Proof of Immortality II

[godless dave]

- At this point, I’m pretty much in line with Toon, and what sets my particular current existence apart is its "significance."
- Its significance is that my current existence suggests another possible model than, “Each potential self has one, finite, existence at most.” My current existence suggests, to a large extent, that I cannot not exist.

How?

At the very least, it suggests that I must exist for multiple lifetimes.

How?

- And, it suggests these things in much the same way that the physical constants of our universe suggest something “paranormal”(?) about our universe…

They suggest nothing of the kind.

- In this case – I, in one form or another -- am the only thing, process or illusion that I know exists -- and did I never exist, there might as well be nothing ... forever. It would be as if there was nothing forever.

Only from your perspective.

It turns out that my existence is QUITE a coincident.

I don't see how it's a coincidence at all.

What other event does it coincide with?

- If each potential self has only one, finite, existence at most, the likelihood that I would ever exist is something like 1/10⁸⁰!, at most. And, the likelihood that I would currently exist is even smaller -- MUCH smaller.

I don't see how. I thought we were including the time you exist in the made-up 1/10⁸⁰! number. The time you exist depends on the times your parents existed, etc., so it's all part of the probability calculation. The probability of you existing now is finite. The probability of you existing 100 years ago is 0.

-

- And then, there’s the Anthropic Principle…

You still haven't explained why the Anthropic Principle has anything to do with this discussion, although you did refer to the Strong Anthropic Principle here:

the physical constants of our universe suggest something “paranormal”(?) about our universe…

 

[Giordano]

- At this point, I’m pretty much in line with Toon, and what sets my particular current existence apart is its "significance."
- Its significance is that my current existence suggests another possible model than, “Each potential self has one, finite, existence at most.” My current existence suggests, to a large extent, that I cannot not exist. At the very least, it suggests that I must exist for multiple lifetimes.
- And, it suggests these things in much the same way that the physical constants of our universe suggest something “paranormal”(?) about our universe…
- In this case – I, in one form or another -- am the only thing, process or illusion that I know exists -- and did I never exist, there might as well be nothing ... forever. It would be as if there was nothing forever. It turns out that my existence is QUITE a coincident.
- If each potential self has only one, finite, existence at most, the likelihood that I would ever exist is something like 1/10⁸⁰!, at most. And, the likelihood that I would currently exist is even smaller -- MUCH smaller.
- And then, there’s the Anthropic Principle…

I have told you once before: Toontown's posts do not use good (or even fair) statistics and you would be very wrong to use the statements in his posts as a source for forming or affirming your own statistics. Use the correct statistics discussed by the many other people here who are much more knowledgeable in statistics.

I would add to this that Toontown has often indicated that your own justification for reincarnation is wrong. You can ask him directly if you do not believe me. So do you trust him only when he supports one of your sub-ideas, but not trust him when he questions your major idea? It really appears that you are grasping at straws to justify your erroneous beliefs. Assuming, that is, that you don't already realize your expressed beliefs are wrong (which is one likely explanation for why you have repeatedly ignored the posts here that have provided fatal criticisms of your theory).

 

[Giordano]

How?




How?



They suggest nothing of the kind.



Only from your perspective.



I don't see how it's a coincidence at all.



I don't see how. I thought we were including the time you exist in the made-up 1/10⁸⁰! number. The time you exist depends on the times your parents existed, etc., so it's all part of the probability calculation. The probability of you existing now is finite. The probability of you existing 100 years ago is 0.

-

You still haven't explained why the Anthropic Principle has anything to do with this discussion, although you did refer to the Strong Anthropic Principle here:

^^^This! I can't say it any better.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

- At this point, I’m pretty much in line with Toon, and what sets my particular current existence apart is its "significance."
- Its significance is that my current existence suggests another possible model than, “Each potential self has one, finite, existence at most.” My current existence suggests, to a large extent, that I cannot not exist. At the very least, it suggests that I must exist for multiple lifetimes.

You cannot not exist AT THE MOMENT, precisely because you exist. That does not mean that before you were born, reality could never have taken a turn to ensure you'd never exist. Even if the Universe somehow went out of its way to ensure your creation several decades ago, that does not mean you already existed beforehand, or will exist after you die.

- In this case – I, in one form or another -- am the only thing, process or illusion that I know exists -- and did I never exist, there might as well be nothing ... forever. It would be as if there was nothing forever. It turns out that my existence is QUITE a coincident.
- If each potential self has only one, finite, existence at most, the likelihood that I would ever exist is something like 1/10⁸⁰!, at most. And, the likelihood that I would currently exist is even smaller -- MUCH smaller.

No idea where you get these figures. The probability also depends on the moment we choose. 12 billion years ago the probability of you ever existing was a lot smaller than at the moment your parents met.
You're also ignoring that these same figures apply to EVERYTHING in existence. That one raindrop that fell on your nose last month? The chances of that drop forming are just as infinitessimal as the chance you or I ever existed. I guess that means that raindrops are immortal, and we should always carry a floatation device, lest we drown in the infinite rain?

 

[abaddon]

- At this point, I’m pretty much in line with Toon, and what sets my particular current existence apart is its "significance."
- Its significance is that my current existence suggests another possible model than, “Each potential self has one, finite, existence at most.” My current existence suggests, to a large extent, that I cannot not exist. At the very least, it suggests that I must exist for multiple lifetimes.
- And, it suggests these things in much the same way that the physical constants of our universe suggest something “paranormal”(?) about our universe…
- In this case – I, in one form or another -- am the only thing, process or illusion that I know exists -- and did I never exist, there might as well be nothing ... forever. It would be as if there was nothing forever. It turns out that my existence is QUITE a coincident.
- If each potential self has only one, finite, existence at most, the likelihood that I would ever exist is something like 1/10⁸⁰!, at most. And, the likelihood that I would currently exist is even smaller -- MUCH smaller.
- And then, there’s the Anthropic Principle…

I was going to do a point by point rebuttal of this five star crap, but then I thought, Jabba won't read it anyway, so what's the point?

 

[Giordano]

I was going to do a point by point rebuttal of this five star crap, but then I thought, Jabba won't read it anyway, so what's the point?

I agree, although I am uncertain if Jabba would not read it, or would read it and simply ignore it in terms of its implications for his theory, or would read it and recognize that his theory is crap, but never let on in any of his posts. In practice, it does not matter.

 

[John Jones]

How?




How?



They suggest nothing of the kind.



Only from your perspective.



I don't see how it's a coincidence at all.

What other event does it coincide with?



I don't see how. I thought we were including the time you exist in the made-up 1/10⁸⁰! number. The time you exist depends on the times your parents existed, etc., so it's all part of the probability calculation. The probability of you existing now is finite. The probability of you existing 100 years ago is 0.

-

You still haven't explained why the Anthropic Principle has anything to do with this discussion, although you did refer to the Strong Anthropic Principle here:

What godless dave said.

Jabba, you haven't come close to demonstrating what you have claimed. Your 'arguments' are not evidence of anything except wishful thinking and faulty reasoning.

 

[Loss Leader]

- At this point, I’m pretty much in line with Toon, and what sets my particular current existence apart is its "significance."
- Its significance is that my current existence suggests another possible model than, “Each potential self has one, finite, existence at most.” My current existence suggests, to a large extent, that I cannot not exist. At the very least, it suggests that I must exist for multiple lifetimes.
- And, it suggests these things in much the same way that the physical constants of our universe suggest something “paranormal”(?) about our universe…
- In this case – I, in one form or another -- am the only thing, process or illusion that I know exists -- and did I never exist, there might as well be nothing ... forever. It would be as if there was nothing forever. It turns out that my existence is QUITE a coincident.
- If each potential self has only one, finite, existence at most, the likelihood that I would ever exist is something like 1/10⁸⁰!, at most. And, the likelihood that I would currently exist is even smaller -- MUCH smaller.
- And then, there’s the Anthropic Principle…

Jabba -

Don't you find it convenient that now is the moment you choose to do your calculation. You didn't choose 100 years ago or 1,000 years from now. In the entire 13.5 billion year history of the universe, you chose this specific slice to calculate the odds that you might exist.

Now, if we'd drawn up a blueprint for Jabba 100 years ago and looked around, we would say, "Of course, this specific person isn't here. The working universe doesn't demand or prevent his existence."

1,000 years from now, we'd say, "Of course he isn't here. We know that the working universe doesn't demand or prevent his existence."

But today you make your calculation and you should say, "Of course I'm here. The working universe doesn't demand or prevent my existence." Instead, you get all excited and say, "The fact that I'm here proves that the universe does demand my existence."

That's the crux of your mistake.

 

[Mojo]

If each potential self has only one, finite, existence at most, the likelihood that I would ever exist is something like 1/10⁸⁰!, at most. And, the likelihood that I would currently exist is even smaller -- MUCH smaller.

The likelyhood would be the same if your "self" was immortal. The only "evidence" you have that is relevant here is that you exist as a "self" currently associated with your body. You only have one body, however long your "self" exists. For your body to exist, the same sequence of events, starting from the Big Bang, is necessary however long your "self" exists. Your body exists for the same amount of time however long your "self" exists. There would be the same number of "potential selves", however long your "self" exists.

 

[HighRiser]

^^^This! I can't say it any better.

Seconded

 

[John Jones]

^^^This! I can't say it any better.

I'm willing to hypothesize that godless dave slips down the Least Critical Poster list with this rejoinder to immortality and Bayesian Statistics. My hypothesis has predictive value, and is falsifiable.

 

[carlitos]

Jabba -

Don't you find it convenient that now is the moment you choose to do your calculation. You didn't choose 100 years ago or 1,000 years from now. In the entire 13.5 billion year history of the universe, you chose this specific slice to calculate the odds that you might exist.

Now, if we'd drawn up a blueprint for Jabba 100 years ago and looked around, we would say, "Of course, this specific person isn't here. The working universe doesn't demand or prevent his existence."

1,000 years from now, we'd say, "Of course he isn't here. We know that the working universe doesn't demand or prevent his existence."

But today you make your calculation and you should say, "Of course I'm here. The working universe doesn't demand or prevent my existence." Instead, you get all excited and say, "The fact that I'm here proves that the universe does demand my existence."

That's the crux of your mistake.

 

[Giordano]

- If each potential self has only one, finite, existence at most, the likelihood that I would ever exist is something like 1/10⁸⁰!, at most. And, the likelihood that I would currently exist is even smaller -- MUCH smaller.

In contrast, what would the likelihood be that you would ever exist if your theory of immortality is true? I don't recall you ever presenting this "side" of the equation (at least in a way that you didn't almost immediately retract it as in error). It would be very useful to provide just this calculation.

Remember, you must take into account in your calculation the number of souls available through your model by reincarnation (clearly a wild guess, but that hasn't stopped you before) plus the number of infinite potential souls that you described as forming de novo from of an integrated bucket of common, conscious entity soul-stuff.

After doing this, please explain why the creation of the "special" Jabba is more likely under your theory than under the SM. Thanks!

 

[Giordano]

I'm willing to hypothesize that godless dave slips down the Least Critical Poster list with this rejoinder to immortality and Bayesian Statistics. My hypothesis has predictive value, and is falsifiable.

My guess is that Toontown might become the next most favored poster, if he remains around here. As far as I can tell, Toontown does not agree with Jabba, but perhaps the "enemy of my enemy" idea will dominate Jabba's thinking in this regard.

 

[Jabba]

- At this point, I’m pretty much in line with Toon, and what sets my particular current existence apart is its "significance."
- Its significance is that my current existence suggests another possible model than, “Each potential self has one, finite, existence at most.” My current existence suggests, to a large extent, that I cannot not exist…

How?

- I’d like to rephrase what I said above. I’ll change that one sentence to, “Its significance is that my current existence suggests – or, at least allows for -- a possibly better, more probable model than, ’Each potential self has one, finite, existence at most.’”
- And, my current existence, does suggest, or at least allow for, a possibly more probable model – for instance, “I must always exist.”
- As long as you consider that a mere possibility – it doesn’t have to be a ”reasonable” possibility – it is surely more probable than 1/10⁸⁰!.

 

[godless dave]

- I’d like to rephrase what I said above. I’ll change that one sentence to, “Its significance is that my current existence suggests – or, at least allows for -- a possibly better, more probable model than, ’Each potential self has one, finite, existence at most.’”
- And, my current existence, does suggest, or at least allow for, a possibly more probable model – for instance, “I must always exist.”
- As long as you consider that a mere possibility – it doesn’t have to be a ”reasonable” possibility – it is surely more probable than 1/10⁸⁰!.

My question remains the same. How does your current existence suggest any of that?

 

[John Jones]

- I’d like to rephrase what I said above. I’ll change that one sentence to, “Its significance is that my current existence suggests – or, at least allows for -- a possibly better, more probable model than, ’Each potential self has one, finite, existence at most.’”
- And, my current existence, does suggest, or at least allow for, a possibly more probable model – for instance, “I must always exist.”
- As long as you consider that a mere possibility – it doesn’t have to be a ”reasonable” possibility – it is surely more probable than 1/10⁸⁰!.

How do you figure that? No wishful thinking or logical fallacies this time.

 

[Pixel42]

Your current, single, existence is consistent with the accepted scientific model. No alternative model is necessary, let alone more probable. The fact that you remain unable to grasp the basic error you are making even after two years of having it patiently explained to you is your problem, not the scientific model's.

 

[JoeMorgue]

"I refuse to believe I'm not special therefore Woo" literally for years... simply stunning.

 

[Jabba]

My question remains the same. How does your current existence suggest any of that?

- Does my current existence allow for the possibility that I always exist?