Proof of Immortality II

[Giordano]

Least we forget: Jabba, what exactly is reincarnated in your model: physical appearance, likes/dislikes in food, preferences in other people, memories, links to relatives, ways of viewing the world, etc? If you have already answered, please just reference the post. I would want something a bit more defined than "a soul, the thing that some people believe is immortal and reincarnated." Thanks!

 

[Loss Leader]

(ignoring the fact that a real 10⁸⁰! sided die is very close to round, and may therefore stop on an "edge").

so, if each side was 1 square inch, you'd have something like a sphere with 10⁸⁰! sq. inches of surface area.


A = 4PiR²
Let's call Pi 3.14 (because math is hard)

10⁸⁰!= 12.56r²
So the radius of the die is sq. rt. (10⁸⁰! / 12.56) inches.

Could somebody with math skills tell me how big that is?

 

[Nonpareil]

That’s exactly what I wanted to do.

And you failed.

Rolling a die with 10⁸⁰! sides and observing that there was only a 1:10⁸⁰! chance of that particular face coming up is, while true, not actually very interesting, because we already knew that. That's what it means to roll a die.

This isn't a difficult concept to grasp.

 

[jsfisher]

- Now, imagine a die with 10⁸⁰! faces, and "me" is one of the faces. What is the likelihood that the top face of the die, when rolled, would be "me"?

What's the likelihood you'd be asking that question had it come up any other way?

 

[HighRiser]

so, if each side was 1 square inch, you'd have something like a sphere with 10⁸⁰! sq. inches of surface area.


A = 4PiR²
Let's call Pi 3.14 (because math is hard)

10⁸⁰!= 12.56r²
So the radius of the die is sq. rt. (10⁸⁰! / 12.56) inches.

Could somebody with math skills tell me how big that is?

I think that's going to be bigger than the observable universe.

 

[Loss Leader]

I think that's going to be bigger than the observable universe.

I'll start working on the really huge table.

 

[Jabba]

No, you don't "win." At the absolute best, you show that anything other than the current scientific model is more likely than what we currently understand. The set of anything else is infinitely huge. It covers, literally, any other thing that the imagination can conceive and more...

LL,
- You're right. I misstated...
- Below is how I should have defined ~A.

Put a different way, here’s what I think. Maybe this way will communicate. I’ve made a few changes.

1. The proper formula to use in determining the post-probability of “A,” given “me” is
P(A|me) = P(me|A)*P(A)/(P(me|A)*P(A)+P(me|~A)*P(~A)).
1.1. “A”: the hypothesis that any potential “self” has only one, finite, life to live` -- at most.
1.2. “me”: the current existence of my, specific, self.
1.3. “~A”: the hypothesis that “A” is not true.
2. My basic claim is that my own current existence makes the post-probability of “A” teensy-weensy.
3. To reach that conclusion, I claim that the likelihood of my, specific, current existence -- given “A” – P(me|A) -- is, at most, 1/10⁸⁰!.
4. The only real issue here is whether or not I can correctly use that figure as the P(me|A) in this formula … even if I’m right about that figure.
5. In a way, the answer to that question is, “Why, the Hell not?!” Isn’t that the very definition of P(me|A)?
6. Unfortunately (for my side), the answer is, “No -- the word ‘specific,’ in 1.2., may not belong.”
7. We need to show that it does belong. If we can’t, the “plug-in” should be 1.00…

8. If you guys can agree with my analysis so far, I’ll try to show why 1/10⁸⁰! does belong.

 

[Giordano]

LL,
- You're right. I misstated...
- Below is how I should have defined ~A.

How certain are you of this?

 

[Humots]

Humots,
- Assuming that I understand your question...
- If I have have a 6-sided, and "fair," die and roll it, the likelihood that the top face would be 3 is 1/6.
- Now, imagine a die with 10⁸⁰! faces, and "me" is one of the faces. What is the likelihood that the top face of the die, when rolled, would be "me"?

Before or after the die was rolled, Jabba?

Before the roll, it's 1/10⁸⁰!

After the roll, it's 1.

When did you ask the question, Jabba, before or after the die was rolled?

 

[Mojo]

Below is how I should have defined ~A.

Jabba, what happens if you define A in your formula as "the hypothesis that Jabba's "self" is immortal"?

 

[John Jones]

so, if each side was 1 square inch, you'd have something like a sphere with 10⁸⁰! sq. inches of surface area.


A = 4PiR²
Let's call Pi 3.14 (because math is hard)

10⁸⁰!= 12.56r²
So the radius of the die is sq. rt. (10⁸⁰! / 12.56) inches.

Could somebody with math skills tell me how big that is?

I minored in math up to differential equations, but I can't do that many digits.

Just about any crackpot opinion is popular with some wooists as long as they think it delays them having to support their claims.

 

[Akhenaten]

LL,
- You're right. I misstated...
- Below is how I should have defined ~A.

How certain are you of this?

I see what you did there.

 

[Jabba]

...You have never shown why your immortality is the most likely candidate for anything other than A. You have never shown why it's a candidate that isn't actually inconsistent with observation.

- I think that I agree.
- Anyone's immortality would be inconsistent with currently accepted/included observations, and I haven't shown that my immortality would be any different. My claim, however, is that the implications of a critical bit of relevant observation (information) has not been included in the logic of that conclusion, and that once that bit of relevant observation is included in that logic, my immortality becomes quite consistent with observation...

- in the following attempt at a syllogism, Numbers 1, 2 and 3 are the best I can do at expressing why I think that I am special, or that I should be set apart, and deserve such a small likelihood of existing. For now, that's probably the best that I can do.

1. I, in one form or the other (thing, process or illusion), am the only thing that I know exists.
2. Also, I am the only eyes on the universe that I have.
3. Consequently, if I never existed it would be as if nothing ever existed...

- I'm saying that my own current existence is a bit of information that has not been included in the logic here, but should be -- and once included, makes my immortality consistent with observation.
- At this point, I think that I need to wax poetic about 1, 2 & 3, and show why these things set me apart and justify believing in my immortality...
- I'll probably need to revisit this explanation, and improve upon it...

 

[jsfisher]

- I think that I agree.
- Anyone's immortality would be inconsistent with currently accepted/included observations, and I haven't shown that my immortality would be any different. My claim, however, is that the implications of a critical bit of relevant observation (information) has not been included in the logic of that conclusion, and that once that bit of relevant observation is included in that logic, my immortality becomes quite consistent with observation...

You continue to ignore this:

~A does not guarantee immortality

 

[Slowvehicle]

- I think that I agree.
- Anyone's immortality would be inconsistent with currently accepted/included observations, and I haven't shown that my immortality would be any different. My claim, however, is that the implications of a critical bit of relevant observation (information) has not been included in the logic of that conclusion, and that once that bit of relevant observation is included in that logic, my immortality becomes quite consistent with observation...

- I'm saying that my own current existence is a bit of information that has not been included in the logic here, but should be -- and once included, makes my immortality consistent with observation.
- At this point, I think that I need to wax poetic about 1, 2 & 3, and show why these things set me apart and justify believing in my immortality...
- I'll probably need to revisit this explanation, and improve upon it...

At the risk of a novel derail in an entirely new direction, I have an idea:

Why not simply present any evidence you have that the "soul" exists, and is "immortal"?

 

[jond]

My claim, however, is that the implications of a critical bit of relevant observation (information) has not been included in the logic of that conclusion, and that once that bit of relevant observation is included in that logic, my immortality becomes quite consistent with observation...

Please be so kind as to detail those observations that hasn't been included in the logic.

 

[Jabba]

Before or after the die was rolled, Jabba?

Before the roll, it's 1/10⁸⁰!

After the roll, it's 1.

When did you ask the question, Jabba, before or after the die was rolled?

- After. But, in Bayesian statistics we take new -- but already existing -- info, and calculate to what extent this new info supports, or detracts from, an existing hypothesis
- Try this. The hypothesis "A" is that your die only has 6 faces -- 1 thru 6 -- but you roll it, and it comes up 7. The point is -- we're talking about an hypothesis here, and new info might have a bearing on the probability that the hypothesis is correct.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- After. But, in Bayesian statistics we take new -- but already existing -- info, and calculate to what extent this new info supports, or detracts from, an existing hypothesis
- Try this. The hypothesis "A" is that your die only has 6 faces -- 1 thru 6 -- but you roll it, and it comes up 7. The point is -- we're talking about an hypothesis here, and new info might have a bearing on the probability that the hypothesis is correct.

I see.

What supports your hypothesis that the "soul" exists, and is "immortal"?

 

[Jabba]

1/10⁸⁰!

Would that face coming up be a reason to doubt the hypothesis of how the 10⁸⁰!-sided die works?

Dave,
- I'm not quite sure what you're asking here, but my claim is that my face coming up would be reason to doubt "A."

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- I'm not quite sure what you're asking here, but my claim is that my face coming up would be reason to doubt "A."

If A says the die has 10⁸⁰! sides, and one of those sides comes up, why should we doubt A?