- Here's the latest version of my syllogism.
THE MATH OF MORTALITY
New information may affect the probability of an existing hypothesis (H).
An old event may be new info if it hasn’t already been considered in the current probability of H.
If an event is unlikely – given a particular hypothesis (H) – but the event occurs, the occurrence will tend to have a negative effect upon the probability of H — but, it need not.
For instance, it could be that given the complementary hypothesis – the event would be even more unlikely.
Or, it could be that all possible events – given H – are equally unlikely (e.g. a fair lottery) — if so, the particular event needs to be “set apart” in a way that is relevant to the hypothesis in order to impact the hypothesis.
If – given H – an event is impossible, but does occur, H must be wrong.
Otherwise, what we call Bayesian statistics is used to evaluate the effect of a new and relevant event upon the probability of H.
I claim that by using my own current existence as the new info, Bayesian Statistics, virtually proves that we humans are not mortal.
Here’s how it works.
The likelihood of drawing a particular sample from a particular population has mathematical implications re the likelihood that a particular sample was, in fact, drawn from that population… You might want to read that again…
Or, in other words, the probability of a hypothesis being true is affected by the likelihood of samples actually drawn from the involved population — given that hypothesis.
The thing is, we have the mathematical right to apply this logic to our own expected mortality (the hypothesis)…
According to the typical, non-religious model of reality, each of us is temporary and singular — at best. If we ever live, we won’t live long, and we’ll do it only once.
By “we,” I mean we “selves” or senses of self” or “specific self-awarenesses” (SSA) or even “souls” (if “soul’ isn’t defined as immortal) — in other words, what reincarnationists think keep coming back to life.
If we are only temporary, however, the probability of me ever existing is teensy-weensy, or vanishingly small. I’m damned lucky to ever be here.
And as now happens to be now, I’m even luckier than that.
But then, is my current SSA “set apart” from all the other SSAs?
Here’s why I think it is.
My SSA is the only thing or process that I know exists — the rest could be my imagination.
If it didn’t ever exist, it would be as if nothing ever existed — and the likelihood of it ever existing is less than 1/10100.
If it didn’t currently exist, it would be as if nothing currently existed, and the likelihood of it currently existing is even (much) less than the likelihood of it ever existing…
That gives enormous significance to my current, personal SSA.
And, the thing is, every current SSA has the same reason to believe that OOFLam is wrong — and that she or he is not mortal.
“So? However unlikely, those things are, they do happen now and then.” (Or something similar.) is the usual response.
And every once in a while, someone gets a poker hand of 4 aces. You’re right, those things happen. But, in the poker case, if you have any existing suspicions about the dealer and your opponent (setting the specific event apart from the other possibilities), those suspicions will take a decided turn for the worse if your opponent turns over 4 aces at a particularly convenient time.
In other words, if you have a plausible hypothesis other than the ‘null
hypothesis’ and you get results you wouldn’t expect given that the null hypothesis were correct, you can be justifiably suspicious of your null hypothesis (in our case, the non-religious hypothesis). It’s simply, which hypothesis – over all, adding the new info – is the most probable. No problem.
It’s only when you have no other plausible hypothesis that you’re stuck with the null hypothesis.
So, the question is, do I have available another plausible hypothesis for my current existence?
I can think of at least four that seem plausible.
And further, I can lump these four together (along with all other plausible hypotheses) in the complement to the null hypothesis and say something concrete and definite about the probability of the null hypothesis – the non-religious hypothesis – being true, given my current existence.
So, given
…k = all background knowledge
…P = the probability of
…H = Only one Finite Life at most (OOFLam)
…| = given
…E = my current existence
…~H = Complement of OOFLam
The formula for this probability is
…P(H|E & k) = P(E|H)P(H|k) / (P(E|H)P(H|k) + P(E|~H)P(~H|k)).
Re P(H) and P(~H): I won’t argue the point for now, but would guess that most scientist would not be entirely sure that H is true, so I’ll estimate that P(H) should be no more than .99, and P(~H) should be no less than .01.
Re P(E|~H):
The probability (“likelihood”) of E given ~H, involves several specific hypothetical possibilities.
That only some of us have but one finite life.
That we each have numerous finite lives.
That only some of us have numerous finite lives.
That we each have an infinity of finite lives.
That only some of us have an infinity of finite lives.
That we each have an infinite life.
That only some of us have an infinite life.
That time isn’t what we think it is.
Some other explanation.
Now I must estimate (roughly) the prior probability (rounded off to three decimal places) of each more specific possibility (hypothesis), given ~H.
That only some of us have but one finite life: .000
That we each have numerous finite lives: .2.
That only some of us have numerous finite lives: .000.
That we each have an infinity of finite lives; .2
That only some of us have an infinity of finite lives: 000.
That we each have an infinite life: .2
That only some of us have an infinite life: .000
That time isn’t what we think it is: .2
Some other explanation: .2
And now, I must estimate the likelihood of my own current existence given the different specific hypotheses under ~H.
That only some of us have but one finite life: .10.
That we each have numerous finite lives: .10.
That only some of us have numerous finite lives: .25.
That we each have an infinity of finite lives; 1.00
That only some of us have an infinity of finite lives: .50.
That we each have an infinite life: 1.00.
That only some of us have an infinite life: .50
That time isn’t what we think it is (to be explained): .50
Some other explanation: .50
And now, I must multiply each of the prior probabilities of ~H above by the likelihoods of my current existence, given each specific hypothesis, and add up their products. And, the total likelihood of my current existence given ~H:
P(E|~H) = (0*.5) + (.2*.10) + (0*.25) + (.2*1.0) + (0*.5) + (1*.2) + (0*.5) + (.2*.5) + (.2*.5), or
P(E|~H) = 0 + .02 + 0 +.2 + 0 + .2+ 0 + .1 + .1, or
P(E|~H) = .62. And,
P(H|E) = 0*.99/(0*.99 + .62*.01) = (0/.0062) = 0.
P(H|E) = 0.
