Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

[JayUtah]

Actually, I think that my prior probability of ~H (1%) accounts for that.

Why would you think that? Your wonky pseudo-Bayesian nonsense has nothing to do with the problem I laid out.

Let a be a non-negative real number such that 0 ≤ a ≤ 1. Find b, 0 ≤ b ≤ 1, such that a ⋅ b > a.

 

[Jabba]

Stop defining terms. Make a case for your claim, and start with this:

Why do you think there is a pool of potential selves?

Argumemnon,
- I don't think that there is a pool of potential selves.
- If there is no pool of potential selves, an actual self is brand new; it came from nowhere; it had no prior existence. That being the case, there should be no limitation on their number.
- The emergent property of consciousness, which should have no limits on its number, just naturally establishes a brand new sense of self -- each time it emerges..

 

[Belz...]

- If there is no pool of potential selves, an actual self is brand new; it came from nowhere; it had no prior existence. That being the case, there should be no limitation on their number.

Sure there is. The limitation to their number is the current number of them.

 

[Jabba]

Why would you think that? Your wonky pseudo-Bayesian nonsense has nothing to do with the problem I laid out.

Let a be a non-negative real number such that 0 ≥ a ≥ 1. Find b, 0 ≥ b ≥ 1, such that a ⋅ b > a.

Jay,
- I must admit that I don't understand your formulation. To me, you seem to be saying that a is less than 0, but more than 1...

 

[JayUtah]

I don't think that there is a pool of potential selves.

Yes, you do. You just play word games to avoid having to prove it. If potential selves exist in a forum that is countable, then there is a pool of them. You can't profess countability without avoiding the notion of some word that describes the collection. The traditional word is "set," but "pool" works too.

That being the case, there should be no limitation on their number.

It's an infinite pool, in your model, but it's still a pool.

The emergent property of consciousness, which should have no limits on its number...

Properties, emergent or otherwise, are not countable. You've been told this uncountably many times.

 

[JayUtah]

Jay,
- I must admit that I don't understand your formulation. To me, you seem to be saying that a is less than 0, but more than 1...

You're right, my mistake. I've reversed the comparatives in the original post to reflect my intent.

Now can you find a b to solve the relation?

 

[Jabba]

Argumemnon,
- I don't think that there is a pool of potential selves.
- If there is no pool of potential selves, an actual self is brand new; it came from nowhere; it had no prior existence. That being the case, there should be no limitation on their number.
- The emergent property of consciousness, which should have no limits on its number, just naturally establishes a brand new sense of self -- each time it emerges..

Sure there is. The limitation to their number is the current number of them.

Argumemnon,
- I must admit that I don't understand you either...
- Wouldn't you count future selves as currently potential selves?

 

[jond]

Argumemnon,
- I must admit that I don't understand you either...
- Wouldn't you count future selves as currently potential selves?

How do you plan to extract sperm and ovum from potential selves that never actually existed? You did insist that they should be counted, after all.

 

[Jabba]

You're right, my mistake. I've reversed the comparatives in the original post to reflect my intent.

Now can you find a b to solve the relation?

Jay,
- I'm still having problems. Where did you reverse the comparatives?

 

[JayUtah]

Jay,
- I'm still having problems. Where did you reverse the comparatives?

It appears the forum lost the first edit. The original post now has the correct relational operators. If it doesn't, this is how the problem should read:

Let a be a non-negative real number such that 0 ≤ a ≤ 1. Find b, 0 ≤ b ≤ 1, such that a ⋅ b > a.​

 

[JayUtah]

Wouldn't you count future selves as currently potential selves?

I wouldn't count them at all. Your concept has no useful notion of enumerability.

 

[Jabba]

Yes, you do. You just play word games to avoid having to prove it. If potential selves exist in a forum that is countable, then there is a pool of them. You can't profess countability without avoiding the notion of some word that describes the collection. The traditional word is "set," but "pool" works too.



It's an infinite pool, in your model, but it's still a pool.



Properties, emergent or otherwise, are not countable. You've been told this uncountably many times.

- OK. I accept an infinite pool. I just don't accept a limited pool, and the word "pool," to me, sort of implies a limited number...

 

[Jabba]

It appears the forum lost the first edit. The original post now has the correct relational operators. If it doesn't, this is how the problem should read:

Let a be a non-negative real number such that 0 ≤ a ≤ 1. Find b, 0 ≤ b ≤ 1, such that a ⋅ b > a.​

- Good. I'll be back.

 

[JayUtah]

- OK. I accept an infinite pool.

Now prove it exists in a countable way. Your argument just became circular. Your entire justification for saying that the number of "potential selves" had to be infinite was because it obviously didn't exist in a pool. Now that you've undermined your own premise, your argument on that point just failed.

 

[JayUtah]

- Good. I'll be back.

You mean you couldn't see the problem in that expression in the time it took to type this deferral?

 

[Belz...]

Argumemnon,
- I must admit that I don't understand you either...
- Wouldn't you count future selves as currently potential selves?

You just said there wasn't a pool of potential selves and now you bring it back up! Which is it?

 

[jsfisher]

...

~H says it does.

Right, so when you present a number for P(E|~H) then you can base it on a self that can exist separately from your body and potentially look out of two sets of eyes.
...

Not quite. ~H says it at least one thing that isn't physical must exist. It does not say specifically it has to be Jabba's sense of self.

 

[JesseCuster]

- OK. I accept an infinite pool.

Do you accept the existence of infinite pools of potential emergent properties other than selves?

 

[Jabba]

You mean you couldn't see the problem in that expression in the time it took to type this deferral?

- Correct (or, something like that).

 

[JayUtah]

- Correct (or, something like that).

Okay, so that's two posts you've written deferring discussion of a mathematical expression whose dilemma was supposed to be self-evident in seconds. Any idea how many more deferrals you'll be writing before you address the actual, very simple issue?