Proof of Immortality II

[John Jones]

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

Jabba, I hope you were paying attention.

 

[Mojo]

The person is only in the room because that name came up. The name is only there because it came up.

You're still trying to answer a question other than the one I asked. What are the odds that the person in the room will see their name on the top face of the die?

 

[Aepervius]

3. Can you explain why I should unquestioningly believe, with starry-eyed faith, that my specific existence is consistent with a model which lays prior odds of 10^80! : 1 against my specific observed existence?

Hint: My question (3.) is at least as valid as yours.

Sigh. Because you keep misisng the point.

See , why does it matter if the probability of any specific being coming into existence is 1/100 or 1/(100000000^100000!) ? Hint : it does not , because a normal healthy pregnancy will lead to a human being in 100% of the case. So your specific existence POST birth, is actually consistent with any probability of a specific person being born.

I see you skipped the question. Maybe I was not clear.

here is more clearer.

1) how do you differentiate a universe , with only the data we have, where the probability of birth of a specific person is 1/10^40 against one which 1/10^80!. From what I can tell, post birth it makes no difference whatsoever. The only difference would be in collision, which over billion of persons would still be improbable enough at that numbers (ETA : with a probability of only 1/10^15 or about I am getting only 1% collision probability of a trillion people something which would be undetectable and about 10 ppm for 1 billion). But post birth it would make no difference whatsoever to a single person whether their prior probability of existence was 1/2 or 1/arbitrary high number. Because in all case the dice was thrown and their name face came up so post birth it does not matter anymore.
2) why is your refusal of an arbitrary numbers so important when you are actually retroactively looking at it POST birth, when the dice has already been thrown and ONE face had to come up.

 

[Pixel42]

You're still trying to answer a question other than the one I asked.

Your question makes the error at the heart of this thread abundantly clear. You'll never get an answer, just further equivocation and (genuine or wilful) misunderstanding.

 

[Aepervius]

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?

No they should not be surprised post birth. Sorry. Being in that room.

Neither should they suddenly decide that soul exists from that lack of surprise.

 

[Jabba]

- 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...

Dave,
- I guess that I'm "setting the stage." These are important claims, on my part, that I urge you to keep in mind as I try to communicate my position re being "special."

 

[gambling_cruiser]

Dave,
- I guess that I'm "setting the stage." These are important claims, on my part, that I urge you to keep in mind as I try to communicate my position re being "special."

Are you trying to bore us into submission?
No, you are not essential for the universe, almost nothing would change for us if you didn't exist (only this stupidity of a thread would come to an end).

 

[Jabba]

…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?...

- I’d be stuck.

 

[Pixel42]

No they should not be surprised post birth.

Suppose each was given the opportunity to bet on being the person who would be invited into the next room. They are familiar with the laws of probability, so they know they only have a 1 in 20 chance of being chosen. Should their "starry eyed faith" in the laws of probability lead them to make that bet? Obviously not, if they have any sense none will make it.

Of course for the one whose name does come up that will prove to have been the wrong decision. But for the other 19 it will have been the right one. So on balance it's best not to bet against the odds.

 

[Jabba]

You are no more lucky than anything else in the universe, including the rock on trebor's desk.
What you're implying is that we should be suspicious of any complex system with a large number of variables and a large number of potential outcomes.

Dave,
- My claim is that I am "lucky" whereas trebor's rock is not.
- I am lucky in that I am aware. Trevor's rock is probably not aware. And, you gotta be aware in order to be lucky.
- This truth sounds irrelevant, but it’s actually crucial. Existence has no meaning to the rock, but it does to me – and I assume, it does to you as well…

…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…

- I think that this is the crucial area of my claim, and I haven't expressed it properly until, hopefully, now. It isn't that I am not just someone/anyone. It's that I am not just something/anything-- I am aware. That's why I can be lucky, and that's what sets me apart from everything else (that is not aware).

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- My claim is that I am "lucky" whereas trebor's rock is not.
- I am lucky in that I am aware. Trevor's rock is probably not aware. And, you gotta be aware in order to be lucky.
- This truth sounds irrelevant, but it’s actually crucial. Existence has no meaning to the rock, but it does to me – and I assume, it does to you as well…

I don't see how that's relevant at all.

- I think that this is the crucial area of my claim, and I haven't expressed it properly until, hopefully, now. It isn't that I am not just someone/anyone. It's that I am not just something/anything-- I am aware. That's why I can be lucky, and that's what sets me apart from everything else (that is not aware).

What difference does that make to the likelihood of you existing?

 

[Jabba]

- Try this. I am either TREMENDOUSLY “lucky” – or, there is a better (more probable) explanation. Is it more probable that I am TREMENDOUSLY lucky than that there is a more probable explanation?

- I.e., is it more probable that “A” is not correct?

 

[jsfisher]

- I.e., is it more probable that “A” is not correct?

Really? I'd estimate Jabba's existence to be less likely. The complement of "A" is not a single thing, but a spectrum of possibilities, some of which are nearly identical to A, some of which are completely different. I would think that in most, humans wouldn't exist at all, let alone the specific instance of Jabba.

By the way, don't forget, too, that ~A does not assure immortality.

By the way, don't forget, too, that ~A being more probably than A says nothing about any of the specific possibilities in ~A being more probable than A.

 

[Loss Leader]

Dave,
- My claim is that I am "lucky" whereas trebor's rock is not.
- I am lucky in that I am aware. Trevor's rock is probably not aware. And, you gotta be aware in order to be lucky.
- This truth sounds irrelevant, but it’s actually crucial. Existence has no meaning to the rock, but it does to me – and I assume, it does to you as well…
- I think that this is the crucial area of my claim, and I haven't expressed it properly until, hopefully, now. It isn't that I am not just someone/anyone. It's that I am not just something/anything-- I am aware. That's why I can be lucky, and that's what sets me apart from everything else (that is not aware).

Jabba-

Are you saying that your proof of immortality is only valid regarding you from your perspective? Or are you saying that anyone else should believe in your immortality because you are special from your own perspective?

 

[Giordano]

- I’d be stuck.

I bet you are (would be?)!

Is this a typo? Were you hoping no one would notice- you know you could have corrected it by editing. Or do you mean this?

 

[Giordano]

Dave,
- My claim is that I am "lucky" whereas trebor's rock is not.
- I am lucky in that I am aware. Trevor's rock is probably not aware. And, you gotta be aware in order to be lucky.
- This truth sounds irrelevant, but it’s actually crucial. Existence has no meaning to the rock, but it does to me – and I assume, it does to you as well…



- I think that this is the crucial area of my claim, and I haven't expressed it properly until, hopefully, now. It isn't that I am not just someone/anyone. It's that I am not just something/anything-- I am aware. That's why I can be lucky, and that's what sets me apart from everything else (that is not aware).

So we are now fully in the "Does a tree falling in the forest with no one around make a sound?" territory. I thought you were using statistics to prove reincarnation (remember?); now the significance of a statistical event depends on if someone is around to appreciate it. Why not just state that you believe in souls and reincarnation, and give up trying to prove it mathematically? If that is your goal?

 

[jond]

Dave,
- My claim is that I am "lucky" whereas trebor's rock is not.
- I am lucky in that I am aware. Trevor's rock is probably not aware. And, you gotta be aware in order to be lucky.
- This truth sounds irrelevant, but it’s actually crucial. Existence has no meaning to the rock, but it does to me – and I assume, it does to you as well…

- I think that this is the crucial area of my claim, and I haven't expressed it properly until, hopefully, now. It isn't that I am not just someone/anyone. It's that I am not just something/anything-- I am aware. That's why I can be lucky, and that's what sets me apart from everything else (that is not aware).

What is the probability of the existence of the ant that just ran away from my descending foot? Are ants immortal?

 

[Jabba]

Really? I'd estimate Jabba's existence to be less likely. The complement of "A" is not a single thing, but a spectrum of possibilities, some of which are nearly identical to A, some of which are completely different. I would think that in most, humans wouldn't exist at all, let alone the specific instance of Jabba.

By the way, don't forget, too, that ~A does not assure immortality.

By the way, don't forget, too, that ~A being more probably than A says nothing about any of the specific possibilities in ~A being more probable than A.

js,
- For the moment, at least, you have found the way to my heart.
- A long time ago, on Part I of this thread, we had discussions about what ~A would include. The following is about the last thing I said about ~A in Part I (http://www.internationalskeptics.co...hp?p=9833235&highlight=complement#post9833235) - I'm claiming that ~A has mathematical restrictions that can be expressed more explicitly than "anything and everything that is not A." I expressed ~A as "given that I currently exist, my existence will be either continuous, or more than once, or (somehow) both. I'm claiming that in mathematics, the possibilities are limited and identifiable.

 

[Giordano]

What is the probability of the existence of the ant that just ran away from my descending foot? Are ants immortal?

Don't be silly! Ants probably have a lesser consciousness than we do, so they have a reduced immortality (infinity times a fraction).

By the way- have you ever tried to get rid of ants in your house? They may indeed be immortal!

 

[Jabba]

What is the probability of the existence of the ant that just ran away from my descending foot? Are ants immortal?

jond,
- Probably.