[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

Status
Not open for further replies.
Aepervius said:
Most probably due to nurture rather than identical brain development.
Click to expand...

We both get to be right. Differences in nurture, even starting in the womb, create differences in development, physical brain structure, and personality.

The genetics of identical twins start off the same, but their physical development, including their brains, will differ either due to random processes or nurture. Admittedly the brains of two identical twins are very, very similar when physically grossly examined, due to their shared genetics, but will be physically different if looked at closely enough.
 
Jabba said:
- If you accepted that the universe, or universes, will never end, would you accept that there is an infinity of potential selves?
Click to expand...
Even is I accepted that the universe will never end (which is highly questionable given the evidence), why should I accept FROM THAT that there is an infinity of potential souls? First, I don't accept "souls" as is usually defined. But even if the universe goes on for ever, how would I know if there are more and more "souls" with time, or if at some point "souls" are recycled? I believe the former, but I cannot be certain from the one that the other is or isn't true.

How's this for your brain: in an infinite universe, all things possible will happen an infinite number of times. There will be not only more Jabbas, but infinite numbers of Jabbas. 1/2 of infinity is still infinity, just like 1/2 of zero is still zero
 
Loss Leader said:
Is there anything you won't do to shoehorn in the concept of infinity?

Now you want to make your whole theory conditional upon a flat universe that neither expands nor contracts forever?

Should we ignore the fact that the universe is expanding? Even if the universe never ends, there will come a time when its atoms are too far apart to combine into anything. Sure, it will be a heck of a long time from now, but you know how much time it won't be? Infinity.
Click to expand...

Bravo
 
Back when I was a child, it occurred to me that, at the time I was living, the United States was the most powerful and possibly the most influential country in the world. I marveled that I had happened to be born in that country. Was that just some kind of coincidence?

As I matured I realized that yes, it was. When I was born there were about 3.7 billion people on earth, and about 203 million of them lived in the United States. It had just worked out that way.

Some kid in the Soviet Union was probably wondering something similar.
 
godless dave said:
Back when I was a child, it occurred to me that, at the time I was living, the United States was the most powerful and possibly the most influential country in the world. I marveled that I had happened to be born in that country. Was that just some kind of coincidence?

As I matured I realized that yes, it was. When I was born there were about 3.7 billion people on earth, and about 203 million of them lived in the United States. It had just worked out that way.

Some kid in the Soviet Union was probably wondering something similar.
Click to expand...
- Yeah. Me too.
 
Jabba said:
Loss Leader said:
Of course you'll accept 7 billion over infinity. I bet you'd accept 700 trillion over infinity, because anything divided by infinity is zero. You will always demand that one side of your equation equal zero and that the other side equal a number - any number. That way, you ensure that you win.
Click to expand...
- Yes.
Click to expand...


Wait, wait... I think I've got it.

I will attempt to prove immortality using Bayesian Statistics. First, let's agree to some background conditions: (a) The probability of anything other than immortality is zero.

OK, I'm ready to state my proof....
 
Jabba said:
- I too have mentioned this issue multiple times, claiming it to be the only weak point in my argument. My post above (at the top) is an example.
Click to expand...
It's far from the only weak point in your argument. Not only have we uncovered multiple weak points so far, there are still more weak points in the portions of your argument we haven't gotten to yet, because we're bogged down in the probability of your proposition A.
- For the moment, I'm trying to establish that the likelihood of my particular current existence, given that we exist for only one finite time at most, is one over infinity (or, if you wish, seven billion over infinity).
Click to expand...
This is another. The chance is never X/inf., and never will be. Not even the prior probability. The reasons have been pointed out many times. Really, really, really unlikely is still infinitely more likely than X/inf. You can keep mentioning reasons why your existence is less and less likely without ever getting close to it being infinitely unlikely.

Furthermore, seven billion isn't even vaguely close to being the correct numerator even if we had a clue as to the correct denominator--which we don't. The numerator would come from the number of potential different people who could exist in theory, given the incredibly large—but still quite finite—number of possible different quantum states of the universe.

Nevertheless, it's that still-finite number of possible different quantum states of the universe that keeps your broken logic from working. What you're trying may sound logical, but ultimately, it's like Zeno's paradox, which proves that motion is impossible (by ignoring the quantum nature of the universe).

And even if you could demonstrate an infinity there somehow, then your numerator also becomes infinity, and inf./inf., unlike anything else over inf., is not zero, but a paradox (it can be proven to equal any and/or all numbers, much like X/0). If you could show infinity, you'd then be at an impasse, and have to find a way to calculate your values using limits, rather than direct calculation.
-Even more specifically, I'll first try to show why, scientifically speaking, there should be an infinity of potential selves (or "souls").
Click to expand...

You mean mathematically, not scientifically. Science requires evidence, and you have none. Merely numbers that ignore (as Zeno did) the finite divisibility of the universe shown by the existence of the Planck length. Mathematics may be the foundation of pure science, but it's also full of things that have no relationship to science whatsoever, such as the digits of pi that have no reflection in reality because reality (again) is constrained by that darned old Planck length.

Even if we postulate multiverses, we still have no evidence that there are an infinite number, and strong reason to believe there aren't. Which means that we still fall infinitely short of arriving at your infinite denominator.

And, of course, even if we could arrive at infinity, it still wouldn't help you with the paradoxical nature of inf./inf.
 
Jabba said:
- I too have mentioned this issue multiple times, claiming it to be the only weak point in my argument. My post above (at the top) is an example.
- For the moment, I'm trying to establish that the likelihood of my particular current existence, given that we exist for only one finite time at most, is one over infinity (or, if you wish, seven billion over infinity).
-Even more specifically, I'll first try to show why, scientifically speaking, there should be an infinity of potential selves (or "souls").
Click to expand...

Good evening, Mr. Savage.

I spent all day judging a high school science/engineering competition, so I have not been on the forum today.

I wonder if there is a way to get you to stop repeating that the statistics you do not understand support your claim that you are "immortal"? You are still, I am sorry to say, playing Texas Sharpshooter...

Would it not be easier to present the empirical, practical, objective, factual evidence to support the claim that what you are variously calling the "self" or "consciousness", or the "soul" is not, in fact, simply an emergent property of a neurosystem?
 
Jabba said:
- I accept that you guys have shown a lot of weakness in my original claim(s). And again, that's why I came to the Randi forum. I am learning a lot.
- I just think that the other weaknesses simply require more careful focus and wording in order to set things straight with most scientists. For this one, I have a vague reservation myself that may not be removable by revising my wording...
- This is the "chase" that I tried to "cut to" a while back -- but got distracted from.

- For the moment, I'll stick with my attempt to show that there must be an infinity of potential selves.
Click to expand...

Good Evening, Mr. Savage!

Do you intend to simply go on ignoring the multitude of requests that you demonstrate why you think that "most scientists" agree with you?

Do you intend to simply go on ignoring my request that you address the fact that traumatic aphaisa, among other phenomena, strongly indicate that consciousness is an emergent property of a neurosystem?
 
Jabba said:
- Yes.
Click to expand...

Good evening, Mr. Savage.

I wonder if you realize that this looks as if you are admitting that whatever numbers you can imagine do not matter, because you are in fact, (as I have been suggesting all along) simply hoping to justify assuming your consequent?

You believe in "immortality" because you hope you are"immortal"; because you want to believe you are "immortal", you hope "immortality" is a real thing.

Which at least explains why you do not present practical, empirical, objective evidence that the "soul" exists, and is "immortal"...

ETA: I can see that, because I was off-forum all day, I am repeating things that others have said. Arrigato gozaimas, shinobi-sama!
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
- How many times have I had to change my wording?
Click to expand...

Good evening, Mr. Savage.

It is not so much that there is a number of times you should change your wording, as it is that, until your wording reflects demonstrable reality, posters are going to keep challenging you.

Of course, you could always produce empirical, practical, objective evidence (not stacked-deck statistical sleight-of-hand, not anecdote, not descriptions of your desires, but evidence) that what you are claiming can, in fact, be demonstrated to reflect reality.
 
Jabba said:
- I'm sorry that you don't find your position difficult to express, cause I sure find mine that way...

- Try this. It isn't actually my primary reason for believing the 'number' of potential selves to be infinite, but it seems to work, so I'll try it this time.
- If you accepted that the universe, or universes, will never end, would you accept that there is an infinity of potential selves?
- Hope that doesn't take us off on tangents.
Click to expand...

...if you accepted that down was up, would you accept that the froggie would not bump upon his rump when him jump?
 
I read the first couple pages, and I was interested in a few replies to this scenario:

You come across a mysterious deck of cards, shuffle it a couple times, and take four cards from the top, which turn out to be four aces. Four more cards are drawn, which turn out to be four kings.

Is anyone claiming that, after a draw like that, they would still believe that's a fair deck?
 
Fudbucker said:
I read the first couple pages, and I was interested in a few replies to this scenario:

You come across a mysterious deck of cards, shuffle it a couple times, and take four cards from the top, which turn out to be four aces. Four more cards are drawn, which turn out to be four kings.

Is anyone claiming that, after a draw like that, they would still believe that's a fair deck?
Click to expand...
Define fair deck. Normal deck in arranged order is still fair.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom