Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
godless dave said:
Are you saying the likelihood of a particular Volkswagen existing is some number over infinity?...
Click to expand...

Jabba said:
- I think so. Going to dinner.
Click to expand...

- This is a complex question. It depends...
- Per usual, I'll try to take one step at a time.
- In my view, the "self" is an emergent property; a VW is not. A VW is like Mt Rainier -- a complicated combination of separate parts.
- A particular self (being an emergent property) is like a different and random vin number from an infinite set of numbers; and the likelihood that a particular self would currently exist is infinitely small.
- In order to be like a self in regard to this question, each VW would need a different, and random, vin from an infinite set of numbers.
 
Jabba said:
- This is a complex question. It depends...
- Per usual, I'll try to take one step at a time.
- In my view, the "self" is an emergent property; a VW is not. A VW is like Mt Rainier -- a complicated combination of separate parts.
- A particular self (being an emergent property) is like a different and random vin number from an infinite set of numbers; and the likelihood that a particular self would currently exist is infinitely small.
- In order to be like a self in regard to this question, each VW would need a different, and random, vin from an infinite set of numbers.
Click to expand...

And you're back to not understanding the concept of an emergent property. I asked before, the last time we went down this path, and you ignored it and ran away from considering the self to be an emergent property.

Can you give me an example of an emergent property (or process) that continues to exist after the parts that give rise to it have ceased functioning?
 
Jabba said:
- This is a complex question. It depends...
- Per usual, I'll try to take one step at a time.
- In my view, the "self" is an emergent property; a VW is not. A VW is like Mt Rainier -- a complicated combination of separate parts.
- A particular self (being an emergent property) is like a different and random vin number from an infinite set of numbers; and the likelihood that a particular self would currently exist is infinitely small.
Click to expand...

But emergent properties aren't random. Everything about the emergent property is determined by the object that produces it.

A running Volkswagen produces an engine rumble.

An identical Volkswagen would produce an identical engine rumble.

If you know the likelihood of a particular Volkswagen existing, then you know the likelihood of any emergent properties it produces.
 
Jabba said:
This is a complex question.
Click to expand...

No, it's a very simple question when stripped of your obfuscation.

In my view, the "self" is an emergent property; a VW is not. A VW is like Mt Rainier -- a complicated combination of separate parts.
Click to expand...

You're using the phrase "emergent property" as if you knew what it meant. You do not. Under the scientific hypothesis -- the H in your P(E|H) -- the sense of self is an emergent property of a functioning brain. A Volkswagen is an entity, not a property. As an entity, the VW displays properties such as "going 60 miles per hour." A mountain is an entity, not a property. As an entity, it displays properties such as "disrupts local airflow."

In some cases we may say that these properties are emergent properties of the entities, meaning that the properties are manifest only by the assembled and functioning collection of constituents, and not by any one particular component. "Moving under its own power" is an emergent property of a Volkswagen because it takes all the parts working together to manifest that property. "Sensing its own existence" is an emergent property of a human brain, which manifests when all the parts are there working properly.

A particular self (being an emergent property)...
Click to expand...

No.

An emergent property is not a thing. It is not "particular." It is not countable. You know this from having scrupulously avoided pages and pages of questions about "How many 'going 60 mph' are there?" You certainly can't have missed them, so I'm going to assume you must be aware of this flaw in your argument and are just choosing not to face up to it.

is like a different and random vin number from an infinite set of numbers...
Click to expand...

No. A VIN is an entity. "Having a VIN" is a property. Sorry, you don't get to sneak in the concept that a soul is like a VIN.

...and the likelihood that a particular self would currently exist is infinitely small.
Click to expand...

No.

And here you're just absolutely wrong, mathematically speaking. Because things exist, you know the likelihood of them existing cannot be zero. If it were actually zero, they wouldn't exist. But they do, so you're stuck. Conversely you are trying to invoke the powers of the potentially infinite in order to give you that Big Denominator. But the result of division by infinity is not "virtually zero" or "infinitely small." Division of a non-zero real number is defined as zero. If you want a very, very small quotient, then you need a very, very large -- but not infinite -- divisor.

There is no way to get out of this, Jabba. You're trying to redefine division by infinity.

In order to be like a self in regard to this question, each VW would need a different, and random, vin from an infinite set of numbers.
Click to expand...

No.

The VIN is just another constituent component of the vehicle, like a piston ring or a seat belt. One car's VIN is distinct from another, just as its piston rings are distinct. We might have to pull out the microscope to see the distinctions between piston rings, but you're trying to trump up something magical about VINs so that you can equate them to a soul. There are as many "potential" VINs as there are "potential" piston rings. A sense of self is not an entity under the scientific model. It's not like a VIN.

Even if we argue that there are infinite VINs, that doesn't affect the fact that Volkswagens clearly exist, each with an individualized expression of the VIN concept. "Has a VIN" from among infinitely many such VINs doesn't bear in the least on the likelihood that vehicles exists. And of course if you're going to say, "Has that particular VIN" is the property you're interested in, then you're back to the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. Duplicating a Volkswagen exactly would duplicate its VIN. They are distinct VINs in that each vehicle has its own copy. But they are identical VINs in that they both have the same letters and numbers. There's nothing magical about a VIN. You just have to stop using your equivocal language to talk about it.

As I said, it's a very simple question. You're making exactly the same mistakes today that you've been making for nearly five years, with absolutely no care in the world for anyone else's attempt to educate you.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
- In order to be like a self in regard to this question, each VW would need a different, and random, vin from an infinite set of numbers.
Click to expand...
Which of course, it doesn't.

It makes as much sense to think that VINs come from an infinite pool of potential VINs as it does to think that a sense of self comes from an infinite pool of potential selves.

The fact that your sense of self is an emergent property does not somehow make your ideas about infinite pool of potential selves make any more sense.

I also don't understand why the VINs would need to be random in order to make the analogy make sense. Your sense of self is not random. It's an emergent property of something very much unrandom.
 
Last edited:
In fact, in theory, Vins do come from an infinite pool of potential vins. there is no real hard restriction on how many digits a vin could have. Therefore, each particular vin's likelyhood of existing is 1 over infitinity, which is zero, therefore, according to your reasoning, vins cannot exist.

Just like bananas.

mountains.

bottle caps.

fish.

accordians.

electric sanders.

steak and kidney pies.

etc, etc.
 
Jabba said:
- This is a complex question. It depends...
- Per usual, I'll try to take one step at a time.
- In my view, the "self" is an emergent property; a VW is not. A VW is like Mt Rainier -- a complicated combination of separate parts.
- A particular self (being an emergent property) is like a different and random vin number from an infinite set of numbers; and the likelihood that a particular self would currently exist is infinitely small.
- In order to be like a self in regard to this question, each VW would need a different, and random, vin from an infinite set of numbers.
Click to expand...

Apart from all the other flaws, the idea of a win from an infinite set is also wrong.

I ask you again the question that you don't dare to answer: If you buy a lottery ticket, do "potential players" (the ones that might play, but didn't) influence your winning chances? Now, Jabba, be a man and answer the question.

Likewise, emergent properties come from some process. How do "potential processes" (ones that might, but don't, exist) influence the chance of emergent properties from existing processes?

Hans
 
JesseCuster said:
Which of course, it doesn't.
Click to expand...

Indeed, if you want to go that route then VINs are far from random and very far from being able to arise from an infinite set. There is an extremely enumerable set of compliant VINs, and an even smaller set that can be assigned to a Volkswagen. How that relates to immortal souls is anyone's guess, but I suppose we should rejoice that we now have a new irrelevant sub-sub-sub-sub-issue to keep the hamster wheel spinning (at 60 mph) for another two weeks.
 
Guys, stop with the VW theorizing. Everyone knows that only Italian sportscars have souls.
 
godless dave said:
Are you saying the likelihood of a particular Volkswagen existing is some number over infinity?...
Click to expand...

Jabba said:
- I think so. Going to dinner.
Click to expand...

Jabba said:
- This is a complex question. It depends...
- Per usual, I'll try to take one step at a time.
- In my view, the "self" is an emergent property; a VW is not. A VW is like Mt Rainier -- a complicated combination of separate parts.
- A particular self (being an emergent property) is like a different and random vin number from an infinite set of numbers; and the likelihood that a particular self would currently exist is infinitely small.
- In order to be like a self in regard to this question, each VW would need a different, and random, vin from an infinite set of numbers.
Click to expand...

godless dave said:
But emergent properties aren't random. Everything about the emergent property is determined by the object that produces it.
A running Volkswagen produces an engine rumble.
An identical Volkswagen would produce an identical engine rumble.
If you know the likelihood of a particular Volkswagen existing, then you know the likelihood of any emergent properties it produces.
Click to expand...

- You're right. I probably shouldn't invoke emergent properties...
- Whatever, for the moment at least, I'm thinking that the likelihood of a particular self currently existing is something over infinity because I think that the particular self is cause and effect untraceable. (And again, probability is based upon what we know; it isn't based upon an underlying fact.) A particular self is not chemically reproduceable. But, such is not the case with a particular VW, or Mt Rainier. So, in that sense, the likelihood of a particular Volkswagen existing is not some number over infinity.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
I thought Jay gave a very good explanation of how defining infinity to behave a certain way in some systems of formal logic, enables those systems to yield productive lines of reasoning both in theory and in real-world applications.

He even explained the constraints on assigning such definitions in the context of formal logic systems. You seem to be ignoring those considerations, in order to apply the concept in a destructive way, for the sake of proving something that isn't actually true in the first place.
Click to expand...

Yes, he did, and he's right, in the same way that rounding up to the closest 32nd of an inch allows you to build your house. But it's still not zero by definition unless you redefine it.

Roboramma said:
Your redefinition of the word "wrong" no longer has any relation to the truth value of a statement, so it doesn't help you in the highlighted determination.
Click to expand...

'Course it does: when that poster says it, it's wrong.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
- You're right. I probably shouldn't invoke emergent properties...
- Whatever, for the moment at least, I'm thinking that the likelihood of a particular self currently existing is something over infinity because I think that the particular self is cause and effect untraceable.
Click to expand...

Under H it is. You keep saying you're trying to give a value for P(E|H), but then you make statements that aren't consistent with H. Under H, everything about a self is determined by the physical neurosystem that produces it.

Jabba said:
A particular self is not chemically reproduceable. But, such is not the case with a particular VW, or Mt Rainier. So, in that sense, the likelihood of a particular Volkswagen existing is not some number over infinity.
Click to expand...

Under H, a particular self is exactly as reproduceable as a particular Volkswagen or mountain. If you made an exact copy of an existing Volkswagen, you would not get the same Volkswagen. You would get a copy. Just like with a self.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom