Proof of Immortality II

[Giordano]

As has been expressed by myself and others, it is important to realize that "lucky" is often used when people really mean "fortunate." If I am playing cards, it is fortunate that I drew a 3 of clubs to complete my four-of-a-kind but by drawing so, I was not "lucky" as is sometimes loosely used in the sense of having changed the prior probability of drawing a 3 of clubs (1 in 52 for a full deck, but different, or even zero, after other hands had been dealt).

Similarly, being "special" can mean lots of things (my kids are special to me, but they are just several of many to their school teachers). But "special" is not meant in statistics the same as is having a prior target or that being "special" would change the prior probability Even although drawing a 3 of clubs in the above example would be "special" for me (it may mean a very good dinner out with my winning) this "specialness" doesn't change in any way my prior probability of drawing a 3 of clubs (unless I cheat).

 

[John Jones]

What's the rush? If we're immortal, we have plenty of time.

That's better evidence than what we've seen so far.

 

[Jabba]

...
1) If you were pre-selected, then we would have to consider all potential selves pre-selected, even the ones that were never actualized. 2) This is not the kind of pre-selection we were talking about with the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.

Dave,
Re #1, correct.
Re #2. So far, I disagree. We bits of potential consciousness were all pre-selected as targets -- even those that were not hit. It's the non-conscious spaces on the wall that were not pre-selected targets.
- The vast majority of specific targets were not hit; but, none of the empty spaces were hit. And the vast majority of space on the wall was empty.

 

[John Jones]

Dave,
Re #1, correct.
Re #2. So far, I disagree. We bits of potential consciousness were all pre-selected as targets --[...]

Proof of this claim would be appropriate right about two years ago now.

Remember proof? Proof of immortality? Got any?

 

[Giordano]

Dave,
Re #1, correct.
Re #2. So far, I disagree. We bits of potential consciousness were all pre-selected as targets -- even those that were not hit. It's the non-conscious spaces on the wall that were not pre-selected targets.
- The vast majority of specific targets were not hit; but, none of the empty spaces were hit. And the vast majority of space on the wall was empty.

So, don't tell me: the conscious hits were preselected because they given souls... Circle complete!

 

[Nonpareil]

The vast majority of specific targets were not hit; but, none of the empty spaces were hit.

Absolute nonsense.

In this analogy, the empty spaces are established to mean "non-conscious things". There are billions of those. Far, far more than there are conscious things.

Or perhaps you mean that you find the formation of conscious life at all unlikely. If that's the case, I instruct you to look at the sheer size and time scale of the universe.

No matter how miniscule the odds of striking a target, whatever you're saying it is now, the sheer number of shots that have been taken render it almost certain.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Dave,
Re #1, correct.
Re #2. So far, I disagree. We bits of potential consciousness were all pre-selected as targets -- even those that were not hit. It's the non-conscious spaces on the wall that were not pre-selected targets.
- The vast majority of specific targets were not hit; but, none of the empty spaces were hit. And the vast majority of space on the wall was empty.

Say, rather, ALL of the spaces that were "hit" were empty until they were "hit". Had an "empty space" been "hit", you would have declared it one of the "pre-selected targets" from the pool of "potential consciousnesses" (you know, the one you claimed you said did not exist).

How about that evidence for the "soul", and its "immortality"?

 

[godless dave]

So out of a very large number of potential targets, only a few were selected. Just like we've been saying.

 

[Toontown]

No matter how miniscule the odds of striking a target, whatever you're saying it is now, the sheer number of shots that have been taken render it almost certain.

Shortly before you first saw the light of day, an immensely complex organization of quadrillions of atoms began to form at precise spacetime coordinates. This immensely complex dance of atoms eventually evolved into your specific brain, as each atom, with it's attending electrons, assumed it's required location in the spacetime matrix.

The above description is only the final rumblings of a specific chain of locationally and organizationally specific events reaching back to the beginning of the universal expansion. I stress locationally dependent, because weeks were wasted dithering over whether identical brain organizations are the same brain, or separate but identical brain organizations, replete with numerous stubborn semantic objections which kept recurring in a whack-a-mole manner. We don't want to go through that again, do we?

Do you really believe the formation of your specific brain was "almost certain"? Can you prove it? If so, then a Nobel prize awaits you, just for starters. You'll need to show how 19th century determinism was fully descriptive after all, and how quantum wave functions aren't really probabilistic. Then you'll have to show how probability theory is invalid in a deterministic universe. Your supreme confidence suggests you have no doubt you can show all this. So what's holding you back, and why are you wasting your time here? Don't you have a Nobel prize winning paper to write?

 

[Toontown]

Post deleted to avoid semantic argument

 

[tsig]

BTW, the "specialness" requirement is a bogus red herring*. Jabba's formula requires only the p(me):A of one specific brain, and only one specific brain. The formula will grind out whatever it grinds out, solely dependent on the numbers plugged into it, irrespective of whether any brain thinks the brain in question is "special" or not.

*"bogus red herring": a fake red herring which fails to rise to the level of a real red herring.

This looks like a straw-fish argument.

 

[Nonpareil]

Do you really believe the formation of your specific brain was "almost certain"?

No. The formation of a specific brain is. The fact that it happened to be mine is irrelevant.

Pay attention.

The probability of my - or Jabba's - specific brain forming is irrelevant unless you can show that it is significantly less probable than any other specific brain forming.

Take a twenty sided die. Roll it three times.

The probability of getting three twenties is exactly the same as getting any other specific combination of three numbers. The three twenties only seem more impressive because you are painting the target on after the fact.

 

[Toontown]

No. The formation of a specific brain is. The fact that it happened to be mine is irrelevant.

Irrelevant to what, or whom?

"Irrelevant" is not a magic wand that waves away all significance, under all conditions.

The probability of my - or Jabba's - specific brain forming is irrelevant unless you can show that it is significantly less probable than any other specific brain forming.

1. Again, irrelevant to what, or whom? I wouldn't use Jabba's formula on anyone else, if I were to use it. I'd use it on myself. That's how it is designed to be used.

2. The significance of an event not simply a function of it's relative likelihood.

3. By your highlighted reasoning, rolling a 2 on a pair of 6-sided dice is more significant than rolling a 7, simply because it is less likely to roll a 2.

4. By your highlighted reasoning, your breathing means nothing to you, simply because it is almost certain to continue to happen. But miss enough consecutive breaths, and your reasoning will change radically.

Take a twenty sided die. Roll it three times.

The probability of getting three twenties is exactly the same as getting any other specific combination of three numbers. The three twenties only seem more impressive because you are painting the target on after the fact.

Everybody and their dogs know that. Nor do I find the 3 twenties "impressive" or significant. However, if those dice keep rolling twenties, I'm going to know they're loaded, as soon as I decide the probability of their being loaded has become significantly greater than the probability of the sequence of twenties I've observed.

 

[Nonpareil]

Irrelevant to what, or whom?

I mean that the fact that it is a specific brain out of a set of possible specific brains does not alter its probability.

I wouldn't use Jabba's formula on anyone else, if I were to use it. I'd use it on myself. That's how it is designed to be used.

Because it's the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

Unless you can show that your specific brain is somehow less likely than any other specific brain forming, it doesn't matter how unlikely it is. One result had to come up. Saying "oh but it was so unlikely" is pointless, because there was going to be a hit eventually.

The significance of an event not simply a function of it's relative likelihood.

Then why are you talking about probability at all?

By your highlighted reasoning, rolling a 2 on a pair of 6-sided dice is more significant than rolling a 7, simply because it is less likely to roll a 2.

Do you understand the difference between "it is significant that this is less likely" and "this is significantly less likely"? Hint: one means "important" and the other means "much".

By your highlighted reasoning, your breathing means nothing to you, simply because it is almost certain to continue to happen. But miss enough consecutive breaths, and your reasoning will change radically.

Now you're just spouting irrelevancies.

Everybody and their dogs know that. Nor do I find the 3 twenties "impressive" or significant. However, if those dice keep rolling twenties, I'm going to know they're loaded, as soon as I decide the probability of their being loaded has become significantly greater than the probability of the sequence of twenties I've observed.

Then you need to show that the dice are loaded. Talking probability formulas is irrelevant if you want to show that there was never a factor of chance in it.

 

[George]

Post deleted to avoid semantic argument

Bit _******* late for that.

 

[Toontown]

Then you need to show that the dice are loaded. Talking probability formulas is irrelevant if you want to show that there was never a factor of chance in it.

The dice show themselves to be loaded it they keep coming up twenty. They don't roll anything but twenty, they're loaded. That's what probability is for.

FYI: I am not questioning the Standard Model. What I am questioning is nothing more than one peculiar interpretation of the Standard Model.

I am not Jabba. I am not trying to "essentially prove" the existence of immortal souls. I am only interested in showing that this one peculiar interpretation of the Standard Model is leaving a blood trail. The one I've called the "Unique Brain Hypothesis", which purports to completely explain why I am seeing the light of day.

To wit:

The Standard Model may well have predicted that human brains are nearly certain to exist, depending primarily on the size of the universe.

However, there is an interpretation of the Standard Model which is being stubbornly defended by the overriding majority of thread denizens. I"ve called it "The Unique Brain Hypothesis", just for brevity and levity. This interpretation, if analyzed by what we think we know about the universe, including the Standard Model itself, implies that a particular brain which would be "me" would never exist, with a certainty converging on 1.

OK...there are a bunch of human brains. Stubbornly defended interpretation of the Standard Model looking good so far...

Well, goddamn. Here I am. Imagine that. Me. Seeing precisely what the stubbornly defended interpretation predicts I should never be seeing, with a certainty converging on 1. There should be no "me" at all under that interpretation. Not ever. Human brains, yes, perhaps. But almost certainly not this particular one.

My recognition of this stark contradiction, I am told, is "irrelevant", based on various industrious fallacy-fitting endeavors. And bland assurances that every particular thing that exists is immensely unlikely. Which, of course, I know, which is precisely why I do not expect, with near certainty, to exist under the Unique Brain Hypothesis. Because any and every immensely unlikely thing does not exist simply because every other particular thing is also immensely unlikely. It doesn't work that way at all. Immensely unlikely particular things are, in fact, immensely unlikely to exist. No matter how many other immensely unlikely things happen to exist.

So I call it what it is - a stark contradiction.

These various pronouncements and fallacy-fitting endeavors, I am told, should be sufficient to convince me to abandon all doubt and swallow the crowd's interpretation of the Standard Model like a careless bass swallows a lure.

Be "skeptical", right? Follow the crowd. Hit the lure.

 

[Loss Leader]

Dave,
Re #1, correct.
Re #2. So far, I disagree. We bits of potential consciousness were all pre-selected as targets -- even those that were not hit. It's the non-conscious spaces on the wall that were not pre-selected targets.
- The vast majority of specific targets were not hit; but, none of the empty spaces were hit. And the vast majority of space on the wall was empty.

You still haven't given a single reason why you're only considering conscious collections of molecules. What mathematically distinguishes a set of molecules constituting a cat from that constituting a robotic cat? Neither one will pick you up at the airport.

 

[Nonpareil]

The dice show themselves to be loaded it they keep coming up twenty. They don't roll anything but twenty, they're loaded. That's what probability is for.

No.

As stated previously, a string of repeated twenties is no less likely than any other result. You have assigned subjective importance to that particular string. This is the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

20 20 20 20

is exactly as probable as

13 2 7 19

and

8 3 12 14

and

1 1 2 3

Do you understand that? Given a large enough sample size of die rolls, we would be more surprised not to see one turn up a string of twenties than to see one turn up, even if the run was of staggering length. It is nothing but your subjective assignment of arbitrary value to that series that makes it seem unusual.

If you claim the dice are loaded, you need actual evidence, not just incredulity, because the laws of probability explicitly state that runs like that will come up from time to time. Examine the dice if you wish to call foul. The results are a null tell.

The Standard Model may well have predicted that human brains are nearly certain to exist, depending primarily on the size of the univere.

However, there is an interpretation of the Standard Model which is being stubbornly defended by the overriding majority of thread denizens. I"ve called it "The Unique Brain Hypothesis", just for brevity and levity. This interpretation, if analyzed by what we think we know about the universe, including the Standard Model itself, implies that a particular brain which would be "me" would never exist, with a certainty converging on 1.

I have never seen this claimed before, but whether or not this is widely believed, it's still not anything worth listening to.

Brains exist. Therefore, no matter the odds against any specific configuration resulting, some of those results have to come up. Any claims of specialness from the resulting brains is - say it with me - the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

EDIT: In completely unrelated and irrelevant news, the graphics processing unit on my phone is so weak that it can't even properly display my avatar. It loses random frames of animation constantly. Flam looks like he's dancing. Just made me chuckle.

 

[Toontown]

No.
As stated previously, a string of repeated twenties is no less likely than any other result. You have assigned subjective importance to that particular string. This is the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

So, how many consecutive 20's would have to come up before you would abandon your Texas chainsaw massacre fallacy and begin to believe the die is loaded? How about 20 consecutive 20's? Any doubts about the fairness of the die yet? 30? 40? Bueller??

Do you understand that?

Yes, but you clearly do not.

Given a large enough sample size of die rolls, we would be more surprised not to see one turn up a string of twenties than to see one turn up, even if the run was of staggering length.

Dream on. In your hypothetical, you do not have anywhere near a large enough sample to rationally expect to see nothing but 20's for 20 consecutive rolls. In that case, all you have is 20 rolls. And they're all 20's. Probability 0.0000000000000000000000000095. Getting suspicious of that die yet? Will you ever get suspicious of it? Apparently not. By your reasoning, any series of events having a probability greater than zero is...say it with me..."irrelevant".

How many consecutive hands of blackjack would you have to lose before you would begin to suspect you are being cheated? Oh wait, nevermind. You've already answered. For any sequence of cards, there is another potential series which is equally unlikely. So, following your reasoning, no sequence of consecutive losses could ever arouse your suspicion, because something else equally unlikely could have happened instead. And, following your reasoning to it's train wreck conclusion, as long as something else could have happened, then whatever does happen is completely uninformative. Because it just happened to happen. You assume, wrongly, because, if the dealer is in fact cheating you, then nothing else could have happened.

This is a truly strange fallacy you are committing. I don't know if it has a name. I may try to look it up. I'm tentatively dubbing it The Crooked Dealer's Lucky Day Fallacy.

If you claim the dice are loaded, you need actual evidence, not just incredulity, because the laws of probability explicitly state that runs like that will come up from time to time. Examine the dice if you wish to call foul. The results are a null tell.

How about 20 consecutive 20's in 20 rolls? Yes, "runs like that will come up from time to time". Expect that maybe once in many thousands of rolls. Don't expect that in the first 20 rolls.

What if you can't examine the die? Continue to assume it's not loaded, because you can only see the results of the loading mechanism, but not the mechanism itself?

But most significantly - why would you bother to call foul at all? In your strange universe, the behavior of a loaded die means nothing. Because you can always tell yourself that the probability of that particular behavior is greater than zero. So, following your reasoning, if the die is loaded, you will never suspect it.

Brains exist. Therefore, no matter the odds against any specific configuration resulting, some of those results have to come up. Any claims of specialness from the resulting brains is - say it with me - the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

The TS fallacy occurs when the location of the shot is in fact insignificant to the shooter or anyone else, so the shooter draws a target around the bullet hole in order to imbue the location with a false significance.

I feel no need to imbue my existence with false significance. I find it sufficiently significant to myself as is. I don't care whether you think it's significant to you. The significance to you does not factor into my reasoning at all. Nor should it. Even less after reading all about your beliefs on probability. That information has pretty much clenched the insignificance of your opinion as to the significance of my existence to you.

 

[John Jones]

Irrelevant to what, or whom?

Irrelevant to the concept of proof of immortality via any sort of Bayesian statistics or logic. It's been explained repeatedly over the last 2 years.