Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
CriticalThanking said:
Back in my number theory days (many decades ago), I got my hand slapped for making a similar analogy and using the word "smaller". It was "imprecise". You can map the primes onto the integers 1:1. Yes, there are integers that are not primes, but IIRC they are considered the same "class" of infinity because of the mapping. For the record, I still think of it the same way as you describe.

None of the above should be construed as exempting Jabba from his need to read the thread, pay attention to his critics, and stop manufacturing "agreement" out of whole cloth.

CT
Click to expand...

Smaller, whatever. There are fewer primes than integers, ... Uhm, OK, the interval between primes is larger than between integers. ... The number of primes is different than the number of integers, but they are both infinite.

Seriously, though: The infinite set of primes is a subset of the infinite set of integers.

As for Jabba's math, it is totally bunk. Consider:

What is the probability of the exact instance of you?

Does it depend on the number of humans currently in existence (Jabba's denominator)? No, unless you happen to be Chinese, the number of people in China is of no consequence for your existence.

Does it depend on the number of potential people (Jabba's enumerator)? Of course not. Just as your chances of winning a lottery does not depend on how many people didn't buy a ticket, the number of people who weren't born is irrelevant.

The predictability of your existence at most depends on those who were your actual ancestors.

Hans
 
Even if the chance of one's existence is very, very small in the scientific model, in order to compare it to any other explanation we would need evidence that this explanation is at least possible. There is no evidence immateriality is possible.

Also, even if H is the scientific model of the universe, ~H isn't immortality. It's just anything other than H. There's no way to figure out the chance that immortality is the most likely ~H.

Last, the clockwork universe has to be included in either H or ~H. If we like in a universe that was predetermined by its starting conditions, the chance of any person who exists actually doing so is 1. On the H side of the equation, that makes the chance of one's existence at best unknowable. On the ~H side, it makes the distinction between either immortality or determinism unknowable.


I just mention these things because we've gone a while without stating them. I don't want Jabba to think he might crack things by getting anyone to admit that the chance of existing under H is really, really small.
 
Loss Leader said:
Even if the chance of one's existence is very, very small in the scientific model, in order to compare it to any other explanation we would need evidence that this explanation is at least possible. There is no evidence immateriality is possible.

Also, even if H is the scientific model of the universe, ~H isn't immortality. It's just anything other than H. There's no way to figure out the chance that immortality is the most likely ~H.

Last, the clockwork universe has to be included in either H or ~H. If we like in a universe that was predetermined by its starting conditions, the chance of any person who exists actually doing so is 1. On the H side of the equation, that makes the chance of one's existence at best unknowable. On the ~H side, it makes the distinction between either immortality or determinism unknowable.


I just mention these things because we've gone a while without stating them. I don't want Jabba to think he might crack things by getting anyone to admit that the chance of existing under H is really, really small.
Click to expand...


He's failed to provide any reason to think that his body's existence is any more likely if he is immortal than it is if he is mortal.
 
Loss Leader said:
...evidence that this explanation is at least possible. There is no evidence immateriality is possible.
Click to expand...

In Jabba's nomenclature, we have no reason to accept that Jabba's proffered alternative is reasonable, or even remotely possible. His gambit is to so degrade belief in the scientific hypothesis that anything will seem reasonable in contrast, even if it objectively doesn't work. This is basic fringe argumentation. Ghosts and space aliens are farfetched, but when you create the impression that mundane science cannot possibly explain some observation, then even highly farfetched scenarios can be entertained.

~H isn't immortality. It's just anything other than H.
Click to expand...

It's everything other than H, including bits that might contradict other bits. As such ~H doesn't actually exist -- can't exist -- as formulated in Jabba's model.

And Jabba knows this. He tried to pretend he wasn't listening to jt512, but deftly and silently tried to reform his model to include several alternative Hi, one of which might work. But he never managed to fit that over the false-dilemma keel on which practically all fringe argumentation is built. So he thereafter conveniently forgot jt512 had said anything about it.

I just mention these things because we've gone a while without stating them.
Click to expand...

Indeed; as I said, there is a lively side debate into which of Jabba's fatal flaws is the deadliest.
 
JayUtah said:
Sadly I need to go shopping. All the beer in my fridge right now is only potential beer. And looking at the traffic report, there's no chance I'll be going home at 60 mph.
Click to expand...
On the up side, you have an infinite amount of potential beers in your fridge. Also an infinite amount of potential bears.
 
JayUtah said:
I'm going to post my secret award-winning chili recipe to see whether Jabba is actually reading and intentionally ignoring what I say.
Click to expand...

Great idea.

I'll be posting my low-glycemic Immortal Lasagna. I'll plead and beg everyone to agree that it's the best 7 billion/infinity lasagna recipes ever!
 
MRC_Hans said:
Infinity is a concept. It is not a specific number; there are different sets of infinity.

Example: The set of all prime numbers, which is part of and smaller than the set of all integers.
Click to expand...


We are not talking about infinite sets. We are talking about the symbol `+∞`, which is defined in advanced calculus to be the upper bound of the real numbers.
 
Last edited:
jt512 said:
We are not talking about infinite sets. We are talking about the symbol `+∞`, which is defined in advanced calculus to be the upper bound of the real numbers.
Click to expand...


Is that indeed what we are talking about? Jabba hasn't made appeals to advanced calculus in support of immortality that I can recall.
 
John Jones said:
Is that indeed what we are talking about? Jabba hasn't made appeals to advanced calculus in support of immortality that I can recall.
Click to expand...


By dividing a real number by ∞ he is performing an operation in the extended real number system. He doesn't have to utter the words "advanced calculus" any more than someone taking the sine of an angle has to utter the word "trigonometry."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom