Proof of Immortality II

[Jabba]

- For the moment, I'll try to refer only to the WAP. That the physical constants of our universe happen to allow for life would seem to be all that is needed in order that my principle be analogous to it -- and, all that I need in order to correctly deduce that there is probably something wrong with the current scientific understanding of the mortality of selves.

 

[Akhenaten]

Seems an odd thing to do for a person certified in statistics. Perhaps you should review all of your statistical arguments using a book to be certain that the rest of your arguments are on solid ground?

Yeah, I'm just trying to imagine Einstein publishing a paper in which he states that m=Ec² and then having to issue an erratum along the lines of "Oops, I'm always getting those two mixed up."

 

[Akhenaten]

- For the moment, I'll try to refer only to the WAP.

It matters nought what you refer to, Jabba. Your penchant for redefinition renders all of your references to commonly understood scientific and philosophical principles equally meaningless.

That the physical constants of our universe happen to allow for life would seem to be all that is needed in order that my principle be analogous to it -

It does nothing of the sort.

- and, all that I need in order to correctly deduce that there is probably something wrong with the current scientific understanding of the mortality of selves.

What your deduction requires is some supporting evidence.

Why don't you start with demonstrating the existence of souls and postpone the leap to immortality until that idea has gained currency?

 

[HighRiser]

- For the moment, I'll try to refer only to the WAP. That the physical constants of our universe happen to allow for life would seem to be all that is needed in order that my principle be analogous to it -- and, all that I need in order to correctly deduce that there is probably something wrong with the current scientific understanding of the mortality of selves.

All that's required is to explain, step-by-step, the reasoning that the WAP leads to the conclusion that your principle is reasonable.

Just saying that it is not self evident.

 

[Pixel42]

- For the moment, I'll try to refer only to the WAP. That the physical constants of our universe happen to allow for life would seem to be all that is needed in order that my principle be analogous to it -- and, all that I need in order to correctly deduce that there is probably something wrong with the current scientific understanding of the mortality of selves.

How do you explain the fact that all the world's scientists and philosophers have somehow managed to miss this flaw, which appears to be so obvious to you?

How do you explain the fact that this (according to you) fundamentally flawed scientific understanding has managed to produce such extraordinary advances?

 

[Jabba]

- Just in case it isn't obvious why my claim is analogous to the Anthropic Principle. Both claim that 1) what we observe is highly unlikely under the current scientific understanding, 2) the particular "observation" can be set apart from the NUMEROUS other possible, similar observations and 3) they are both set apart due to our ability to observe. I'll probably have to work on that...

- Note that if there really is something extremely unlikely about our universe regarding life, my existence becomes much more unlikely than what I have argued so far. Not only does my current existence require an unimaginably large number of specific events to have occurred since the Big Bang, there had to be a Big Bang and there had to be the highly unlikely Anthropic Principle at work as well.

 

[Akhenaten]

All that's required is to explain, step-by-step, the reasoning that the WAP leads to the conclusion that your principle is reasonable.

Just saying that it is not self evident.

1.0. The WAP depends upon the assumption that life exists in the Universe.

1.1. The Universe is unimaginably big.

1.2. Unimaginably is the same as infinitely.

1.2.1. Infinity = 10⁸⁰!

1.3. Jabba is special.

1.3.1. No two Volkswagens are the same, although they may be identical.

1.3.1.1. The likelihood of Jabba being a Volkswagen is 1/10⁸⁰!

7.0. Something else.

1.4. Jabba will be back.

1.4.1. Etcetera

2.0 Therefore, immortality.

 

[Toontown]

No.

Once again, you fail to take into account that literally every specific brain has that same probability of existence.

No. I have never failed to be aware of that generality.

But you have failed to take into account that NONE of those other brains you rely on so heavily are the one inside my skull, generating a specific sentient experience the Unique Brain Assumption implies should NOT be happening, with a certainty converging on 1.

Whereas, given a very large universe, the probability that some nonspecific brains WILL exist converges on 1.

Your failure is probably due to a more general failure to acknowledge the validity of my subjective, conditional perspective, in which case your failure makes as much sense as telling a poker player who has just been dealt pocket aces that his hand means nothing because other people have hands too.

 

[Akhenaten]

- Just in case it isn't obvious why my claim is analogous to the Anthropic Principle. Both claim that 1) what we observe is highly unlikely under the current scientific understanding.

That is comically untrue.

Current scientific understanding is based on what we observe.

Jabbanetics™, not so much. Not even remotely, in fact.

2) the particular "observation" can be set apart from the NUMEROUS other possible, similar observations.

"What we see is different to what we might see if we were looking at something else."

Sheer brilliance.

3) they are both set apart due to our ability to observe. I'll probably have to work on that...

You could stop posting gibberish. That would be a start.

- Note that if there really is something extremely unlikely about our universe regarding life, my existence becomes much more unlikely than what I have argued so far.

The probability of life existing in the Universe is 1. Any proposition you make which depends on some other probability is utter nonsense.

Not only does my current existence require an unimaginably large number of specific events to have occurred since the Big Bang

So bloody what? This applies to everything that ever has, is now and ever will be existent in the Universe.

there had to be a Big Bang

This is saying nothing more than that the Universe had to start counting from zero.

Hardly a revelation, now is it?

and there had to be the highly unlikely Anthropic Principle at work as well.

The Anthropic Principle is simply a way of looking at things. You might just as well say "optimism" was at work.

 

[John Jones]

Humots,

[..]

- I was away, and totally busy, over the weekend.

So you have no argument. As usual

 

[HighRiser]

- Just in case it isn't obvious why my claim is analogous to the Anthropic Principle. Both claim that 1) what we observe is highly unlikely under the current scientific understanding, 2) the particular "observation" can be set apart from the NUMEROUS other possible, similar observations and 3) they are both set apart due to our ability to observe. I'll probably have to work on that...

Where is it said that what we observe is highly unlikely?
How does the likelihood of what's observed affect the observation?
Why do non-existing observations make any difference?
What is set apart from what in what way?

- Note that if there really is something extremely unlikely about our universe regarding life, my existence becomes much more unlikely than what I have argued so far. Not only does my current existence require an unimaginably large number of specific events to have occurred since the Big Bang, there had to be a Big Bang and there had to be the highly unlikely Anthropic Principle at work as well.

This doesn't sound like WAP to me.

 

[godless dave]

- Just in case it isn't obvious why my claim is analogous to the Anthropic Principle. Both claim that 1) what we observe is highly unlikely under the current scientific understanding, 2) the particular "observation" can be set apart from the NUMEROUS other possible, similar observations and 3) they are both set apart due to our ability to observe. I'll probably have to work on that...

- Note that if there really is something extremely unlikely about our universe regarding life, my existence becomes much more unlikely than what I have argued so far. Not only does my current existence require an unimaginably large number of specific events to have occurred since the Big Bang, there had to be a Big Bang and there had to be the highly unlikely Anthropic Principle at work as well.

The Anthropic Principle is not something that is "at work".

 

[HighRiser]

1.0. The WAP depends upon the assumption that life exists in the Universe.

1.1. The Universe is unimaginably big.

1.2. Unimaginably is the same as infinitely.

1.2.1. Infinity = 10⁸⁰!

1.3. Jabba is special.

1.3.1. No two Volkswagens are the same, although they may be identical.

1.3.1.1. The likelihood of Jabba being a Volkswagen is 1/10⁸⁰!

7.0. Something else.

1.4. Jabba will be back.

1.4.1. Etcetera

2.0 Therefore, immortality.

'Tis your wit that makes you my favorite pharaoh.

 

[Giordano]

- Just in case it isn't obvious why my claim is analogous to the Anthropic Principle. Both claim that 1) what we observe is highly unlikely under the current scientific understanding, 2) the particular "observation" can be set apart from the NUMEROUS other possible, similar observations and 3) they are both set apart due to our ability to observe. I'll probably have to work on that...

- Note that if there really is something extremely unlikely about our universe regarding life, my existence becomes much more unlikely than what I have argued so far. Not only does my current existence require an unimaginably large number of specific events to have occurred since the Big Bang, there had to be a Big Bang and there had to be the highly unlikely Anthropic Principle at work as well.

You should start another thread if you wish to bring this up! The current thread relates to reincarnation (look at the title and the OP you chose yourself). Your new "point" relates to the improbability of any human life existing in the universe, reincarnated or not. If the sun formed or not, if the earth formed or not, or if the earth was warm enough for people and had an oxygen atmosphere, would not address if people were reincarnated or not. You would still need the correct conditions on earth to have reincarnated people or to have de novo created people.

Further, as has been pointed out by others, I don't think you are expressing the WAP as it is usually understood: you should review this even if you do start another thread...

 

[Toontown]

- For the moment, I'll try to refer only to the WAP. That the physical constants of our universe happen to allow for life would seem to be all that is needed in order that my principle be analogous to it -- and, all that I need in order to correctly deduce that there is probably something wrong with the current scientific understanding of the mortality of selves.

How do you explain the fact that all the world's scientists and philosophers have somehow managed to miss this flaw, which appears to be so obvious to you?

This exchange makes it apparent to me that neither you nor Jabba can distinguish the difference between a scientific principle and a metaphysical assumption.

1. The Unique Brain Assumption, which Jabba wrongly calls the Scientific Model, is no such thing. It is a metaphysical assumption.

2. You are merely assuming that no scientists or philosophers see a problem with the Unique Brain Assumption. One thing does seem certain: this thread, and others like it I've seen, would not encourage a scientist or philosopher to publicly bring the matter up.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

Let's see if I've gotten the gist of what Jabba means by skimming this thread.

Because the probability of any particular person coming into existence is really small, and Jabba exists, he gathers that the probability of his existence must be greater than assumed. Because he exists and according to his reasoning this raises P(Jabba) to ≈1, he cannot NOT exist, and is therefore, immortal.

Which, to me, seems to be a lack of understanding of statistics, followed by a non sequitur. My head hurts.

 

[HighRiser]

Let's see if I've gotten the gist of what Jabba means by skimming this thread.

Because the probability of any particular person coming into existence is really small, and Jabba exists, he gathers that the probability of his existence must be greater than assumed. Because he exists and according to his reasoning this raises P(Jabba) to ≈1, he cannot NOT exist, and is therefore, immortal.

Which, to me, seems to be a lack of understanding of statistics, followed by a non sequitur. My head hurts.

If you like this thread, you're gonna love the shroud threads.

 

[Jabba]

This exchange makes it apparent to me that neither you nor Jabba can distinguish the difference between a scientific principle and a metaphysical assumption.

1. The Unique Brain Assumption, which Jabba wrongly calls the Scientific Model, is no such thing. It is a metaphysical assumption.

2. You are merely assuming that no scientists or philosophers see a problem with the Unique Brain Assumption. One thing does seem certain: this thread, and others like it I've seen, would not encourage a scientist or philosopher to publicly bring the matter up.

Toon,
- How about the consensus metaphysical assumption of scientists?

 

[Jabba]

Let's see if I've gotten the gist of what Jabba means by skimming this thread.

Because the probability of any particular person coming into existence is really small, and Jabba exists, he gathers that the probability of his existence must be greater than assumed. Because he exists and according to his reasoning this raises P(Jabba) to ≈1, he cannot NOT exist, and is therefore, immortal.

Which, to me, seems to be a lack of understanding of statistics, followed by a non sequitur. My head hurts.

Porpoise,
- Sorry about your head, but you got it right. I think that I cannot not exist.

 

[Giordano]

Porpoise,
- Sorry about your head, but you got it right. I think that I cannot not exist.

I suspect this myself. But I do have a proof of reincarnation. I will be back.