Proof of Immortality II

[Garrette]

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??

Your mistake in how you are continuing this analogy is assuming that every consciousness is a 20. What is happening is that a 20 is rolled and so a consciousness emerges followed by a 3 and another consciousness, then a 7 and a consciousness, and a 12 and so on.

If you (or I, or Jabba, or any consciousness) continued to recur, then you might have a point, though exactly what it is I am unsure of. As it stands, you have nothing except a die being rolled a lot of times and coming up differently each time. The fact that the die has a giganogargantuan number of sides means nothing more for the number that comes up than if it has only six sides.

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.

There may be errors in nonpareil's chain of thought, but they are not the ones torpedoing the point here, but you are making some fatal errors here, even if we overlook your strawman of "whatever happens is completely uninformative."

If, once the universe begins, something must happen, followed by another something and myriad more somethings, then the mere fact of one thing happening over another does not impart statistical significance either to it from its perspective or to it from another perspective. It may, indeed, impart a feeling of significance from the happening's point of view, but that is irrelevant to the statistics.

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.

I am truly interested: at what odds does an unlikely occurrence cross over into the land of significance? How large must the die be for the number to matter? Obviously not twenty. I assume not one thousand or even one million. Is it a quintillion? Where is the crossover?

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.

Which is, in fact, what is happening here. When the post-shot bullseye speaks up and says "See? I'm special!" it does not mean that the bullseye is actually significant, only that it feels that way.

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.

Which is fine, but means squat all in regard to the claim that the giganogargantuan odds mean that (a) Jabba was pre-selected or (b) Jabba is immortal.

 

[Nonpareil]

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??

Have you read my posts at all?

If the die is loaded, you need to examine the die itself to find out. The point at which you begin to suspect that it might be is subjective, and the length of the string of consecutive rolls has absolutely no bearing on whether or not the die is actually loaded. In the same fashion, the number of people who hold an erroneous belief does not have any bearing on whether or not it is actually true. You have to look at the die itself, not just say "oh, that's so unlikely".

The point here is that neither you nor Jabba has shown that any result of the cosmic die-toss is unusual at all, let alone that this must be because the die is loaded rather than because it just happened to turn up that way.

Dream on. In your hypothetical

What hypothetical is this, then? All I've done is explain one of the most basic parts of probability theory.

Don't go making up arguments for me.

In an actual hypothetical situation that I might propose, there would be more dice rolling than could easily be expressed. This is, after all, the entire universe - or at least all planets potentially capable of supporting life - that we are talking about. Basically, infinite monkeys with Dungeons and Dragons playsets, rather than typewriters.

Eventually, the result you are looking for is going to turn up.

By your reasoning, any series of events having a probability greater than zero is...say it with me..."irrelevant".

At no point did I say that.

I did say, however, that your suspicion is not proof of weighted chances. You have to actually look at the system for that.

Which you have yet to do.

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.

It's exactly as likely in the first twenty as in any other.

What if you can't examine the die?

Then you are free to operate under the assumption that it is loaded if you wish, but don't pretend that your suspicion is the same as hard evidence.

 

[Mojo]

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.

"Converging on one" is not equal to one, just as you can't get to infinity by counting. Your brain is very unlikely, but there is nothing that makes it impossible. Very unlikely things happen all the time.

 

[Mojo]

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.

Toontown seems to be applying something like William Dembski's "Law of Small Probabilities" here.

 

[Toontown]

"Converging on one" is not equal to one, just as you can't get to infinity by counting. Your brain is very unlikely, but there is nothing that makes it impossible. Very unlikely things happen all the time.

Which means nothing.

Specific very unlikely things do not happen all the time. Specific very unlikely things are called very unlikely precisely because they are, in fact, very unlikely to ever be observed. That's why I can tell you with very high certainty that your toe will never be lopped off by a small meteor. Because that's specific, and that's why you're not ever going to see it. And you don't even have to be lucky to avoid a meteoric toe-lopping. It's just not going to happen.

Nonspecific unlikely things, OTOH, do happen all the time. Because you have misnamed that kind of event. The occurrence of some unspecific thing is not unlikely at all.

If your reasoning means anything, then why aren't you winning the lottery every week?

You are not winning the lottery every week because your reasoning is fundamentally flawed, and so reality refuses to align with it.

 

[Garrette]

Which means nothing.

Specific very unlikely things do not happen all the time. Specific very unlikely things are called very unlikely precisely because they are, in fact, very unlikely to ever be observed. That's why I can tell you with very high certainty that your toe will never be lopped off by a small meteor. Because that's specific, and that's why you're not ever going to see it. And you don't even have to be lucky to avoid a meteoric toe-lopping. It's just not going to happen.

Nonspecific unlikely things, OTOH, do happen all the time. Because you have misnamed that kind of event. The occurrence of some unspecific thing is not unlikely at all.

If your reasoning means anything, then why aren't you winning the lottery every week?

You are not winning the lottery every week because your reasoning is fundamentally flawed, and so reality refuses to align with it.

And there is a clearer elucidation of what I was pointing out in my last post.

Jabba's consciousness, and your consciousness, and my consciousness are not unlikely specific things, they are unlikely non-specific things.

ETA: You are calling them unlikely specific things after the fact, very nicely exemplifying the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy you keep denying.

 

[Garrette]

--snip--

That's why I can tell you with very high certainty that your toe will never be lopped off by a small meteor. Because that's specific, and that's why you're not ever going to see it. And you don't even have to be lucky to avoid a meteoric toe-lopping. It's just not going to happen.

--snip--

Not exactly a toe, but still getting struck, and surviving being struck, by a meteorite. Is it specific or non-specific?

 

[Toontown]

Which is, in fact, what is happening here. When the post-shot bullseye speaks up and says "See? I'm special!" it does not mean that the bullseye is actually significant, only that it feels that way.

Your reasoning is as fundamentally flawed as Mojo's, and in the same way. It's a thread bias. Possibly a forum bias.

It feels that way because it is that way. It is that way because my existence is the most specific and significant thing that could ever have been observed by me. My existence is specific and significant to me because it makes the difference between my existing and not existing.

 

[Toontown]

Not exactly a toe, but still getting struck, and surviving being struck, by a meteorite. Is it specific or non-specific?

That's one of those nonspecific events which, as members of the class of unspecific events, are inevitable rather than unlikely. Why are you substituting Mojo being hit by a meteor with some unspecific other object being hit? My guess is you're doing it because you know you're wrong, so you've conjured up a false equivalence to cover up the fact that your reasoning is fundamentally flawed.

 

[Toontown]

And there is a clearer elucidation of what I was pointing out in my last post.

Jabba's consciousness, and your consciousness, and my consciousness are not unlikely specific things, they are unlikely non-specific things.

This exemplifies the fundamental error you all keep stubbornly clinging to. You keep calling unspecific events "unlikely" while at the same time arguing that they aren't really unlikely.

Some unspecific event is not unlikely. Some unspecific event is inevitable.

ETA: You are calling them unlikely specific things after the fact, very nicely exemplifying the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy you keep denying.

Here you show that you are unable to differientiate between the TS fallacy and simple conditional probability.

My existence is specific from my perspective. Your existence is unspecific from my perspective. Jabba's existence is unspecific from my perspective. My existence is unspecific from your perspective. Jabba's existence is unspecific from your perspective.

 

[Toontown]

It's exactly as likely in the first twenty as in any other.

Which means nothing.

And you made this meaningless remark in response to my pointing out to you that a sample size of 20 does not justify expecting to see 20 consecutive 20's.

This is very simple. The die keeps stopping with the same side up. The sample size does not even remotely explain this behavior. Suspicion is completely justified. Bland acceptance is not justified. You need to see something besides 20.

 

[tsig]

Which means nothing.

Specific very unlikely things do not happen all the time. Specific very unlikely things are called very unlikely precisely because they are, in fact, very unlikely to ever be observed. That's why I can tell you with very high certainty that your toe will never be lopped off by a small meteor. Because that's specific, and that's why you're not ever going to see it. And you don't even have to be lucky to avoid a meteoric toe-lopping. It's just not going to happen.

Nonspecific unlikely things, OTOH, do happen all the time. Because you have misnamed that kind of event. The occurrence of some unspecific thing is not unlikely at all.

If your reasoning means anything, then why aren't you winning the lottery every week?

You are not winning the lottery every week because your reasoning is fundamentally flawed, and so reality refuses to align with it.

Since you claim that births are unlikely it would seem there should be a dearth of births.

 

[Mojo]

This is very simple. The die keeps stopping with the same side up. The sample size does not even remotely explain this behavior.

What sample size would you need to establish a pattern?

 

[Garrette]

Actually, I understand conditional probability quite well, and my reading of your posts indicates you do, too, but you do not have a grasp on the TSS.

Everything you have written on this aspect of the argument boils down to this:

I am a specific target simply because it is me.

That's it. There is no more substance at all to your argument than that, and it is flatly wrong.

 

[tsig]

Your reasoning is as fundamentally flawed as Mojo's, and in the same way. It's a thread bias. Possibly a forum bias.

It feels that way because it is that way. It is that way because my existence is the most specific and significant thing that could ever have been observed by me. My existence is specific and significant to me because it makes the difference between my existing and not existing.

To the rest of the universe, not so much.

 

[Toontown]

Then you are free to operate under the assumption that it is loaded if you wish, but don't pretend that your suspicion is the same as hard evidence.

Thank you, I will.

FYI, You are talking about hard evidence without even being aware of what you are talking about. The die keeps rolling nothing but 20. That keeps happening. You keep saying it's "irrelevant", because other unrelated things happen a lot. But still the die keeps turning up 20.

 

[Garrette]

This is very simple. The die keeps stopping with the same side up. The sample size does not even remotely explain this behavior. Suspicion is completely justified. Bland acceptance is not justified. You need to see something besides 20.

And this is simply wrong, as I have stated.

It does not keep coming up 20. It keeps coming up different numbers, each one of which is a consciousness. Or, to be more accurate, each one of which is a consciousness or a rock or a Higgs Boson or a 1970s era Zenith color television.

--snip--

I am truly interested: at what odds does an unlikely occurrence cross over into the land of significance? How large must the die be for the number to matter? Obviously not twenty. I assume not one thousand or even one million. Is it a quintillion? Where is the crossover?

--snip--

I remain interested in your answer to this question.

 

[Mojo]

Which means nothing.

Specific very unlikely things do not happen all the time. Specific very unlikely things are called very unlikely precisely because they are, in fact, very unlikely to ever be observed. That's why I can tell you with very high certainty that your toe will never be lopped off by a small meteor. Because that's specific, and that's why you're not ever going to see it. And you don't even have to be lucky to avoid a meteoric toe-lopping. It's just not going to happen.

Nonspecific unlikely things, OTOH, do happen all the time. Because you have misnamed that kind of event. The occurrence of some unspecific thing is not unlikely at all.

You're specifying a particular existing toe (or possibly one of a set of ten toes) being hit by a meteorite, and you're doing it before the event has happened. Was your existence specified before you existed?

If your reasoning means anything, then why aren't you winning the lottery every week?

You are not winning the lottery every week because your reasoning is fundamentally flawed, and so reality refuses to align with it.

Nothing I have said implies that I should win the lottery every week. We're not talking about a single specific person winning the lottery every week, we're talking about whoever happens to win the lottery each week winning the lottery in that particular week.

 

[Mojo]

--snip--

I am truly interested: at what odds does an unlikely occurrence cross over into the land of significance? How large must the die be for the number to matter? Obviously not twenty. I assume not one thousand or even one million. Is it a quintillion? Where is the crossover?

--snip--

I remain interested in your answer to this question.

According to this it is 10¹⁵⁰.

 

[Garrette]

According to this it is 10¹⁵⁰.

Interesting. Thanks.