Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
Dave,
- I'm trying to find out if you agree with my infinity claim. (I suppose I should have been more direct.) I don't think that you do -- but, I'm not sure.
Click to expand...

godless dave said:
I do not.
Click to expand...
- So Dave, you agree that the likelihood of your current existence is extremely small -- just not something over infinity.
- In addition, you think that the unlikelihood of your current existence is no more meaningful than the unlikelihood of Mt Rainier -- i.e. you and Mt Rainier, and countless other unlikely events, do not make for valid 'targets.'
- I can't remember your other disagreements.
 
Jabba said:
- So Dave, you agree that the likelihood of your current existence is extremely small -- just not something over infinity.
- In addition, you think that the unlikelihood of your current existence is no more meaningful than the unlikelihood of Mt Rainier -- i.e. you and Mt Rainier, and countless other unlikely events, do not make for valid 'targets.'
- I can't remember your other disagreements.
Click to expand...

I don't believe in souls. When you describe H as the scientific model for consciousness, I take that to mean the actual scientific model - that consciousness, self-awareness, a sense of self, and the ability to have subjective experiences are all things a physical brain does.

I don't think the number of "potential selves" is relevant to the likelihood of a particular self occurring.
 
Jabba said:
- So Dave, you agree that the likelihood of your current existence is extremely small -- just not something over infinity.
Click to expand...

He has answered this question many times. His answer is that your "computed" likelihood of his current existence has absolutely nothing to do with the actual likelihood of his existence. It is the same argument he's made for months, and the same argument we've all made. To make the formula you don't understand work for what you think it will give you, you need the likelihood of existence without a soul to be a very small number. Toward that end, you've concocted the pretense of a computation to get you that very small number, and pretended it has some basis in mathematics.

Now that you've finally figured out you can't divide by infinity and get anything other than zero, you're trying to trick Dave and others into simply admitting that the likelihood of their existence is very small, for the benefit of your formula, without even the pretense of an argument. You tried to roll everything back to the Big Bang and argue likelihoods there. But you can't seem to let go of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

In addition, you think that the unlikelihood of your current existence is no more meaningful than the unlikelihood of Mt Rainier -- i.e. you and Mt Rainier, and countless other unlikely events, do not make for valid 'targets.'
Click to expand...

Both my existence and that of Mt Ranier, as presently constituted, are the products of complex and chaotic processes that, over millions of years, have the ability to produce countless possible outcomes. Picking one of them -- the present -- and arguing that it's colossally improbable for that one outcome to have occurred, does absolutely nothing to affect the fact that it did occur. You want probability to be something it isn't.

I can't remember your other disagreements.
Click to expand...

Of course you can, but Befuddled Old Man is the only card you seem capable of playing right now. But in any case, if you can't remember his disagreements they're conveniently recorded in this thread that you admit you do not read in its entirety. You should correct that defect by reading the thread.

Can you commit to taking personal responsibility for your past laziness and stop requiring people to repeat things to you over and over again as they would for a toddler? Can you resolve to pay attention to the contributions of people who are voluntarily trying to educate you? Can you promise to mount an argument that's less insulting that just frantically begging people to agree with you?
 
Jabba said:
jabba said:
Dave,
- I'm trying to find out if you agree with my infinity claim. (I suppose I should have been more direct.) I don't think that you do -- but, I'm not sure.
godless dave said:
I do not.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

- So Dave, you agree that the likelihood of your current existence is extremely small -- just not something over infinity.
Click to expand...

That doesn't follow at all.

How about you STOP trying to get us to agree to anything and instead either make a case or admit that you're wrong?
 
Hokulele said:
You agree that a number divided by infinity is something other than zero?

Wow...
Click to expand...

Well, actually you can't know the value of infinity so while you could say that x/infinity tends toward zero it isn't necessarily zero. It's undefined, best as I can tell. I know someone posted something about a different take on it but I can't be bothered with it.
 
Jabba said:
- So Dave, you agree that the likelihood of your current existence is extremely small -- just not something over infinity.
- In addition, you think that the unlikelihood of your current existence is no more meaningful than the unlikelihood of Mt Rainier -- i.e. you and Mt Rainier, and countless other unlikely events, do not make for valid 'targets.'
- I can't remember your other disagreements.
Click to expand...

They have this new invention. It's called an internet message board. Messages can be stored and retrieved at will. YOU SHOUD TRY IT SOME TIME!
 
Argumemnon said:
No it isn't. Infinity's not an actual number.
Click to expand...

It doesn't have to be in order for the result of division of a non-zero real number by infinity to be defined as zero for certain useful purposes.

How can it be zero by definition? How can any division ever result in a zero number?
Click to expand...

Because that's how definition works in mathematics. The behavior of any operator can be arbitrarily defined relative to any concept, and can vary according to special cases. Of course the value of any algebra that uses those operators depends heavily on consistency and cogency of the definitions, so it's not like it's a free-for-all. For calculus -- which depends heavily on the previously unknown concept of limits -- we can say there's a special case for dividing real numbers. This lets us consistently accommodate certain other things we want to do in calculus and which make calculus useful in situations where we would otherwise be stymied by the lack of that definition. It's the same reason we "arbitrarily" define x0 = 1 where x is a positive real number. There's nothing inherent about exponentiation that requires this other than its behavior in the limit. But it makes certain algebras consistent that involve exponentiation. In essence, for these one-off definitions, we're saying "The results of this operation do not exist as real numbers, but if they did that real number would be this." The ability to hold such contradictions consistently in their heads are why mathematicians are such fun at parties. :D

But rest assured, just because some mathematical contexts define the results of dividing by infinity for certain purposes doesn't mean Jabba's using the concept correctly.
 
JayUtah said:
The ability to hold such contradictions consistently in their heads are why mathematicians are such fun at parties.
Click to expand...

That might be why I have such a hard time with the idea, since I hate contradictions.

But rest assured, just because some mathematical contexts define the results of dividing by infinity for certain purposes doesn't mean Jabba's using the concept correctly.
Click to expand...

Oh, there was never a doubt. At this point if Jabba claimed that the sky was blue I'd laugh it off as crazy talk.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom