Proof of Immortality II

[Pup]

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??

On the question about whether the die is fair... I think there's a significant condition that's not being specified.

Are we considering any possible run of 20s? Or a specific set of throws?

If it's any possible run, there would be no indication the die was unfair. I'd use my omniscient powers to consider every time a die was thrown, now or in the future, and point out that a run of twenty 20s occurred in South Africa on July 12, 2034. By that date, enough dice had been thrown that the odds of getting twenty 20s would be one in three. Should we assume that that particular South African die must be unfair? I'd say no. It was bound to happen sooner or later.

If it's a specific (special) set of throws, everything changes. If my friend bets that 20 will come up on the next twenty throws, and it does, the odds are astronomically against that and therefore the die was almost certainly unfair.

The confusion comes when specific, predicted throws are specified, vs when we go looking for a set of twenty throws and then draw a target around them in hindsight, as if they were special.

 

[Garrette]

I didn't need to draw any target around my brain's existence. Reality did that.

Yes. It drew it after the fact, not before.

My specific brain's potential existence was the metaphorical target (given the Unique Brain Assumption) ever since the beginning of the universal expansion. The metaphorical bullet hole in the specific target (my brain's specific potential existence) is my brain's actual existence.

It was one of innumerable metaphorical targets, to stay with the analogy. You are committing the same error that Creationists do who posit that everything-needs-a-cause-therefore-God and then dance around the question of what caused God.

You have merely drawn your target around a target instead of around a bullet hole.

The Unique Brain Assumption implies that shouldn't have happened with certainty converging on 1.

Point 1: No one said or says "shouldn't have happened."

Point 2: "Converging on 1" does not equal one.

Point 3: The Unique Everything Assumption implies that everything had a prior probability of not happening converging on 1, not just brains.

This, I am repeatedly admonished, has no bearing on the validity of the Unique Brain Assumption. I am informed that I must simply swallow the Unique Brain Assumption and it's implied giganogargantuan prior odds against my existence, like a careless bass swallows a lure without even knowing or acknowledging what it is swallowing.

No answer to my question regarding at what point something crosses that line between unlikely and must-mean-something-special?

 

[Toontown]

You are conflating significant to you, personally with significant in terms of probability.

They are not the same.

They are if I'm playing poker, just for an obvious example of the glaringly obvious.

I look at my hole cards. They carry probabilistic meaning to me which is not privy to the other players.

Again, you fail to grasp the difference between the two.

False. I'm not the one who isn't keeping up with the argument, as the quotes I'm providing are demonstrating.

Your hand matters to you; it is "significant", meaning that you care.

Balderdash. The cards carry probabilistic meaning, like I said in the first place. Like I shouldn't have had to say again with quotes. The probability of my winning the pot is directly related to the conditional strength of my cards.

Your hand is just another one of X possible hands that might be dealt out; the fact that you happened to get this particular one is not "significant", meaning that it (EDIT: does not) cause us to consider that our idea of the probability of any given hand turning up is wrong.

That's just meaningless tap-dancing, clearly a smoke screen, having no bearing on my point that the hand carries probabilistic meaning to me specifically, concerning the liklihood of my winning the pot. Probabilistic information which is not privy to the other players. Probabilistic meaning. Not emotional meaning. Like I said in the first place. Like I shouldn't have had to say again with quotes.

 

[Garrette]

--snip--

Balderdash. The cards carry probabilistic meaning, like I said in the first place. Like I shouldn't have had to say again with quotes. The probability of my winning the pot is directly related to the conditional strength of my cards.

Well, yes, particularly if we ignore the human side of playing as opposed to the probabilistic side (this isn't snark on my part; I'm just trying to be clear).

That's just meaningless tap-dancing, clearly a smoke screen, having no bearing on my point that the hand carries probabilistic meaning to me specifically, concerning the liklihood of my winning the pot. Probabilistic information which is not privy to the other players. Probabilistic meaning. Not emotional meaning. Like I said in the first place. Like I shouldn't have had to say again with quotes.

Again, true, but only because you are avoiding the context Nonpariel is talking about. When that is taken into account, Nonpareil's point becomes the accurate one.

You are talking about it as an actual poker game with actual players capable of making actual predictions and calculating actual probabilities. Since there are players who have information prior to the pot being taken and who can decide on cards they need to optimize their chances of victory, then your conclusion that your hand has significance to you is correct, and if you happen to draw the card you wanted to draw then it is not the TSS to afterwards say, "I beat the odds."

But this analogy came up in the context of no one being there to make predictions or to calculate probabilities. You're not there to determine how to maximize winning your pot of consciousness before you're actually there, so you're consciousness is not significant to you until after the pot is won, i.e., the poker analogy falls when applied properly.

 

[Nonpareil]

On the question about whether the die is fair... I think there's a significant condition that's not being specified.

Are we considering any possible run of 20s? Or a specific set of throws?

I am speaking of the former. Toontown keeps trying to twist things into speaking about the latter. But the end result is the same in any case: you still have to look at the die itself to determine whether or not it's actually loaded.

I didn't need to draw any target around my brain's existence. Reality did that.

No, it didn't.

The Unique Brain Assumption implies that shouldn't have happened with certainty converging on 1.

What you neglect to mention is that, by this logic, every brain has that same probability of existence.

Some of them are going to turn up.

Balderdash. The cards carry probabilistic meaning, like I said in the first place. Like I shouldn't have had to say again with quotes. The probability of my winning the pot is directly related to the conditional strength of my cards.

Which is exactly what I said. Your hand is important to you.

Pay attention.

Your hand is just another one of X possible hands that might be dealt out; the fact that you happened to get this particular one is not "significant", meaning that it (EDIT: does not) cause us to consider that our idea of the probability of any given hand turning up is wrong.

That's just meaningless tap-dancing, clearly a smoke screen

No. The fact that you think it is indicates that you aren't actually understanding what is being said to you.

What the hand you are dealt, or the roll of the die, or whatever other mechanism you want to specify being played in any game, means to you, is irrelevant to the probability of that hand being dealt out.

The cards do not care about what value you assign to them. You caring doesn't mean that the universe arbitrarily decided that this specific hand at this specific time was any more likely than it ever was.

 

[Toontown]

On the question about whether the die is fair... I think there's a significant condition that's not being specified.

Are we considering any possible run of 20s? Or a specific set of throws?

If it's any possible run, there would be no indication the die was unfair. I'd use my omniscient powers to consider every time a die was thrown, now or in the future, and point out that a run of twenty 20s occurred in South Africa on July 12, 2034. By that date, enough dice had been thrown that the odds of getting twenty 20s would be one in three. Should we assume that that particular South African die must be unfair? I'd say no. It was bound to happen sooner or later.

If it's a specific (special) set of throws, everything changes. If my friend bets that 20 will come up on the next twenty throws, and it does, the odds are astronomically against that and therefore the die was almost certainly unfair.

The confusion comes when specific, predicted throws are specified, vs when we go looking for a set of twenty throws and then draw a target around them in hindsight, as if they were special.

I think nonpariel now claims to have been talking about a sample taken from an infinite set of throws. Which is beyond ludicrous, because we were obviously talking about actually rolling the die, not sampling the results of a previous infinity of rolls.

I was never talking about a sample taken from an infinite set of previous throws. I was talking about rolling a 20-sided die and never seeing it turn up anything but 20.

Then, of course, I asked nonpariel a pertinent question, and the tap-dancing started, soon attracting a whole crowd of tap-dancers, and continues unabated. It's remarkable, annoying, and costing me guitar practice time. Which, I am very nearly convinced, is the primary tactic.

 

[Giordano]

Balderdash. The cards carry probabilistic meaning, like I said in the first place. Like I shouldn't have had to say again with quotes. The probability of my winning the pot is directly related to the conditional strength of my cards.

No, Toontown- the "probabilistic meaning" are words mixing two very different things in such a way that can confuse people. The advance probability of drawing any particular card is not altered at all by its meaning to you. Some cards would mean more to you than others, but this meaning does not influence the probability of drawing this particular card. Yes, the probability of drawing 5 cards that comprise a full house is less than that of drawing 5 cards that contain only two of a kind. But drawing any particular hand has the same probability as any other (a 2 of clubs, a 2 of spades, an 8 of hearts, an eight of clubs, and an eight of diamonds is no less likely than a 2 of clubs, a 2 of spades, an 8 of hearts, an nine of clubs, and a ten of diamonds); it is only that for people playing poker 2+3 of any of the same "numbers" is less likely, and means more in terms of payout, than just 2 of any of the same number. I am discussing the probability of drawing each card, not the probability of drawing certain mixes of cards for which we have established certain significances.

I am responding only due to your repeated misuse of the term "probabilistic meaning."

 

[Toontown]

Yes. It drew it after the fact, not before.

False. At the beginning of time, the possibility existed that a specific potential brain could come to exist, which would be the one inside my skull. That potential always existed, else my brain could not now exist. I had nothing to do with creating that target. I'm just a rider on the storm.

It was one of innumerable metaphorical targets, to stay with the analogy.

Which means nothing. All those other metaphorical targets were nonspecific to me. It is inevitable that things happen. It is unlikely that specific low- probability things happen. In this case, giganogargantuanly unlikely.

At the beginning of time, there was only one potential Toontown brain, a 10^80! : 1 shot. Now there's an actual one. Target hit. Unique-brain-assumption-laid odds beaten. Don't worry. It means nothing to you.

Point 1: No one said or says "shouldn't have happened."

I did. And I'm right, semantic niggles aside. A specific 10^80! : 1 shot is that unlikely to happen. That's why I can again predict with supreme confidence that your toe will not be lopped off by a meteor. I'm quite sure of it. Not the least bit worried that I'll be proved wrong. And you won't be winning the lottery either.

Point 2: "Converging on 1" does not equal one.

Well, if that's all you've got, then you can have that infinitesimal sliver. I don't even feel the need to argue over it.

Point 3: The Unique Everything Assumption implies that everything had a prior probability of not happening converging on 1, not just brains.

Yeah, we've been there and done that.

That's why, when using probability, we do make a distinction between specific, significant events and unspecific, insignificant events. That's what makes probability work.

I hope it is unnecessary to explain to you that what is specific and significant varies dramatically depending on what specific question is being asked or what specifically is being analyzed.

No answer to my question regarding at what point something crosses that line between unlikely and must-mean-something-special?

Definitely not until you specify a sample size. Nonpariel has already pulled that little trick.

If nonpariel's 20-sided die analogy is what you're talking about:

Of course there is no single answer. I suppose that's the cunning trap you think you're setting. But you're just kidding yourself.

And, of course, there are other factors you haven't mentioned. Practically, it is simply a matter of how certain I need to be that the die is loaded. The probability that the die is loaded increases with each consecutive 20. If my life depends on being right, and there is something valuable to be gained from taking the risk at all, I'm going to need all 20's. The required sample size depends on how much I want what is to be gained from correctly identifying the loaded die. That would determine the level of risk I would be willing to take.

 

[Mojo]

Clue: it is hardly necessary to know someone in order to have similar ideas.

In reply to your statement, "My existence is specific and significant to me", tsig replied, "To the rest of the universe, not so much." Your response to this was to claim that tsig had no idea what he was talking about, and to suggest that "the majority of the sentient beings in the universe may agree with me".

If the idea in question is that a person's existence is significant it is necessary, at the very least, to be aware of the person.

 

[Toontown]

No, Toontown- the "probabilistic meaning" are words mixing two very different things in such a way that can confuse people. The advance probability of drawing any particular card is not altered at all by its meaning to you.

<snip>

When I'm playing poker, the meaning of a card to me is probabilistic. I may have positive or negative feelings about the probabilistic meaning of the card, but the meaning of the card remains probabilistic.

You're right, I probably misunderstood nonpariel's meaning when he accused me of conflating personal feelings with probability. Mainly because I'm not doing that. I'm talking about probability all the way.

So I gave a poker example, simply to show how an event could reveal a probability which could be significant to me, while being unknown or insignificant to anyone else. No matter how many other players also have hole cards. Because people keep going on and on about how insignificant my existence is to them, I just naturally thought that was what nonpariel was on about.

So sometimes I try to explain how my perspective has probabilistic meaning to me. Not to you or anyone else. Look at your own hole cards if you want to know what is probabilistically significant to you.

 

[Giordano]

When I'm playing poker, the meaning of a card to me is probabilistic. I may have positive or negative feelings about the probabilistic meaning of the card, but the meaning of the card remains probabilistic.

The meaning does not change the probability. So the terms "probabilistic meaning" are a very misleading use of these terms, or indicate a misapplication of statistics. Already stated once. If you disagree, explain why the meaning of an event to me does change the probability of that event.

Does the probability of drawing a given card from a deck of 52 change if you are playing poker versus hearts? The meaning of a given card is certainly very different.

My apologies: obviously the connection to reincarnation is distant, at best.

 

[Toontown]

In reply to your statement, "My existence is specific and significant to me", tsig replied, "To the rest of the universe, not so much." Your response to this was to claim that tsig had no idea what he was talking about, and to suggest that "the majority of the sentient beings in the universe may agree with me".

If the idea in question is that a person's existence is significant it is necessary, at the very least, to be aware of the person.

Yes, I am aware of the nature of your semantic niggle.

Did you really think I was suggesting the majority of sentient beings are actually aware of me?

What ever happened to reading for comprehension, instead of looking for semantic loopholes?

 

[Giordano]

What ever happened to reading for comprehension, instead of looking for semantic loopholes?

Valuable point!

 

[Toontown]

When I'm playing poker, the meaning of a card to me is probabilistic. I may have positive or negative feelings about the probabilistic meaning of the card, but the meaning of the card remains probabilistic.

The meaning does not change the probability. So the terms "probabilistic meaning" are a very misleading use of these terms, or indicate a misapplication of statistics. Already stated once. If you disagree, explain why the meaning of an event to me does change the probability of that event.

Does the probability of drawing a given card from a deck of 52 change if you are playing poker versus hearts? The meaning of a given card is certainly very different.

My apologies: obviously the connection to reincarnation is distant, at best.

Dude. Probabilities have meaning when you're playing poker. So they have "probabilistic meaning".

But nevermind. I just noticed the deletions have started again.

 

[Garrette]

False. At the beginning of time, the possibility existed that a specific potential brain could come to exist, which would be the one inside my skull. That potential always existed, else my brain could not now exist. I had nothing to do with creating that target. I'm just a rider on the storm.

Not false. I was correct, and you are still wrong.

You were a possibility among an innumerable number, some of which were going to happen. That's it. That's all there is to it.

Which means nothing. All those other metaphorical targets were nonspecific to me.

Which makes no difference whatsoever.

It is inevitable that things happen. It is unlikely that specific low- probability things happen. In this case, giganogargantuanly unlikely.

My goodness. Are you suggesting that the probability of something's occurrence is equal to its probability? It's almost as if I agree with that!

At the beginning of time, there was only one potential Toontown brain, a 10^80! : 1 shot.

Okay.

There was also only one NotQuiteToontown brain for the person who did not come into existence when the other sperm did not breach Toontown's mother's egg wall. That brain did not come into existence but it had exactly the same probability as Toontown's brain (setting aside determinism).

Had it been the other sperm, then NotQuiteToontown could be having exactly this same argument, committing exactly the same fallacy.

Now there's an actual one. Target hit. Unique-brain-assumption-laid odds beaten.

Not Quite, Toontown. Brain developed; target drawn after.

I did. And I'm right, semantic niggles aside. A specific 10^80! : 1 shot is that unlikely to happen. That's why I can again predict with supreme confidence that your toe will not be lopped off by a meteor. I'm quite sure of it. Not the least bit worried that I'll be proved wrong. And you won't be winning the lottery either.

Ignoring the lady actually hit by the meteorite, I see.

Well, if that's all you've got, then you can have that infinitesimal sliver. I don't even feel the need to argue over it.

It's not a matter of you arguing over it; it's a matter of you not understanding it's monumental importance.

Yeah, we've been there and done that.

That's why, when using probability, we do make a distinction between specific, significant events and unspecific, insignificant events. That's what makes probability work.

I hope it is unnecessary to explain to you that what is specific and significant varies dramatically depending on what specific question is being asked or what specifically is being analyzed.

Partly. More importantly it depends on when that question is asked. You're asking too late. No specific or significant brains because of that.

Definitely not until you specify a sample size. Nonpariel has already pulled that little trick.

The sample size is the question. How many sides must there be on the dice before I determine that the number that comes up is specific and/or significant?

If nonpariel's 20-sided die analogy is what you're talking about:

Of course there is no single answer. I suppose that's the cunning trap you think you're setting. But you're just kidding yourself.

No cunning trap at all. Your argument has as one major component the idea that the odds are too great. My question is at what point that happens. When do the odds become too great for something to happen unless it is specific and/or significant?

And, of course, there are other factors you haven't mentioned. Practically, it is simply a matter of how certain I need to be that the die is loaded. The probability that the die is loaded increases with each consecutive 20. If my life depends on being right, and there is something valuable to be gained from taking the risk at all, I'm going to need all 20's. The required sample size depends on how much I want what is to be gained from correctly identifying the loaded die. That would determine the level of risk I would be willing to take.

I'm sorry, but this is a complete non sequitur. There is a die. It's not loaded. How many sides are required before the number that comes up is considered to be specific and/or significant?

 

[Mojo]

Did you really think I was suggesting the majority of sentient beings are actually aware of me?

Unless you completely failed to understand what tsig posted, you were stating that they may be.

What ever happened to reading for comprehension, instead of looking for semantic loopholes?

Indeed.

 

[Humots]

Dude. Probabilities have meaning when you're playing poker. So they have "probabilistic meaning".

But nevermind. I just noticed the deletions have started again.

Are they going to Abandon All Hope?

 

[Giordano]

Are they going to Abandon All Hope?

Just to be clear: due to an initial error in the quote function, this appears to quote me, but it is really a quote of a Toontown post.

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Fixed up the quote boxes, courtesy of your friendly, neighborhood moderator. The problem was not with the quote function. It was with an unclosed [/quote some posts up.

 

[Toontown]

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.

Good job of saying the opposite of what I was trying to get across. This kind of tactic will keep the issue cloudy for sure.

Births in general are in the class of nonspecific events. As stated, general nonspecific things happen constantly, and as a class are inevitable, not unlikely.

But if you analyze the prior probability of a specific person being born, you get something like 1 in 10^80! This is not a contradiction. It is simply the difference between the general and the specific. the general is everything. The specific is one thing.

My birth was specific to me, but not specific to you. Your birth was specific to you, but not specific to me. From our respective perspectives, the other's birth is in the class of nonspecific events.

If you can't or won't make that distinction, you can't grasp or use probability at all, as your quoted statement demonstrates. You're wasting your time even talking about it. If you deny the distinction between the general and the specific, you don't even know what probability is.

 

[Giordano]

<delete>