications buried in this claim that make my specific, current existence a “special” case.

Are you amending the claim in your OP to "I think that I can essentially prove that I alone am immortal using Bayesian statistics"?

- I'll be back.

Not according to the evidence, you won't.

 

[Loss Leader]

5. Why my specific, current existence should be set apart:
5.1. I am the only eye on the universe that I have. If I never existed, there might as well be nothing -- forever. And, the odds of me ever existing were, at least, 1080! : 1.
5.2. I am also the only thing, process or illusion that I know actually exists (in one form or the other).

Jabba - Are you claiming that your existence is only special from your perspective (and, therefore, your immortality is only visible from your perspective)?

Or are you claiming that I should find your existence special? It seems that your proof only applies to you from your perspective, though a similar proof might apply to me from my perspective.

I am very interested in your answers to these questions. My hearty agreement with you hinges on your answer.

In other words, there is an answer you could give that would convince me permanently that your proof is valid and would cause me to defend it for you.

 

[John Jones]

- My current existence IS what I'm proposing as "new evidence." [...].

It's not any more "new evidence" than the existence of the other 7 billion people currently alive, nor those that came before.

Better LUCK next time.

 

[Giordano]

5. Why my specific, current existence should be set apart:
5.1. I am the only eye on the universe that I have. If I never existed, there might as well be nothing -- forever. And, the odds of me ever existing were, at least, 1080! : 1.
5.2. I am also the only thing, process or illusion that I know actually exists (in one form or the other).
5.3. The likelihood of “now” being between 1942 and 2014 (say) is also unimaginably small. And, the likelihood of my specific, current existence is something like 10^80! * 10^80!!

So we are back to this, are we? Several points already addressed:
5.1. if you never existed, I am sure there would still be "something." Quite a lot, in fact. I would probably still be around, for example.
5.2. You know that an illusion actually exists; how do you explain that use of words? How can you even know that you actually exist.? Perhaps you are an illusion too? For example, my sense of self of my own appearance (my "memory" of it) is often proven somewhat illusionary when I actually look in a mirror. And not for the better.
5.3. If there are at least 7 billon souls in the Universe(given the number now in existence) and the numbers of people having been born for the last million years, then isn't the likelihood of your birth precisely in 1942, rather than sometime during the vast periods before or after, somewhat unlikely even given your theory? You might wish to reconsider your numbers here too; do you mean the reciprocal? Proper use of the way one composes a formula is very important in statistics, as you know.

 

[Giordano]

There are lots of science fiction themes that propose a single immortal being among the rest of us mortals. This immortal is often hiding from being discovered as such. Never did I suspect that I would encounter them on an Internet forum and that they would be so open about it all.

 

[godless dave]

- My current existence IS what I'm proposing as "new evidence." I'm claiming that I should not be counted as just someone/anyone -- I am set apart, a special case, a target. My sub-claims:

1. “Consciousness” is an extremely difficult subject to discuss -- or just think about -- effectively.
2. Probability is a complex and obscure subject all by itself.

I don't understand how those two sub-claims are relevant to anything.

3. Being “set apart” is not just is or isn’t. It exists in degrees, and the degree to which an event is set apart, relates to the probability required to make it significant.
4. The degree to which my specific, current existence is set apart may be very small, but the probability of my specific, current existence is unimaginably small.

What if the degree to which you are set apart is zero?

5. Why my specific, current existence should be set apart:
5.1. I am the only eye on the universe that I have. If I never existed, there might as well be nothing -- forever. And, the odds of me ever existing were, at least, 1080! : 1.
5.2. I am also the only thing, process or illusion that I know actually exists (in one form or the other).

Why should this set you apart? These two things are only true from your perspective, and only after you already exist.

5.3. The likelihood of “now” being between 1942 and 2014 (say) is also unimaginably small.

That's not true. There was only one time when you could exist, because your existence depended on a certain sperm and certain egg meeting.

And, the likelihood of my specific, current existence is something like 10^80! * 10^80!!
5.4. Ultimately, we’re trying to compare two probabilities – the likelihood that I would be so lucky as to currently exist, given “A,” versus the prior probability of “~A.” It seems obvious that the latter is MUCH greater.

I don't see how that's the case. We don't know anything at all about ~A, other than it's not A. We would need details on ~A to know the likelihood of your existence under ~A.

 

[Giordano]

I don't understand how those two sub-claims are relevant to anything.

Actually I thought about it more, and his first two subclaims are probably necessary for him to make the argument.

 

[Loss Leader]

5.4. Ultimately, we’re trying to compare two probabilities – the likelihood that I would be so lucky as to currently exist, given “A,” versus the prior probability of “~A.” It seems obvious that the latter is MUCH greater.

I don't know why this would be true. A model that allows for your existence allows for your existence. We'd have to measure the probability that A is correct against the chance that any other theory is correct. A conforms with all evidence that we are able to gather and all falsifiable tests we are able to run.

You haven't even suggested evidence to support anything other than A (actually, you once brought up near-death experiences). But you've certainly offered no repeatable, testable evidence.

It seems that the one we have evidence for is far more likely than the one we don't.


The Yankees might win the World Series. Then, the Yankees do win the World Series. We have evidence that there are dozens of ball teams playing each other thousands of times to discover which is best. We have no evidence that the Yankees are the only team in existence or that the World Series is a small, yellow coin stuck in the Yankees' couch.


Still, as I said, I will be happy to agree with you if you are saying that your proof only applies to you from your own perspective and is of no other importance to anyone who is not you.

 

[Giordano]

I don't know why this would be true. A model that allows for your existence allows for your existence. We'd have to measure the probability that A is correct against the chance that any other theory is correct. A conforms with all evidence that we are able to gather and all falsifiable tests we are able to run.

You haven't even suggested evidence to support anything other than A (actually, you once brought up near-death experiences). But you've certainly offered no repeatable, testable evidence.

It seems that the one we have evidence for is far more likely than the one we don't.


The Yankees might win the World Series. Then, the Yankees do win the World Series. We have evidence that there are dozens of ball teams playing each other thousands of times to discover which is best. We have no evidence that the Yankees are the only team in existence or that the World Series is a small, yellow coin stuck in the Yankees' couch.


Still, as I said, I will be happy to agree with you if you are saying that your proof only applies to you from your own perspective and is of no other importance to anyone who is not you.

Hey, the Mets won the World Series in 1986. Talk about extremely improbable events, yet I still believe in the "theory" of how baseball works.

 

[pakeha]

Finally!

NOW is when you are going to present your evidence that the "soul" exists,and is "immortal", right?

Right?

A good point.
Jabba has yet to show any evidence the soul exists.