[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Jabba]

Last I checked, your proposition A was essentially that all existences were mortal and you claimed ~A was, again essentially, that all existences were immortal.

Those most certainly are not complementary...

js,
- My last ~A was that given that we humans are all the same re mortalility/immortality, we either exist continuously, or we exist more than once.

- Gotta go.

 

[Agatha]

Sorry posted too soon (clumsy fingers, labyrinthitis and tiny phone keypad).

Nowhere in your expression of ~A is there the possibility that only one, or only some people get to live more than one life, for example.

 

[Agatha]

Claiming that humans are all the same is a big huge unsupported assertion.

 

[Jabba]

Chiefly, you've ignored the fact that your ~A is not the complete complement of your A. If anything which is not A is not included in ~A, then you have a false dichotomy.

Nowhere in your expression of ~A

Agatha,

- Again, I think that I've answered everyone's claim re my alleged false dichotomy. Consequently, You'll need to give me an example of a claim that you think I haven't answered.

 

[Jabba]

Claiming that humans are all the same is a big huge unsupported assertion.

Agatha,
- That is not an "assertion." It's a conditional, or hypothetical.
- I think that it's valid to invoke a condition in order to provide complementary assertions.

- Gotta go.

 

[carlitos]

Agatha,

- Again, I think that I've answered everyone's claim re my alleged false dichotomy. Consequently, You'll need to give me an example of a claim that you think I haven't answered.

- I assume that "this" refers to my highlighted claim above. - If so, a proposed explanation for why it is utterly incorrect may have been given many times over -- but if it was, I'm not sure where.

You don't know where? You don't know where??? Try here:

Your claim is wrong. At least one possibility of the complement cannot be known and at least one possibility of the complement is known for certain.

You cannot know if we are in a random or deterministic universe. If the universe is deterministic, then your existence, however brief, had a probability of 1. There is no way of testing whether the universe is random or predetermined. The is no way of knowing whether, if it were run from the beginning, it would turn out the same.

You do know that 7 billion other people exist. One of the complements to you coming into existence is that anybody else might exist as well. We do (or, at least, we have as much right to claim we exist as you do). So, one of the complements to the probability that you were formed in a random universe has already come to pass. Logically, you must be wrong.

As long as you pretend that "immortality" ("essentially") is the only other option to "one short life, at most", your demonstrations and claims are based upon a self-deception. This has been pointed out to you before.

If p is "chocolate ice cream", ~p is ALL that is not chocolate ice cream: vanilla ice cream, crème brûlée, durian pudding, asparagus...

If p is "baseball", ~p is ALL that is not baseball: cricket, town ball, water skiing, stamp collecting, Cubs games...

If p is "one short life to live at most", ~p is ALL that is not "one short life to live at most": two lives, three lives, never-being-alive-at-all, vacationing in Houston, TX...

You may not pretend that one option out of ~p is "close enough" (even if all you claim you are trying to do is "essentially prove").

A subset of the complementary model are the possibilities that we have no life at all, or the possibility that we have exactly two lives. Can you outline how you will show immortality to be so much more likely that we can practically ignore these two possibilities of the complementary model?

Saying that immortality is the complement of mortality is like saying that being a serial killer is the complement of being a law abiding citizen.

In predicting the probability that he, Jabba, would exist, he accidentally excluded the probability that anybody else might exist. According to his numbers, if taken to mean what he says they mean, he and only he can be immortal. Of course, this just points out how deficient his definitions of his proposition and its complement really are.

No, your model is certainly not complementary. The opposite of p is [not p]. Your [not p] only has a couple of ill thought-out, ill-explained possibilities.

Start with defining your new P: that is, that you are immortal in a sense that you will explain. Then, come up with a probability for this P that takes into account all of our knowledge and evidence about the world. That way, you can be sure that 'everything else' is in ~P. If you try to define ~P, you will be unable to do so since it is only limited by people's imagination.

One of the complements to your existence in a non-deterministic universe is that everybody else exists. We know that to be true. So we know that one of the possibilities actually can and did happen. Other people exist. Separating out the difference between your immortal existence and the mortality of the entire species should prove to be impossible.

At the same time, one of the other possible complements is that we live in a deterministic universe. If the universe ran from the beginning, it would turn out exactly the same way. There is no experiment that can be devised that could show the universe to be random, rather than predetermined. Philosophically, it is an intractable, unsolvable problem. So, good luck with that.

At the risk of being accused of being "unfriendly", I must point out to you that you are, apparently, still dropping the ball as far as ~p being everything but p.

Let's simplify: Suppose "p" is the condition "being Rich Savage". In that case, "~p" would NOT be,"being Loss Leader"; or "being Akhenaten"; or "being Agatha"; nor yet "being the third mushroom from the left under the bridge to Lulongomeela". "~p" would be..."not being Rich Savage". Everything that satisfies the condition, "not being Rich Savage" is "~p".

t is the simple logical fallacy of false dichotomy which is hampering Jabba's "essential proof".

Let's use the analogy of a six-sided die. Let's say that "the scientific model", as you describe it, is rolling a 6. Immortality is rolling a 1. What you're now saying is that you're going to try to prove that rolling a 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 is more likely than rolling a 6. From there you intend to prove that rolling a 1 is more likely than any other result.

Your numbers do not matter. Your probabilities, however you establish them, are meaningless. The only thing that matters is that the probabilities of all of the possible conditions add up to 1. Defining the total possible conditions is essential. However, I see no way for you to do so.

You must define both things at once and they must cover all possibilities.

If one side is that "my self will exist and it will exist continuously, or for multiple lifetimes," the other side must be defined as anything other than that. That includes: that the universe is deterministic, that you are mortal, that other people are mortal, that other people are immortal, that the universe is ten minutes old, and every other possible thing that can be imagined.

It is meaningless for you to state one side of a complementary model. You must state both sides.

That's the problem, though, Jabba. There's not just one complementary model.

Example:

At the moment, all evidence indicates that the sky appears blue. Doesn't matter why the sky appears blue; that's the current scientific model, so to speak. If I want to argue that the current scientific model regarding the apparent color of the sky is wrong and posit that the opposite is true, I have to define what that opposite scenario is.

I might be tempted to assume that the opposite of blue is orange; therefore, if the sky isn't blue, it must be orange, but the opposite of blue isn't orange. The opposite of blue, for the sake of this example, is everything that is not blue, so I have to take into account every other color possibility that exists, not just orange.

The opposite of one finite life isn't eternal life. The opposite of one finite life is every possible scenario that would fall under the category of not one finite life. Eternal life, or however you're definiting immortality, is just one scenario, but there are plenty of others.

I said that you've identified two conditions as covering ALL possibilities: Either you are mortal or immortal. However immortality IS NOT the complement of mortality. The complement is "any possibility other than your mortality in a random universe." You have not explained how you've separated out immortality from any other possibility.

All that you've computed is the chance that you are not the only mortal alive in a random universe. You haven't separated out any of the possible reasons why you are not the only mortal in the universe. You've just declared that the reason is that you're immortal. But literally any other thing is part of your number, including that there are other mortals in the universe besides you.

The best way to demonstrate how wrong you are is to calculate your probabilities backwards. Since your two conditions are complements of each other, the probabilities should work out both ways. So, what is the chance that you are an immortal being, living forever through reincarnation in a random universe? What forces would have had to come together over how long and under what circumstances to create you in a continuous form? How many times would the universe have to start from the beginning until it made you again? Now consider the odds of anything other than that.

The numbers don't work backwards, do they? That's because your two conditions do not cover all possibilities.

The fatal issue that you must deal with in order for anything you say to have meaning is the definition of the condition and the negation of the condition.

You have defined the condition, p, as your being mortal in a random universe.

The negation of that condition, ~p, has been defined by you as your punctuated or continuous immortality in a random universe. However, the correct definition of ~p should be ANYTHING OTHER THAN p. That includes: your mortality in a deterministic universe, the mortality of anyone else in a random universe, the chance that the universe was created 30 minutes ago, and everything else that isn't p.

Otherwise, you cannot say that p V ~P = 1. Unless you can show why everything other than your immortality is impossible, your proof is illogical. For example: if we live in a deterministic universe, you are wrong. But your probabilities don't account for the chance that the universe is deterministic.

This is absolutely fatal to your argument. Playing with the probability that you are mortal is meaningless. It is shuffling deck chairs. The complimentary condition must be properly defined. Can you do this?

Now you have an easy reference where you can find exactly what logical mistake you are making.

 

[godless dave]

Agatha,
- That is not an "assertion." It's a conditional, or hypothetical.
- I think that it's valid to invoke a condition in order to provide complementary assertions.

Is it a generally accepted practice to invoke conditions when defining complementary hypotheses for examination by Bayesian statistics?

 

[jsfisher]

js,
- My last ~A was that given that we humans are all the same re mortalility/immortality, we either exist continuously, or we exist more than once.

- Gotta go.

That is not even close to the complement of the last A you posted.

ETA: My username is "jsfisher", not "js". Please use the correct username.

 

[jsfisher]

Agatha,
- That is not an "assertion." It's a conditional, or hypothetical.

The form you have used is "given X, then Y". The form is ambiguous. It can possibly mean "if X then Y", a proper conditional, or it can mean "since X is true, then Y" or possibly "X and Y".

If you mean, "if X then Y", please use that form to eliminate the chance you'd be misunderstood.

- I think that it's valid to invoke a condition in order to provide complementary assertions.

If X then Y is the complement of a statement, but certainly not your statement.

Since you ignored it before, I will repeat this: The complement of if X then Y is X and ~Y.

- Gotta go.

Say hello to Brave Sir Robin if you run into him.

 

[Humots]

Humots,
- I think that I've answered all of everybody's claims re my alleged false dichotomy. Please give me an example of the claims you think that I've ignored.

Jabba: see http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9817829#post9817829

Thank you carlitos!

 

[Humots]

js,
- My last ~A was that given that we humans are all the same re mortalility/immortality, we either exist continuously, or we exist more than once.

- Gotta go.

IIRC Jabba, you were referring to what you defined as P(A|B), where

A = "We exist only once"

B = "we humans are all the same re mortalility/immortality"

So aren't you actually talking about P(~A|B)?

Remember "conditional complement"?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

ETA: My username is "jsfisher", not "js". Please use the correct username.

I'll repeat this for Jabba - Jabba, you are choosing to unnecessarily repeat people's names at the start of posts. You are doing this because you consider it polite. Nobody would consider it impolite if you didn't do this. You are also shortening people's names in order to save yourself effort. People do find this impolite.

What you're doing is thinking about what you want, and ignoring what the people you're addressing actually want, meaning that your gesture isn't anything to do with being polite to other people, it's purely something to make yourself feel good. Stop it.

 

[jsfisher]

IIRC Jabba, you were referring to what you defined as P(A|B), where

A = "We exist only once"

B = "we humans are all the same re mortalility/immortality"

So aren't you actually talking about P(~A|B)?

Remember "conditional complement"?

Yes, it is clear Jabba is mixing conditional probabilities into his confusion. At some point I am hoping he will realize that what statement he wants for A and its complement, ~A, don't change just because he intends to use them as part of a conditional probability (not to mention A and ~A will appear on the other side of the vertical bar...).

 

[Slowvehicle]

Agatha,

- Again, I think that I've answered everyone's claim re my alleged false dichotomy. Consequently, You'll need to give me an example of a claim that you think I haven't answered.

Good evening, Mr. Savage:

At the risk of seeming unco-operative, consider this claim:

-all gingers are unconditionally immortal; that is, having existed from the instant of the Big Bang, and, in some as-yet-understood way, will, in fact, survive the heat death of this universe and exit in the next, worlds without end, unless they are left-handed;
-but all left-handed gingers are repeatedly reincarnated in multiple iterations of independent selves, bounded by the big bang at one end and the heat death of this universe at the other, unless they are reincarnated on an even-numbered Tuesday;
-all left-handed gingers re-incarnated on an even numbered Tuesday die the real death after one life (as brunettes) unless they please the 'gods';
-in which case they are granted the choice of eternity as a blonde, or reincarnation as a left-handed brunette, or advancementto the next planeof existence;
-unless thay sell Amway, in which case they go to hell; go directly to hell; they do not pass "go" and do not collect 200 resurrection Karma points.

That claim is not part of your A, but you have excluded it form your ~A.

 

[Alleyprowler]

Agreed^^^^

Does any of the lurkers, the presumed "unprejudiced" masses to which Jabba has alluded, agree with Jabba that these questions about his definitions, crucial to his math, have been settled and that he can move on?

On behalf of this lurker, and this lurker only, the answer is no. Thanks for asking

I'd include some of my problems with Jabba's proposition in my reply, but I'm afraid he would only puree them down into thousands of microscopic problems to be solved and then immediately forget what they were. I'm not interested in engaging someone who can't form a decent argument, let alone take basic notes.

You guys have fun, though. I'll be lurking and making lots of popcorn.

 

[Ladewig]

Jabba, you seemed to have ignored my questions.

There were sincere, relevant and not disrespectful, so i will ask them again.

- In a sense, my overall objective is to effectively present my significant evidence and logic supporting the validity of the numbers I've inserted into the Bayesian formula.

Quick questions.

How will you know when you have effectively presented your argument?

How will we know when you have effectively presented your argument?

How will an objective observer know when you have effectively presented your argument?

 

[Aepervius]

js,
- My last ~A was that given that we humans are all the same re mortalility/immortality, we either exist continuously, or we exist more than once.

- Gotta go.

Does not contain the case of the half -line where we existed for ever and ever, until we are born and then die and stop existing.

 

[Jabba]

Carlitos,
- I don't have nearly enough time to answer all of those at once -- so, I'll start off with the first one and get back to the others as I have the time, if I have the time.
- If you prefer that I start with a different example, just let me know which one.

 

[John Jones]

Carlitos,
- I don't have nearly enough time to answer all of those at once -- so, I'll start off with the first one and get back to the others as I have the time, if I have the time.
- If you prefer that I start with a different example, just let me know which one.

Say it one more time and make it an even million times we've heard that.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Carlitos,
- I don't have nearly enough time to answer all of those at once -- so, I'll start off with the first one and get back to the others as I have the time, if I have the time.
- If you prefer that I start with a different example, just let me know which one.

Good Morning, Mr. Savage! I hope your Thursday is going well. We got another inch of new snow last night, and the temperature is not supposed to get abpve freezing for the next two days, so I have a couple of hours of shoveling and de-icing ahead of me today. My partner is also stuck in a nearby city, as the highways are impassable.

I have, as politely as possible, both suggested and requested where you should "start". is is the same place you should have "started" in your OP.

Instead of trying to logically force the conclusion that your definition of "immortality" (whatever it is) is the only "logical" conclusion of the premise set you are claiming to establish, why not "start" at the "other end"?

Why not simply present all of your evidence that the "soul" exists, and is "immortal"? You keep trying to sell an immortal pig in an invisible poke. Why not simply introduce your pig?

You are trying to use logic to force a conclusion. Follow:

Whereas: at the end of your day, a ham sandwich is better than nothing; and,
Whereas: at the end of your life, nothing is better than going to heaven;
Therefore, a ham sandwich is better than going to heaven.

Do notice that I am not even beginning to consider the ways in which what you want to call "immortality" is in conflict with xianist theology...)