Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2010
- Messages
- 32,124
You do understand that you've just admitted that your entire argument is dishonest, don't you?
[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics
- Thread starter Jabba
- Start date
- Status
You do understand that you've just admitted that your entire argument is dishonest, don't you?
No, he does not.
From Jabba's perspective, he is forced to make his side zero while he makes the other side a positive number because that reflects the reality that he wants.
From reality's perspective, Jabba is forced to make his side zero while he makes the other side a positive number because to do otherwise would force him to accept the reality that is.
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
Jabba, over the entirety of the existence of the universe, including the future, there may be an infinity of potential selves - if the universe lasts forever and life exists forever.
At any given point in time, there are only a finite number of potential selves. Let's take me for an example. In October, 1969, which is roughly when I was conceived, there were a finite number of fertile human beings. There were only a finite number of potential mating pairs, and each had only a finite number of sperm and eggs that could meet, in a finite number of combinations.
Only one of those combinations would result in me. There was a large number of potential alternatives - my parents could have had intercourse a few minutes earlier, or a few minutes later, or not at all, or one or both of them could have even had intercourse with someone else. It was a large number, but not an infinite number.
Even with cloning, there is only a finite amount of genetic material to work with, and finite resources that an organism needs to grow.
At any given point in time, there are only a finite number of potential selves. Let's take me for an example. In October, 1969, which is roughly when I was conceived, there were a finite number of fertile human beings. There were only a finite number of potential mating pairs, and each had only a finite number of sperm and eggs that could meet, in a finite number of combinations.
Only one of those combinations would result in me. There was a large number of potential alternatives - my parents could have had intercourse a few minutes earlier, or a few minutes later, or not at all, or one or both of them could have even had intercourse with someone else. It was a large number, but not an infinite number.
Even with cloning, there is only a finite amount of genetic material to work with, and finite resources that an organism needs to grow.
Last edited:
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
- How many times have I had to change my wording?
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
It doesn't matter how many times. Until you change it to something that reflects reality, Mojo's observation stands
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
Has it occurred to you that wording your statements differently does not address the objections raised?
It's not that we don't understand what you're trying to say, Jabba.
Akhenaten got the right of it.
Your changes have been made not with an eye to make them error-free, but in an attempt to reword the same problems so they would not be as noticeable. You are starting with your conclusion and repeatedly trying to frame the question to force its acceptance. If you want the truth, then forget about what the conclusion is or might be; simply create your equation (in words and/or symbology).
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
- You're talking about actual selves. If there is no pool of (specific) potential selves that we are pulled from, there is no theoretical limit to the number of possible selves. Each new self is a brand new creation.
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
Each new self is a brand new creation - that is dependent on preceding events. This imposes the limit on the number of potential selves.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
- I think this is the part that is so difficult to convey.
- I'll try some more.
- I'm suggesting that all this new creation of awareness is dependent upon is some state of matter occurring -- a state that triggers life, consciousness and a self . The characteristics of the person inhabited by this awareness is dependent upon all sorts of things -- the awareness, itself, is not.
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
But isn't the creation of the awareness dependent on a new organism being produced?
My awareness only exists if my brain exists. There was a finite number of potential human fetuses that could have been produced in October, 1969.
Remember, A is the scientific model. And in the scientific model, the awareness, the self, and the brain are all the same thing.
Last edited:
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
Each self is a brand new creation that can only be born to one of the 3.5 billion women currently existing on the planet. Each person has 23 chromosomes, so the total possible individuals that a man and woman could bear is between 25 (the upper limit of children a woman can have) and 7*1013 (the upper limit of possible chromosome pairings).
That's a huge, huge number. But you know what it isn't? It isn't infinite.
This so reminds me of a Dilbert where Ratbert is distressed that Dilbert will not accept him, and enrolls in a lab study to no longer be a "little rat." Dilbert asks him if he will no longer be a rat, Ratbert asks, "Don't tell me it is the rat part that disturbs you?"
You got it wrong. Rewording it won't ever fix it. The problem is a much more basic one, with your mathematics, as has been explained to you.
Last edited:
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
Wait, what?
When did you demonstrate there are souls, with or without ""s?
Awesome, oh carbon based life-form.
Humots
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- May 29, 2012
- Messages
- 425
I looked up likelihood function. If I understand what I read,
L(A|me) = P(me|A)
That is: the likelihood L(A|me) of Jabba existing for one finite time at most, given that he currently exists, is equal to the probability P(me|A) of Jabba's current existence, given that he will exist for one finite time at most.
If so, then it looks to me like Jabba has it backward. P(me|A) gives the value of the likelihood L(A|me) that Jabba exists for one finite time at most, given that he currently exists.
Then P(me|A) is not the likelihood of Jabba's current existence, given that he will exist for one finite time at most.
Also, likelihoods are not probability density functions. L(A|me) + L(~A|me) does not necessarily equal 1.0, as P(A|me) + P(~A|me) does.
Maybe I'm not getting this right. Any comments other than Jabba's usual?
If you agree that the number of people on Earth continues to increase and you believe that the "extra" souls required are created brand new, why are some souls reincarnated and others created brand new?
How could this ever be evidence for reincarnation? If you do not "need" an old soul to be installed in a new body, but can just create one, doesn't this allow all of us to be created de novo and destroyed when we die? Haven't you just completely removed any remaining link between souls, your (erroneous) math proof, and the idea of reincarnation?
By the way, as asked here already, how can I tell the difference between a new and a recycled soul? I'd hate to think that I could have been Napoleon, but they ran out of his soul and I was just a newly minted me. How boring!
Last edited:
Jabba,
I know this has been tried before with absolutely no effect on you, but I like the analogy and I will try again:
Imagine you buy a lottery ticket. Before you look, you have a posterior probability of holding a winning ticket of 1/1,000,000. Now you look down, and your ticket is a winner (number, 01, 03, 11, 28, 49). Your probability of winning the lottery is now one! Oddly still, you look down and see 01, 08, 12, 22, 44 on your lottery ticket. This is not the number of the winner; it is a loser. But the posterior probability of obtaining that number is also 1/1,000,000, and your probability of having that number right now is also one.
The same statistics are relevant to you! The probability of your existence, being you are here, is one. Posteriorly, becoming Jabba in particular is very rare (otherwise there might be two), but you are here, with a probability of one! Posteriorly, you could have been someone else (some other number): your sister, or brother, or one of many combinations of sperm and ovum that never happened or made it. Your probability of being someone, anyone, is quite high; you had to be someone- you happened to be Jabba ("winning") See?
I know this has been tried before with absolutely no effect on you, but I like the analogy and I will try again:
Imagine you buy a lottery ticket. Before you look, you have a posterior probability of holding a winning ticket of 1/1,000,000. Now you look down, and your ticket is a winner (number, 01, 03, 11, 28, 49). Your probability of winning the lottery is now one! Oddly still, you look down and see 01, 08, 12, 22, 44 on your lottery ticket. This is not the number of the winner; it is a loser. But the posterior probability of obtaining that number is also 1/1,000,000, and your probability of having that number right now is also one.
The same statistics are relevant to you! The probability of your existence, being you are here, is one. Posteriorly, becoming Jabba in particular is very rare (otherwise there might be two), but you are here, with a probability of one! Posteriorly, you could have been someone else (some other number): your sister, or brother, or one of many combinations of sperm and ovum that never happened or made it. Your probability of being someone, anyone, is quite high; you had to be someone- you happened to be Jabba ("winning") See?
- Status