[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Toontown]

If we are in some sense immortal, then that information probably should not be made available to the general public. There is no reason, at this time, to suspect humans in general are sufficiently advanced to handle such information intelligently. Some of them are already using belief in immortality as an excuse to carry out suicide attacks. Have a bad day, strap on a bomb vest. Or don body armor and an arsenal, and go to the movies.

Just saying...

 

[Slowvehicle]

...
Slowvehicle,
- I do address this issue a couple of times. The easy one can be found in post #489:

Scene 1:

Say that you find a deck of cards in the closet and decide to play some solitaire or something.

You sit down at the table and turn over the first card. It's an ace of spades. You place the ace back in the deck, shuffle the cards and once again, turn over the first card. This time, it's the ace of diamonds. Hmm. So, you try the same thing again. This time, you get the ace of spades again.

'Wait a minute…' You do it one more time, and this time, you get the ace of hearts.

If you’re paying attention, you’re growing suspicious about this deck you found in the closet. You’re starting to suspect that you don’t have the ordinary deck that you had assumed. But, why is that? Why are you suspicious?

You’re suspicious because the probability of drawing that 'hand' is so small if the deck is a normal deck. Let’s try that again. But, this time, the first card you draw is a 3 of diamonds, the second is a Jack of spades, the third is a 9 of clubs and the fourth is a 9 of hearts. In this case, you probably are not suspicious. But, of course you realize that the prrobability of drawing that hand, given a normal deck, is just as small as the probability of drawing that previous hand… So, what’s the problem here? Why are you not suspicious of this deck, when you were suspicious of the first one? It turns out that there are two factors causing you to be suspicious of that first deck -- and one is missing in regard to the second deck. There is nothing about the second hand that sets it apart in such a way as to suggest another plausible hypothesis… If there were, you’d be suspicious of that second deck as well. It’s as simple as that…

Demonstrating only that you do don't understand what you are saying.

The ONLY reason four aces seems significant is that it is an esily recogniizeable hand, and that you are steeped in traditions that assign importance to the ace. The hand 3D JS 9C 9H is exactly as unlikely as the hand of 4 aces.

What is truly tragic is that this has been explained to you before. Repeatedly.

I have explained this to you before. Several times.

Your habit of simply repeating your assertions does you no more credit in this thread than it has in others.

You may believe you have lived before, or will live again--but your card analogy is not support for that idea.

 

[Akhenaten]

Gobbledygook Redux

Jay,
- I'll try to be more specific, but I don't really understand why they are not specific enough already.
- I have two hypotheses -- one, the complement of the other. Could be that what I've called them confuses the issue -- "R" and "NR," for instance. I should probably just name them "A" and "Non-A," with A being simply "we each live only one, short, life at most."
- Would that help?
--- Jabba

No, because you didn't do anything.

Jay,
- I was trying to do something – I was trying to remove the God connotation from the R hypothesis. I can’t really remove the religious connotation – it seems intrinsic. But God is not. The trouble is that the word “religious” connotes a god – it does not necessarily require a god. And, in this case, it doesn't...

As you were told 10 months ago:

Changing the labels makes no difference. At all. One might as well choose "banana" and "non-banana". They are just labels.

As usual, you are simply re-posting material that has been previously torn apart for being the abject nonsense that it is and hoping for a different result.

But, if that's your hypothesis, then there is no data at all to support the alternative.

- I’m pretty sure that technically you’re wrong.

This is pretty much a case of the pot calling the kettle a blue whale.

- There is plenty of supportive data – it’s just that this supportive data may not be CREDIBLE. And in your opinion, it isn’t…

Again, as you were told the last time you tried to pass this bilge off as being a legitimate use of statistics:

I say again, you are plugging vague notions into a mathematical model that requires precisely defined variables.

- If you agree, I’ll try to move on past technicalities.

They aren't "technicalities", Jabba. You are flat-out wrong.

- Here’s hoping that you’re still out there somewhere…

What you're really hoping is that the same people are going to read the same previously-posted balderdash and give you different answers.

It's a pity you appear unable to work out the probability of this happening.

 

[Akhenaten]

...
Slowvehicle,
- I do address this issue a couple of times. The easy one can be found in post #489:

<drivelsnip>

You haven't addressed it a couple of times at all - you just keep reposting the same rubbish and, as Slowvehicle has already pointed out, no matter how many times you post the same nonsense in the face of detailed explanations of why you are wrong, your silly fantasies will never gain any traction here.

Or, as we say in the Two Lands:

 

[Agatha]

Jabba, you still haven't explained what your "substantial reason" is. Instead of linking (again) to your card anecdote, could you please explain what .this substantial reason is

Your card anecdote shows that:
a) many people don't understand probability - the probability of drawing any four cards from a fair deck if the card is replaced and the pack shuffled after each drawing remains at (1/52)^4

and b) culturally, we ascribe more 'worth' to a card with one pattern of ink squiggles than another one with different squiggles, even though there is nothing inherently different in the actual worth of the cards.

What is the point of the card analogy? Is it that everyone is a card, a fair deck, a stacked deck - or what?

For the love of anything you hold dear, what is the problem of simply explaining what you mean by "two reasons to be suspicions of the first deck" and "substantial reason" to think that immortality is possible?

 

[Toontown]

New generality: Analogies do not work. At best they provide opponents with endless opportunities to attack the relevance of the analogy.

Forget cards. Start from the instant of the big bang, and explain how, at that moment, the prior probability that the (presumably unique) Jabba would ever see the light of day was very nearly zero, using standard model big bang theory.

Having succeeded in the above, you can go on to claim the "unique" presumption must almost certainly be wrong - that unique organization of MEST you call "Jabba" could not reasonably be assumed to be the only possible way "you" could ever see the light of day.

But again, such a proof can only be convincing to "you" individually. Others will somewhat correctly continue to see you as just another face in a very large crowd.

Indeed, it is a difficult task you have set for yourself, Jabba.

 

[Jabba]

If we are in some sense immortal, then that information probably should not be made available to the general public. There is no reason, at this time, to suspect humans in general are sufficiently advanced to handle such information intelligently. Some of them are already using belief in immortality as an excuse to carry out suicide attacks. Have a bad day, strap on a bomb vest. Or don body armor and an arsenal, and go to the movies.

Just saying...

Toontown,
- Interesting point.
- I used to write unpublished science fiction short stories. An unwritten idea I had was about "civilization" after science proves immortality.

 

[Jabba]

...The ONLY reason four aces seems significant is that it is an esily recogniizeable hand, and that you are steeped in traditions that assign importance to the ace. The hand 3D JS 9C 9H is exactly as unlikely as the hand of 4 aces...

Slowvehicle,
- I would agree with your first sentence except for the word "only."
- Another reason for thinking that drawing four aces was significant was the possibility that this deck had been tampered with -- and the more you keep drawing aces, the more probable that possibility becomes.

 

[Slowvehicle]

<cousteausnip>

This is pretty much a case of the pot calling the kettle a blue whale.

Mighty is the wisdom of the Pharaoh...

Not necessarily comprehensible, but...mighty as all get out.

And fraught.

Definitely fraught.

 

[Agatha]

Right. Are we to understand that your "substantial reason" is that people might be decks full of aces? If so, is everyone a deck full of aces? Is that second deck a fair one or not?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Toontown,
- Interesting point.
- I used to write unpublished science fiction short stories. An unwritten idea I had was about "civilization" after science proves immortality.

AN "unwrittten" idea from a series of "umpbulished" stories "proves" immortality?

Am I missing something, or is this, in the immortal words of Peter Shickele, a new high in lows?

 

[Jabba]

New generality: Analogies do not work. At best they provide opponents with endless opportunities to attack the relevance of the analogy.

Forget cards. Start from the instant of the big bang, and explain how, at that moment, the prior probability that the (presumably unique) Jabba would ever see the light of day was very nearly zero, using standard model big bang theory.

Having succeeded in the above, you can go on to claim the "unique" presumption must almost certainly be wrong - that unique organization of MEST you call "Jabba" could not reasonably be assumed to be the only possible way "you" could ever see the light of day.

But again, such a proof can only be convincing to "you" individually. Others will somewhat correctly continue to see you as just another face in a very large crowd.

Indeed, it is a difficult task you have set for yourself, Jabba.

Toontown,
- Thanks for your thoughts.
- I'll have to do some more thinking.

 

[Jabba]

Right. Are we to understand that your "substantial reason" is that people might be decks full of aces? If so, is everyone a deck full of aces? Is that second deck a fair one or not?

Agatha,
- Yes, and
- If you others are actually conscious (which I assume you are), everyone is "a deck full of aces."

 

[Agatha]

OK (this is like pulling teeth, but I'll keep trying), so every conscious person is a deck full of aces. What do you contend this implies about life, consciousness and immortality?

 

[Jabba]

- I can see now that a deck full of aces is misleading. I should have used a deck full of fives, or a deck full of eights -- or whatever.
- It's the cards all carrying the same number that would begin to suggest that this was not a normal deck. Them being all aces is basically irrelevant.

 

[Pixel42]

And every other consciousness which could have potentially existed instead of us if events had unfolded differently would also have been "a deck full of aces".

 

[Akhenaten]

Why has the expression "not playing with a full deck" become lodged in my consciousness?

 

[Jabba]

OK (this is like pulling teeth, but I'll keep trying), so every conscious person is a deck full of aces. What do you contend this implies about life, consciousness and immortality?

Agatha,
- I contend that such poses serious reservations to the current, consensus, scientific position that each "self" is the result of entirely specific physical events and will exist for one finite life at most. Given that hypothesis, you shouldn't be here -- and especially, you shouldn't be here now.

 

[Pixel42]

Agatha,
- I contend that such poses serious reservations to the current, consensus, scientific position that each "self" is the result of entirely specific physical events and will exist for one finite life at most. Given that hypothesis, you shouldn't be here -- and especially, you shouldn't be here now.

Why not?

 

[Jabba]

And every other consciousness which could have potentially existed instead of us if events had unfolded differently would also have been "a deck full of aces".

Pixel,
- Correct.