[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[dlorde]

The crux of his argument is that "close to zero" means the same thing as "zero."

Any takers for 'almost infinite' ?

 

[shuttlt]

Shuttlt,

- Interesting analysis. It does seem to me that science cannot (currently) accept any kind of ultimate "meaning" (or purpose) to reality -- that would be "magical."
- But then, I don't think that my particular "scientific" hypothesis ("A") that "we each have but one, short, life to live, at most," necessarily excludes some sort of ultimate meaning...
- I'm just claiming that if that particular hypothesis is true, the probability of any particular person (self) existing right now is esentially zero.
- And since, given that scientific hypothesis, the probability that I would exist right now is essentially zero, I wonder -- does my current existence have something to say about the liklihood of that scientific hypothesis being true? Certainly, if the probability of me existing right now -- given that scientific hypothesis -- was actually zero, the fact that I do exist right now would prove that hypothesis wrong...

- There is much more to discuss about the logic here -- but hopefully, the above will give you and I a good jumping off place.

--- Jabba

OK. Here's where you are going wrong....

Let's say your "scientific hypothesis" is true. There are a huge number of possible ways the universe could develop, but let us assume that one of them must. Some mechanism determines which universe we end up with. What ever universe ends up being the case, the odds that it was that one are tiny. The sum of all those tiny probabilities are 1.

Presumably all these universes are also possiblities for what ever it is that decides what the purpose of the universe is, and hence decides which universe will end up coming into being?

Why are we working out the probability for the "scientific hypthesis" choice before the choice of which universe is made, but for the "non-scientific hypothesis" we are choosing after?

I just have a vision of all the possible Jabba's saying, "given that the universe has a purpose, the probability of my coming into being is 1". Are there an infinite number of possible "purposes" or would most of the Jabba's be wrong?

 

[Jabba]

- I think that you guys have three major objections to my argument for immortality -- as well as a few (to several) minor ones.
a. Major Objections:
i. That my current existence is so improbable -- given what I’m calling the “scientific” hypothesis – is NOT evidence against that hypothesis.
ii. My hypotheses are too poorly defined to be dealt with by Bayesian inference, taken seriously or, understood.
iii. The probability numbers that I propose are “off the wall” at best.
- If you agree, I’ll try to answer your major objections, one at a time.
- Otherwise, please rephrase and/or add.
--- Jabba

 

[shuttlt]

Jabba, I don't think that covers my objection. Why do you take the probability of Jabba after the choice of the purpose of the universe, and hence the existence of Jabba, is decided upon in the non-scientific version, but the probability of Jabba before Jabba's existence is certain in the scientific case? Is your claim that a universe with Jabba in it was the only possible choice for a universe with meaning and purpose?

Why could we not swap things around and consider the probability of Jabba in a universe with purpose as being 0.000000000000001 given the multiplicity of possible purposes and the odds of Jabba as being 1 in a scientific universe given that you are here? Wouldn't that be equally valid?

Surely you need to either take both probabilities before the decision as to what universe we are going to have is made, or both after. Chosing to take one before and one after seems a bit strange to me.

 

[Jabba]

Shuttlt,
- I didn't mention your question cause I din't really understand it. I'll think some more about it and get back to you.
---Jabba

 

[MRC_Hans]

- I think that you guys have three major objections to my argument for immortality -- as well as a few (to several) minor ones.

One correction: You have not argued for immortality. Not once. You have tried to argue that we should not exist.

a. Major Objections:
i. That my current existence is so improbable -- given what I’m calling the “scientific” hypothesis – is NOT evidence against that hypothesis.

That is, in itself correct; even something very improbable can happen, however that is not our argument. Our argument is that you are equating a priori probability with post hoc probability. That, in itself, is invalid.

However, you are also confusing real life probability with statistical probability. Statistical probability concertns itself with predictions, and it is entirely correct that 10,000 years ago, .... heck, even 100 years ago, it would be virtually impossible to predict that exactly YOU would exist now. That, however, has exactly zero relevance for the likelihoood that you do exist.

ii. My hypotheses are too poorly defined to be dealt with by Bayesian inference, taken seriously or, understood.

Well, what IS you hypothesis?

iii. The probability numbers that I propose are “off the wall” at best.
- If you agree, I’ll try to answer your major objections, one at a time.

They are off the wall, but most importantly, they are irrelevant.

- Otherwise, please rephrase and/or add.

Done. Unfortunately, I seem to be one of those you choose to ignore. - Which tells me you can probably see I'm right.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

The crux of his argument is that "close to zero" means the same thing as "zero."

Well, it is. .... for large values of zero, at least.

Hans

 

[Humots]

- I think that you guys have three major objections to my argument for immortality -- as well as a few (to several) minor ones.
a. Major Objections:
i. That my current existence is so improbable -- given what I’m calling the “scientific” hypothesis – is NOT evidence against that hypothesis.
ii. My hypotheses are too poorly defined to be dealt with by Bayesian inference, taken seriously or, understood.
iii. The probability numbers that I propose are “off the wall” at best.
- If you agree, I’ll try to answer your major objections, one at a time.
- Otherwise, please rephrase and/or add.
--- Jabba

• As has been pointed out many times, your current existence being improbable is a fallacy. Your current existence is not improbable, not in the way you claim.
• Yes, your hypotheses are too poorly defined to be used in Bayesian inference. Assigning any kind of probability to a hypotheses requires that it be well-defined.
• The probability numbers you assign to poorly-defined hypotheses are pulled out of the air.

 

[Brian-M]

- I think that you guys have three major objections to my argument for immortality -- as well as a few (to several) minor ones.

My major objection to your argument for immortality is that you haven't presented one yet.

 

[shuttlt]

Shuttlt,
- I didn't mention your question cause I din't really understand it. I'll think some more about it and get back to you.
---Jabba

No problem. Here's a sub question then... presumbly in the non-scientific universe you mention, there is some mechanism that selects which universe will be chosen. A universe without Jabba could have been chosen? Perhaps the purpose of the universe would have had to be marginally different, but at some point a choice of many possible purposes/universes had to be made?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

In summary, your approach is unscientific, your hypothesis is poorly defined, the complement to your hypothesis is almost completely undefined, your assumptions are baseless and your application of Bayes theorem is worthless.

I fully expected this paragraph to end with the phrase "you are a poor scientist, Dr. Venkman".

 

[Jabba]

No problem. Here's a sub question then... presumbly in the non-scientific universe you mention, there is some mechanism that selects which universe will be chosen. A universe without Jabba could have been chosen? Perhaps the purpose of the universe would have had to be marginally different, but at some point a choice of many possible purposes/universes had to be made?

Shuttlt,
- I'm still struggling. Perhaps it's my terminology of "non-scientific" that gets in the way.
- Forget about the scientific identification for now. The hypothesis I'm trying to evaluate (let's call it "A") is that each of us lives but one, short life -- at most. The complementary hypothesis ("non-A") is that A is not correct --in, at least, some respect. Non-A doesn't need to be religious.
--- Jabba

 

[Jabba]

What does the set, "each of us" include? Everyone alive now, everyone who's ever been alive, every living entity (animals, insects, plants), individual sperm?

Mashuna,

- Interesting question, but difficult to convey its answer.

- You're talking about the A hypothesis.
- The A hypothesis is my expression of the conclusion made -- by most of those who avoid wishful thinking -- about human mortality/immortality in general.
- One can complicate the issue by including distinctions you're raising, but, we have no reason for doing that.
--- Jabba

 

[Hokulele]

Mashuna,

- Interesting question, but difficult to convey its answer.

- You're talking about the A hypothesis.
- The A hypothesis is my expression of the conclusion made -- by most of those who avoid wishful thinking -- about human mortality/immortality in general.
- One can complicate the issue by including distinctions you're raising, but, we have no reason for doing that.
--- Jabba

What reason do you have for excluding animals, plants, corals, and the like? Why doesn't mortality/immortality apply to all life forms?

 

[Jabba]

What reason do you have for excluding animals, plants, corals, and the like? Why doesn't mortality/immortality apply to all life forms?

Hokulele,
- Personally, I suspect that life -- of any kind -- produces consciousness as emergent property, and consciousnes itself is immortal.
- Here, I'm addressing the conlusion to which non-wishful thinking tends to bring most of us -- i.e., that we humans have only one, short (finite) life to live, at most.
--- Jabba

 

[dlorde]

- Personally, I suspect that life -- of any kind -- produces consciousness as emergent property, and consciousnes itself is immortal.

In what sense 'immortal' ? If life on Earth is wiped out by an asteroid strike (probably will happen sooner or later), does consciousness continue (discounting unknown alien life) ? If so, how?

 

[Hokulele]

Hokulele,
- Personally, I suspect that life -- of any kind -- produces consciousness as emergent property, and consciousnes itself is immortal.
- Here, I'm addressing the conlusion to which non-wishful thinking tends to bring most of us -- i.e., that we humans have only one, short (finite) life to live, at most.
--- Jabba

And this is exactly what is meant by your hypothesis being vague. You are now claiming it is consciousness that is immortal, but your hypothesis states that humans are immortal. You now have to be more clear as to what you mean by humans. Is the meat-bag walking around right now named "Hokulele" immortal, or something else?

 

[shuttlt]

Shuttlt,
- I'm still struggling. Perhaps it's my terminology of "non-scientific" that gets in the way.
- Forget about the scientific identification for now. The hypothesis I'm trying to evaluate (let's call it "A") is that each of us lives but one, short life -- at most. The complementary hypothesis ("non-A") is that A is not correct --in, at least, some respect. Non-A doesn't need to be religious.
--- Jabba

You've never really explained why you think your existence means that your are immortal. I think you mentioned something about how you thought life having a purpose and meaning had something to do with it. I explained a few days ago what I thought you meant and have expanded on that. Other posters agreed that that might be what you were on about. If you reasoning isn't based on something like:

If we exist for a purpose, then these single short lives can't be all there is....

please could you explain what it is you are talking about, because I really don't understand your argument with or wthout Bayes. We really need to be absolutely clear what it is you are talking about before numbers and maths start getting thrown around.

It must say something that after all these posts people are still confused about what your premises are. Assume we are all stupid. Words of one syllable or less if at all possible.

 

[Giordano]

What reason do you have for excluding animals, plants, corals, and the like? Why doesn't mortality/immortality apply to all life forms?

This is a great question that I really would like to see Jabba answer!

The probability of a specific spider existing is much less than that of Jabba existing: spiders have existed on Earth much longer than humans and have a much shorter generation time. There were so many potential spiders, yet only one specific spider ended up born and in my garage. I call her Samantha. Is Samantha immortal, Jabba?

The same argument applies to the pine tree in my yard. Are pine trees immortal?

If not, please explain...

 

[Brian-M]

In what sense 'immortal' ?

Great question!

Jabba, perhaps you could begin your proof of immortality by precisely defining exactly what you mean by "immortal".

Do you mean indestructible immortality, where a person's body will continue to endure forever? Or a conditional immortality where you can live indefinitely, until physically destroyed?

Do you mean a physical immortality, where your body continues to exist? Or do you mean a subjective immortality, where you survive the loss of your physical form?

Or are you referring to some kind of abstract immortality, such as where a cyclic universe results in you being born and living an identical life once each cycle for all eternity, with no memory of your past existences?