Proof of Immortality II

[Giordano]

Jabba,

I think I just thought of an incredible argument that completely supports your position. My world view is tottering! I will need to explain it in my next post. I'll be back.

 

[Jabba]

How about skipping that for now, and instead explaining why a low probability outcome occurring casts doubt on a hypothesis that predicts low probability outcomes?

- Sure. That’s exactly what I wanted to do. See below.

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.

I don't see an explanation there.

- Try this.
- If there is a specific characteristic of a particular occurrence that sets this occurrence apart from the other low probability occurrences predicted by a specific hypothesis, and this specific characteristic suggests a better (more probable) explanation (hypothesis), this occurrence would cast doubt upon the original hypothesis that predicts low probability outcomes.

 

[Jabba]

Jabba,

I think I just thought of an incredible argument that completely supports your position. My world view is tottering! I will need to explain it in my next post. I'll be back.

Giordano,
- I assume that you're just "pulling my leg" -- but hey, you never know...

 

[godless dave]

- Try this.
- If there is a specific characteristic of a particular occurrence that sets this occurrence apart from the other low probability occurrences predicted by a specific hypothesis, and this specific characteristic suggests a better (more probable) explanation (hypothesis), this occurrence would cast doubt upon the original hypothesis that predicts low probability outcomes.

So what is that specific characteristic?

 

[Giordano]

Giordano,
- I assume that you're just "pulling my leg" -- but hey, you never know...

Why would you think that promising to supply my proof in a future post would be "pulling your leg?"

 

[carlitos]

If there was a craps table that employed a pair of 10⁸⁰! dice, the casino would probably pay 10⁷⁹! X 2 on a place bet. That would be a tough one to play consistently without running out of cash, but what a payday if you hit it.

 

[Jabba]

Why would you think that promising to supply my proof in a future post would be "pulling your leg?"

- Maybe, I'm naturally paranoid.

 

[Giordano]

If there was a craps table that employed a pair of 10⁸⁰! dice, the casino would probably pay 10⁷⁹! X 2 on a place bet. That would be a tough one to play consistently without running out of cash, but what a payday if you hit it.

Hard to carry the chips to the cash out window!

 

[Jabba]

So what is that specific characteristic?

- 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...
4. Given A, the likelihood of me ever existing is something like 1/10⁸⁰!.
5. Whereas, the prior probability of A being incorrect is something like 1%, or better.
6. So, in the Bayesian formula, the likelihood of me ever existing, given A, is much smaller than the prior probability of A being incorrect.
7. In other words, I am either unimaginably lucky or A is incorrect.

8. In still other words, given me, it is much more probable that A is incorrect th[a]n that A is correct

- I'll try to develop that further. Maybe, Giordano will do that for me?

 

[godless dave]

How does that set that occurrence apart from the other low probability occurrences predicted by A?

Every single human consciousness sees the universe from its own perspective.

Each non-existent consciousness would see the universe from its own perspective if it existed.

 

[carlitos]

Hard to carry the chips to the cash out window!

I can hear the stick man now - "Color coming in, 10⁸⁰ Factorial!"

 

[Jabba]

How does that set that occurrence apart from the other low probability occurrences predicted by A?

- Yeah. That's the hard part to effectively convey...
- Is "A" true and I'm just EXTREMELY lucky? Or, could there be a better explanation than "A"?
- Is "~A" really out of the question?
- I'm claiming that my particular existence does suggest a more probable explanation than "A."
- I'll be back.

 

[Loss Leader]

- Try this.
- If there is a specific characteristic of a particular occurrence that sets this occurrence apart from the other low probability occurrences predicted by a specific hypothesis, and this specific characteristic suggests a better (more probable) explanation (hypothesis), this occurrence would cast doubt upon the original hypothesis that predicts low probability outcomes.

No, it wouldn't. If a low-probability event occurs once, the only thing you can tell is that a low-probability event occurred. Going back after the fact to claim that the low probability event was really a high probability event simply because it occurred is the ... what's the name ... tip of my tongue ... Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy.

 

[carlitos]

- I'll be back.

Thanks so much for letting me know. I appreciate it.

 

[Jabba]

Thanks so much for letting me know. I appreciate it.

- You're welcome.

 

[Mojo]

- Yeah. That's the hard part to effectively convey...
- Is "A" true and I'm just EXTREMELY lucky? Or, could there be a better explanation than "A"?
- Is "~A" really out of the question?
- I'm claiming that my particular existence does suggest a more probable explanation than "A."

How would your formula look if "A" was defined as "the hypothesis that Jabba is immortal"? If you want to prove your immortality, this is the hypothesis you need to examine.

 

[Jabba]

How would your formula look if "A" was defined as "the hypothesis that Jabba is immortal"? If you want to prove your immortality, this is the hypothesis you need to examine.

Mojo,
- I'm not trying to prove that I'm immortal. I'm trying to show that "A" is EXTREMELY improbable. If I can do that, I should be able to show that my immortality is extremely probable.

 

[Mojo]

Mojo,
- I'm not trying to prove that I'm immortal. I'm trying to show that "A" is EXTREMELY improbable. If I can do that, I should be able to show that my immortality is extremely probable.

How would your formula look if "A" was defined as "the hypothesis that Jabba is immortal"?

 

[Nonpareil]

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.

This is an entirely new claim. Rolling a seven on a standard six-sided die is not just unlikely, but impossible (barring some Cohen the Barbarian level shenanigans). Therefore, if you seriously contend that you are analogous to rolling a seven, there is no point in trying to analyze probabilities; you have to show that you are impossible, not unlikely.

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."

It isn't.

I'm not trying to prove that I'm immortal. I'm trying to show that "A" is EXTREMELY improbable. If I can do that, I should be able to show that my immortality is extremely probable.

No, you shouldn't.

You think you should. But you shouldn't.

 

[carlitos]

This is not a post from a confused but genuine old duffer, it's a troll post.

- I'll be back.

Thanks so much for letting me know. I appreciate it.

- You're welcome.

Just in case any of you were thinking that you might be engaged in honest conversation.