Proof of Immortality III

[Slowvehicle]

He probably will.
It's claptrap, on a level of claptrappyness that only a baby elk learning to tie it's shoe laces for the first time would try to explain through the medium of British Sign Language, whilst yodelling the theme tune to Starsky & Hutch and eating a lemon.

...you saw the film (on Super 8) of my Master's Thesis presentation, did you?

 

[Jabba]

Not exactly, Jabba. I don't rule out the scientific model at all. OTC, I use it.

I rule out the notion that the scientific model alone, in it's present form, sufficiently accounts for why the light of day is being made manifest.

I would point to the quantum stew at t = 0 + 10 ^-43 seconds after the big bang and identify what came immediately afterwards as the "main shuffle".

Then I would point out that my particular brain may only occur as the precise result of, and in the precise form of, an immense number of atoms in a particular organization, occurring at particular x,y,z,t spacetime coordinates, in a particular spacetime continuum. One shot. One shot only. All the above, right then, right there, or no Toon brain forever.

Then I would rule out this particular brain as the only way the light of day could ever have been made manifest.

I've already explained all that except perhaps precisely what it is I'm ruling out. And I'm pretty sure I did that way back when.

Toon,
- I still think we agree. The scientific model I rule out is only about human mortality.
- I like your reference to the "quantum stew," and have essentially used it myself, but your wording is more to the point.

 

[Toontown]

But that's a loaded proposition. The "one finite life" scenario is shared among the billions of people who live, have lived, and will live. Thus as I point out to Toontown above, estimating the odds that some one particular individual in that population will arise is misleading.

I don't estimate the prior odds against "some" particular individual brain arising. I estimate the prior odds against seeing the light of day if this particular brain is the only way that happens.

Then I rule out the assumption that the emergence of this particular brain is the only way the manifestly observed light of day happens.

 

[Toontown]

Please show your work.

You show yours. Specifically, show the calcs which prove your conclusion that Jabba's calcs are in error.

And you have the cart before the horse. You want to contrast the fact of existence with the near impossibility you compute for existence. That shows the error of your computation, not the presumptive miracle of life.

You've calculated nothing. What you've done is impute that Jabba's calcs are in error on the basis of a bogus inconsistency between the general and the specific which doesn't actually exist.

 

[JayUtah]

You show yours. Specifically, show the calcs which prove your conclusion that Jabba's calcs are in error.

Jabba has calculated nothing. He's chosen random numbers to represent probability. He's misapplied Bayes' theorem to a problem it wasn't mean to solve. No calculation required to refute that.

Nice try shifting the burden of proof.

You've calculated nothing. What you've done is impute that Jabba's calcs are in error on the basis of a bogus inconsistency between the general and the specific which doesn't actually exist.

No, that's not my argument.

 

[JayUtah]

I estimate the prior odds against seeing the light of day if this particular brain is the only way that happens.

Okay, show your work for that, then.

 

[Toontown]

Please show your work.

It's not my work. It's been done many times, by scientists and mathematicians.

Just to stick a monkey wrench in your obfuscation:

http://visual.ly/what-are-odds

 

[JayUtah]

I wasn't aware Ali Binazir's infographics constituted science and mathematics. Plus, he's addressing a different problem. You posed a particularly phrased proposition. I asked you to show your work.

 

[I Am The Scum]

What on earth? I came here for an argument.

1. Phenomenon P is extremely unlikely.
2. ???
C: Reincarnation is real.

Fill in the blank. Fix the premises. Do whatever you need. But please, make an argument.

I hope I'm not asking too much.

 

[Toontown]

I wasn't aware Ali Binazir's infographics constituted science and mathematics. Plus, he's addressing a different problem. You posed a particularly phrased proposition. I asked you to show your work.

It's not his work either. He simply provided a convenient visual representation.

Science has provided the Standard Cosmological Model, quantum mechanics, and an estimate of the number of atoms in the visible part of the universe:

10 ⁸⁰
What you've provided is a poster-boy representation of the commonly seen blanket denial mode. However, I refuse to accept your surrender. I'm not taking prisoners.

 

[Toontown]

What on earth? I came here for an argument.

1. Phenomenon P is extremely unlikely.
2. ???
C: Reincarnation is real.

Fill in the blank. Fix the premises. Do whatever you need. But please, make an argument.

I hope I'm not asking too much.

You are asking too much. Essentially, you seem to be asking for what I've already declined to provide. And you've all done an excellent job of demonstrating precisely why I am correct to decline Jay's kind "invitation".

"Reincarnation" requires the existence of an immortal "self" which trancends physical death. That's not my solution either.

 

[JayUtah]

Science has provided the Standard Cosmological Model, quantum mechanics, and an estimate of the number of atoms in the visible part of the universe:

10 ⁸⁰

Fascinating. Now explain in greater detail how that supports your claim.

What you've provided is a poster-boy representation of the commonly seen blanket denial mode. However, I refuse to accept your surrender. I'm not taking prisoners.

I'm neither surrendering nor denying. I'm simply asking you to carry your burden of proof. So far you've given me only vague handwaving.

 

[JayUtah]

You are asking too much. Essentially, you seem to be asking for what I've already declined to provide.

If you decline to state a proposition and provide an argument for it, then what do your posts have to do with the topic of this thread?

 

[JayUtah]

It's not his work either. He simply provided a convenient visual representation.

Well, you did promise us "science and mathematics." To my mind that means things like peer reviewed papers, textbooks, or other rigorously considered lines of reasoning. Yes, you've alluded to the standard model. That tells us our best science regarding certain properties of the universe. However the connection between that and your specific claims of the emergence of a mind and

I estimate the prior odds against seeing the light of day if this particular brain is the only way that happens.

remains unclear. "Seeing the light of day" is not especially scientific terminology. Please describe less dramatically and more accurately what event or condition you refer to. And other analogies you've raised call into question the propriety of the singular nature of some particular brain as a proper condition. I've asked you to reconcile that.

 

[Toontown]

Fascinating. Now explain in greater detail how that supports your claim.

You mean "my" claim that a particular organization of an immense number atoms, occurring at specific x,y,z,t spacetime coordinates, has a prior probability converging on zero?

That's not my claim. That is the inevitable implication of the combination of the standard cosmological model, quantum mechanics, and probability theory.

I don't need to support those sciences or their unequivocal implications. They are already well supported. I need only refer to them.

I'm neither surrendering nor denying. I'm simply asking you to carry your burden of proof. So far you've given me only vague handwaving.

Right. Blanket denial mode. Exactly as I said. Thanks for your continued service.

 

[JayUtah]

You mean "my" claim that a particular organization of an immense number atoms, occurring at specific x,y,z,t spacetime coordinates, has a prior probability converging on zero?

And if this thread were about cosmology then such statements would be relevant on their own. As it happens, this thread discusses a possible mathematical proof for immortality, which is not covered directly in the topics to which you refer. Therefore some line of reasoning must be provided to connect the two.

If you do not have such a line of reasoning, or have one and do not wish to present it, then your comments are not relevant to the thread and would constitute a derail in contravention of the member agreement.

Right. Blanket denial mode. Exactly as I said. Thanks for your continued service.

Do you have anything relevant to the topic of the thread?

 

[Nonpareil]

- The consensus scientific model of human mortality (that we each have only one, finite, lifetime -- at most) is surely wrong.
- That's because the likelihood of your current existence -- given the one, finite, lifetime (at most) model/hypothesis -- is virtually zero

If I roll a die with 10^80! sides, and it comes up on 1... so what?

and (assuming that you really do currently exist) that conclusion about the likelihood of your current existence has serious, negative mathematical implications re the truth value of the scientific model.

No, it doesn't.

And this still doesn't even constitute a basic argument for immortality, let alone proof of it.

I don't need to support those sciences or their unequivocal implications

What "unequivocal implications" would those be, then, and how are they affected by the knowledge that literally every given potential brain, yours or otherwise, has the same probability of occurrence?

 

[Toontown]

If you decline to state a proposition and provide an argument for it, then what do your posts have to do with the topic of this thread?

I see. First, you go all nazi on me, trying to browbeat me into revealing the details of one of my personal hypotheses which can't be proved and does not coincide with the topic of this thread. At which point you were quite evidently trying your best to browbeat me into going off topic.

Overtly and insultingly relying on my presumed gullibility by pretending that your "interest" has been piqued.

Then, after the true nature of your bogus "interest" has been exposed and it becomes convenient for your obfuscational purposes, you suddenly become concerned about whether my posts have something to do with the topic of this thread.

News Flash: My posts quite obviously have to do with what led me to the personal hypothesis you were previously so "interested" in - a brazen fakery of bogus "interest" which has now been fully exposed.

News Flash: the topic of this thread is not about me stating any proposition or providing any argument for any hypothetical proposition.

 

[JayUtah]

News Flash: the topic of this thread is not about me stating any proposition or providing any argument for any hypothetical proposition.

You seem to be saying you haven't stated any proposition. If that's the case, then what is it that you're so adamant your critics are wrong about?

You seem to be saying that certain cosmological factoids led you to a "personal hypothesis." You won't say what it is. Yet for some reason we're supposed to accept that it validates a premise in Jabba's probabilistic model. Why would we do that without discussing it? And how would that work without a line of reasoning that qualitatively connects certain mind-boggling estimates of probability to the nature of immortality, which is what I've been asking for?

 

[Toontown]

If I roll a die with 10^80! sides, and it comes up on 1... so what?

The implication of your question is that you don't know what you're talking about.

And this still doesn't even constitute a basic argument for immortality, let alone proof of it.

And your statement does even less to indicate any understanding on your part.

I've hardly obligated myself to argue for or prove immortality. In fact, I just finished explaining that I don't buy into the "immortal self" explanation

What "unequivocal implications" would those be, then,...

Read much? I've repeatedly stated the implication, including in the very post you quoted.

and how are they affected by the knowledge that literally every given potential brain, yours or otherwise, has the same probability of occurrence?

The same way I am affected by your meaningless badgering.