Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

[Jabba]

Why do you say this? Are there potential Volkswagens as well?..

- Yes. And, there is an infinity of them.

 

[JayUtah]

I say that we have to accept that there is such a thing as potential selves...

No, we don't. You don't get to foist concepts onto a theory that aren't part of it, just so you can say the foisted parts create a problem.

 

[Jabba]

Fail at point 1. You're begging the question from the get-go.

John,
- If I beg the question, it's with point 2; but, most of us have accepted that there is no limited pool of potential selves.

 

[HighRiser]

John,
- If I beg the question, it's with point 2; but, most of us have accepted that there is no limited pool of potential selves.

I, for one, do not accept that "potential self" is a meaningful concept. I would like to know who the "us" is that have accepted this unfounded premise.

 

[jond]

John,
- If I beg the question, it's with point 2; but, most of us have accepted that there is no limited pool of potential selves.

I'll go one more on potential selves: each brain has the potential of generating a sense of self. Sadly, many never reach the point of development that they are able to generate a sense of self.

Once again, no brain, no self. potential selves is a pointless concept.

 

[JayUtah]

Yes. And, there is an infinity of them.

Then we're back to the same problem you've avoided a hundred times. If there are infinite "potential" Volkswagens then the probability of any one Volkswagen arising, according to your formula, is zero. And to get around that you say that people are different than Volkswagens when it comes to this notion of potentiality. In what way are they different? People have souls and Volkswagens don't. You're back to question-begging and special pleading. And we've been here many, many times before.

 

[JayUtah]

...most of us have accepted that there is no limited pool of potential selves.

No, "most of us" have done no such thing as you equivocate here. Most of us don't accept that there is a "potential self" of any kind or number that has any bearing on H. Do not continue trying to cram your desired concepts down your critics' throats. It's very rude.

 

[JayUtah]

- Yes. And, there is an infinity of them.

No, you really have no correct working concept of infinity. You're just spouting playground one-upsmanship -- "My dad has a-finnity dollars!"

 

[godless dave]

- Yes. And, there is an infinity of them.

So the scientific model for the existence of Volkswagens must be wrong, right?

That or the number of potential anything is not relevant to the likelihood of one of those things existing.

 

[The Norseman]

No, you really have no correct working concept of infinity. You're just spouting playground one-upsmanship -- "My dad has a-finnity dollars!"

"And my dad has a-finnity plus one dollars!!"

And a reverent hush falls over the playground — game, set, and match.

 

[Humots]

John,
- If I beg the question, it's with point 2; but, most of us have accepted that there is no limited pool of potential selves.

NO. We have not accepted any such thing.

There is NO pool of potential selves, limited or unlimited.

Are you seriously suggesting that if we accept that there is no limited pool of potential selves, we therefore accept that there is an unlimited pool of selves?

That. Does. Not. Follow.

 

[Belz...]

- Try this:
1. I say that we have to accept that there is such a thing as potential selves -- i.e., on day one, all the selves to come in the future were just potential selves.
2. If we assume that there is no limited pool of potential selves -- which most of us have assumed -- the number of potential selves is simply unlimited, and each new self is, simply, a brand new creation...
3. Also, we already accept that each self has a physical source. So consequently, we are not comparing the probability of a claim that has two requirements to a claim that has only one of the requirements -- all members of the set we're considering are already accepted as having one of the requirements, and it's just an issue of whether or not they have the second.
4. The prior probabilities in the Bayesian formula address that issue, and my estimate is that the probability of the single source surpasses the probability of the double source by 99% to 1%.

None of this answers my question: Why do you assume that there is an infinity of potential souls?

 

[John Jones]

John,
- If I beg the question, it's with point 2; but, most of us have accepted that there is no limited pool of potential selves.

That's a lie. You're putting words in other peoples mouths again. Are you aware how often you get caught doing this kind of thing?

 

[godless dave]

Technically he's correct! If we don't accept a pool of potential souls at all, then that includes not accepting a finite pool of souls.

This fact is as worthless as the concept of an infinite number of potential souls.

 

[theprestige]

"And my dad has a-finnity plus one dollars!!"

And a reverent hush falls over the playground — game, set, and match.

"Nuh uh! My dad has infinity plus infinity dollars!"

<infinite mic drop>

 

[JesseCuster]

John,
- If I beg the question, it's with point 2; but, most of us have accepted that there is no limited pool of potential selves.

Accepting that there is no limited pool of potential selves does not mean accepting that there is therefore an unlimited pool of potential selves.

I, for one, agree that there is no limited pool of potential selves. That's because I think 'pool of potential selves' is an inherently incoherent concept. There is no pool, limited or unlimited, of potential selves.

The whole notion of potential selves and pools of them is incoherent and ill-defined.

 

[The Sparrow]

Then we're back to the same problem you've avoided a hundred times. If there are infinite "potential" Volkswagens then the probability of any one Volkswagen arising, according to your formula, is zero. And to get around that you say that people are different than Volkswagens when it comes to this notion of potentiality. In what way are they different? People have souls and Volkswagens don't. You're back to question-begging and special pleading. And we've been here many, many times before.

Jabba, please address this post. It expresses exactly what I want to say, only better. It also demolishes what you have been repeating for 5 years.

 

[abaddon]

John,
- If I beg the question, it's with point 2; but, most of us have accepted that there is no limited pool of potential selves.

Nobody accepted that. I have no idea where you invented that out of. NOBODY AGREES WITH IT. It is the biggest bucket of hogwash ever.

ETA: Are you going to be this honest on your blog? Yes or no.

 

[Jabba]

...
5. For another thing, in many situations, the specific event is only one of NUMEROUS possible results (millions?) -- and for unlikelihood to be of consequence in such a case, the specific result has to be meaningfully set apart from most other possible results...

...
You never managed to set apart your existence from any of the other possible results...

Dave,
- I don't set apart my existence from any of the possible results. I set apart my existence from most of the possible results

And how do you do that?

- I'm a potential self that currently exists. Most potential selves do not currently exist (under modern science).

Before you existed, what set your potential self apart from the potential selves that didn't end up existing?

- Good question.
- I think that what really sets a result apart is there being a reasonable possibility that it wasn't the result of the hypothesis being evaluated -- and here, that applies to everyone who exists.

That doesn't help you avoid the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.

Dave,
- In this case, all he had to do was hit the barn.

But he hasn't done that, he has just hit something, and painted a target round it.
That is all you have: one of the possible outcomes has occurred (as is inevitable), and you are claiming that it is special because it has occurred. It wasn't prespecified, and nothing sets it apart from all the other possible outcomes other than the fact that it has occurred.

What Mojo said.

Dave,
- My claim is that to be legitimate, a target does not need to be pre-specified. A legitimate target doesn't need red and white rings around it. Also, there are degrees of "targetness." - I'm claiming that what makes a target legitimate is a reasonably possible alternative hypothesis to the hypothesis being evaluated -- and, the Bayesian formula accounts for that requirement with its prior probabilities... - I'm saying that as soon as a result has a reasonably possible alternative explanation, we have a legitimate target. - I think that's the answer because I can't find anything in the Bayesian instructions that refer to this issue. If you, or anyone else, can refer me to such a statement, I'll happily concede this claim. - The Bayesian instructions seem to imply that the formula accounts for the Sharpshooter explanation.

- Can anyone provide a source that discusses the Sharp Shooter fallacy as it relates to any of the Bayesian formulas? Does the Sharp Shooter fallacy need to be considered when determining P(E|H)?

Dave,
- I don't think that you ever responded to that claim. Can you provide a source contradicting my claim?

How about you provide a source supporting it?

- I can't. But, as I suggest above, the fact that I can't find anyone even talking about this issue suggests that the issue is accounted for by the Bayesian formula.

 

[abaddon]

- I can't. But, as I suggest above, the fact that I can't find anyone even talking about this issue suggests that the issue is accounted for by the Bayesian formula.

We are all talking about it here explaining exactly why you are wrong. Did you not notice that?