Proof of Immortality, the IV league

[The Sparrow]

Zoo,

- But, isn't there a finite number of DNA possibilities that will produce a human?

Maybe. So what. The emergent property of "self" depends on both genetic and environmental factors. That's one of the reasons twins have different personalities.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Zoo,
- I assume you're right. I thought I knew what I was talking about.
- But, isn't there a finite number of DNA possibilities that will produce a human?

Weren't you just recently trying to argue that under OOFLam, the potential selves were infinite, and thus OOFLam had to be false?

Could you please make up your mind about what you are arguing?

Hans

 

[zooterkin]

- But, isn't there a finite number of DNA possibilities that will produce a human?

Ooh, I don't know; I've an idea someone might have said something about that recently. Oh, yes, here it is:

Even if you take every possible DNA sequence that would produce a recognisable human, regardless of whether the gametes that would give rise to them were available at the same time, what you would have would be a very large number, it would not be infinity.

Even if you then multiply by the environmental factors that might affect development (explaining why twins are different individuals, for example), you have an even bigger number, which is still not infinity.

The self is an emergent property (could you favour us with your understanding of that term, please, Jabba?) of a functioning human brain. It is not a thing, but a property of a thing.

So, anyway, what are the implications of the number of possible DNA combinations that would be human being finite?

 

[JayUtah]

But that's my point. There is a finite number of base human pairs, but there is not a finite number of selves (or senses of selves).

There is no sense of self until a set of base pairs meets another one. There is no pool of them waiting to win the lottery. You still don't get what it means to be a property or a process. You still think it's a "thing." There is no such "thing" under H, so stop trying to make it happen.

 

[jond]

There is no sense of self until a set of base pairs meets another one. There is no pool of them waiting to win the lottery. You still don't get what it means to be a property or a process. You still think it's a "thing." There is no such "thing" under H, so stop trying to make it happen.

Indeed, there is no sense of self until the child's brain develops sufficiently for the sense of self to emerge.

 

[JayUtah]

But, isn't there a finite number of DNA possibilities that will produce a human?

Twins, Jabba. You still haven't figured that out. I can take Mommy's set of base pairs and Daddy's set of base pairs, combine them to extract the same Timmy set of base pairs, and I can do that as many times as I want and each Timmy will be an exact biological duplicate of his siblings and each would have its own sense of self. That's because a sense of self is a property of the organism, and so there are ever only as many manifestations of the sense of self as there are organisms presently living. It's a process (or the product of a process) that lasts Timmy's whole life.

Under the scientific hypothesis H there is no pool of souls waiting to win the lottery and inhabit a physical organism. That's the religious concept you believe in, and which you're desperately (and increasingly ham-fistedly) trying to foist onto the scientific hypothesis in a different guise. Zooterkin is right: you need to get it into your head that consciousness works entirely differently in the scientific hypothesis than it does in religion

 

[Sideroxylon]

How many years has that point been made for? No sound of pennys dropping.

 

[John Jones]

Dave,
- Do you accept that determinism might be true?

Jabba,
- Are you attempting to put words in another person's mouth again?

- I'll be back.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- But that's my point. There is a finite number of base human pairs, but there is not a finite number of selves (or senses of selves).

There are only infinite possible selves if you allow duplicates and if you have infinite matter and time.

Think of it like this: there are a finite number of banana bread recipes, and if you had infinite ingredients you could make an infinite number of loaves of banana bread using those recipes.

Of course none of this matters because at any given time there are only a finite number of possible selves.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- Do you accept that determinism might be true?

I'm pretty confident it is but that doesn't matter. Probability is about predicting possible outcomes before they happen. Only one of them will happen, but we use probability when we don't have enough information to know for sure what the outcome will be.

 

[Loss Leader]

Dave,
- But that's my point. There is a finite number of base human pairs, but there is not a finite number of selves (or senses of selves).

Jabba, how many "going 60 mph" are there?

How many "adding sugar to the cake mix" are there?

A process is not a thing. It cannot be counted.

 

[godless dave]

When did you establish this?

He didn't.

 

[Mojo]

So what.

^ This.

 

[The Sparrow]

^ This.

I'm here all week.

 

[Jabba]

There are only infinite possible selves if you allow duplicates and if you have infinite matter and time.

Think of it like this: there are a finite number of banana bread recipes, and if you had infinite ingredients you could make an infinite number of loaves of banana bread using those recipes.

Of course none of this matters because at any given time there are only a finite number of possible selves.

Dave,
- I would agree with you about "possible" selves (that the only way to have an infinity of possible selves, would be to have the possibility of duplicate organisms and to have infinite time (though, we shouldn't need infinite matter, as we should be able to recycle).
- Though, I would disagree with you about "potential" selves -- and, I'm pretty sure that it's potential selves that should count in this case. Again, 1) wouldn't you say that all combinations of viable sperm and ovum of the same species would produce new organisms, if somehow brought together (perhaps, by freezing over time)? And, 2) wouldn't such potential combinations represent potential organisms? And 3), wouldn't they be left out if they were not brought together?
- And then, scientifically speaking, it's difficult postulating there being only finite time, or one finite universe or even a finite set of finite universes?

- I'll be back.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- I would agree with you about "possible" selves (that the only way to have an infinity of possible selves, would be to have the possibility of duplicate organisms and to have infinite time (though, we shouldn't need infinite matter, as we should be able to recycle).
- Though, I would disagree with you about "potential" selves -- and, I'm pretty sure that it's potential selves that should count in this case. Again, 1) wouldn't you say that all combinations of viable sperm and ovum of the same species would produce new organisms, if somehow brought together (perhaps, by freezing over time)? And, 2) wouldn't such potential combinations represent potential organisms? And 3), wouldn't they be left out if they were not brought together?
- And then, scientifically speaking, it's difficult postulating there being only finite time, or one finite universe or even a finite set of finite universes?

There are numerous problems with this but it didn't even address my post.

You are saying it's a contradiction to have a finite number of potential human DNA sequences but an infinite number of potential human selves. It's not, because you could have multiple identical (at conception) humans from one human DNA sequence.

Just as you could theoretically make an infinite number of identical loaves of banana bread from the same recipe.

 

[JayUtah]

Though, I would disagree with you about "potential" selves -- and, I'm pretty sure that it's potential selves that should count in this case.

You can only be "pretty sure" about that if you've ignored practically everything that's been said to you on the subject. Which, in fact, you have. There is no countable set of "potential" selves in the scientific hypothesis H that compete for a chance to actually exist. There is no lottery to win. There is no countably infinite set. There is no Big Denominator. If "potential existence" in all its infinite glory were actually a thing that let you reliably reason about the probability of any particular thing actually existing, then no actual thing would have a non-zero probability of existing. But things do, in fact, exist. Therefore this cannot be a valid way of reasoning about the probability of something existing. If your proof says it's impossible, but it exists anyway, then it's your proof that's broken. There's no argument about that. That's how that type of refutation works.

And then, scientifically speaking, it's difficult postulating there being only finite time, or one finite universe or even a finite set of finite universes?

That's more philosophy than science, but if we stipulate that there can be infinite time and infinite universes, then Loss Leader (or maybe it was jsfisher) has already soundly refuted your proof along that lines. Intead of P(E|H) being a real number over infinity, it becomes infinity over infinity. And no, you can't argue mathematically that that's a tiny number.

So once again we have a whole day of your argumentation go by without advancing the discussion a single iota. You've simply repeated two claims that have already been refuted numerous times. This is not "effective debate."

 

[JayUtah]

There are numerous problems with this...

Let's mention the obvious one, which is an all-too-typical attempt to split linguistic hairs. There's no material difference between "possible" and "potential." In their plain meanings they are functionally identical words, and Jabba doesn't appeal to any putative nuance to make his point. I suppose he's just trying, as usual, to keep his language vague and circumspect so he doesn't get pinned down.

You are saying it's a contradiction to have a finite number of possible human DNA sequences but an infinite number of possible human selves. It's not, because you could have multiple identical (at conception) humans from one human DNA sequence.

Jabba has been hung up on "the chemistry" straw man for weeks now. The way biology works, replicating the same DNA sequence in perpetuity doesn't work. But in theory there's nothing preventing the same DNA sequence from generating the same organism out of the same recycled matter for as long as the contraption that does this continues to function. This doesn't result in reincarnation, or any of the other mystical foolishness Jabba is trying to paste into the scientific model of self.

 

[Loss Leader]

- Though, I would disagree with you about "potential" selves -- and, I'm pretty sure that it's potential selves that should count in this case. Again, 1) wouldn't you say that all combinations of viable sperm and ovum of the same species would produce new organisms, if somehow brought together (perhaps, by freezing over time)? And, 2) wouldn't such potential combinations represent potential organisms? And 3), wouldn't they be left out if they were not brought together?

Jabba, all of this is gibberish and, in any case, entirely beside the point. "Selves," either actual or potential, cannot be counted. They are processes.

How many potential "going 60 MPH" are there?

You have never answered this question. You have never even pretended to address it and then refused to. You just keep ignoring it. But that won't change the fact that non-things cannot be counted.

 

[The Sparrow]

Jabba, all of this is gibberish and, in any case, entirely beside the point. "Selves," either actual or potential, cannot be counted. They are processes.

How many potential "going 60 MPH" are there?

You have never answered this question. You have never even pretended to address it and then refused to. You just keep ignoring it. But that won't change the fact that non-things cannot be counted.

Agreed. Might I suggest we all hold off on responding to any other side branch that is raised until this particular one is answered?