[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[John Jones]

Pixel,
- No. Water fits the hole because it "seeks its own level" -- not because the hole was designed just for it.
- Are you saying that life, in effect, "seeks its own level"?

How on Earth could anybody draw that conclusion from what Pixel42 said?

 

[Pixel42]

Pixel,
- No. Water fits the hole because it "seeks its own level" -- not because the hole was designed just for it.

I don't think the "seeks its own level" thing is helping, but at least you can see that the deduction is wrong.

The hole is not the shape it is in order to fit the puddle; the shape of the puddle is determined by the shape of the hole.

- Are you saying that life, in effect, "seeks its own level"?

I am saying that the mistake the puddle is making is the same mistake that those who argue that the universe is fine tuned for life are making.

Slowvehicle's post above explains it well.

 

[Tomboy]

Pixel,
- No. Water fits the hole because it "seeks its own level" -- not because the hole was designed just for it.
- Are you saying that life, in effect, "seeks its own level"?

Actually, kind of, yes. Well, not that that's what Pixel is saying, but that's sort of what the puddle analogy is illustrating. Life "seeks its own level" in that life adapts to its environment the same way water adapts to the shape of the hole in which it finds itself. This planet wasn't designed or created specifically for life as we know it any more than that hole in the ground was created or designed specifically for that puddle of water.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

How on Earth could anybody draw that conclusion from what Pixel42 said?

Maybe he's just trolling?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Pixel,
- No. Water fits the hole because it "seeks its own level" -- not because the hole was designed just for it.
- Are you saying that life, in effect, "seeks its own level"?

No.

It has nothing to do with the physical property of leveling. it has to do, instead, with one of the other characteristics of liquids; that is, that a liquid is of determinate volume, but indeterminate shape--the shape of a bolus of liquid is determined by the shape of the container it is in.

The puddle in the round hole thinks that because she is round, the perfect round hole in which she finds herself must have been "designed just for her". In fact, she is round because she is in a round hole.

You think that this tiny corner of the universe must have been "designed just for you", because at least parts of this planet fall within the narrow bounds of your survival criteria. Instead, you evolved in response to the narrow band of characteristics present in parts of this planet. You are CHON because you are in a CHON "hole".

 

[dlorde]

The multiverse idea is relevant to immortality in that it seems to maybe undermine the anthropic claim, and I claim that the anthropic claim supports immortality.

Please explain - what is the 'anthropic claim', how does it seem to be undermined by the 'multiverse idea', and how does it support immortality?

 

[godless dave]

I asked this before, but I'll be more specific this time. Jabba, which of the following multiverse hypotheses are you referring to?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Multiverse_hypotheses_in_physics

 

[abaddon]

Maybe he's just trolling?

I can only speak for myself, but I cannot fathom how Jabba's muddle the puddle game can be anything other than intentional.

 

[Humots]

Humots,
- Do you honestly believe that Slowvehicle has not been insulting?

I honestly believe that nobody on this thread has been insulting. They are being brutally honest.

No one is questioning your intelligence. An intelligent person can still be obstinate, willfully ignorant, and overly fond of his own opinions.

Jabba: you were insulting more than once on the Shroud threads, and you seemed to be completely oblivious of it.

You were not insulting the participants on that thread, but at times you offered the option that Shroud investigators had been incompetent or even dishonest. And you were called on it, but you still didn't understand why what you were doing was out of line.

- So far, I haven't wanted to "report" anybody, as I would be reporting almost everybody, almost every time.

This is telling. Everybody is always insulting you, almost every time they post. By disagreeing with you and pointing out your errors?

- I basically never respond to some of our participants, because in my opinion, they only insult and never offer anything constructive -- and also because I don't have nearly enough time to answer every question/objection aimed at me.

As I said, they were being brutally honest, not insulting. And it is hardly fair discussion to decide that since you think they are insulting, you can dismiss whatever they say.

You keep complaining about all the questions you are asked. You can address practically all of them by getting to the bloody point instead of complaining of all the insults.

- It's a counter argument to his accusations of me avoiding the issues.

It's not a counter argument. You are avoiding the issues.

 

[Alleyprowler]

Pixel,
- No. Water fits the hole because it "seeks its own level" -- not because the hole was designed just for it.
- Are you saying that life, in effect, "seeks its own level"?

Yikes! No, Jabba, as other have pointed out, that is not the takeaway anyone intended. Let me put it this way:

The puddle of water = Life

The hole = The conditions on Earth (or the universe in general).

Life adjusted itself to the conditions on Earth. The Earth did not work its way toward life.

Our planet has undergone some pretty catastrophic changes in its lifetime. Warming, cooling, meteor hits, major volcanic eruptions, continental drift, and so on. Those are the "holes" .

The puddle of water, or life, has had to adapt to these changes or else die out.

Humans could have died out during the Toba catastrophe, or at any other time. We are not special in that regard. Any species could lose its "hole" at any time. We humans could all die off if anything went differently at any time.

I really hate to break this to you, but you are not a special case. You are not necessary, in the grand scheme of things. In fact, there is no grand scheme.

Your parents had sex. The rest is down to biology, chemistry, and physics.

 

[Jabba]

Actually, kind of, yes. Well, not that that's what Pixel is saying, but that's sort of what the puddle analogy is illustrating. Life "seeks its own level" in that life adapts to its environment the same way water adapts to the shape of the hole in which it finds itself. This planet wasn't designed or created specifically for life as we know it any more than that hole in the ground was created or designed specifically for that puddle of water.

Tomboy,
- Why would you think that life" "seeks its own level"? Why would you think that the beginning of life doesn't require a certain specific physical situation?

 

[Agatha]

We weren't talking about abiogenesis, were we? That isn't what the puddle analogy is about either, really.

This thread is getting crazily off-topic; is there any chance of keeping it focussed on your claims about immortality?

 

[Akhenaten]

Tomboy,
- Why would you think that life" "seeks its own level"?

Tomboy was extending a branch to you with the hope that you might find encouragement in the realisation that at least one person can see that you're trying to understand the puddle analogy.

What a shame it is to see the effort completely wasted.

Why would you think that the beginning of life doesn't require a certain specific physical situation?

According to your own never-to-be-revealed proof of essential immortality, life doesn't even have a beginning, so you're in no position to be asking this question, now are you?

 

[Akhenaten]

Yikes! No, Jabba, as other have pointed out, that is not the takeaway anyone intended.

<polite snip>

Howdy!




Welcome to the Circus Neverending™

 

[Slowvehicle]

Tomboy,
- Why would you think that life" "seeks its own level"? Why would you think that the beginning of life doesn't require a certain specific physical situation?

Mr. Savage:

Do you see the scare quotes around "seeks its own level" in Tomboy's post? Scare quotes are used, among other things, to make it clear that the author is sojourning from the literal, or conventional, meaning of the words in the quotes.

I venture to expect that Tomboy was not, in fact, claiming that if one puts two populations of living things in two connected containers, that the life in the bowls would seek its own level, or evenly distribute itself. I rather reckon that Tomboy might have been trying to reach you , to clarify your apprehension of a concept, by adopting your term as a starting point.

I do not presume, here, to speak for Tomboy.

OTH: Life does not seek its own level, nor "seek" its "own level", nor even "seek its own level". Life develops where it can; where it can, it will.

The origins of life, as fascinating as the are, are, in this context, an unnecessary diversion. Such a rabbit trail, as enticing as it might be, will not further your "essentially proving" immortality.

There are several questions on the table, questions which you really, really ought to address instead.

The point, the raison d'être, of the puddle analogy is to probe the inherent mistakenness of the idea that this universe is"fine-tuned" for life. The universe was not "created" "for" life--life evolved in response to the conditions of the universe. It truly does not matter if one assumes a universe, a multiverse, or a polyverse; reality is not fine-tuned, or tailor-made, for LAWKI.

In what way might I encourage you to address your original claim, and to explain how in the shoes of a Marmot-Stalking Stephenson any of this "proves", or "essentially proves", or can be fairly said to have any actual bearing on, immortality?

 

[godless dave]

Tomboy,
- Why would you think that life" "seeks its own level"? Why would you think that the beginning of life doesn't require a certain specific physical situation?

I don't think Tomboy would disagree that the beginning of life requires a certain specific physical situation, although it may well be that there are several specific situations that would give rise to life.

 

[catsmate]

- Otherwise, I see a universe that happens to allow for life as the first enormous coincidence allowing for my current existence.

So just because you're unable to comprehend the utter stupidity of the fine tuning argument others should do your work for you? Again?

Perhaps before expecting other people to do your research for you, as you habitually do (in this thread and others) you could demonstrate some evidence that the various physical constants cited in the "fine tuning" argument could have other values?

While some IDiots like to pimp the idea of "fine tuning" it's unsupported by actual facts (like that evidence for the possibility of different physical constants) and because those promoting the idea only vary one of the constants to support their beliefs. Way back in '08 New Scientist did a good rebuttal of the whole "fine tuning" garbage: In the Multiverse Stars Burn Black.

If Jabba was being honest in his use of the "fine tuning" argument he'd already have done some research of his own, and be familiar with the rebuttals by Carr and Rees, Kane, and Hawking.

What does the AP have to do with immortality, anyway?

He's doing is usual thing of switching tacks when one of his arguments is shredded. As per the shroud thread.

Is there any rational basis for estimating the odds of the universe happening to allow for life? Presumably one must feel one has at least an intuitive sense of the probability in order to feel it is an enormous coincidence?

Ah, insufficient data.

 

[Jabba]

I honestly believe that nobody on this thread has been insulting. They are being brutally honest...

Humots,
- You seem to be saying that in this forum, as long as you're being honest about them, it's OK to express your negative opinions of your opponents. Is that what you mean?

 

[Akhenaten]

- I basically never respond to some of our participants, because in my opinion, they only insult and never offer anything constructive -- and also because I don't have nearly enough time to answer every question/objection aimed at me.

What's good is that regardless of your opinions about the politesse or contributory value of our participants' your opponents' posts, they remain on the board for all to see, speaking for themselves as it were.

Your refusal to answer such posts simply means that they are allowed to stand unopposed. No wonder you're coming a distant second as far as Truly Effective Debate™ is concerned.

 

[Akhenaten]

Humots,
- You seem to be saying that in this forum, as long as you're being honest about them, it's OK to express your negative opinions of your opponents. Is that what you mean?

No, it doesn't seem that way at all.

Any chance of you returning to the ever-growing pile of questions and objections that you were promising to attend to?

You know - the ones that actually relate to the topic?