Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

[Jabba]

You realize this would apply to literally everything else in existence, right?

What does the number of potential things over all time have to do with the likelihood of any particular thing existing?

Dave,
- My claim is that if there is an infinity of potential selves, the likelihood of the current existence of your particular self (given OOFLam) is virtually zero. I know you don't agree with that -- but, that's what I'll try to show next.

 

[JayUtah]

I think that all I need for advancing my argument at this particular juncture (at this particular premise) is your agreement...

And you don't have that agreement. Therefore your argument does not progress; it fails. See how that works? That's called effective debate. You fail at the outset to establish your premise and the debate is over. That's how debates finish in finite time instead of being dragged on for years simply because you won't listen.

...different between the original and the copy.

Under the scientific hypothesis there is no difference. No amount of "pretty-please" on your part changes that. You must accept the scientific hypothesis as it is actually formulated, not as you desperately wish it to be.

...allow for the infinity of different potential whatevers that I'm claiming.

Asked and answered. Specifically, rebutted by reductio ad absurdum. Since the "divided by potential whatevers" must therefore hold for all "whatevers," (including bananas and Volkswagens), then with that as a divisor nothing has a chance of existing under your model. Therefore your model fails because reality contradicts it. You said you didn't really understand the model you were trying to use. When shall we expect you to start paying attention to those who do?

But anyway, can we settle on a name for this particular whatever I'm trying to address?

A soul. There's no use pretending that what you're trying to attach to the scientific hypothesis is anything else. But in trying to talk about what to call it, you're pushing rather clumsily past the need to prove it actually exists.

Begging the question.

 

[JayUtah]

My claim is that if there is an infinity of potential selves, the likelihood of the current existence of your particular self (given OOFLam) is virtually zero.

No, it is zero under that model. That's why the model is wrong, because things visibly exist despite a supposed infinite number of "potential" things.

I know you don't agree with that -- but, that's what I'll try to show next.

It's not a matter of agreement, Jabba. Your model is clearly wrong.

 

[jond]

Dave,
- My claim is that if there is an infinity of potential selves, the likelihood of the current existence of your particular self (given OOFLam) is virtually zero. I know you don't agree with that -- but, that's what I'll try to show next.

And you make this claim despite all the times it's been shown to be incorrect, and you ignore every single one of them. Is that because you know it destroys your argument? I suspect it is.

 

[The Sparrow]

Why would someone interested in effective debate move on to their second premise while not having successfully established the first?

 

[JayUtah]

Why would someone interested in effective debate move on to their second premise while not having successfully established the first?

Indeed, debate can be said to be most effective when it arrives at a defensible conclusion with economy of effort. If the major premise to some line of reasoning is wrong out of the gate, then there is no point surmising whether the rest of the line of reasoning is sound. The premise fails, the argument fails, and we're done. That's effective debate.

Trying to gloss over glaring failures to explore the rest of a theory seems to me more aimed at currying approval. Someone who's proud of the theory he has concocted wants some sort of credit for it, even if it's wrong. He figures the effort alone to produce it ought to be worth something. I asked Jabba why, if it were possible to prove immortality in an objective fashion, has no one in the history of philosophy managed to do it yet. He answered to the effect that no one previously in history had managed to consider it in terms of a likelihood ratio -- that whole "seven billion over infinity" nonsense. First, that's just factually wrong. The whole "you are a statistical miracle" thing is a factoid that's been around at least since Monty Python, and can be found in dozens of infographics that appeal to the mystics. Jabba didn't invent it. But in the final analysis it's not about proving mathematically that there exists an immortal soul. it's about proving how clever the claimant is. Or appearing to prove it. If he's wrong he doesn't get to seem so clever. So we'll just gloss over the parts that are wrong and move on to the clever bits.

 

[JayUtah]

That difference is one of the premises necessary to allow for the infinity of different potential whatevers that I'm claiming.

Yes, Jabba, you've explicitly said several times that your argument depends on there being a Big Denominator. But instead of trying to find out what the denominator actually is, you've taken the approach of assuming it must necessarily be a big one and inventing a string of nonsense to backfill as a purported explanation. The criteria by which you select your "explanation" is that it produce that Big Denominator, not that it has any bearing on reality. It doesn't even enter your thinking that the denominator might be small. Therefore it doesn't enter your thinking that you might be wrong.

You brazenly beg the question. And you can be so brazen because you obviously don't care whether you're wrong or right. Therefore my question still stands: what reason can you give for a thinking person to pay you the slightest attention?

 

[jsfisher]

I would disagree. A copy would be the result of some copying process. Technically, the original pre-existed the copying process, whereas the copy was the output of process. They would not occupy the same space even during the copying process, so by observing that, you would be able to tell them apart.

Not that this has any relevance for Jabba's argument.

Hans

I was thinking too much about the replication being via the Jabba Replicator^TM where one Jabba enters, then two Jabbas leave. No one observes the process, itself, not even the Jabbas If a true exact copy were made, there would be no way to distinguish the two that exit.

More to the point, neither version would know if it were the original.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Dave,
- My claim is that if there is an infinity of potential selves, the likelihood of the current existence of your particular self (given OOFLam) is virtually zero. I know you don't agree with that -- but, that's what I'll try to show next.

Jabba (oh, I know you will ignore my post, but it will still be here for the record): You cannot make claims on behalf on the materialistic model (what you insist on calling OOFLam). That model is the one of your opposition, and in that there is no such thing as potential selves.

I can only suggest that the every post you make with this claim be answered simply with "no."

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

I was thinking too much about the replication being via the Jabba Replicator^TM where one Jabba enters, then two Jabbas leave. No one observes the process, itself, not even the Jabbas If a true exact copy were made, there would be no way to distinguish the two that exit.

More to the point, neither version would know if it were the original.

Under that premise, you are right.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Dave,
- My claim is that if there is an infinity of potential selves, the likelihood of the current existence of your particular self (given OOFLam) is virtually zero. I know you don't agree with that -- but, that's what I'll try to show next.

Your allegation about an infinity of potential selves is wrong. And it is irrelevant: The potential number of lottery players does not change your chance of winning, only those that actually play.

Get over it.

Hans

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- My claim is that if there is an infinity of potential selves, the likelihood of the current existence of your particular self (given OOFLam) is virtually zero.

I wasn't asking you to repeat your claim, I was asking you to support it.

 

[Loss Leader]

- But anyway, can we settle on a name for this particular whatever I'm trying to address?

Jabba, stop begging for agreement. First of all, it isn't even close to logic. Second, it's humiliating for you. Third, it's rude to those conversing with you.

 

[JimOfAllTrades]

Dave,
- My claim is that if there is an infinity of potential selves, the likelihood of the current existence of your particular self (given OOFLam) is virtually zero. I know you don't agree with that -- but, that's what I'll try to show next.

There is no such thing as a potential self under the scientific theory most widely held. In that theory the self is process that that is developed and continually changed by a normally functioning and maturing human brain. The likelihood of a "self" process occurring in that instance is essentially 100%, and the likelihood of that "self" finding that it does in fact exist when it thinks about it is also essentially 100%.

Your probability is wrong because you misstate the very nature of the circumstance for which you're trying to "calculate" a probability.

 

[jond]

There is no such thing as a potential self under the scientific theory most widely held. In that theory the self is process that that is developed and continually changed by a normally functioning and maturing human brain. The likelihood of a "self" process occurring in that instance is essentially 100%, and the likelihood of that "self" finding that it does in fact exist when it thinks about it is also essentially 100%.

Your probability is wrong because you misstate the very nature of the circumstance for which you're trying to "calculate" a probability.

Quoted in the absurdly optimistic hope that Jabba will, for once, address the glaringly obvious flaw in his "theory".

 

[Jabba]

You realize this would apply to literally everything else in existence, right?
What does the number of potential things over all time have to do with the likelihood of any particular thing existing?

Dave,
- My claim is that if there is an infinity of potential selves, the likelihood of the current existence of your particular self (given OOFLam) is virtually zero. I know you don't agree with that -- but, that's what I'll try to show next.

I wasn't asking you to repeat your claim, I was asking you to support it.

Dave,
- I was trying to explain what I thought that the number of potential things over all time has to do with the likelihood of any particular thing existing at a particular time. I.e., if there is an infinity of potential selves, the likelihood of the current existence of your particular self (given OOFLam) is virtually zero. I.e., the (or at least a) basic answer to your question.
- I now need to explain why I make that claim.

- If there is an infinity of potential selves, but only 7 billion existing selves, the likelihood that your particular self would be currently existing (given OOFLam) would be 7 billion over infinity.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I was trying to explain what I thought that the number of potential things over all time has to do with the likelihood of any particular thing existing at a particular time. I.e., if there is an infinity of potential selves, the likelihood of the current existence of your particular self (given OOFLam) is virtually zero. I.e., the (or at least a) basic answer to your question.

STOP RESTATING THE SAME THING

- I now need to explain why I make that claim.

You needed to explain this 5 years ago. You didn't then and you won't now.

If there is an infinity of potential selves, but only 7 billion existing selves, the likelihood that your particular self would be currently existing (given OOFLam) would be 7 billion over infinity.

THERE ISN'T ANY EVERLOVING THING AS A "POTENTIAL SELF"

 

[godless dave]

- If there is an infinity of potential selves, but only 7 billion existing selves, the likelihood that your particular self would be currently existing (given OOFLam) would be 7 billion over infinity.

Why?

 

[Loss Leader]

Why?

1. Because Jabba thinks infinity is a number

2. Because Jabba doesn't understand limits or finite sets

3. Because Jabba needs infinity to make his calculations work

4. Because Jabba hasn't been able to show there is any other possible explanation for human existence and is hoping sending one side to zero gets him out of that.

5. Because Jabba is pretending this hasn't been answered dozens of times already.

As always, choose the answer that offends you least.

 

[The Sparrow]

....
- If there is an infinity of potential selves, but only 7 billion existing selves, the likelihood that your particular self would be currently existing (given OOFLam) would be 7 billion over infinity.

Same for bananas.
It has been about 400 posts since this was last raised. Are you going to explain how it is possible for any given banana to exist?