Proof of Immortality II

[Loss Leader]

- I'll try to write up my argument as succinctly as possible and present it to people who think that ~A is an actual possibility.

Do you ever intend to present any evidence to anyone?

 

[Jabba]

You're nothing if not persistent, Jabba. Best wishes.

HighRiser,
- Thanks.
--- Jabba

 

[Butter!]

Good Morning, Mr. Savage!

I realize I am, at this point, shouting down a well. Perhaps some kind soul will quote this post; perhaps you will curtail your rudeness long enough to deign to read it.

If you define "A" , then the ONLY proper expression of "~A" is, "everything else".

There are myriad, even innumerable, ways for "A" to be wrong: if "A" is "vanilla", "~A" is not "chocolate", or "butter pecan", or even "chunky fish pickle-ripple with gravy"; "~A" is ANYTHING (and everything) that IS NOT "vanilla".

Un-nilla, if you will.

 

[John Jones]

- Anyway, you guys have helped me to better understand my own position -- but, I think it's time to move on. [...]

I doubt it. Where are you going to take this gibberish? To an uncritical religion thread?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Un-nilla, if you will.

I will be stealing/appropriating without credit borrowing this.

 

[Mojo]

It's been pointed out to Jabba that immortality would be a monstrous fate. Who would really and truly want to live FOREVER? For all of ETERNITY?

This thread is giving me some idea of what it might be like.

 

[turingtest]

Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
Good Morning, Mr. Savage!

I realize I am, at this point, shouting down a well. Perhaps some kind soul will quote this post; perhaps you will curtail your rudeness long enough to deign to read it.

If you define "A" , then the ONLY proper expression of "~A" is, "everything else".

There are myriad, even innumerable, ways for "A" to be wrong: if "A" is "vanilla", "~A" is not "chocolate", or "butter pecan", or even "chunky fish pickle-ripple with gravy"; "~A" is ANYTHING (and everything) that IS NOT "vanilla".

Un-nilla, if you will.

I will be stealing/appropriating without credit borrowing this.

And I will be nominating it- that seems like the essence of pith to me.

 

[Butter!]

I'd be honored to have either of those things happen!

 

[John Jones]

HighRiser,
- Thanks.
--- Jabba

Is this your final post in the Proof of Immortality threads, I and II?

 

[carlitos]

Please cite evidence that is inconsistent with the current scientific understanding of material consciousness.

hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

Is this your final post in the Proof of Immortality threads, I and II?

Please be to God.

 

[tsig]

Ta ever so to both!

Hope springs eternal...

And lands in the pit of despair.

 

[Jabba]

One, finite, life

- I'd like to open a new thread, but one related to an old one -- "Immortality and Bayesian Statistics" (or, something like that). I would have continued the old one, but I haven't been able to find it -- and, this one does have a significantly different conclusion...

- The following is an introduction.

- I think that
1. I can virtually prove that the consensus scientific hypothesis about human mortality is incorrect.
2. That hypothesis is that we each have but one, finite life to live.
3. The likelihood of my current existence -- given that scientific hypothesis -- is about 7 billion over infinity, or essentially zero…
4. IOW, given the consensus scientific hypothesis, my current existence is extremely unlikely.
5. That premise has a mathematical implication re the probability that the consensus scientific hypothesis is correct -- or not.
6. This implication is indefinite, as there are three other variables in the appropriate equation.
7. P(H|E) = P(E|H)*P(H)/( P(E|H)*P(H)+P(E|~H)*P(~H)).
8. Including my estimated numbers, I get:
P(H|E) = 7,000,000,000/∞*.99/(7,000,000,000/∞*.99+ .00052*.01), or
9. P(H|E) = 0.
10. IOW, the posterior probability that we each have but one finite life to live is virtually zero.
11. All I need do now is support my estimates…

- I'll be back to do that.

 

[John Jones]

oh no!!

 

[Kid Eager]

- I'd like to open a new thread, but one related to an old one -- "Immortality and Bayesian Statistics" (or, something like that). I would have continued the old one, but I haven't been able to find it -- and, this one does have a significantly different conclusion...

- The following is an introduction.

- I think that
1. I can virtually prove that the consensus scientific hypothesis about human mortality is incorrect.
2. That hypothesis is that we each have but one, finite life to live.
3. The likelihood of my current existence -- given that scientific hypothesis -- is about 7 billion over infinity, or essentially zero…
4. IOW, given the consensus scientific hypothesis, my current existence is extremely unlikely.
5. That premise has a mathematical implication re the probability that the consensus scientific hypothesis is correct -- or not.
6. This implication is indefinite, as there are three other variables in the appropriate equation.
7. P(H|E) = P(E|H)*P(H)/( P(E|H)*P(H)+P(E|~H)*P(~H)).
8. Including my estimated numbers, I get:
P(H|E) = 7,000,000,000/∞*.99/(7,000,000,000/∞*.99+ .00052*.01), or
9. P(H|E) = 0.
10. IOW, the posterior probability that we each have but one finite life to live is virtually zero.
11. All I need do now is support my estimates…

- I'll be back to do that.

First post and you're already wrong. Enough with the Wookie threads already!

Mods, please merge with Bayesian thread. This is simply a fringe reset of the previous thread in which OP was proven wrong.

 

[The Atheist]

First post and you're already wrong. Enough with the Wookie threads already!

It doesn't matter whether the maths is right or wrong anyway, because it's GIGO.

3. The likelihood of my current existence -- given that scientific hypothesis -- is about 7 billion over infinity, ...

Nope.

Fraction upside down and both numbers incorrect.

Very strong start.

 

[shemp]

But he doesn't just have numbers, he has fancy mathematical symbols too! HE MUST BE RIGHT!!!

 

[fagin]

Tell it to the worms, and flesh eating bacteria.

 

[Giordano]

Oddly enough I've been there and found it to be rather depressing. I can't recommend a return visit to anyone.

 

[jond]

Well, Jabba, you've certainly proved that you are constitutionally incapable of learning. How very sad for you.

 

[Jabba]

11.1. Re P(E|H):According to science, I would never exist if
11.1.1. My parents had never met…
11.1.2. They had never had intercourse.
11.1.3. The necessary sperm cell (of the sextillion produced by my dad) had not met up with the necessary ovum (of the 500 carried by my mom).
11.1.4. The same three events (of above) had not occurred for both sets of my grandparents.
11.1.5. And all four sets of my great-grandparents.
11.1.6. Etc., etc., etc.
11.1.7. All the way back to the beginning of life on this planet.
11.1.8. And then, there’s the big bang.
11.1.9. And what if I had been (would have been?) the combination of a particular sperm cell of my dad and a particular ovum of Cleopatra?
11.1.10. How many human sperm cells and ova have existed since the beginning of (just) human life?
11.1.11. And, wouldn’t each potential combination of particular sperm cell and particular ovum represent a different potential person?
11.1.12. And what about all those potential persons of potential but unactualized persons?
11.1.13. However, my particular conscious existence probably doesn’t depend upon a particular sperm cell and particular ovum, anyway…
11.1.14. Rather, a certain organic state must naturally produce the emergent property of consciousness, and each new consciousness must produce its own, brand new, “self.”
11.1.15. IOW, there probably is no limited pool of potential beings – and consequently, the ‘number’ of potential beings is infinite…
11.1.16. Wow!
11.1.17. And then, there’s the anthropic principle.
11.1.18. And, what’s the likelihood that the 14 billion years of apparent universe existence would currently be within the years of my life.
11.1.19. And, what if time is infinite in both directions?