[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
- Otherwise, to the extent that I can really understand the rebuttals given, I just don't see the wreckage that you guys do.
Click to expand...


I'll bet the concept of "blind faith" is similarly mysterious to you.



Jabba said:
To me, the AP is a real conundrum, and another big reason for thinking that the "scientific opinion" about one finite life doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...


To me, the existence of octopuses is a real conundrum, and another big reason for thinking that the "scientific opinion" about the Kraken doesn't make sense.



Jabba said:
- Can one of you put one of the arguments against the AP in your own words?
Click to expand...


The brundup thunder snarched above,
while swiffling, biffulous seas.

And Dingle Mugwumps boo the tun,
while Snunkler glunk wif glee.​
 
Jabba said:
- Can one of you put one of the arguments against the AP in your own words?
Click to expand...

Why?

Why should anyone use this thread to explain the AP to you?

Can you show any evidence that your only reason for wanting to understand it is so that you can show us why it is wrong?

Can you show any evidence that you have ever changed your mind after being shown a logical counterargument? Actually, let's just stick with that question and ignore the previous ones.

I assert that because we understand the many errors in your argument, you will never convince us that immortality exists (or is even more likely to exist than not exist). I also assert that you are so confident that your argument is without flaw, that there is nothing we can say that will convince you that you that even part of your argument is flawed. I will gladly apologize for those assertions if you can provide any evidence that you have ever changed your mind after being shown a logical counterargument?

Can you show any evidence that you have ever changed your mind after being shown a logical counterargument?

Just a single example will do. And just to be crystal clear, changing your mind for 4 or 5 days and then going back to your original entrenched position does not count.
 
Jabba said:
Pixel,
- I think that you're argument requires there to be many basically different ways for life to occur.
Click to expand...


The're qui'te possib'ly a're.

S'o bl'oody wh'at?



Jabba said:
For instance, if the universe was all gas, life could/would(?) still occur. (I understand that if the force of gravity was just slightly weaker, the universe would be all gas.)
Click to expand...


And if the Universe was all water then guppies would rule. (I understand that this is a patently useless thing to say)



Jabba said:
- And so far, I think that's exactly what the puddle analogy is about. The fluid filling the puddle is totally "flexible." It would take on whatever shape is available. I think that such an analogy requires that life be totally (or, significantly) flexible. I assume that is not what you're saying.
Click to expand...


You don't even understand the concept of analogies, much less what might be inferred from them.
 
godless dave said:
If it were, we wouldn't be here asking this question.

That's all the anthropic principle says.
Click to expand...
Dave,
- The anthropic principle claims that the odds against the universe being supportive of life are staggering. It seems to me that the only reductionistic way to begin to explain such odds is the multiverse way.
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- The anthropic principle claims that the odds against the universe being supportive of life are staggering.
Click to expand...

No, it does not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle said:
In astrophysics and cosmology, the anthropic principle (from Greek anthropos, meaning "human") is the philosophical consideration that observations of the physical Universe must be compatible with the conscious life that observes it
...
The strong anthropic principle (SAP) as explained by Barrow and Tipler (see variants) states that this is all the case because the Universe is compelled, in some sense, for conscious life to eventually emerge. Critics of the SAP argue in favor of a weak anthropic principle (WAP) similar to the one defined by Brandon Carter, which states that the universe's ostensible fine tuning is the result of selection bias: i.e., only in a universe capable of eventually supporting life will there be living beings capable of observing any such fine tuning, while a universe less compatible with life will go unbeheld.
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
 
zooterkin said:
Why do you keep bringing God into this?
Click to expand...


It was pre-determined to be so.



Akhenaten said:
dafydd said:
Not complete nonsense, the deck could have been stacked or somebody is cheating. Nothing to do with imaginary immortality.
Click to expand...


True enough.

I was just anticipating that his answer to this:


Jabba said:
What makes its improbability special is that in that situation, there is at least one plausible explanation, other than chance, for getting that hand.
Click to expand...


will be, "Goddidit!"
Click to expand...
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- The anthropic principle claims that the odds against the universe being supportive of life are staggering.
Click to expand...


The probability of the Universe being supportive of life is exactly 1.0.

It's both astounding and hilarious that you continue to pretend otherwise.



Jabba said:
It seems to me that the only reductionistic way to begin to explain such odds is the multiverse way.
Click to expand...


GIGO.

You need to start again with premises that have some basis in reality.
 
Jabba said:
dlorde,
- How can intelligent life find itself a universe capable of supporting intelligent life if there is only a single universe?
Click to expand...
Intelligent life doesn't 'find itself a universe'. It evolves in whatever universe exists that has the parameters to support life.

Life is a result of the life-permitting parameters, not a reason for the parameters' existence.
Just like the puddle existing is a result of water being in the various shaped holes described above, it's not a reason for the holes to exist.

Whether or not other universes existed prior to this one, or exist in the same timeframe as this one, or might exist in the future, is immaterial to that fact.

A universe does not have to be observed to exist, but it is trivially true that to observe a universe, there must be observers.

It so happens that this universe exists, and on this small insignificant planet there were, at one point, the right conditions for life to begin. How it began is not on topic for this thread. 99.9..9% of the universe did/does not have the right conditions for life to begin, but this planet, and probably many others outside our solar system did/do. But the vast majority of this universe is absolutely hostile to any kind of life - in fact most of this planet is hostile to our particular kind of life, which is a good argument against any fine-tuning.

In this universe's case, 2.3 million years ago or so Homo habilis evolved. Eventually H. habilis evolved into H. sapiens - us - and we have the beginnings of agriculture, writing and the Industrial Revolution (amongst other breakthroughs) to thank for the fact that we have time and brainpower to navel-gaze about "why we are here" and "are we individually more special than any other person".

The universe is what it is, whether we are here or not. If humans were wiped out entirely tomorrow, the universe would still be there. If every living thing were wiped out tomorrow, the universe would still be there, albeit unobserved. Life might restart on this planet, or it might not. If it did, then in the ~5 billion years left to this planet, some species similar to ours might evolve, or it might not.

We are not special in the universe, we just have large-ish brains with a capacity for speech and reasoning, and opposable thumbs. We've used our traits to our advantage and have made a success of our existence. But we are no more or less special than any other life form on this or any other planet.

To drag this back on topic: given that we do exist, and therefore we can observe this universe, what does any of this have to do with immortality? You are mistaken if you think that any of the Anthropic Principles support your idea of an individual's continued consciousness after the death of that individual's brain. If you want us to think that there is any likelihood that consciousness could continue, then produce some evidence. Repeatable, testable evidence.
 
Agatha said:
Intelligent life doesn't 'find itself a universe'. It evolves in whatever universe exists that has the parameters to support life.
...
Click to expand...
Agatha,
- In other words, you accept the multiverse concept.
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- The anthropic principle claims that the odds against the universe being supportive of life are staggering.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't. The Anthropic Principle says that a universe that is observed has properties capable of permitting the observers to exist. It's an unfalsifiable philosophical truism, nothing more than that.

Jabba said:
It seems to me that the only reductionistic way to begin to explain such odds is the multiverse way.
Click to expand...
Given that the odds are 1.0 that this universe supports life, there is no reason to do such a pointless exercise.

Jabba said:
What if the universe was all gas?
Click to expand...
Then humans would never have arisen, and we wouldn't be having this discussion. It is still possible that another form of life, capable of existing in and therefore observing an all-gas universe, might have arisen. Such an occurrence is perfectly compatible with the Anthropic Principle.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom