[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Giordano]

Jabba,

I, along with most here, take issue with almost every one of your assertions. It is therefore hard to know where to start. But let's begin with the notation that you introduced, of intrinsic verses extrinsic finite numbers and the consequences (your point 1). First of all, have you ever seen this concept in general math or physics before? Second, you are correct that the number of possible lottery numbers is currently finite (your point 2), but just as in making VWs (your points 3 and 4) "if" we had infinite resources, energy and time we could make infinite lottery numbers (the possible range of whole numbers is infinite). So there is absolulely no difference between the two infinities you propose. You are wrong.

Third, certainly if we had infinite resources, energy and time we could make infinite VWs, just as we could make infinite lottery tickets or any thing else for that matter. But as clearly pointed out to you, we do not have an infinite of resource, energy, or time in practice or in theory. The universe and everything in it is finite. There is no infinite resources, energy, or even time. So again, if my Aunt was a motorcycle, we could ride here to work. But she is not. So I walk to work.

Do you remember that you were going to prove "selves" exist. It wasn't very long ago- just a day or two. Yet here you used "selves" in an assertion (your points 5 and 6), a very bad idea in math. You can not just "assert" this; you must prove it first.

 

[Mojo]

Assuming there is an infinite number of potential selves, how does that support immortality?

Hans

Because if there are an infinite number of potential souls selves, the probability of Jabba's particular self existing is one over infinity, and therefore Jabba doesn't exist.

Wait, what?

 

[Giordano]

Just a reminder, Jabba. I think you gave up on ~A in favor of B many posts ago. In Bayes formula, and in math in general, A can be used to find ~A (because A and ~A= probabililty of 1). But A has no preexisting relationship to B. Please remember this when you present your formula. Thanks!

 

[Mojo]

You know, I'm not sure that Jabba has completely thought through this "infinite number of potential selves" thing.

 

[jsfisher]

- As to my argument for there being an infinite ‘number’ of potential selves (it will be largely what you've read before, but now we should be able to judge each assertion, by itself, one at a time):

1. There are two different "kinds" of “finiteness” – extrinsic and intrinsic.

I see. So when you said

I'll now try to show that the self that I'm talking about is real and will in fact continue after bodily death. I will begin my argument with trying to show that there should be an infinity of potential such selves.

you actually meant recycling previously rejected arguments. Got it!

For completeness: There is only one version of finite.

2. Potential poker hands and potential combinations of numbers on a lottery ticket are intrinsically finite.

Nope, just finite.

2.1. Each grouping has a preexisting “pool” of possible combinations. The pool of possible poker hands is much smaller than the pool of possible combinations on a lottery ticket.

3. Potential Volkswagens are only extrinsically finite.

Nope, just finite.

3.1. There is no preexisting pool of potential Volkswagens. Any limit on the number of Volkswagens possible would be due to extraneous variables only.

Extraneous? The number of possible combinations of any subset of all the matter in the universe is finite. Are you suggesting this fundamental fact is extraneous to the number of possible VWs?

4. And, what is extrinsically finite can be intrinsically infinite.
4.1. If we had infinite matter, energy and time, we could produce new Volkswagens forever.

(1) The amounts of matter, energy, and time are all finite, so your supposition is dealing in fantasy.
(2) You are now conflating the number of possible VWs in the sense of uniqueness with the number of VWs in the sense of sheer quantity. It really doesn't matter, though, since both are in fact finite.

5. Potential selves may be extrinsically finite -- but even if they are, they are intrinsically infinite.

They may not. They are simply finite.

5.1. There is no preexisting pool of potential selves. Any limit on the number of selves possible would be due to extraneous variables.

Which extraneous variables would those be?

6. The appropriate ‘number’ of potential selves to be inserted into our Bayes formula is the intrinsic number.

Said number would be a positive integer.

6.1. There not being a preexisting pool of potential selves, each new self would be “brand“ new – with no limit on “who” exactly it would be…

No limit other than the upper bound on unique selves if uniqueness is at issue, and the upper bound on the age of the universe if sheer quantity is at issue.

- I had best leave it there for now.

Be sure to check your archive of failed arguments. You will probably want to present this one again in a few weeks.

 

[Loss Leader]

The appropriate ‘number’ of potential selves to be inserted into our Bayes formula is the intrinsic number.

Why?

Seriously, why?

If this part of your formula is your probable existence in the universe as understood by science, then why why why would you define "existence" as something outside of the universe as understood by science?

In this universe, there are a finite number of potential people. Thus, your chance of existing in this universe must be constrained by the rules of this universe.

Otherwise, you've got one side of your equation being "the probability of your existence in some made up universe that is not ours." Then you're comparing the chance of you existing as an immortal to the chance of you existing somewhere that isn't this universe. What good does that do?

Since you are the inventor of an entire branch of mathematics that no scientist or mathematician has ever explored before, how do you know what is appropriate or not? What are the rules of this mathematics? How do you compare infinite sets? How do you add, subtract, combine or otherwise manipulate them?

Why is it appropriate to use your intrinsic number?

 

[John Jones]

- [...]
6. The appropriate ‘number’ of potential selves to be inserted into our Bayes formula is the intrinsic number.

"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" - Christopher Hitchens

 

[Giordano]

Another reminder to Jabba:

You cannot use math, which is based on our standard physical model of reality, to prove anything outside of reality. Math would "breakdown" and be irrelevant under those circumstances, as previously mentioned here,

Thus it is unwise to use math to try to "prove" that only 4 angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Other words: once you say it is magical, anything goes...

 

[Aepervius]

Have you forgotten that he's a certified statistician?

Silly old age. I tend to forget the last word of some sentence .

 

[John Jones]

- As to my argument for there being an infinite ‘number’ of potential selves (it will be largely what you've read before, but now we should be able to judge each assertion, by itself, one at a time):

1. There are two different "kinds" of “finiteness” – extrinsic and intrinsic.

2. Potential poker hands and potential combinations of numbers on a lottery ticket are intrinsically finite.
2.1. Each grouping has a preexisting “pool” of possible combinations. The pool of possible poker hands is much smaller than the pool of possible combinations on a lottery ticket.

3. Potential Volkswagens are only extrinsically finite.
3.1. There is no preexisting pool of potential Volkswagens. Any limit on the number of Volkswagens possible would be due to extraneous variables only.

4. And, what is extrinsically finite can be intrinsically infinite.
4.1. If we had infinite matter, energy and time, we could produce new Volkswagens forever.

5. Potential selves may be extrinsically finite -- but even if they are, they are intrinsically infinite.
5.1. There is no preexisting pool of potential selves. Any limit on the number of selves possible would be due to extraneous variables.

6. The appropriate ‘number’ of potential selves to be inserted into our Bayes formula is the intrinsic number.
6.1. There not being a preexisting pool of potential selves, each new self would be “brand“ new – with no limit on “who” exactly it would be…

- I had best leave it there for now.

Didn't you once claim to have 'done the course work' for a PhD in something or another, but had not successfully defended a thesis, or something along those lines?

Given your reliance on ambiguities of written language and your tendency toward non-standard definitions, I'm not surprised.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Hans,
- By inserting infinity into my Bayes formula.
--- Jabba

No. Where does the formula predict immortality?

 

[Loss Leader]

No. Where does the formula predict immortality?

See, he's comparing the chance that he's mortal to the chance that he's immortal. He sets the chance of being mortal at 1/inf. and then he sets the chance of his being immortal at 1/fin. Since 1/inf. is zero, he's infinitely more likely to be immortal than mortal.

And this, by his own admission, makes him feel better.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Didn't this whole thing get pretty soundly disproven way back page 1 when several people pointed out the rather glaring problem in this or indeed any arguments for immortality, that is that currently the survival rate for human beings stands at... let's see 0.

Even if Jabba had actually presented something that could be called a theory it would fall apart in contact with the very first verified case of a human death, which I can't imagine would take that long.

That's my problem with the so called "Quantum Immortality" thought experiment. The idea being that under the "Many Worlds" model of the universe there will always be a possible timeline where whatever kills you didn't kill you, therefore some version of you is immortal.

This ignores the fact that living forever isn't a possibility for a mortal being under the circumstances being discussed. Best you could hope for would be a "Quantum Best Possible Scenario" life span, not immortality.

 

[George]

Sorry.

 

[George]

Silly old age. I tend to forget the last word of some sentence .

I So don't believe you just got away with that.

 

[Humots]

1. There are two different "kinds" of “finiteness” – extrinsic and intrinsic.

Please provide some reference to establish that this is an actual mathematical principle, not just something you made up.

2. Potential poker hands and potential combinations of numbers on a lottery ticket are intrinsically finite.

2.1. Each grouping has a preexisting “pool” of possible combinations. The pool of possible poker hands is much smaller than the pool of possible combinations on a lottery ticket.

3. Potential Volkswagens are only extrinsically finite.
3.1. There is no preexisting pool of potential Volkswagens. Any limit on the number of Volkswagens possible would be due to extraneous variables only.

Are you saying that the definition of Volkswagen is somehow open-ended, while the definition of poker hands is limited?

If so, you are wrong. The definition of "Volkswagen" is not as specific as the definition of "poker hand", but that's only because we haven't had any need to define "Volkswagen" that specifically.

If we wanted, we could define a set of Volkswagen variables that are every bit as specific and limiting to the number of possible Volkswagens.

What do you mean by extraneous variables? Is that supposed to go with extrinsic finiteness?

4. And, what is extrinsically finite can be intrinsically infinite.
4.1. If we had infinite matter, energy and time, we could produce new Volkswagens forever.

Not without repeating ourselves.

It looks to me like you are defining extrinsic and intrinsic finiteness by playing games with how finite is determined.

Number of possible poker hands - limited by combining a specific number cards chosen from a limited number of card types, hence "intrinsically" finite.

Number of possible Volkswagens - based on something called extraneous variables, hence "extrinsically" finite.

 

[jsfisher]

Jabba,

You may not have noticed, but all this effort you have put into establishing the number of unique selves as infinite hasn't been tied in any way to a world in which living things are all mortal.

In other words, you are trying to show that P(me|A)=0, but are instead working towards P(me)=0.

While your progress has been modest, I'm not sure you are aiming for the result you actually want.

 

[JoeMorgue]

If so, you are wrong. The definition of "Volkswagen" is not as specific as the definition of "poker hand", but that's only because we haven't had any need to define "Volkswagen" that specifically.

This.

People often forget that our language developed in order to describe things on an everyday, practical, and useful level. No human language is an exact science and English isn't exactly the sharpest knife in that drawer as it is.

We have very specific terms which leave little to no wiggle room. And we have pretty... "eh that's close enough. You know what I'm talking about" terms. And we have context.

Taking one of the more vague definitions we have and acting like the secrets of the universe are hidden in that vagueness or in the fact that we have both precise and imprecise language is pretty silly, even by Navel Gazer standards.

 

[Loss Leader]

Potential poker hands and potential combinations of numbers on a lottery ticket are intrinsically finite.

This doesn't follow at all.

1. a. From any given deck of 52 cards, there are a finite number of combinations that can be made.
b. From any given number of genes, there are a finite number of humans that can be made.

2. a. Two hands of 10JQKA spades can be made with two decks , each containing the same cards in some order.
b. Two genetically identical people can be made from two sets of parents, each containing the same genes in some order.

3. a. Two royal flushes from two different decks are not the same. They do not occupy the same space, they can be counted, they can be divided, one can be sent to Borneo.
b. Two identical twins are not the same. They do not occupy the same space, they can be counted, they can be divided, one can be sent to Borneo.

4. a. The only limit on the number of straight flushes that can be made is the number of decks of cards that can be manufactured with the materials and time we have in this universe.
b. The only limit on the number of people that can be made is the number of parents we can manufacture with the materials and time we have in this universe.

5. Cards and people appear to function mathematically identically.

How come your card example is limited to only one deck while your human example is allowed to mix and match countlessly?

How come your card example has artificial limits imposed by you while your human example has artificial infinities imposed by you?

The number of combinations of human DNA is intrinsicly finite. The number of total people we could create with infinite time, matter and energy is infinite.

The number of combinations of cards is intrinisicly finite. The number of total cards we could create with infinite time, matter and energy is infinite.

Where is the difference?

With the lottery example, you are saying that for any finite set of numbers, there are a finite set of six numbers one could draw randomly. But you could have any number of lottery balls painted with those finite numbers. You could have billions of balls. There would still be a finite set of six numbers. You could just draw that set more than once.

People have a finite set of genes and there are a finite number of ways those genes can be combined. But you could have any number of people walking around with those same finite genes.

What's the difference?

 

[PixyMisa]

5. Potential selves may be extrinsically finite -- but even if they are, they are intrinsically infinite.
5.1. There is no preexisting pool of potential selves. Any limit on the number of selves possible would be due to extraneous variables.

The "extraneous variables" here being what is commonly known as REALITY.

6. The appropriate ‘number’ of potential selves to be inserted into our Bayes formula is the intrinsic number.
6.1. There not being a preexisting pool of potential selves, each new self would be “brand“ new – with no limit on “who” exactly it would be.

Unless and until you can demonstrate that immaterial souls actually exist, the number of potential souls is ZERO.