[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Jabba]

- Ok, here are the beginning reasons why I think that every individual consciousness is immortal. Hang on tight – this is a bumpy ride.

- I figure that according to our currently accepted scientific model,
1. Whether or not consciousness is itself “physical,” all the CAUSES of consciousness ARE physical.
2. It must be that SPECIFIC INDIVIDUAL CONSCIOUSNESSES (from here on I’ll call these “selves”) – and the fact that no brain seems to share a specific consciousness with any other specific brain -- is the result of physical differences between the two brains.
3. Consequently, if my parents, or my grandparents, or my great grandparents, etc, had never met, I would never be here.
4. Not only that, but if my specific sperm cell from my dad had not met up with my specific ovum from my mom, I would never be here.
5. And, my dad probably produced sextillions of sperm cells, while my mother brought hundreds of ova with her. I was the combination of a specific one of those sperm cells and a specific one of those ova.
6. My prior probability of existing – given that my parents came to exist, and coupled up – would have been approximately one in a septillion…
7. And the prior probability of ever getting to that given would have been one in an unimaginable number.

8. So, every specific combination of human sperm cell and human ovum produces a different, unique individual consciousness – a unique “self.” Any variation – whether in sperm cell or ovum or both – would produce a different self…
9. Now, even more unimaginable than the divisor in my prior probability above is the number of POTENTIAL selves that have never existed -- and never will exist – because the number of potential but “unrealized” selves has to take into account the number of potential unrealized selves AND THEIR UNREALIZED OFFSPRING, AND THEIR UNREALIZED OFFSPRING, ETC.
10. Theoretically, that adds up to infinity -- at least.

- Next, I’ll try to show that the divisor for the sum of the probabilities for other possible models isn’t so large.

 

[Akhenaten]

<same old same old>

10. Theoretically, that adds up to infinity -- at least.

Bzzzzzt!

The biggest number that Jabba can think of ≠ infinity.

Any number that results from two or more numbers being multiplied together - no matter how large they are - is going to be finite.


Start again.

- Next, I’ll try to show that the divisor for the sum of the probabilities for other possible models isn’t so large.

Why don't you just cut to the chase and say "because god", just like everyone knows you're going to do eventually?

 

[Toontown]

Jabba, you have not yet begun to scratch the surface of your immense prior improbability.

For one thing: 10^-43 seconds after the big bang, the universe was a hotbed of quantum chaos. Everything that has subsequently happened evolved out of that quantum chaos. And that's all you really needed to say to put your prior probability at 1/infinity. However, (1/infinity) is an illegal operation, so you'll have to substitute the largest finite number your calculator can handle for the "infinity" divisor.

But if that's not enough: 6 billion years ago the atoms which eventually formed the presumptively original "you" were scattered about the galaxy. Some even migrated from other galaxies to be part of the Jabba Show. This great migration of atoms culminated in their assembling at a specific point in time and space, in a specific organization which woke up to be "you".

I am happy to grant that the divisor for the sum of the probabilities for the other possible models you happen to think of isn't so large as the prior odds against that presumable method of unique-Jabba-creation.

However, I confidently predict that those alternative models you will present will not include the correct one.

 

[godless dave]

- Ok, here are the beginning reasons why I think that every individual consciousness is immortal. Hang on tight – this is a bumpy ride.

- I figure that according to our currently accepted scientific model,
1. Whether or not consciousness is itself “physical,” all the CAUSES of consciousness ARE physical.
2. It must be that SPECIFIC INDIVIDUAL CONSCIOUSNESSES (from here on I’ll call these “selves”) – and the fact that no brain seems to share a specific consciousness with any other specific brain -- is the result of physical differences between the two brains.
3. Consequently, if my parents, or my grandparents, or my great grandparents, etc, had never met, I would never be here.
4. Not only that, but if my specific sperm cell from my dad had not met up with my specific ovum from my mom, I would never be here.
5. And, my dad probably produced sextillions of sperm cells, while my mother brought hundreds of ova with her. I was the combination of a specific one of those sperm cells and a specific one of those ova.
6. My prior probability of existing – given that my parents came to exist, and coupled up – would have been approximately one in a septillion…
7. And the prior probability of ever getting to that given would have been one in an unimaginable number.

8. So, every specific combination of human sperm cell and human ovum produces a different, unique individual consciousness – a unique “self.” Any variation – whether in sperm cell or ovum or both – would produce a different self…
9. Now, even more unimaginable than the divisor in my prior probability above is the number of POTENTIAL selves that have never existed -- and never will exist – because the number of potential but “unrealized” selves has to take into account the number of potential unrealized selves AND THEIR UNREALIZED OFFSPRING, AND THEIR UNREALIZED OFFSPRING, ETC.
10. Theoretically, that adds up to infinity -- at least.

Nope. 10 is flat-out incorrect.

 

[Jabba]

Jabba, you have not yet begun to scratch the surface of your immense prior improbability.

For one thing: 10^-43 seconds after the big bang, the universe was a hotbed of quantum chaos. Everything that has subsequently happened evolved out of that quantum chaos. And that's all you really needed to say to put your prior probability at 1/infinity.

But if that's not enough: 6 billion years ago the atoms which eventually formed the presumptively original "you" were scattered about the galaxy. Some even migrated from other galaxies to be part of the Jabba Show. This great migration of atoms culminated in their assembling at a specific point in time and space, in a specific organization which woke up to be "you".

I am happy to grant that the divisor for the sum of the probabilities for the other possible models you happen to think of isn't so large as the prior odds against that presumable method of unique-Jabba-creation.

However, I confidently predict that those models you will present will not include the correct one.

Toontown,
- I think that I agree with everything you said -- and a few days ago I was going to start my discussion with the Big Bang(s), but figured that would take me too long.

- What's the correct model?

 

[Mojo]

- Ok, here are the beginning reasons why I think that every individual consciousness is immortal. Hang on tight – this is a bumpy ride.

- I figure that according to our currently accepted scientific model,
1. Whether or not consciousness is itself “physical,” all the CAUSES of consciousness ARE physical.
2. It must be that SPECIFIC INDIVIDUAL CONSCIOUSNESSES (from here on I’ll call these “selves”) – and the fact that no brain seems to share a specific consciousness with any other specific brain -- is the result of physical differences between the two brains.

...

What happens to SPECIFIC INDIVIDUAL CONSCIOUSNESSES when the brains that ARE their physical CAUSES cease to function?

 

[Toontown]

Toontown,
- I think that I agree with everything you said -- and a few days ago I was going to start my discussion with the Big Bang(s), but figured that would take me too long.

- What's the correct model?

I don't know what the correct model is. I have a candidate, which I consider to be the strongest candidate I know of. I like it because it makes sense to me and renders all objections irrelevant, such as Mojo's objection above. However, I don't think I want to present my candidate. In all my years of internet skullduggery, I"ve only encountered 3 people who presented similar views. Attempts at explanation invariably resulted in general acrimonious rejection, with a very few exceptions.

The problem is, it's an interpretation of reality, in the same sense as the various interpretations of the rules of quantum mechanics. It simply makes an observation about the nature of sentient experience, and then takes the observation at face value, requiring a paradigm shift. Ever tried prying a bunch of hard core skeptics off a paradigm, using nothing more an interpretation of reality? Not going to happen.

 

[Agatha]

Your point 10 is incorrect.

A number which is really quite incredibly huge, multiplied by another number which is freaking ginormous, multiplied by as many more numbers as you like which are in themselves astonishingly big, is still a finite number. Just as a teeny tiny absurdly small number is not zero, so a gigantic gargantuan utterly massive number is not infinity.

Even if your points 1-9 are correct, all you have established is that the evolution of H. sapiens means that a lot of events happened in the past. Likewise, the existence of any particular person right now means that a lot of events had to happen in the past.

But just because some of those events were unlikely when looked at from the perspective of 2013 does not mean that other outcomes were more likely; every possible outcome was equally unlikely. However, it was almost certain that their would be 'an' outcome, whatever that was.

The individual chance of winning the UK lottery is about one in 14 million, every ticket has the same chance and someone usually wins in each draw. From the perspective of the player, they have only a tiny chance of winning. From the perspective of the organisers, they are virtually certain to give the prize to someone. They just can't determine who it will be (or if it will be a rollover) until the event (the draw) takes place.

However, none of this addresses the major objection: while the existence of a specific individual person (and their consciousness) may be unlikely, it's not impossible. As far as we know, immortality as defined by conciousness surviving brain death is impossible, not unlikely.

Until you can address why [lots of unlikely events] are less likely than [an impossible event], there is a huge hole in your 'proof'.

 

[Toontown]

But just because some of those events were unlikely when looked at from the perspective of 2013 does not mean that other outcomes were more likely; every possible outcome was equally unlikely. However, it was almost certain that their would be 'an' outcome, whatever that was.

In which case the correct way to calculate the prior probability for 1 of the equally possible alternatives is 1/n, where n is the sum of all other alternatives - which is freaking gargantuan, and will crush that 1 (and any hypothesis that depends on it) like a bug.

Somehow I doubt your observation will convince Jabba that there can be no more likely reasonable explanation for his specific sentient experience than beating freaking gargantuan odds, like being trapped in a confined space with a million Godzillas.

Until you can address why [lots of unlikely events] are less likely than [an impossible event], there is a huge hole in your 'proof'.

Now you've gone and warned Jabba that the continuation of a specific, subjective sentient experience beyond brain death is broadly deemed scientifically impossible, and will not be accepted as an alternative to the crushed bug. I had hoped he would blunder into that sinkhole.

 

[Jabba]

Nope. 10 is flat-out incorrect.

Your point 10 is incorrect.

A number which is really quite incredibly huge, multiplied by another number which is freaking ginormous, multiplied by as many more numbers as you like which are in themselves astonishingly big, is still a finite number. Just as a teeny tiny absurdly small number is not zero, so a gigantic gargantuan utterly massive number is not infinity.

Even if your points 1-9 are correct, all you have established is that the evolution of H. sapiens means that a lot of events happened in the past. Likewise, the existence of any particular person right now means that a lot of events had to happen in the past.

But just because some of those events were unlikely when looked at from the perspective of 2013 does not mean that other outcomes were more likely; every possible outcome was equally unlikely. However, it was almost certain that their would be 'an' outcome, whatever that was.

The individual chance of winning the UK lottery is about one in 14 million, every ticket has the same chance and someone usually wins in each draw. From the perspective of the player, they have only a tiny chance of winning. From the perspective of the organisers, they are virtually certain to give the prize to someone. They just can't determine who it will be (or if it will be a rollover) until the event (the draw) takes place.

However, none of this addresses the major objection: while the existence of a specific individual person (and their consciousness) may be unlikely, it's not impossible. As far as we know, immortality as defined by conciousness surviving brain death is impossible, not unlikely.

Until you can address why [lots of unlikely events] are less likely than [an impossible event], there is a huge hole in your 'proof'.

Dave and Agatha,
- I think you're wrong because potential ova and potential sperm cells are theoretically infinite in number; in fact, they are each infinity squared in that each lineage is potentially infinite in length, and the number of potential lineages is also infinite. In fact, they each might be infinite to the infinite power ... but, I'll have to think about that some more.

 

[Pixel42]

Dave and Agatha,
- I think you're wrong because potential ova and potential sperm cells are theoretically infinite in number

No they aren't. DNA is a finite molecule, therefore the number of possible permutations of genes that could end up in each person's ova or sperm is finite. No matter how many generations of theoretical possible combinations you include, the total number of permutations remains finite.

 

[Mojo]

3. Consequently, if my parents, or my grandparents, or my great grandparents, etc, had never met, I would never be here.
4. Not only that, but if my specific sperm cell from my dad had not met up with my specific ovum from my mom, I would never be here.
5. And, my dad probably produced sextillions of sperm cells, while my mother brought hundreds of ova with her. I was the combination of a specific one of those sperm cells and a specific one of those ova.
6. My prior probability of existing – given that my parents came to exist, and coupled up – would have been approximately one in a septillion…
7. And the prior probability of ever getting to that given would have been one in an unimaginable number.

8. So, every specific combination of human sperm cell and human ovum produces a different, unique individual consciousness – a unique “self.” Any variation – whether in sperm cell or ovum or both – would produce a different self…
9. Now, even more unimaginable than the divisor in my prior probability above is the number of POTENTIAL selves that have never existed -- and never will exist – because the number of potential but “unrealized” selves has to take into account the number of potential unrealized selves AND THEIR UNREALIZED OFFSPRING, AND THEIR UNREALIZED OFFSPRING, ETC.

Isn't this the Texas sharpshooter fallacy?

 

[Akhenaten]

I think we need a song.

A Galaxy Song, in fact.

​

 

[Toontown]

The following opinions should not be taken for hills I am willing to die on:

Agatha's argument about the finity of human genetic permutations is correct, but just barely. The number of possible viable permutations is giganogargantuan. (coined a word. like it. plan to use it again)

Plus, neither Agatha's nor Jabba's quibbles make even a minor dent in the full implications of the uniqueness assumption/requirement. To bring about a unique individual organization of MEST with a unique worldline, the specific organization of DNA must also occur at a unique point in a unique space and time. If that were not the case, then I could theoretically clone myself, then kill my old self and become the younger clone. I'm pretty sure the old me wouldn't become the younger clone.

Why does the uniqueness assumption/requirement matter? Because, if we are not unique, then a particular organization of MEST is not a prerequisite to seeing the light of day - the implications of which would trigger widespread shunning and horror if explained and understood - though there is little danger of that.

OTOH, if we insist on defining ourselves as unique organizations of MEST, we make ourselves dauntingly unlikely to ever see the light of day, very nearly impossible. And it makes no difference, from our subjective perspective, how many other nearly impossible things of any kind exist, or how many puddles thought their potholes were made for them, or how one-ish the probability of your current existence is. The prior probability (given the uniqueness assumption) is not altered in the slightest by any of that handwaving. The one-ish-ness of your current existence either means you beat those giganogargantuan prior odds, or the uniqueness assumption which gave rise to the prior probability is wrong. Pick your poison.

End not-willing-to-die-for opinions.

 

[George]

Toontown,
- I think that I agree with everything you said -- and a few days ago I was going to start my discussion with the Big Bang(s), but figured that would take me too long.

- What's the correct model?

Now this is worth setting the alarm for. So entertaining will this discussion be, that there should be an admission charge.

 

[jt512]

Plus, neither Agatha's nor Jabba's quibbles make even a minor dent in the full implications of the uniqueness assumption/requirement. To bring about a unique individual organization of MEST with a unique worldline, the specific organization of DNA must also occur at a unique point in a unique space and time. If that were not the case, then I could theoretically clone myself, then kill my old self and become the younger clone. I'm pretty sure the old me wouldn't become the younger clone..

Am I the only person in the thread who doesn't know what "MEST" means?

 

[Toontown]

Am I the only person in the thread who doesn't know what "MEST" means?

Probably.

No, not really. Just the only one who cared enough to ask. This is a very boring thread, you know.

Mass, Energy, Space, and Time.

 

[Jabba]

No they aren't. DNA is a finite molecule, therefore the number of possible permutations of genes that could end up in each person's ova or sperm is finite. No matter how many generations of theoretical possible combinations you include, the total number of permutations remains finite.

Pixel,
- Does this mean that given enough time, we will exist again?
- I'll try to tell you in a future post why I think you're wrong about permutations being finite.

 

[Pixel42]

Pixel,
- Does this mean that given enough time, we will exist again?

As the planet is only going to be capable of supporting life for about another billion years (and even the universe itself will not last forever) it's extremely unlikely that any of the combinations of genes that have occurred to date will occur again. But even if one did the second person would also have to have exactly the same experiences from conception onwards to be the first person existing again in any meaningful sense. Identical twins have the same DNA, but they are not the same person.

I'll try to tell you in a future post why I think you're wrong about permutations being finite.

Good luck with that.

One problem I'm having with this whole argument is that however unlikely the combination of circumstances that must occur for each individual, we know that some of these combinations WILL occur. It's not as if we're marvelling at the improbability of the wind blowing through a junkyard and assembling a jumbo jet, to use a familiar analogy. It's more like pressing the button on the lottery machine and knowing that, however unlikely it is that any particular combination of numbers will come up, it is a certainty that one of those 14 million to one shots WILL come up.

 

[Mojo]

One problem I'm having with this whole argument is that however unlikely the combination of circumstances that must occur for each individual, we know that some of these combinations WILL occur. It's not as if we're marvelling at the improbability of the wind blowing through a junkyard and assembling a jumbo jet, to use a familiar analogy. It's more like pressing the button on the lottery machine and knowing that, however unlikely it is that any particular combination of numbers will come up, it is a certainty that one of those 14 million to one shots WILL come up.

As I said, the argument is just a variant of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.