Proof of Immortality, the IV league

[Dancing David]

Dave,
- That sounds right, but not under the circumstances we're talking about...
- Nothing is possible that doesn't happen. In that sense, there is no such thing as potential. If my parents hadn't had intercourse MY day, I would NEVER be here. Something is either going to happen, or it isn't. In neither case is it potential. If something doesn't happen, it was impossible (for some reason). In the case of Cleopatra and myself, there were NUMEROUS reasons -- but, that's the case for most everything that doesn't happen...

Hoist : petard

 

[Peregrinus]

Dave,
- That sounds right, but not under the circumstances we're talking about...
- Nothing is possible that doesn't happen. In that sense, there is no such thing as potential. If my parents hadn't had intercourse MY day, I would NEVER be here. Something is either going to happen, or it isn't. In neither case is it potential. If something doesn't happen, it was impossible (for some reason). In the case of Cleopatra and myself, there were NUMEROUS reasons -- but, that's the case for most everything that doesn't happen...

`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'

 

[aleCcowaN]

`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'

Like PhDr. Daniel Bhoy put it:"Tweedledee-dee!!! Potatoes!!!!"

[aleCcowaN: proud to be in Jabba's "ignore" list]

 

[JayUtah]

Something is either going to happen, or it isn't. In neither case is it potential.

Good for you. Perhaps at this point you realize why "potential selves" is not a mathematical justification for your elusive Big Denominator.

Now that we've dispensed with that particular bit of nonsense, do you have any new arguments? If not, let's call the game. You don't have a proof, and after four years of repeating the same failed arguments, it's clear you never will have one.

 

[abaddon]

Dave,
- That sounds right, but not under the circumstances we're talking about...
- Nothing is possible that doesn't happen. In that sense, there is no such thing as potential. If my parents hadn't had intercourse MY day, I would NEVER be here. Something is either going to happen, or it isn't. In neither case is it potential. If something doesn't happen, it was impossible (for some reason). In the case of Cleopatra and myself, there were NUMEROUS reasons -- but, that's the case for most everything that doesn't happen...

Wow. After years of arguing you are finally going to accept you are flat out wrong.

No you wont. You will simply fringe reset once again.

It's getting tedious.

 

[jond]

Dave,
- That sounds right, but not under the circumstances we're talking about...
- Nothing is possible that doesn't happen. In that sense, there is no such thing as potential. If my parents hadn't had intercourse MY day, I would NEVER be here. Something is either going to happen, or it isn't. In neither case is it potential. If something doesn't happen, it was impossible (for some reason). In the case of Cleopatra and myself, there were NUMEROUS reasons -- but, that's the case for most everything that doesn't happen...

Great: now you understand that it is impossible for you to have had children with Cleopatra, or be her daughter. And that your "potential selves" is a non-starter. (BTW, the highlighted is absolutely incorrect. There are myriad things that could happen but didn't. It was very possible that I could have hit a tree while driving this morning. But I didn't.)

Now, perhaps we can move on another the glaring problem with your math.
- The likelihood of your existence, being the same as the likelihood of your body's existence, might be a small number, but it is certainly not something over infinity. Now, whatever number we want to assign to it, you need to address the fact that the scientific model only has that number. (We'll call it B.)

- Your model includes B, plus a soul (however unlikely that is, we'll call that S), plus a means of having the soul control your brain (we'll call that C).

- B+S+C is always going to be larger than B alone. There is no getting around it: your model is far less likely than the scientific model.

 

[jsfisher]

Jabba, is this right:

I show you a bullet hole on the side of a barn. I draw a bulls-eye around it to emphasize its location. Now, since there are virtually an infinite number of places the bullet could have created that bullet hole on that side of the barn, the likelihood of it being where it actually is would be virtually zero.

Therefore, the scientific model of the bullet once fired must go somewhere, BOFMgs, is far less likely than the alternate hypothesis, the bullet has a soul.

 

[JoeMorgue]

- Nothing is possible that doesn't happen. In that sense, there is no such thing as potential. If my parents hadn't had intercourse MY day, I would NEVER be here. Something is either going to happen, or it isn't. In neither case is it potential. If something doesn't happen, it was impossible (for some reason). In the case of Cleopatra and myself, there were NUMEROUS reasons -- but, that's the case for most everything that doesn't happen...

You see Jabba this is the problem. You say stuff like this... and then you keep arguing. You fringe reset or subdivide the argument again.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

It's not a problem, it's a feature of effective debate

 

[Dancing David]

Jabba, is this right:

I show you a bullet hole on the side of a barn. I draw a bulls-eye around it to emphasize its location. Now, since there are virtually an infinite number of places the bullet could have created that bullet hole on that side of the barn, the likelihood of it being where it actually is would be virtually zero.

Therefore, the scientific model of the bullet once fired must go somewhere, BOFMgs, is far less likely than the alternate hypothesis, the bullet has a soul.

Bingo!

 

[Jabba]

If that's the case, we can drop the whole idea of potential selves from the calculation, since the only things that were possible were the things that happened.

Dave,
- I'm claiming that in your model, there is no such thing as a potential self. If one of my sperm cells and one of Cleopatra's eggs don't count as a potential self, then neither do the sperm cell that produced me and the egg that produced my sister count as a potential self -- or even, would the egg that produced me and a different sperm cell from the same batch of sperm cells that produced me count as a potential self. Where do you draw the line?
- I'm claiming that the egg that produced me and a different sperm cell from the same batch that produced me do represent a different potential person, a different potential self -- and if so, it doesn't make sense to claim that the sperm cell that produced me and the egg that produced Cleopatra don't count as a different, potential person, a different potential self.

 

[JayUtah]

I'm claiming that in your model, there is no such thing as a potential self.

Correct; there is no "potential self" under H. But your Big Denominator for estimating P(E|H) is the number of "potential selves" under H that you now concede does not exist. Hence you have no basis for your estimate that P(E|H) must necessarily be very small. Therefore your proof fails.

I'm claiming that the egg that produced me and a different sperm cell from the same batch that produced me do represent a different potential person, a different potential self...

No, you can't have your cake and eat it too. "Potential self" is not a concept under H in any form. The same egg hypothetically fertilized by a different sperm would produce a different organism owing to its different genetic makeup. But that doesn't set up or justify your insinuation that there's some countable pool of "potential selves" and that one sperm wins the lottery and another doesn't. You're trying to tack your personal beliefs onto H. You are scientifically wrong to do so because your notion of "potentiality" is simply not part of the model; you don't get to tack unnecessary things onto it simply so you can use those additions to disprove it (straw man). You are mathematically wrong to do so because if there's an infinite pool of "potential" anythings, then no example of anything stands a chance of existence under your model unless it has a soul. But things clearly do exist without souls, so your proof fails there too (reductio ad absurdum).

...potential person, a different potential self.

None of this "potential" nonsense has the slightest bit of meaning under H. You conceded there was no "potential self," but now -- true to form -- you're trying to gingerly undo that concession because apparently you've realized it's absolutely essential to the latest incarnation of your proof.

Shame on you, Jabba. When you are proven wrong and concede, don't just try to commit the same error using different words. Your critics see right through that. You conceded your major premise yesterday. It's over.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- I'm claiming that in your model, there is no such thing as a potential self. If one of my sperm cells and one of Cleopatra's eggs don't count as a potential self, then neither do the sperm cell that produced me and the egg that produced my sister count as a potential self -- or even, would the egg that produced me and a different sperm cell from the same batch of sperm cells that produced me count as a potential self. Where do you draw the line?

I would draw the line at scenarios that don't involve time travel or violate causality.

- I'm claiming that the egg that produced me and a different sperm cell from the same batch that produced me do represent a different potential person, a different potential self -- and if so, it doesn't make sense to claim that the sperm cell that produced me and the egg that produced Cleopatra don't count as a different, potential person, a different potential self.

You seriously don't see the difference between those two scenarios?

 

[abaddon]

Dave,
- I'm claiming that in your model, there is no such thing as a potential self. If one of my sperm cells and one of Cleopatra's eggs don't count as a potential self, then neither do the sperm cell that produced me and the egg that produced my sister count as a potential self -- or even, would the egg that produced me and a different sperm cell from the same batch of sperm cells that produced me count as a potential self. Where do you draw the line?

Kindly describe how exactly one of your sperm cells could in any way meet up with one of Cleopatra's ova. Bet you can't. Therefore it follows that this is impossible. Therefore it follows that a Jabba/Cleo union is not a potential self in any way. Not even a Jabba dad/Cleo union is possible by any stretch of the imagination.

Given that we can clearly see that most unions are not possible, your claim of an infinite number of possible selves must be false. An infinite number of selves must perforce include ALL possible selves. If even one Possible self can be excluded, then your proposed infinite set of selves cannot exist. We can demonstrate that the you/Cleo progeny cannot exist. Ergo, your proposed infinite number of selves must be false. It isn't rocket magic.

- I'm claiming that the egg that produced me and a different sperm cell from the same batch that produced me do represent a different potential person, a different potential self -- and if so, it doesn't make sense to claim that the sperm cell that produced me and the egg that produced Cleopatra don't count as a different, potential person, a different potential self.

They don't. Can you mate with Cleo? Of course not. If some possibilities are eliminated straight out of the box, you have a finite set. You are straight away eliminating all of the women that you have not had sex with over the course of 2 million years or so.

All you have is your lifetime record of ejaculations and whatever partners ova. Not infinity. Nowhere near it.

Now, in all fairness, You could, of course, prove me wrong by seducing Cleo and producing a progeny. Somehow, that seems unlikely.

 

[Mojo]

Jabba, the human genome has a finite number of base pairs. There are therefore a finite number of possible combinations.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Jabba, the human genome has a finite number of base pairs. There are therefore a finite number of possible combinations.

And that number is far smaller than you might think, because most of the base pairs are identical for all humans. The number that might vary from individual to individual is only a few per cent.

Jabba, your argument has now failed on ALL angles, including a few you did not imagine. Now: Give up.

Hans

 

[Jabba]

Dave,
- That sounds right, but not under the circumstances we're talking about...
- Nothing is possible that doesn't happen. In that sense, there is no such thing as potential. If my parents hadn't had intercourse MY day, I would NEVER be here. Something is either going to happen, or it isn't. In neither case is it potential. If something doesn't happen, it was impossible (for some reason). In the case of Cleopatra and myself, there were NUMEROUS reasons -- but, that's the case for most everything that doesn't happen...

If that's the case, we can drop the whole idea of potential selves from the calculation, since the only things that were possible were the things that happened.

Dave,
- I'm claiming that in your model, there is no such thing as a potential self. If one of my sperm cells and one of Cleopatra's eggs don't count as a potential self, then neither do the sperm cell that produced me and the egg that produced my sister count as a potential self -- or even, would the egg that produced me and a different sperm cell from the same batch of sperm cells that produced me count as a potential self. Where do you draw the line?
- I'm claiming that the egg that produced me and a different sperm cell from the same batch that produced me do represent a different potential person, a different potential self -- and if so, it doesn't make sense to claim that the sperm cell that produced me and the egg that produced Cleopatra don't count as a different, potential person, a different potential self.

I would draw the line at scenarios that don't involve time travel or violate causality.

Dave,
- They all violate causality.

You seriously don't see the difference between those two scenarios?

- No. If the egg that produced me and a different sperm cell from the same batch that produced me did get together instead, causality would be violated. If the two germ cells that did produce me did get together but produced someone else, causality would again be violated.

 

[Jabba]

Jabba, the human genome has a finite number of base pairs. There are therefore a finite number of possible combinations.

Mojo,
- If we reproduced your exact set of base pairs, would we reincarnate you?

 

[JayUtah]

If we reproduced your exact set of base pairs, would we reincarnate you?

No. There would just be a duplicate organism. Do you understand twinning?

 

[abaddon]

Mojo,
- If we reproduced your exact set of base pairs, would we reincarnate you?

No. It is bizarre that you might even suggest such a thing.