[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Giordano]

Slowvehicle,
- Hypotheticals help us to isolate and clearly identify our different disagreements -- which should probably be the first objective in any effective debate. We can deal with their probability later.

Okay, your hypothesis is fundamentally wrong. The probability of it is zero. So have clearly identified our first fundamental disagreement. Meanwhile, I propose that 2=3. Okay, or is this just a matter of disagreement between us? Or is my hypothesis simply wrong?

You can hypothesize anything you wish. That 2=3. That the moon is made of green cheese. That babies are brought by storks. Etc.

But you wish to prove your point here- you can't if you rely on a hypothesis that we all think is bogus. You can't use math and physics if you don't follow the rules of math and physics. You can propose an infinity of disks, but no one who knows math and physics will agree. Who are you trying to convince, those who are ignorant of these topics?

 

[Giordano]

Again, how is the often-cited comparison of your proof of immortality to card hands and to lottery tickets wrong? You have yet to answer this fundamental question after repeated requests.

 

[Giordano]

And what is that citation you gave about categories?

 

[Loss Leader]

- Do you believe that "self" implies immortality, or that "soul" doesn't?

I don't think anything implies anything. A word has a definition or it doesn't, and a word can have a much stricter technical definition than is commonly used. Implications are meaningless.

One frequently hears of people dying of heart attacks. Some of these "heart attacks" are actually ventricular tachycardia - which is completely different from the death of some heart muscle due to a blood vessel blockage. Common people might talk about "heart attacks," but cardiologists would never use the term to describe ventricular tachycardia.

So, you have defined the soul or "self" as being the transcendent individuality of a person. You have not defined it as immortal, one hopes, because you are trying to prove that it is immortal and defining your way to victory is cheating.

Everyone here understands what you mean when you say "self" or soul. Now, please, please, please move on to demonstrating that such a thing can outlive the body.

 

[jt512]

This means I don't get my infinite ham sammiches, doesn't it?

You can still get them, but it'll take an infinite amount of time.

 

[Garrette]

You can still get them, but it'll take an infinite amount of time.

Irrelevant. Can he get 'em faster'n he can eat 'em? That would make them essentially infinite, therefore God.

 

[WhatRoughBeast]

Irrelevant. Can he get 'em faster'n he can eat 'em? That would make them essentially infinite, therefore God.

But since, as Jabba has said he can prove, he is immortal, he can eat an infinite number of them.

 

[Giordano]

This means I don't get my infinite ham sammiches, doesn't it?

But ham is not kosher and would not work if you believe only in the Old
Testament. There clearly is no infinity of ham sandwiches. How about infinite turkey sandwiches instead?

 

[Giordano]

We had 'em yesterday, and we'll have 'em tomorrow--we never have 'em today.

That's okay- I have lots of time (an infinity in fact)! Can I wait here?

 

[Slowvehicle]

That's okay- I have lots of time (an infinity in fact)! Can I wait here?

Pull up a chair! Infinite free beer, too...

...tomorrow.

 

[dafydd]

But since, as Jabba has said he can prove, he is immortal

He may get around to that sometime during this millennium.

 

[Monza]

However, if you assume that the "self" or soul is immortal, then you;ve just assumed your entire argument. "Assume the human soul is immortal; thus, the human soul is immortal."

Cut to the chase: IF the "soul" existed, and was "immortal", then the "soul" would exist, and be "immortal".

These two comments pretty much sum up Jabba's entire argument of late.

 

[Mojo]

Who are you trying to convince...?

I think he's trying to convince Jabba.

 

[John Jones]

These two comments pretty much sum up Jabba's entire argument of late.

Yup!

That also be his argument for the Authenticity of The Tablecloth of Turin. None, in fact.

 

[xtifr]

All of which makes the lottery winner and poker hand analogies all that more revealing. If there are infinite potential souls (I'm not going to use "self" anymore; we know what Jabba means, and I no longer care to enable his intentional deceptiveness), then there are infinite potential winning lottery combinations and infinite potential poker hands. Lotteries aren't limited to the integers from 1 to 50 or 1 to 74; they can comprise irrational numbers or different names for kittens. Likewise with poker; decks of cards are not limited to 13 values of four suits. There can be infinite suits with infinite values.

Still not infinite. Cards are easy to demonstrate. There are only a finite number of particles in the universe, which can only be arranged in a finite number of ways (because of Planck), and only a subset of those finite number of arrangements can reasonably be called a card with a suit and number, so there are clearly not an infinite number of hands of cards, even if you don't limit it to the 13 values of the four commonly known suits.

As for the lottery, that's a little trickier, but it still comes down to the same thing. Yes, the set of real numbers is definitely infinite, but that doesn't help. To declare a winner, you have to match the chosen number with the winning number. To do this, you have to be able to represent those numbers in some way. If the number has more digits than there are particles in the universe, you can't verify whether it's the winning number or not, since you never would have been able to record the winning number in the first place, so you can't declare a definite winner.

 

[Garrette]

Still not infinite. Cards are easy to demonstrate. There are only a finite number of particles in the universe, which can only be arranged in a finite number of ways (because of Planck), and only a subset of those finite number of arrangements can reasonably be called a card with a suit and number, so there are clearly not an infinite number of hands of cards, even if you don't limit it to the 13 values of the four commonly known suits.

As for the lottery, that's a little trickier, but it still comes down to the same thing. Yes, the set of real numbers is definitely infinite, but that doesn't help. To declare a winner, you have to match the chosen number with the winning number. To do this, you have to be able to represent those numbers in some way. If the number has more digits than there are particles in the universe, you can't verify whether it's the winning number or not, since you never would have been able to record the winning number in the first place, so you can't declare a definite winner.

All of which is correct but extraneous to my hypothetical:

If there are infinite potential souls

--snip--

then there are infinite potential winning lottery combinations and infinite potential poker hands.

In other words, not the universe as is, but the universe as Jabba is trying to twist it.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

Do the Whangers have anything to say on the subject?

 

[Akhenaten]

Infinite bluuuuurd!

 

[Jabba]

- 1) If the brains of two different people were exactly the same, would they be the same person in the sense that they would share experiences (IOW, would each person be looking through two sets of eyes)?
A. Yes.
B. Probably
C. No idea
D. Probably not
E. No

 

[Jabba]

2) Is there a way in which a self, at least, appears to be the same self throughout life?
A. Yes.
B. No.
C. Don't know.