Proof of Immortality, VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
Argumemnon said:
Since we can't interact with other (hypothetical) universes either way, the added possibilities really don't matter.
Click to expand...

That depends on how you define immortality.

Your caveat could be a meaningful limitation on caveman1917's definition, except for the fact that multiple measurements of this particular spacetime's large scale curvature show no large scale curvature at all, which very probably means this particular spacetime is neither small nor short-lived.

This lack of curvature strongly suggests this particular spacetime is itself a level 1 multiverse containing multiple Hubble volumes.

In layman terminology, this right here is a big ol' sumbitch.
 
Last edited:
Jabba,

Have you been paying attention to the discussion this time?

Your proof of immortality is no less ridiculous than it was five years ago.
 
caveman1917 said:
None of which in any way supports the claim that you are more likely to exist (to have been born) if you are immortal than if you are mortal. So I'm concluding that you failed to support your claim, and this is then the end of our debate. Unsurprisingly it didn't last much longer than the previous time.
Click to expand...
- How about more likely to currently exist?
 
caveman1917 said:
Well duh, but that's hardly a counter-argument given that I've explicitly said so, that you have to assert the universe to be very small and end very soon to get out of the argument.
Click to expand...

That's a deliberate misrepresentation of my argument.

caveman1917 said:
Sure it is, by induction. If for every OM at time t there is an OM at time t' > t then there does not exist a last OM.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's another flaw that's occurred to me. Your argument is based on the axiom that for every OM at time t there is an OM at time t'>t that is also a member of the same self. However, this is equivalent to an assertion that the self is immortal. Yes, I have heard of proof by induction, but in this case it's a circular proof by induction; your conclusion that the self is immortal is derived by induction from the premise that the self is immortal. In practice, there is good reason to believe that there are states of the self that have no successor state; these occur at some point in the process we call "death". As long as death occurs, then the self is not immortal, by definition. What you're suggesting is a punctuated existence that doesn't conform to a reasonable definition of the word "immortal".

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Yes, that's another flaw that's occurred to me. Your argument is based on the axiom that for every OM at time t there is an OM at time t'>t that is also a member of the same self.
Click to expand...

That's not an axiom, that's a definition of immortality. Supported by the notion that, given a large enough number of samples, even such an outrageously unlikely event as a physical system through sheer chance fluctuating into such a successor state becomes likely.

However, this is equivalent to an assertion that the self is immortal.
Click to expand...

No kidding, that's why it's a definition of immortality.

Yes, I have heard of proof by induction, but in this case it's a circular proof by induction; your conclusion that the self is immortal is derived by induction from the premise that the self is immortal.
Click to expand...

No it isn't, there is no such premise. Giving a definition of immortality to later support through an argument is not the same as asserting it as a premise, obviously.

In practice, there is good reason to believe that there are states of the self that have no successor state; these occur at some point in the process we call "death".
Click to expand...

Well let's hear you argument then. What good reason do you have for asserting that nowhere in the universe, at no point in time, will there ever be a physical system which, even momentarily, takes on a state that would be a successor state?

What you're suggesting is a punctuated existence that doesn't conform to a reasonable definition of the word "immortal".
Click to expand...

My definition of immortality seems just fine to me. But feel free to give another definition which you consider "reasonable".
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
- How about more likely to currently exist?
Click to expand...


Jabba -

Are there an infinite number of possible mortal selves?

Are there an infinite number of possible immortal selves?

If the answer to both questions is yes, how do you argue that one infinite set is "bigger" than the other?
 
Jabba,

How is it we're over five years, six separate threads, two separate(ish) web forums, a half dozen attempts at transparent side threads, a good dozen or so random run ins from thread nannies, more fringe resets than I can count, three or four "I give up and this time I mean it" flounces and a partridge in a pear tree you still haven't managed to answer a single basic question?
 
- Try this.
- Hypothesis M: I am mortal -- i.e., I can be aware only one, finite time.
- Given that I am currently aware, which is more likely -- M or ~M?
 
Jabba said:
- Try this.
- Hypothesis M: I am mortal -- i.e., I can be aware only one, finite time.
- Given that I am currently aware, which is more likely -- M or ~M?
Click to expand...

The fact that you are currently alive has nothing to do with the probability that you are mortal. You really like the Texas sharpshooter fallacy a lot, don't you?
 
Jabba said:
- Try this.
- Hypothesis M: I am mortal -- i.e., I can be aware only one, finite time.
- Given that I am currently aware, which is more likely -- M or ~M?
Click to expand...

I get up from the computer. Walk over to my liquor cabinet.

From the top shelf I take a bottle of Cognac XO. I shake my head and put it back. I consider the 18 year old Jameson and Jack Daniel's Single Barrel, but leave them on the shelf. This is the wrong kind of special occasion.

My eyes move to the middle shelf, a dozen of the average decent quality middle range of the popular alcohol name brands. No still not right.

Bottom shelf, big honking Costco bottles of the basics; Jack, Jim, Jose, Absolute. No. Not that either.

I sigh and dig in the bottom cabinet, below the liquor shelves. A half of plastic bottle of Military Special Gin, Everclear, some of my brother's peach moonshine. Close. Very close. But not quite

Finally my eyes find it. A rinsed out reused milk jug with a stuck on crooked white label that reads (mostly misspelled) "Uncle Slappy's Genuine Alcoholic Concoction. Contains not more than 50% Paint Thinner. Not for sale in 47 states."

There... there we go. Yeah that feels right. I finish this and I might be ready for this thread again.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
- Try this.
- Hypothesis M: I am mortal -- i.e., I can be aware only one, finite time.
- Given that I am currently aware, which is more likely -- M or ~M?
Click to expand...


Jabba -

You can only observe your condition while you're alive. The fact that you happen to be alive right now is meaningless because, relatively, you're always alive when you ask yourself that question.

You said there were an infinite number of potential people. Are there also an infinite number of potential immortal people?
 
Loss Leader said:
Jabba -

Are there an infinite number of possible mortal selves?

Are there an infinite number of possible immortal selves?

If the answer to both questions is yes, how do you argue that one infinite set is "bigger" than the other?
Click to expand...

Well, to be fair, there are an infinite number of integers, and an infinite number of irrational numbers, but the latter infinite set is bigger than the former; mathematically speaking, almost all numbers are irrational. This at least shows, if any more proof were needed than this thread, that irrationality is impossible to eradicate.

Dave
 
Loss Leader said:
Jabba -

You can only observe your condition while you're alive. The fact that you happen to be alive right now is meaningless because, relatively, you're always alive when you ask yourself that question.
Click to expand...
It beggars belief that after five years Jabba still has not grasped this simple and obvious fact.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom