Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

[Loss Leader]

- I don't understand your claim. I am trying to disprove that we each have only one, finite, life (at most). I'm claiming that my current existence virtually proves that I have more than one, finite, life because it is so unlikely that I would be here now (out of all time) if I only have one, finite life (at most).

What's so special about now?

If you were here on a distant planet 40,000 years in the future, wouldn't you exist "here and now" from your perspective?

 

[Mojo]

What's so special about now?

The Texas sharpshooter hit it.

 

[Jabba]

What's so special about now?

If you were here on a distant planet 40,000 years in the future, wouldn't you exist "here and now" from your perspective?

LL,
- I do understand your reservation, it does seem meaningful and my answer may not communicate,..
- My answer: Yes. But, that doesn't answer the other way of expressing this issue. The other way is, "What is the likelihood that now would currently be somewhere in the 20th or 21st century?"
- The question you're answering is something like, "What is the likelihood that you would exist now?"
- Anyway, my claim is that the two answers are different, but both apply.

 

[Belz...]

But, that doesn't answer the other way of expressing this issue. The other way is, "What is the likelihood that now would currently be somewhere in the 20th or 21st century?"

You've already been told why likelihood is irrelevant.

Plenty of things happen all the time that are very unlikely, especially if you play with the numbers to make them seem even more so.

And you've also been told that the numbers are pulled out of your ass. "Infinity" is unjustified, as is "7 billion". That's not getting into the fact that the equation itself doesn't tell us anything. "Unlikely" doesn't mean "impossible".

 

[John Jones]

LL,
- I do understand your reservation, it does seem meaningful and my answer may not communicate,..
- My answer: Yes. But, that doesn't answer the other way of expressing this issue. The other way is, "What is the likelihood that now would currently be somewhere in the 20th or 21st century?"
- The question you're answering is something like, "What is the likelihood that you would exist now?"
- Anyway, my claim is that the two answers are different, but both apply.

I'll bite. What are the two answers.

 

[JesseCuster]

- My answer: Yes. But, that doesn't answer the other way of expressing this issue. The other way is, "What is the likelihood that now would currently be somewhere in the 20th or 21st century?"

Whatever the likelihood that "now" is currently somewhere in the 20th or 21st century, those odds will not change if it turns out that people have immortal souls.

So whatever problem it is that you're imagining, it will not be solved by proposing the existence of immortal souls.

 

[JayUtah]

"What is the likelihood that now would currently be somewhere in the 20th or 21st century?"

Odd that you pick the centuries you live in. What's magical about them? Why not 10,000 years ago? There were humans then too. The problem is, as always, the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

The question you're answering is something like, "What is the likelihood that you would exist now?"

The question is what makes one particular time period more attractive than others in your model.

Anyway, my claim is that the two answers are different, but both apply.

Neither applies. Your cobbled-up guesses at likelihood have zilch to do with whether something actually exists. Remember the part where you keep getting trapped in the inevitable math of all this and have to beg the question that "selves" are somehow special and that this century is somehow special? All the specialness you demand your critics grant you is the part that refutes your argument.

 

[Jabba]

You've already been told why likelihood is irrelevant.

Plenty of things happen all the time that are very unlikely, especially if you play with the numbers to make them seem even more so.

And you've also been told that the numbers are pulled out of your ass. "Infinity" is unjustified, as is "7 billion". That's not getting into the fact that the equation itself doesn't tell us anything. "Unlikely" doesn't mean "impossible".

Argumemnon,
- Likelihood is relevant. It is part of the equation. Another part of the equation is the probability of a different explanation. That someone wins the lottery doesn't mean that the lottery is rigged; but, if the lottery Director's 2nd cousin is the winner, there might be a better answer; and, the possibility of a better explanation rears its ugly head.

 

[Monza]

LL,
- I do understand your reservation, it does seem meaningful and my answer may not communicate,..
- My answer: Yes. But, that doesn't answer the other way of expressing this issue. The other way is, "What is the likelihood that now would currently be somewhere in the 20th or 21st century?"
- The question you're answering is something like, "What is the likelihood that you would exist now?"
- Anyway, my claim is that the two answers are different, but both apply.

But that is the only time that you could ask that question. If you lived in a different century then you would be asking about the likely hood of now being in that century. You can only ask that question after the fact. It is the same as rolling a multi-sided die and marveling at the unlikely-hood of that particular number coming up. But it would be the same regardless of the what number came up as you are only asking after the die is rolled. This is the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy.

 

[Jabba]

Whatever the likelihood that "now" is currently somewhere in the 20th or 21st century, those odds will not change if it turns out that people have immortal souls.

So whatever problem it is that you're imagining, it will not be solved by proposing the existence of immortal souls.

Jesse,
- Your right. Those odds will not change.
- But, if you have more than one, finite, life, the odds of your current existence do change, and are better.

 

[jond]

That's the only time I could have existed, because my existence depends on my parents' existence.

Not to mention that modern homo saiens have only been around for about 200,000 years and almost cetainly will continue evolving and eventually go extinct

Jabba, you must've missed this last time you started talking about how unlikely your existence right now is.

 

[jond]

Jesse,
- Your right. Those odds will not change.
- But, if you have more than one, finite, life, the odds of your current existence do change, and are better.

No, they don't, as you have been shown countless times and you've ignored every time.

 

[Jabba]

But that is the only time that you could ask that question. If you lived in a different century then you would be asking about the likely hood of now being in that century. You can only ask that question after the fact. It is the same as rolling a multi-sided die and marveling at the unlikely-hood of that particular number coming up. But it would be the same regardless of the what number came up as you are only asking after the die is rolled. This is the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy.

Monza,
- Again, this issue is difficult to parse -- and one issue could be the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy.
- Re the TSF, I do think that I need to show why MY existence makes for a legitimate target, and I have tried to do that in the past.
- Here, I need to show why 2017 is special, and "the likelihood that now would currently be somewhere in the 20th or 21st century," is the best I can do so far re that...

 

[Jabba]

No, they don't, as you have been shown countless times and you've ignored every time.

jond,
- If you have more than one finite life, aren't your odds of existing right now greater than if you only have one finite life?

 

[Jabba]

That's not how Bayes' works. At least, not how you formulated it.

Hokulele,
- You'll need to be more explicit.

 

[godless dave]

Don't forget you still haven't addressed this:

- Not the way that the selves are.
- The emergent property of consciousness produces a kind of identity that the VW's don't have.

It does? Can you describe this identity? It doesn't sound like anything that exists under H.

 

[jond]

jond,
- If you have more than one finite life, aren't your odds of existing right now greater than if you only have one finite life?

No, because that requires you to have a soul in addition to the brain that is the only thing required in your one life.

 

[Monza]

Monza,
- Again, this issue is difficult to parse -- and one issue could be the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy.
- Re the TSF, I do think that I need to show why MY existence makes for a legitimate target, and I have tried to do that in the past.
- Here, I need to show why 2017 is special, and "the likelihood that now would currently be somewhere in the 20th or 21st century," is the best I can do so far re that...

How is it special? Every century that existed so far has had its day in the sun as the 'now'. Future centuries will get a chance to be 'now'. The current century that is 'now' will not be 'now' any longer than any other century.* Think about what 'now' means and why you, Jabba, have to choose this century.


* I just had a flashback to Spaceballs.

 

[Jabba]

- I don't understand your claim. I am trying to disprove that we each have only one, finite, life (at most). I'm claiming that my current existence virtually proves that I have more than one, finite, life because it is so unlikely that I would be here now (out of all time) if I only have one, finite life (at most).

But you're doing it by trying to insert something into your calculation of P(E|H) that doesn't belong there. Even if you could demonstrate that H was untrue it would still not belong there.

Here's a simpler example.

Say we have a six-sided die. We throw it, and it comes up as a 3 (event E). I form the hypothesis (H) that all six sides of the die have a 3 on them. The likelihood of the observed event under this hypothesis is 1, right?

You have an alternative hypothesis (let's call it J), that the six sides are numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. The likelihood of the observed event under this hypothesis is 1/6.

Then you pick up the die, and demonstrate that the sides are indeed numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.

What is the likelihood of the the observed event if H is true?

Mojo,
- That wouldn't quite demonstrate that the odds were 1/6 -- the die could be loaded...
- But, I think that the real answer to your objection is that OOFLam has not been demonstrated.

 

[Jabba]

How is it special? Every century that existed so far has had its day in the sun as the 'now'. Future centuries will get a chance to be 'now'. The current century that is 'now' will not be 'now' any longer than any other century.* Think about what 'now' means and why you, Jabba, have to choose this century.


* I just had a flashback to Spaceballs.

Monza,
- Which part of Spaceballs?