Proof of Immortality III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nonpareil said:
This is why your obsession with the subjective perspective is pointless. It does not allow you to actually learn anything.
Click to expand...

Because "subjective" is the newest in a long line of words that people think invoking allows them to make evidence-free statements.
 
Last edited:
abaddon said:
It appears that the claim is that although the numbers 1-6 exist on the trillion sided die, they are less likely to come up than the other trillion-6 numbers on the die simply by dint of the existence of the 6 sided die even if the six sided is never rolled. Thus, if the result is 1-6, it is more likely to have come from the 6 sided die than the trillion sided die regardless of whether the 6 sided die was ever even rolled at all.
Click to expand...


WTF? That's completely wrong.
 
nonpareil said:
All results on the trillion-sided die, three or otherwise, have an equal probability of occurrence. This probability is non-zero, and does not approach zero. A result of three on any given die roll does not indicate either die.
Click to expand...

caveman1917 said:
This is wrong and anti-scientific.
Click to expand...


Caveman is correct, as is Toontown on the related point that if a "3" appears, the probability that the die thrown was the 6-sided one is "massively" increased.

Applying Bayes' Theorem to Toontown's die problem, the odds that the die thrown was the 6-sided die are equal to the prior odds that the 6-sided die was thrown times the relative likelihood of an outcome of "3" for a 6-sided die vs. an outcome of "3" for a trillion-sided die. Therefore, for any given prior odds for the 6-sided die, an outcome of "3" would increase the odds by a factor of approximately 167 billion (indeed a "massive" increase).

This is how scientific facts are established. A hypothesis predicts an outcome, and a program of experiments is undertaken to see if the predicted outcome is observed. The experiments are subject to random error, so the observation can only be confirmed up to a probability. When the outcome is confirmed up to a sufficiently high probability, the hypothesis is considered to have been confirmed.

Consider the Higgs boson, which was predicted several decades ago. The experiments at CERN indicated that the Higgs boson exists, but only probabilistically. Specifically, if the Higgs boson did not exist, there was a probability on the order of 1-in-1,000,000 (maybe even 1-in-100,000) that the experiments were wrong; that is, that the apparent observation of the Higgs boson was a false positive result.

Nonetheless, the physics community does not seem to be overly concerned about the minute chance that experimental results were false. Nobel prizes have been awarded. The existence of the Higgs boson is considered to have been established.
 
Last edited:
jt512 said:
I know that Toontown is almost always wrong. But this time Toontown was correct and Abaddon's comment indicates he is deeply confused.
Click to expand...

It is also a really confusing thread where the "proofer" takes all sort of analogy out of the woodwork which have nothing to do with the initial problem. The eprfect example of that is the D6/ Dtrillion example where the pretense is that there is more than 1 dice for the same event. That specifically has nthoing whatsoever to do with the initial pretens of proving immortality with just bayesian statistic. Really now in addition to this bayesian stupidity there would be an additional evidence of different "dices" being used. Whatever. I am out of popcornm, so out of this thread again.

I am jsut waiting now TT and Jabba to go back again to the stupid crappy cloth.
 
Toontown said:
I know (nevermind how, it's only an analogy) that the the following numbers were obtained either by rolling a six sided die or by rolling a trillion sided die.

48887398898
158486874
3
36598746
215478

Would I be committing the Texas sharpshooter fallacy if I concluded, with very high confidence, that the number (3) was rolled with the six sided die?
Click to expand...

No. You would be correct that the probability if it is Dtrillion OR D6, for 3 is higher to be D6 than Dtrillion.

But this is not the purpose of this thread. In this thread we don't have one dice for one folk and another dice for others.

We are ALL D6 or ALL Dtrillion.

And as your own draws above shows, the other draws exclude that a D6 was used.
 
Alright guys we've taken the dice analogy far enough and we're losing people with it.

You still can't prove immorality with statistics.
 
JoeBentley said:
Alright guys we've taken the dice analogy far enough and we're losing people with it.

You still can't prove immorality with statistics.
Click to expand...
Sort of agreed. I think (and jt512 has confirmed) that Toontown's 2-Dice-Hypothetical is correct, but I think it also has no bearing on the issue at hand. Rather, the crux of Toontown's error lies here:

Toontown said:
--snip--

The universe had one chance to make Jabba's specific brain (or yours). That specific brain had to be one specific organization of mass/energy, occurring at one specific set of spacetime coordinates (x,y,z,t). Any similar brain occurring at any other spacetime coordinates would be another, identical brain. In science, the spacetime location of different objects plays a critical role in differentiating between different objects, especially identical objects.

Therefore, the size, age or number of universes have absolutely no bearing on the prior probability that Jabba's specific brain would emerge from the universe-wide quantum shuffle beginning at 10 -43 seconds. Any identical brain occurring at any other spacetime coordinates would be another brain.
If you're arguing that another, identical brain would be the same Jabba, then you've inadvertently slipped and fallen face-first into Jabba's side of the argument.
Which I've already explained N times during the existence of this thread.

I will add that I find it suspiciously surprising that I was called upon to explain this to you again, after so many of you spent so many posts deriding Jabba about his lack of understanding of the difference between identical but different objects.
Click to expand...
The highlighted portions indicate both a misunderstanding of Jabba's argument and an adoption of the same circular reasoning.

It is a misunderstanding because Jabba insists that the souls associated with any brain -- even if the brains are identical -- are not the same. Here, Toontown agrees that they are not the same yet says those who deny this are actually the ones agreeing with Jabba.

It is circular because Toontown's insistence on him only caring about the appearance of his own brain (at some point he actually uses the term "significant" as if in a statistical sense) is exactly the same as Jabba's "I'm a special snowflake" assumption at the root of his argument. Toontown is separating brain from perception of brain when they are not in fact inseparable.

In short, Toontown is assuming his soul* to prove his soul, even if he is not assuming everyone else's soul like Jabba.


*He will likely deny not only that he is committing the error but also that it has anything to do with a soul. The first is simply wrong. The second is simply irrelevant; call it a soul, an identity, or a Jabberwock, and it still represents the same mistake.
 
Garrette said:
The highlighted portions indicate both a misunderstanding of Jabba's argument and an adoption of the same circular reasoning.

It is a misunderstanding because Jabba insists that the souls associated with any brain -- even if the brains are identical -- are not the same. Here, Toontown agrees that they are not the same yet says those who deny this are actually the ones agreeing with Jabba.
Click to expand...


Toontown's admonishment that "f you're arguing that another, identical brain would be the same Jabba, then you've inadvertently slipped and fallen face-first into Jabba's side of the argument" would appear to be the result of another misunderstanding, because nobody but Jabba has argued this; everyone but Jabba had been arguing that another identical brain would result in another consciousness identical, at the moment of duplication, to Jabba's.
 
Mojo said:
Toontown's admonishment that "f you're arguing that another, identical brain would be the same Jabba, then you've inadvertently slipped and fallen face-first into Jabba's side of the argument" would appear to be the result of another misunderstanding, because nobody but Jabba has argued this; everyone but Jabba had been arguing that another identical brain would result in another consciousness identical, at the moment of duplication, to Jabba's.
Click to expand...
That's what I was trying to say, poorly.
 
Jabba, when you say the original and duplicate Jabba selves would be different, do you mean they would experience differently, or they would feel differently, or think differently, or react to experiences differently?

I understand that each self would have its own subjective perspective. I just don't understand how they are different from each other.
 
godless dave said:
Jabba, when you say the original and duplicate Jabba selves would be different, do you mean they would experience differently, or they would feel differently, or think differently, or react to experiences differently?

I understand that each self would have its own subjective perspective. I just don't understand how they are different from each other.
Click to expand...

Adding to this...
Jabba, do you mean you will continue to know you are the original and the copy will know he is the copy?
 
Aepervius said:
No. You would be correct that the probability if it is Dtrillion OR D6, for 3 is higher to be D6 than Dtrillion.

But this is not the purpose of this thread. In this thread we don't have one dice for one folk and another dice for others.

We are ALL D6 or ALL Dtrillion.

And as your own draws above shows, the other draws exclude that a D6 was used.
Click to expand...

Your entire post is a complete non-sequitur, in addition to being incoherent.

The sole purpose of the hypothetical, as I've repeatedly explained, was simply to demonstrate that Nonpareil's simplistic attrubutions of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy are bogus. And the hypothetical does demonstrate that, and I've explained how.

No further argument or explanation is required. What is required is that you read with comprehension.

Hint: Think before you post. Read before you think.
 
Last edited:
Nonpareil said:
....And so you can guess either one, and either one can be true. Again, you don't seem to actually understand what it is that is being said to you.
Click to expand...

False. It is you who do not understand what is being said to you. And now you appear to have completely forgotten (if you ever knew) what our little discussion about the dice was about.

And this, after you've already demonstrated that you are probabilistically challenged by arguing that I'm wrong because it isn't an absolute certainty that the (3) was rolled with the 6 sided die...

...in a discussion about probability. :wwt

Clue: If there is enough information to establish absolute certainty, then you don't need probability.

And when you do need probability, you use the information you have. You don't refuse to use the information you have simply because you don't know everything. You are using probability in the first place because you don't know everything.

Are you getting a sense of deja vu here? If not, then you have not been reading with comprehension.

For your second clue, see the post above.

Hint: Think before you post. Read before you think.
 
Last edited:
Mojo said:
Toontown's admonishment that "f you're arguing that another, identical brain would be the same Jabba, then you've inadvertently slipped and fallen face-first into Jabba's side of the argument" would appear to be the result of another misunderstanding, because nobody but Jabba has argued this; everyone but Jabba had been arguing that another identical brain would result in another consciousness identical, at the moment of duplication, to Jabba's.
Click to expand...


Loss Leader has assured me that it was a misunderstanding of his intent. However, the misunderstanding stemmed from this load of hogwash:

Loss Leader said:
Butt should I continue to be surprised if I win the lottery after having played a couple billion times?

Left out from your diatribe is any thought that the lottery has been going on for 13.5 billion years on billions of planets in billions of galaxies and that's just in our universe. If Jabba doesn't know how many tries the universe took to make him, how can be correctly calculate odds? His perspective doesn't matter because he lacks necessary information.
Click to expand...

To which I responded that Jabba's specific brain is a specific organization of an immense number of elementary particles, occurring at specific spacetime coordinates, in a specific spacetime continuum. So the size, age, or number of universes were not factors in determining the identity of Jabba's brain. One organization, one place, one time, one universe, one Jabba-brain.
And, in a bid to head off the next misunderstanding: Loss Leader may not have been talking about a specific brain. But I was. In the post to which Loss Leader responded when he posted the above "diatribe".
 
Last edited:
1. Toontown doesn’t agree with me, but I think I, basically, agree with him…

2. Why my existence isn’t just dumb luck:
3. Whereas, very unlikely things do happen (e.g. winning the lottery), they are unlikely given (based upon) specific hypotheses, or models.
4. And -- re the lottery -- were it not for the rules, the oversight, the results and the media (including the Internet), we wouldn’t be so sure that luck was the answer.
5. If, for instance, we discovered that the winner was secretly the 2nd cousin of the person most in charge of the lottery, we’d have 2nd thoughts…
6. Which is the point -- if we have a reasonable alternative to luck, we don’t have to assume that it's luck…

7. And here, what can be counted as “reasonable” doesn’t need to be very probable at all – in fact, it can be extremely improbable.
8. That’s because the likelihood of what it is being compared to, weighed against (my existence, given OOFLam) is virtually zero.
9. IOW, we have an alternative hypothesis which is much more probable – given my existence – than is OOFLam.
10. The posterior probability of OOFLam – given me -- is much smaller than the posterior probability of ~OOFLam.

11. But, the ultimate question is, “In which case am I more likely to be here – OOFLam, or ~OOFLam?”
12. The obvious answer is “~OOFLam”…

13. And then,
14. I’m the only “thing,” “process” or “illusion” that I know exists.
15. I don’t know what I am -- but, I know I am.
16. Everything else could be my imagination

17. We humans take our personal existence (selves) totally for granted.
18. We act as if we had to exist.
19. Though scientifically speaking, that’s the very last thing we should take for granted.
20. Again, according to modern science, the likelihood of my (and your) current existence is virtually zero.

21. Yet, I’m the only thing, process or illusion that I actually know exists.
22. And, you’re the only thing, process or illusion that you actually know exists (if you’re not a robot)).
23. The rest could be our imagination.
24. So, we don’t know what we are, but we do know we are.
25. And again, we know we are – even though the scientific likelihood of each of our current existences is hardly more than zero…

26. But further, if I didn’t exist it would be as if there were nothing – there might as well be nothing.
27. And, if I never existed, there might as well never be anything.
28. And, what if you never existed?

29. And then, if you think about it, nothing really makes sense, anyway.
30. Once there is something, reductive materialism (the basic axiom of science) just doesn’t work…
31. Now, if there were nothing, that would make sense!

32. There’s something wrong here…
33. There’s something “magical” here.
34. Science seems to be missing a serious piece of the puzzle…
35. Again, there’s something magical here…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom