Proof of Immortality III

[theprestige]

I see. So you know the correct answer to the jam I described to you is 'the game was rigged'. And presumably you know why you know

I have no idea why that is the correct answer. Nonpareil won't tell me why it's the correct answer. Will you?

 

[Nonpareil]

I see. So you know the correct answer to the jam I described to you is 'the game was rigged'. And presumably you know why you know.

Yes, I do know what answer you were trying to get. Because you want that to be the answer, whether or not it is necessarily indicated by the scenario itself. That is the entire point of the post you just failed to understand.

And your rebuttal is to speculate that your captors go ahead and shoot you anyway when you give the correct answer.

No, my rebuttal is to point out that the same scenario could just as easily have that be the wrong answer, because nothing in the scenario requires that your captors rigged the game. You simply want them to have done so.

Please read before responding.

 

[Toontown]

No, my rebuttal is to point out that the same scenario could just as easily have that be the wrong answer, because nothing in the scenario requires that your captors rigged the game. You simply want them to have done so.

Please read before responding.

There is no "just as easily" rolling a 1 with that die, if it isn't rigged. Irrespective of any added conditions which do not include a rigged die. You simply are not going to roll a 1 with that die. If it isn't rigged.

The die had 10 ^80! sides. That's factorial 80. That's 10 with roughly 7 ¹¹⁸ zeros added.

Rolling a 1 with that die is a multi-trillion year enterprise. You are not going to roll a 1 with that die in 1 toss.

The fact that you got the required 1 is precisely what requires the game to be rigged, for any non-psychotic definition of "requires".

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove breach of rule 12

 

[Hlafordlaes]

There is no "just as easily" rolling a 1 with that die, if it isn't rigged. Irrespective of any added conditions which do not include a rigged die. You simply are not going to roll a 1 with that die. If it isn't rigged.

The die had 10 ^80! sides. That's factorial 80. That's 10 with roughly 7 ¹¹⁸ zeros added.

Rolling a 1 with that die is a multi-trillion year enterprise. You are not going to roll a 1 with that die in 1 toss.

The fact that you got the required 1 is precisely what requires the game to be rigged, for any non-psychotic definition of "requires".


You needn't bother addressing further posts to me. I've had too many posts removed to bother with it any more. I'm only responding to this because I'm waiting to meet someone and have some time to pass.

So nice of you to deign to entertain us with your, well, whatever it's been. I see you have failed for what, two or three pages to address the fact that uniqueness is a common feature across all of nature; in fact, a hallmark. The world and the cosmos would be truly boring were it not so.

Nice factorial you pulled out of a hat. Untethered to meaningful argument, though.

 

[Dancing David]

Dave,
- H is the scientific model of mortality for individual human consciousness -- i.e., we each have but one, finite, time of consciousness (at most).
- H allows for no immaterial selves. It allows for consciousness to be strictly material. ~H does also; it just implies immaterial selves in that if some of us do not have but one, finite, time of consciousness (at most), something must survive the material body.

Okay, in the absence of any proof of immaterial selves the probability of an immaterial self is 1x10^^{-10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000}

 

[Nonpareil]

There is no "just as easily" rolling a 1 with that die, if it isn't rigged. Irrespective of any added conditions which do not include a rigged die. You simply are not going to roll a 1 with that die. If it isn't rigged.

The die had 10 ^80! sides. That's factorial 80. That's 10 with roughly 7 ¹¹⁸ zeros added.

Rolling a 1 with that die is a multi-trillion year enterprise. You are not going to roll a 1 with that die in 1 toss.

The fact that you got the required 1 is precisely what requires the game to be rigged, for any non-psychotic definition of "requires".

I see you are down to simply outright denying what the word "requires" means now. Not surprising, really, as it's basically what you've been building up to the whole time with this "long shots are impossible" nonsense, but at least it's out in the open, and everyone can stop wondering whether or not you have an actual point to make. Aside from your constant denial of the fact that no one face of a die is any more or less likely to come up than any other, anyway.

Whether or not you like it, "very unlikely" is not equivalent to "impossible", and it never will be.

 

[MRC_Hans]

There is no "just as easily" rolling a 1 with that die, if it isn't rigged. Irrespective of any added conditions which do not include a rigged die. You simply are not going to roll a 1 with that die. If it isn't rigged.

The die had 10 ^80! sides. That's factorial 80. That's 10 with roughly 7 ¹¹⁸ zeros added.

Rolling a 1 with that die is a multi-trillion year enterprise. You are not going to roll a 1 with that die in 1 toss.

The fact that you got the required 1 is precisely what requires the game to be rigged, for any non-psychotic definition of "requires".

The thing is, 1 is exactly as likely as any other of the factorial 80 numbers.

The problem comes when you roll a 1 (or any other number) and then think that this is the number that was meant to come out. It wasn't. It just came out.

Hans

 

[Nonpareil]

The thing is, 1 is exactly as likely as any other of the factorial 80 numbers.

The problem comes when you roll a 1 (or any other number) and then think that this is the number that was meant to come out. It wasn't. It just came out.

No, no. The sheer odds against any specific result mean that the system must have been rigged. Obviously.

 

[I Am The Scum]

There is no "just as easily" rolling a 1 with that die, if it isn't rigged. Irrespective of any added conditions which do not include a rigged die. You simply are not going to roll a 1 with that die. If it isn't rigged.

The die had 10 ^80! sides. That's factorial 80. That's 10 with roughly 7 ¹¹⁸ zeros added.

Rolling a 1 with that die is a multi-trillion year enterprise. You are not going to roll a 1 with that die in 1 toss.

The fact that you got the required 1 is precisely what requires the game to be rigged, for any non-psychotic definition of "requires".

Please list one die result (just one) that would allow one to rationally conclude that the die is not rigged.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Okay, in the absence of any proof of immaterial selves the probability of an immaterial self is 1x10^^{-10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000}

I imagine that pretty much converges on zero, which would be my shorter answer. There is no properly formulated natural theory that predicts it as required feature and admits of tests, and there has been no direct observation of such a possibility. Zilchville.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

... This gets mileage in woo circles, where it is venerated for it's "deepity".

Hey, nice coinage.

 

[abaddon]

Hey, nice coinage.

Would you like to propose an exchange rate on said coinage?


Note to honesty: "deepity" is not of my origination. Another member here IIRC whose name evades me right now. I take no credit, I just like the term.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Note to honesty: "deepity" is not of my origination. Another member here IIRC whose name evades me right now. I take no credit, I just like the term.

I don't think Daniel Dennett posts here.

 

[jsfisher]

Jabba,

How was lunch?

 

[John Jones]

Jabba,

How was lunch?

Oh oh! I have to know about this.

 

[Pixel42]

Please list one die result (just one) that would allow one to rationally conclude that the die is not rigged.

It looks like I was right, Toontown's problem is indeed a refusal to accept that 1,2,3,4,5 and 6 are just as likely to come up in a six ball lottery as any other combination of numbers.

I've had some success at getting people to grasp this by putting it the other way: whatever set of 6 numbers they choose is just as unlikely to come up as 1,2,3,4,5 and 6. That's what odds of 1 in 14 million means.

I've also had some success by taking them through it step by step, like this:

1. Suppose you put 49 identical white balls into the lottery machine and press the button. Are any six of those identical white balls any more or less likely to come up than any others? They can see immediately that the answer is no.

2. Now suppose you decide to make each ball different to all the others by making them a slightly different colour. So each ball is a unique colour/shade. You put all 49 of these uniquely coloured balls in the machine and press the button. Is any particular combination of colours any more or less likely to come up than any other? Again, they can see that the answer is no.

3. Now you decide to use marks, rather than colours, to uniquely identify the balls. The marks you decide to use are the numbers 1 to 49 .....

At this point the idea that nothing you put on the balls will make any difference to their likelihood of emerging from the machine is finally grasped.

If you have a die with 10 80! sides and you choose to uniquely identify each side by marking it with the numbers 1 to 10 80! then every one is as incredibly unlikely to come up as any other when you throw it. Including the side you have arbitrarily marked '1'. But one of those 1 in 10 80! sides must come up, and it's no less likely to be the one with that particular mark as it is one with any other mark.

Of course if it was possible to do this experiment you'd just get a random side out of all the possible sides. Just as Jabba, Toontown and I are random people out of all the possible people.

 

[Nonpareil]

It looks like I was right, Toontown's problem is indeed a refusal to accept that 1,2,3,4,5 and 6 are just as likely to come up in a six ball lottery as any other combination of numbers.

Close. He's been making the same argument over and over again for more than two years now.

Toontown's position isn't exactly that 123456 coming up is less likely than, say, 732764 (though he certainly implies that, whether he means to or not). He argues instead that it would be reasonable to assume, based entirely on the fact that 123456 came up, and without examining the lottery machine itself in any way, that the system is rigged. The fact that 123456 is entirely possible, under the laws of probability, is irrelevant to him.

It's just an elaborate example of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. To Toontown, certain results are inherently more significant than others; this is what he means when he goes off on one of his tangents about "not dismissing subjective experience". It is also why he tends to focus on situations where only one result matters (one die roll to decide the fate of one gambler), rather than more accurate models where any result would be valid (one die roll to determine which of an astronomical number of gamblers would survive).

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove breach of rule 12

 

[AdMan]

It looks like I was right, Toontown's problem is indeed a refusal to accept that 1,2,3,4,5 and 6 are just as likely to come up in a six ball lottery as any other combination of numbers.

I've had some success at getting people to grasp this by putting it the other way: whatever set of 6 numbers they choose is just as unlikely to come up as 1,2,3,4,5 and 6. That's what odds of 1 in 14 million means.

I've also had some success by taking them through it step by step, like this:

1. Suppose you put 49 identical white balls into the lottery machine and press the button. Are any six of those identical white balls any more or less likely to come up than any others? They can see immediately that the answer is no.

2. Now suppose you decide to make each ball different to all the others by making them a slightly different colour. So each ball is a unique colour/shade. You put all 49 of these uniquely coloured balls in the machine and press the button. Is any particular combination of colours any more or less likely to come up than any other? Again, they can see that the answer is no.

3. Now you decide to use marks, rather than colours, to uniquely identify the balls. The marks you decide to use are the numbers 1 to 49 .....

At this point the idea that nothing you put on the balls will make any difference to their likelihood of emerging from the machine is finally grasped.

If you have a die with 10 80! sides and you choose to uniquely identify each side by marking it with the numbers 1 to 10 80! then every one is as incredibly unlikely to come up as any other when you throw it. Including the side you have arbitrarily marked '1'. But one of those 1 in 10 80! sides must come up, and it's no less likely to be the one with that particular mark as it is one with any other mark.

Of course if it was possible to do this experiment you'd just get a random side out of all the possible sides. Just as Jabba, Toontown and I are random people out of all the possible people.

I'm glad you've had success using this example, which obviously makes sense, but good luck with these two!

 

[MRC_Hans]

*snip*

Of course if it was possible to do this experiment you'd just get a random side out of all the possible sides. Just as Jabba, Toontown and I are random people out of all the possible people.

I think this is really what some people have trouple grasping: Your individual existence is a random coincidence. If you have problems with self-esteem (too low or too high), this is a hard pill to swallow.

Hans

 

[Agatha]

Some more posts which were tripping over rule 0 and rule 12 have been sent to AAH. Would all participants please make greater efforts to be civil and polite, and to address the arguments of other posters rather than attack the posters themselves. Thank you for your assistance in keeping this thread on track.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha