Proof of Immortality, the IV league

[jond]

Dave,
- What will physics say about that in 100 billion years

Physics won't have anything to say about that because phsyics isn't a sentient entity.

Hey, you know what else isn't an entity? The self. Or going 60 mph.

 

[theprestige]

Dave,
- What will physics say about that in 100 billion years

"How many 'researching principles of entropy' are there?"

 

[Loss Leader]

"How many 'researching principles of entropy' are there?"

There are two types of people: those who understand entropy and those who huifepwqioenj,b

 

[Monza]

Dave,
- Yes.
- To me, one's self need not be equated with soul. One's self is one's particular, personal, awareness. We are each conscious, and we each have different consciousnesses. If we were able to duplicate your body after death, your particular consciousness/awareness would not return. We would produce a different consciousness/awareness.
- In that respect, your new existence would be different -- and number of selves would not be limited by chemistry.

If we were able to duplicate your body after death, your particular body would not return. We would produce a different body. This is the meaning of duplicate.

Jabba, per your many requests the people here have consolidated their questions for you into a single agreed question. You have so far ignored this question, which seems contrary to effective debate.

How many "going 60mph" are there?

 

[John Jones]

Dave,
- What will physics say about that in 100 billion years

Jabba,

- How many processes of 'going 60 mph' are there, and what will physics say about that in 100 billion years?

 

[JayUtah]

Dave,
- What will physics say about that in 100 billion years

Nothing. Stop grasping at straws.

 

[Jabba]

Probably nothing because there will be no living things left to think about physics.

How is that relevant to anything? Even if there are an infinite number of potential selves, the number of potential anything over all time is not relevant to the likelihood of one individual thing existing at one particular time.

- But, that's one of the basic ideas underlying Bayesian statistics: the likelihood of an event occurring -- given a particular hypothesis -- has mathematical implications re the probability of the hypothesis.

 

[godless dave]

- But, that's one of the basic ideas underlying Bayesian statistics: the likelihood of an event occurring -- given a particular hypothesis -- has mathematical implications re the probability of the hypothesis.

I'm not disputing that. I'm saying the number of potential anything over all time is not relevant to the likelihood of one individual thing existing at one particular time.

 

[JayUtah]

- But, that's one of the basic ideas underlying Bayesian statistics: the likelihood of an event occurring -- given a particular hypothesis -- has mathematical implications re the probability of the hypothesis.

No, the problem isn't that your critics don't understand what Bayes offers. The problem is that you don't understand that you can't just pluck two numbers out of your orifice and claim that they have the proper relationship to form a statistical model -- Bayesian or otherwise. The number of "potential" somethings -- as you are trying to define it here -- doesn't have the slightest role in determining how likely something is to arise. Just because statistics are a valid thing doesn't mean you're doing it right.

How many professional statistics experts now have told you that you're wrong? When will it sink in that you are wrong? You seriously behave as if it's impossible for you to be wrong.

 

[Loss Leader]

- But, that's one of the basic ideas underlying Bayesian statistics: the likelihood of an event occurring -- given a particular hypothesis -- has mathematical implications re the probability of the hypothesis.

How many "going 60 mph" are there?

 

[MRC_Hans]

- But, that's one of the basic ideas underlying Bayesian statistics: the likelihood of an event occurring -- given a particular hypothesis -- has mathematical implications re the probability of the hypothesis.

The hypothesis for a human is that a human is born and undergoes a process that creates a sense of self. Not in minuscule detail how that self currently IS.

The hypothesis for throwing a bucket of sand on the ground is that it will produce a heap of sand, not the exact position of each grain of sand.

The existence of currently around seven billion humans on Earth shows that the occurrence of a human self is very far from unlikely.

The main fault in your argument (your H) is that it posits that the more common an occurrence is, the less likely it is supposed to be. Most people are able to infer that this must be false.

Hans

 

[Jabba]

- But, that's one of the basic ideas underlying Bayesian statistics: the likelihood of an event occurring -- given a particular hypothesis -- has mathematical implications re the probability of the hypothesis.

I'm not disputing that. I'm saying the number of potential anything over all time is not relevant to the likelihood of one individual thing existing at one particular time.

Dave,

- Interesting...

- Here's how I think that it's relevant.
- Say that we're having two old fashioned lotteries, where the contestants simply "cast their lots." I'm playing in both. In one lottery there are only 10 contestants, while in the other there are thousands of contestants. In which lottery is my lot more likely to be drawn?
- In the current game of life, there seems to be an infinity of contestants -- out of which, only seven billion have been drawn. My current existence is pretty unlikely.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,

- Interesting...

- Here's how I think that it's relevant.
- Say that we're having two old fashioned lotteries, where the contestants simply "cast their lots." I'm playing in both. In one lottery there are only 10 contestants, while in the other there are thousands of contestants. In which lottery is my lot more likely to be drawn?
- In the current game of life, there seems to be an infinity of contestants -- out of which, only seven billion have been drawn. My current existence is pretty unlikely.

A lottery like that is not analogous to the way human selves come to exist under H. The likelihood of a particular human self existing is based on the events that lead to its existence. It has nothing to do with selves that could have potentially existed in the past or the future, or with selves that could potentially be produced by other parents in the present.

If you strike a match, does the number of potential flames have anything to do with the likelihood of that match producing a flame? After it burns out, can it ever come back?

 

[Pixel42]

Dave,

- Interesting...

- Here's how I think that it's relevant.
- Say that we're having two old fashioned lotteries, where the contestants simply "cast their lots." I'm playing in both. In one lottery there are only 10 contestants, while in the other there are thousands of contestants. In which lottery is my lot more likely to be drawn?
- In the current game of life, there seems to be an infinity of contestants -- out of which, only seven billion have been drawn. My current existence is pretty unlikely.

Jabba the mistakes you are making have been explained to you patiently, in detail. and in the simplest possible terms, many many times. Why are you simply repeating them as if it was the first time you'd ever made them? Go back and read the responses you got any of the previous times you posted the same faulty arguments, and this time try to understand them.

 

[Hokulele]

Dave,

- Interesting...

- Here's how I think that it's relevant.
- Say that we're having two old fashioned lotteries, where the contestants simply "cast their lots." I'm playing in both. In one lottery there are only 10 contestants, while in the other there are thousands of contestants. In which lottery is my lot more likely to be drawn?
- In the current game of life, there seems to be an infinity of contestants -- out of which, only seven billion have been drawn. My current existence is pretty unlikely.

Why are you still hiding from the relevant question? How many "going 60 mph" are there? How many potential "going 60 mph" are there?

Your desperate attempts to avoid the key question aren't unnoticed.

 

[jond]

A lottery like that is not analogous to the way human selves come to exist under H. The likelihood of a particular human self existing is based on the events that lead to its existence. It has nothing to do with selves that could have potentially existed in the past or the future, or with selves that could potentially be produced by other parents in the present.

If you strike a match, does the number of potential flames have anything to do with the likelihood of that match producing a flame? After it burns out, can it ever come back?

Jabba, I know you're ignoring Loss Leader's question, but the second paragraph of Godless Dave's post is critical. Please answer it.

 

[JayUtah]

Here's how I think that it's relevant.

That particular theory of relevance has already been refuted. Don't keep bringing it up expecting different results.

Say that we're having two old fashioned lotteries...

A lottery is not the least analogous to the emergence of the self as a property of the organism under H. Your lottery analogy presumes exactly the thing you're trying to prove, which is not a factor in H. You are begging the question.

In the current game of life, there seems to be an infinity of contestants...

There aren't. Under H the self is not a thing. It doesn't exist in some "potential" form waiting to win a lottery. Under H the self comes into abstract existence as a property of an organism when and if the organism comes into existence. A property is not a countable thing.

My current existence is pretty unlikely.

That still fails the banana test. There would also be an infinite number of "potential bananas" waiting to win the Banana Lottery, meaning -- according to your model -- that the chance of the existence of the banana on my desk is zero. Yet the banana exists. If your mathematical model predicts that something cannot exist, but it does exist, your model is simply wrong.

 

[Jabba]

A lottery like that is not analogous to the way human selves come to exist under H. The likelihood of a particular human self existing is based on the events that lead to its existence. It has nothing to do with selves that could have potentially existed in the past or the future, or with selves that could potentially be produced by other parents in the present.

If you strike a match, does the number of potential flames have anything to do with the likelihood of that match producing a flame? After it burns out, can it ever come back?

Dave,
- But,
- we only know in a very general way what events led to my particular awareness,
- Bayesian probability is based upon our knowledge, or lack thereof,
- we don't think we could physically reproduce my particular awareness anyway...
- I'll have to leave it at that for now...

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- But,
- we only know in a very general way what events led to my particular awareness,

We know how humans reproduce. Those are all the events that are relevant.

- we don't think we could physically reproduce my particular awareness anyway...

That's the exact opposite of what I've said every time we've had the "duplicate" discussion.

You let the cat out of the bag with this post. You're talking about some kind of "self" that exists independently of the brain. But H does not include anything like that. You know H does not include anything like that. I don't know what you're trying to accomplish by trying to come up with a number for P(E|H) that isn't based on H.

If you strike a match, does the number of potential flames have anything to do with the likelihood of that match producing a flame? After it burns out, can it ever come back?

 

[abaddon]

Dave,
- But,
- we only know in a very general way what events led to my particular awareness,

That is not licence to insert whatever bovine material you desire. The correct response would be "we do not know". Your preferred response is "we do not know, therefore god".

- Bayesian probability is based upon our knowledge, or lack thereof,

It is not based on you pulling out values from some orifice and attempting to claim infinity.

- we don't think we could physically reproduce my particular awareness anyway...
- I'll have to leave it at that for now...

Run all you like.