Proof of Immortality III

[abaddon]

That's not what I said.

Yes, I know that. Everyone knows that.

It is just that Jabba wants to insert his words into your mouth with a shovel and you are supposed to call it ice cream. Nothing less will satisfy the Jabberish.

 

[abaddon]

- How about the prior probability of an immaterial self is zero?

Dunno, how about unicorns?

 

[caveman1917]

You haven't written that in sufficiently rigorous notation for me to be sure I understand what you mean. But, as far as I can tell from how it is written, it is false, because you haven't stated what happens to P(~X|~H) as P(~X|H) increases. If, as P(~X|H) increases, P(~X|~H) also increases, then P(H|X) may not decrease (it may even increase).

Be serious, lim_{x -> 0} (x + y) = y, or in words, x + y -> y as x -> 0. Other variables not mentioned, such as y in this case, are implicitly held constant. You don't say "this limit is false because you haven't said what happens to y" either.

Be that as it may, there is still a qualitative difference in the required reasoning between the case when P(X|H) = 0 and the case when P(X|H) > 0.

Define "qualitative difference."

Observation of X when P(X|H) = 0 is sufficient to conclude that H is false (with certainty), or in other words, that P(H|X) = 0. But observation of X when P(X|H) > 0 is not sufficient to conclude anything at all about P(H|X). When P(X|H) > 0, then P(H|X) depends not only on P(X|H), but also on P(X|~H) and P(H).

Arguably true, arguably not. In the former case if P(H) = 1 (rather than P(H) = 0) then you'd derive a contradiction so it still depends on P(H) but just more subtle. Not sure what you're trying to say anyway, because some terms cancel therefor "qualitative difference"? You could easily construct non-deductive probabilistic arguments in which some terms cancel as well.

 

[Loss Leader]

Jabba -

Will there ever come a time when you address the probability that *something* would exist instead of just you? After all, if a materialistic universe is capable of creating some type of life somewhere, the fact that you personally exist has no significance. If it weren't you, it would be someone or something else. What are the odd that something capable of working a computer would eventually arise in our universe given nothing but material laws?

 

[Mojo]

Jabba -

Will there ever come a time when you address the probability that *something* would exist instead of just you? After all, if a materialistic universe is capable of creating some type of life somewhere, the fact that you personally exist has no significance. If it weren't you, it would be someone or something else. What are the odd that something capable of working a computer would eventually arise in our universe given nothing but material laws?

Loss Leader,
- The likelihood of this is 0.000001.
- Therefore it is absolutely certain to happen.
- I'll be back.

 

[John Jones]

- How about the prior probability of an immaterial self is zero?

What about it?

 

[Dancing David]

- Correct.



- Correct.
- Are you sure that there is no such thing as an immaterial self?

Your self does not exist over time, it is an illusion.
there is no persistence at all, everything changes.

I am not the body I was yesterday, my memories are very plastic and prone to error.

There is a body, it has thoughts, emotions, perceptions and habits.

There is no self.

 

[Toontown]

I find it hard to believe that irrelevant nonsense above elicited so many hours of reverent silence. Presumably, everyone is simply tired of the whole argument.

Loss Leader:

I would proclaim that what I've quoted below is among the sloppiest reasoning I've seen, but I won't, because I don't think you understand the subjective perspective Jabba is using, even after lo, these many years.

But on the other hand, I also suspect that Jabba himself doesn't understand the subjective perspective he's using either, because I haven't seen him try to convey it. I strongly suspect Jabba got the idea from someone else, and doesn't actually understand it himself.

Jabba -
Will there ever come a time when you address the probability that *something* would exist instead of just you?

Why would he? That would be like addressing the probability that a deck of cards exists in a poker game. It's a given, and only tangentially related to the real question.

After all, if a materialistic universe is capable of creating some type of life somewhere, the fact that you personally exist has no significance. If it weren't you, it would be someone or something else.

Jabba's formula, whether he or you know it or not, argues, from Jabba's subjective perspective, that his existence is significant to himself, precisely because it is him and not someone or something else.

But you keep looking at Jabba's existence from your perspective, in whch you (correctly) lump Jabba with everything else in the universe. And of course, from your perspective, Jabba's existence is not significant to you.

Maybe that's how you keep missing the point. You have to look at your existence from your subjective perspective. That's the only way the formula relates to anything at all. The formula does not relate to you looking at Jabba from your perspective.

Jabba is just another face in the crowd to you. And you're just another face in the crowd to me. You keep trying to tell him that, but if he knows what he's talking about, he's known that all along.

But Jabba is not just another face in the crowd to himself. You are not just another face in the crowd to yourself. I am not just another face in the crowd to myself.

What are the odd that something capable of working a computer would eventually arise in our universe given nothing but material laws?

The probability approaches 1. But it's the wrong question.

What were the odds that one of those somethings would be you?

That probability approaches 0.

Yeah, I know you're going to say that as long as your chances were greater than 0, there is nothing to be suspicious about. And you are wrong.

Approaching 0 means very nearly no chance at all.

Don't believe me? OK, let's do a little test. Obtain a pair of standard 6 sided dice and roll them once. I'm telling you right now you are not going to roll a 1 on both dice. Not in one roll. Not by chance alone. I'm not saying it's impossible. I'm saying it simply isn't going to happen. Not for you. For a small minority, yes, but not you. You won't get that lucky. And don't lie about the outcome. I'll know you're lying, and so will most everybody else, except for a very gullible minority.

I could be wrong, but I'm not. Go ahead. Try it. It ain't gonna happen.

Maybe if you do this little experiment in the light of my confident prediction that you won't roll the ones, you will finally understand that odds actually mean something, and the meaning of giganogargantuan odds is proportionally greater than the measly odds you will have tried and failed to beat with the dice.

Yes, it is true that 2.7 of every hundred people who do this experiment will roll the ones and will crow about it. But their crowing will be irrelevant, because one of those someones will not be you.

And these odds you won't be able to beat are relatively easy. Nothing at all like the giganogargantuan odds against a specific organization of quadrillions of atoms occurring at specific spacetime coordinates, resulting in your specific body and brain.

And if you ever do finally realize how ridiculous it is to assume that's the only way you exist, you'll have no clue where to go from there. Every alternative explanation you'll be able to think of will seem just as ridiculous.

 

[HighRiser]

I haven't gotten the meaning of anything Toontown has said about improbabiliy somehow defining reality in spite of sensibility.

 

[jt512]

Loss Leader:

I would proclaim that what I've quoted below is among the sloppiest reasoning I've seen, but I won't, because I don't think you understand the subjective perspective Jabba is using, even after lo, these many years.

But on the other hand, I also suspect that Jabba himself doesn't understand the subjective perspective he's using either, because I haven't seen him try to convey it. I strongly suspect Jabba got the idea from someone else, and doesn't actually understand it himself.



Why would he? That would be like addressing the probability that a deck of cards exists in a poker game. It's a given, and only tangentially related to the real question.



Jabba's formula, whether he or you know it or not, argues, from Jabba's subjective perspective, that his existence is significant to himself, precisely because it is him and not someone or something else.

But you keep looking at Jabba's existence from your perspective, in whch you (correctly) lump Jabba with everything else in the universe. And of course, from your perspective, Jabba's existence is not significant to you.

Maybe that's how you keep missing the point. You have to look at your existence from your subjective perspective. That's the only way the formula relates to anything at all. The formula does not relate to you looking at Jabba from your perspective.

Jabba is just another face in the crowd to you. And you're just another face in the crowd to me. You keep trying to tell him that, but if he knows what he's talking about, he's known that all along.

But Jabba is not just another face in the crowd to himself. You are not just another face in the crowd to yourself. I am not just another face in the crowd to myself.



The probability approaches 1. But it's the wrong question.

What were the odds that one of those somethings would be you?

That probability approaches 0.

Yeah, I know you're going to say that as long as your chances were greater than 0, there is nothing to be suspicious about. And you are wrong.

Approaching 0 means very nearly no chance at all.

Don't believe me? OK, let's do a little test. Obtain a pair of standard 6 sided dice and roll them once. I'm telling you right now you are not going to roll a 1 on both dice. Not in one roll. Not by chance alone. I'm not saying it's impossible. I'm saying it simply isn't going to happen. Not for you. For a small minority, yes, but not you. You won't get that lucky. And don't lie about the outcome. I'll know you're lying, and so will most everybody else, except for a very gullible minority.

I could be wrong, but I'm not. Go ahead. Try it. It ain't gonna happen.

Maybe if you do this little experiment in the light of my confident prediction that you won't roll the ones, you will finally understand that odds actually mean something, and the meaning of giganogargantuan odds is proportionally greater than the measly odds you will have tried and failed to beat with the dice.

Yes, it is true that 2.7 of every hundred people who do this experiment will roll the ones and will crow about it. But their crowing will be irrelevant, because one of those someones will not be you.

And these odds you won't be able to beat are relatively easy. Nothing at all like the giganogargantuan odds against a specific organization of quadrillions of atoms occurring at specific spacetime coordinates, resulting in your specific body and brain.

And if you ever do finally realize how ridiculous it is to assume that's the only way you exist, you'll have no clue where to go from there. Every alternative explanation you'll be able to think of will seem just as ridiculous.

My goodness. What a long-winded way to commit the lottery fallacy.

 

[Loss Leader]

My goodness. What a long-winded way to commit the lottery fallacy.

Is that what happened? Did I win the lottery? Because If I did, it would make reading through Toontown's post almost tolerable.

 

[Toontown]

Is that what happened? Did I win the lottery? Because If I did, it would make reading through Toontown's post almost tolerable.

If you didn't want "the probability that "something" would exist instead of just Jabba"to be addressed, you shouldn't have asked.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Maybe Toontown knows what Jabba means by "self"

 

[Toontown]

I haven't gotten the meaning of anything Toontown has said about improbabiliy somehow defining reality in spite of sensibility.

Probability gets increasingly close to defining reality as it approaches 1 or 0. When it reaches 1 or 0, reality becomes completely defined.

As for the "sensibility" you speak of, that's just a word you used to define your blind faith in your interpretation of reality, in spite of the improbability.

 

[Toontown]

My goodness. What a long-winded way to commit the lottery fallacy.

Do you always automatically grab for the first fallacy that you think might be forcibly hammered into what you always automatically assume is a fallacy slot?

I don't know what you mean by your "lottery fallacy" call. But if you are accusing me of being so incredulous that I will ever win the lottery that I don't even bother to buy tickets, then you are right about that, if nothing else. I don't even bother to buy tickets. And I don't even worry my pretty little head about the extremely remote possibility that I might be depriving myself of millions in winnings. That possibility is so remote that it's really more of an illusion than a possibility.

I save a lot of money that way.

No, it is not (subjectively) relevant that thousands of people have won lotteries, or that "somebody" will. That's where your collective serial failure to distinguish between the general and the specific comes into play, in particular the subjective perspective you all serially fail to acknowledge. It makes not one iota of difference how many other people have won the lottery. You, specifically, will never be one of them, even if you spend every spare dollar on lottery tickets for the rest of your life.

You know how to prove my attitude wrong. Put your money where your mouth is. Spend your entire life savings on lottery tickets.

But then, of course, you'll have to actually win it to prove me wrong. Not somebody. You. That's the part that is not going to happen.

 

[Toontown]

Maybe Toontown knows what Jabba means by "self"

You mean "immaterial self"?

Yeah. That means he knows something is happening, but he doesn't know what it is.

 

[Mojo]

No, it is not (subjectively) relevant that thousands of people have won lotteries, or that "somebody" will. That's where your collective serial failure to distinguish between the general and the specific comes into play, in particular the subjective perspective you all serially fail to acknowledge. It makes not one iota of difference how many other people have won the lottery. You, specifically, will never be one of them, even if you spend every spare dollar on lottery tickets for the rest of your life.

You know how to prove my attitude wrong. Put your money where your mouth is. Spend your entire life savings on lottery tickets.

But then, of course, you'll have to actually win it to prove me wrong. Not somebody. You. That's the part that is not going to happen.

Nobody is arguing that a specified person is likely to win the lottery at some point in the future; they are arguing that you should not be surprised that someone who is posting on a bulletin board exists, just as you should not be surprised that if you select a person from a list of lottery winners, you should not be surprised to find that they have won the lottery.

 

[Toontown]

Nobody is arguing that a specified person is likely to win the lottery at some point in the future; they are arguing that you should not be surprised that someone who is posting on a bulletin board exists, just as you should not be surprised that if you select a person from a list of lottery winners, you should not be surprised to find that they have won the lottery.

I know that, and "they" have all been arguing irrelevantly, as I just finished explaining.

"They" still fail to comprehend the subjective perspective.

it would be stupid to be surprised that some member of a group of lottery winners has won a lottery, and that is why it is stupid to think I am surprised about that.

What you should be surprised about would be to find that you, specifically, have become a member of said group. That is where the improbability lies.

 

[JayUtah]

"They" still fail to comprehend the subjective perspective.

"They" understand that it fails to supply the promised proof. A subjective belief proffered as proof does little more than beg the question.

 

[wollery]

I know that, and "they" have all been arguing irrelevantly, as I just finished explaining.

"They" still fail to comprehend the subjective perspective.

it would be stupid to be surprised that some member of a group of lottery winners has won a lottery, and that is why it is stupid to think I am surprised about that.

What you should be surprised about would be to find that you, specifically, have become a member of said group. That is where the improbability lies.

Each specific member of said group has exactly the same improbability of joining the list. If I'm surprised that I'm on the list then why should I not be surprised that any other individual is on the list?

Conversely, since every person who plays the lottery has an equal chance of winning, and I play the lottery, then why should I be surprised that I win it as opposed to any other individual who plays?

Your argument specifically is the lottery fallacy.

It's the fallacy that you winning the lottery is somehow more special than any other individual winning. It isn't more special, it's just more personal to you.

Unless of course you don't buy a ticket, in which case it's incredibly strange that you win, and an indication that someone in the lottery organisation is about to be investigated for fraud.