[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Akhenaten]

Aren't these both arguments from ignorance?

The whole stupid thread is one big argument from ignorance.

 

[Garrette]

- And then, how do we know that there is only one "universe"?

We counted them.

Nommed for pith. I paused and puzzled then laughed out loud. I don't laugh out loud.

 

[Akhenaten]

Fudbucker,

- I agree with your idea, but would present it with a different situation.

<snip>

Oh goody. It's reset time again.

 

[Akhenaten]

ETA: Garrette's whole statement deserves an eyeroll, for obvious reasons.

Your failure to bother reading the thread deserves more than just an eyeroll, for even more obvious reasons.

 

[Garrette]

The whole stupid thread is one big argument from ignorance.

Almost. It's an argument from willful ignorance. That's worse.

 

[Akhenaten]

Nommed for pith. I paused and puzzled then laughed out loud. I don't laugh out loud.

Thank you.

 

[godless dave]

- I'll try again to explain why I think that the amount of potential "observers" (selves) is infinite.
1) Given that two different brains with exactly the same physical characteristics would not produce the same observer, science should hold that there is no limited pool of potential observers. Science should hold that each new observer is a brand new creation -- with no preceding "existence" of any kind.

There is no pool, but the number of "observers" is still limited by:

• The available material to make them out of.
• The preceding events required to make one.

Edited to add: Obviously you can't calculate the probability of any event without taking into account the prior events necessary for that event to happen.

 

[Akhenaten]

- I'll try again to explain why I think that the amount of potential "observers" (selves) is infinite.

You'll need to be explaining what you mean by "selves" and why you think calling them "observers" is in any way helpful first.

1) Given that two different brains with exactly the same physical characteristics would not produce the same observer, science should hold that there is no limited pool of potential observers.

What makes you think that science is even remotely interested in such a daft notion?

Science should hold that each new observer is a brand new creation -- with no preceding "existence" of any kind.

I can't think of anyone who has ever posted in this thread who is less qualified than you to determine what science should and should not hold to be true.

- Can I get an Amen?

Undoubtedly.

Go here:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/​

They thrive on your particular brand of wilful ignorance, half-baked ideas and magical thinking over there.

 

[Fudbucker]

The problem with that analogy is that we know a whole lot about a deck of cards. We know all the possible cards and all the possible combinations. We know frequency of certain hands. We know that the casino has an interest in a random shuffle and that the casino has no interest in cheating to deal us winning cards.

In this case, however, the casino is the universe and this is the first and only hand we've ever seen. We don't know how many cards there are. We don't know what constitutes a winning hand. We don't know how many hands are played. We know absolutely nothing except that we are holding five cards.

So, the real question is: Knowing absolutely nothing about cards whatsoever, can you tell whether the game is rigged?

I believe you cannot.

True.

 

[Fudbucker]

What if you had drawn the ace of hearts, the six of clubs, the nine of clubs and the jack of spades, then the four of diamonds, the queen of diamonds, the eight of spades and the eight of diamonds? Would you think the deck was rigged? The odds of that sequence coming up are exactly the same as the odds for the sequence from the scenario. The only difference is that people think that the first sequence is somehow special.

Using the improbability of Jabba's existance as part of his argument involves begging the question, because it only matters if his existence is somehow special.

Any particular sequence is just as likely as any other. That being said, some sequences (royal flushes, four of a kinds, etc.) are better explained by the "rigged deck" hypothesis than random chance alone. You can show this easily with Bayes theorem.

In other words, if you shuffle a deck, and the first eight cards drawn are all aces and kings, you should not be playing poker with that deck.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Any particular sequence is just as likely as any other. That being said, some sequences (royal flushes, four of a kinds, etc.) are better explained by the "rigged deck" hypothesis than random chance alone. You can show this easily with Bayes theorem.

In other words, if you shuffle a deck, and the first eight cards drawn are all aces and kings, you should not be playing poker with that deck.

Since any particular sequence of cards is just as likely as any other, then the only reason that some sequences seem to be "better explained" by recourse to a "rigged deck" hypothesis is because those sequences have been identified, named, and imbued with special significance in the context of the invented rules of a particular game.

In other words, if you fairly shuffle a plain deck of regular playing cards, and are dealt C3, C6, D9, H8, S8 in your first hand, that particular sequence of cards is so unlikely that you should not play poker with that deck.

In other words, if you fairly shuffle a plain deck of regular playing cards, and are dealt CA, D4, D5, H2, H5 in your first hand, that particular sequence of cards is so unlikely that you should not play poker with that deck.

 

[Jabba]

- I'll try again to explain why I think that the amount of potential "observers" (selves) is infinite.
1) Given that two different brains with exactly the same physical characteristics would not produce the same observer, science should hold that there is no limited pool of potential observers. Science should hold that each new observer is a brand new creation -- with no preceding "existence" of any kind.
- Can I get an Amen?

There is no pool, but the number of "observers" is still limited by:

• The available material to make them out of.
• The preceding events required to make one.

Edited to add: Obviously you can't calculate the probability of any event without taking into account the prior events necessary for that event to happen.

- This is the part that's so difficult for me to express effectively. This is where I need to make a distinction between two different "kinds" of infinity, for which I've never heard a distinction made. And then, this is where I need to show which one of them is appropriate for our purposes here... I tried to do that previously -- it didn't work. I'll have to try again.
- I'll be back.

 

[Hokulele]

Any particular sequence is just as likely as any other. That being said, some sequences (royal flushes, four of a kinds, etc.) are better explained by the "rigged deck" hypothesis than random chance alone. You can show this easily with Bayes theorem.

In other words, if you shuffle a deck, and the first eight cards drawn are all aces and kings, you should not be playing poker with that deck.

That is only because the gaming community has assigned special significance to those particular patterns. The cards themselves have no intrinsic values. If points were awarded to hands that had the lowest point total with the greatest variety of suits, you might feel differently about what is or is not rigged.

 

[Akhenaten]

- This is the part that's so difficult for me to express effectively.

You're expressing it at least well enough that everyone knows what you're talking about.

What you're completely unable/unwilling to understand is that it's codswallop no matter how you explain it.

This is where I need to make a distinction between two different "kinds" of infinity, for which I've never heard a distinction made.

I wonder why.

And then, this is where I need to show which one of them is appropriate for our purposes here... I tried to do that previously -- it didn't work. I'll have to try again.

It didn't work because it's abject nonsense.

- I'll be back.

Why?

 

[godless dave]

I fail to see what kinds of infinity has to do with this. At any given point in time, the number of potential different human beings that can be created is finite. There are only so many people and only so many different combinations for reproduction. The appearance of a new human being is a caused event, so you can't ignore time and causality if you're going to figure out the likelihood of it happening.

 

[Monza]

Any particular sequence is just as likely as any other. That being said, some sequences (royal flushes, four of a kinds, etc.) are better explained by the "rigged deck" hypothesis than random chance alone. You can show this easily with Bayes theorem.

In other words, if you shuffle a deck, and the first eight cards drawn are all aces and kings, you should not be playing poker with that deck.

This is only because we have pre-defined some sequences to be special. The odds of any particular hand appearing are still the same as any other pre-defined hand. We even have levels of special-ness. A royal flush is very special, a full house less so, and a pair not so much. The great thing is that the level of special-ness is exactly proportional to its statistical probability.

The error Jabba is making is defining special-ness after the hand is drawn. He has drawn a 3C, JS, QH, 4D and 2S and has said, "Wow! This particular hand is statistically rare." But any hand drawn is equally as rare. Only if the Jabba-conscious was pre-defined as special before its existence would its ultimate existence be more special than all the other individual consciousnesses.

 

[Loss Leader]

- Can I get an Amen?

Absolutely not. The potential number of people is bounded by all sorts of quantifiable limits: People could not and did not exist by any definition earlier that about 2 million years ago. The total number of children a woman can have has an upper limit. The expanding universe means that a definite time will come when there is not enough matter in one place to make a person.

In other words, if you shuffle a deck, and the first eight cards drawn are all aces and kings, you should not be playing poker with that deck.

You assume that you know you're playing poker. You assume you know how many cards are in a deck, which hands have meaning, and how shuffling works. You assume that the casino has an interest in fairness and has no interest in cheating to give you a winning hand.

We know nothing about the cards that we've been dealt except that we're holding them. We cannot conclude anything about the game we're playing.

 

[Pixel42]

The error Jabba is making is defining special-ness after the hand is drawn. He has drawn a 3C, JS, QH, 4D and 2S and has said, "Wow! This particular hand is statistically rare." But any hand drawn is equally as rare. Only if the Jabba-conscious was pre-defined as special before its existence would its ultimate existence be more special than all the other individual consciousnesses.

There was a brief window of time during which Jabba finally appeared to have grasped this.

But then he forgot again.

 

[pakeha]

- I'll try again to explain why I think that the amount of potential "observers" (selves) is infinite.
1) Given that two different brains with exactly the same physical characteristics would not produce the same observer, science should hold that there is no limited pool of potential observers. Science should hold that each new observer is a brand new creation -- with no preceding "existence" of any kind.
- Can I get an Amen?

Aren't selves defined as emergent properties of the brain?
Why are you introducing the idea of an observer here, Jabba?
When are you going to adopt an acceptable definition of A and non-A?

- This is the part that's so difficult for me to express effectively. This is where I need to make a distinction between two different "kinds" of infinity, for which I've never heard a distinction made. And then, this is where I need to show which one of them is appropriate for our purposes here... I tried to do that previously -- it didn't work. I'll have to try again.
- I'll be back.

Is it me, or did anyone else think "Baramins, ahoy!" when they read "two different "kinds" of infinity"?

 

[godless dave]

There was a brief window of time during which Jabba finally appeared to have grasped this.

But then he forgot again.

Now he seems to be arguing that, since the universe is infinite, and will last infinitely long, there will be an infinite number of decks of cards throughout its history, so there are an infinite number of possible hands you can deal.

Or something.