[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Loss Leader]

- I'll try again.
- There are 52 playing cards in the normal deck of playing cards. There is a finite number of potential, different, 5-card combinations of cards in that deck. That number is very large (2,598,560) but intrinsically finite.
- Such is not the case regarding the number of potential Volkswagens.

You are comparing combinations of cards in a single deck to all possible Volkswagens (people) that could be produced given infinite resources.

Why aren't you comparing combinations of cards in a single deck to the current combinations of paint/engine/models of Volswagens or the combinations of genes possible for a single married couple?

In one instance, you have imposed a limit - a single deck of cards dealt once. In the other instance, you have removed a limit - an infinite amount of time, energy and material.

If you remove your artificial limit, then we could keep making cards forever and we could keep generating hands. Any two hands might have identical value according to the rules of poker, but they would be separate cards existing in different places at disparate times. Similarly, any two twins might be genetically identical but they are two different people.

How do you reconcile this?

 

[Slowvehicle]

- I'll try again.
- There are 52 playing cards in the normal deck of playing cards. There is a finite number of potential, different, 5-card combinations of cards in that deck. That number is very large (2,598,560) but intrinsically finite.
- Such is not the case regarding the number of potential Volkswagens.

Good Morning, Mr. Savage!

If you are going to limit yourself to the number of unique combinations of 5 cards (not permutations, as the order of the cards in the hand does not matter) that can be made from the cards in one deck of cards, then to be appositive, you must limit yourself to the number of unique combinations of Volkswagen parts that can be made form one unreplenished warehouse full of VW parts.

If you are going to allow yourself to fantasize about "infinite" time, materials, space, and energy while constructing your VWs, you must also consider how many 5-card hands could be made form an "infinite" number of decks of playing cards.

It does, in fact, matter if you are inconsistent. It is within that inconsistency that you are trying to "stack the deck", as it were; like the "missing dollar" paradox, or the "vanishing leprechaun" card. (http://britton.disted.camosun.bc.ca/jblep1.htm)

This is exactly the same kind of misleading manipulation as my "ham sandwich is better than going to heaven" example, or my "proof" that Barney is the Beast.

Why not simply present your evidence that the "soul" exists, and is "immortal"?

 

[Loss Leader]

- Sure. But you have added variables. Such is not necessary re possible poker hands.

No, he has imposed limits, the same way you have imposed limits on your poker hands. If you want your hands drawn from one deck of cards, why shouldn't you agree that your Volkswagens should be built from one set of parts?

 

[Slowvehicle]

- Sure. But you have added variables. Such is not necessary re possible poker hands.

Good morning, Mr. Savage.

Would you play poker with me, for money, if I shuffled an infinite number of decks together before dealing the hands?

 

[Jabba]

Extrinsic v Intrinsic/Distinguish?/Religion?

It's like religion in that anything goes. Only in theology can you apply criteria inconsistently and get away with it.

- Oh.
- No.
- Or at least, not the "inconsistency" we're talking about here.
- Here, "inconsistency" just means a "difference." We can argue that both sets of possibilities are finite -- but, one set of possibilities is due entirely to the specified variables, the other set depends upon unspecified variables. There is a difference between the finiteness of those two sets of possibilities.

 

[Jabba]

No, he has imposed limits, the same way you have imposed limits on your poker hands. If you want your hands drawn from one deck of cards, why shouldn't you agree that your Volkswagens should be built from one set of parts?

- I'm just saying that we can divide things like I have, and have different kinds of finiteness.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Good morning, Mr. Savage.

Would you play poker with me, for money, if I shuffled an infinite number of decks together before dealing the hands?

Sounds like a big job. Might want to get one of those casino shuffling machines.

 

[Jabba]

What variables have I added?

- Material, factories, workers.

 

[godless dave]

- Oh.
- No.
- Or at least, not the "inconsistency" we're talking about here.
- Here, "inconsistency" just means a "difference." We can argue that both sets of possibilities are finite -- but, one set of possibilities is due entirely to the specified variables, the other set depends upon unspecified variables. There is a difference between the finiteness of those two sets of possibilities.

I really don't see how. The limits are there whether we specify them or not. Failure to specify them is just sloppy thinking.

 

[Jabba]

- This is fun, but I gotta go. Seeya later.

 

[godless dave]

- Material, factories, workers.

Aren't all of those variables necessary for calculating how many possible Volkswagens there are?

 

[Giordano]

- I'll try again.
- There are 52 playing cards in the normal deck of playing cards. There is a finite number of potential, different, 5-card combinations of cards in that deck. That number is very large (2,598,560) but intrinsically finite.
- Such is not the case regarding the number of potential Volkswagens.

Oh, oh, let me try. I know it may be masochistic, but it is cheaper than hiring latex-dressed women to beat me...

There are 52 cards in a standard deck, but I am certain you know of forms of Poker where you draw 7 cards and make a hand from them. In theory, you can draw from 3 decks, or 5, or an infinity of card decks to form an infinity of potential hands. There is no inherent limit to potential card decks or hands, except we usually draw from one deck. In home Blackjack, you play with a 52-card deck, but in casinos you draw from three or more 52 card decks. It is still called Blackjack. Thus, there is no real (intrinsic) limit to the number of decks from which you can form a hand. You can also define a card hand to be 7 long, or an infinite number of cards long. There is no intrinsic limit to the length of a hand. Or if you insist on saying that Poker is only 5 cards per hand, you would note that the 2 aces and 3 kings that you drew from an infinity of decks is a physically different hand from the 2 aces and 3 kings that I drew from the same decks. An infinity of physically different 5 card hands at the atomic level at least.

You should say that it is impossible to produce an infinity of card decks; we would run out of factories, resources, energy and time. But the very same applies to VWs. You have tried to get around that limitation by proposing infinite time, energy, and resources from which to assemble VWs. But if we had that, we could also make an infinity of card decks. This is where you have been inconsistent: an infinity of VWs means an infinity of card decks and card hands; they are equivalent in the universe you propose (if one can produce an infinity of anything is another issue; in short, no). Yes, at some point you might produce two VWs that look almost exactly alike, like the two Full Houses I mentioned before, although physically they would be different cars at the atomic level. See?

 

[jt512]

Ok, so that likelihood term, P(me|SM,B), can be written in terms of three events: the data, "me"; the hypothesis, SM; and the background information, B. Which of these events are the "selves" you are referring to a part of?

- If I understand your question, the selves are the data.

But we have no evidence that the types of "selves" you have been referring to actually exist. Therefore, they are not data. So, if you are using their existence as data, your entire argument is invalid.

Jabba (and everybody else), did you miss this? Your argument is dead.

 

[Giordano]

Are you agreeing that your "proof" that selves are immortal can equally validly be applied to Volkswagens?

I very much would like an answer to this question, even though I clearly disagree with Jabba about infinite VWs. Let us for a moment agree with what Jabba has proposed; how does this conclusion, stated in the question, not follow?

 

[jsfisher]

- Material, factories, workers.

You consider those extraneous variables?

Ok, so what is the number of Volkswagens we'd have without material, factories, and workers? I'd guess the number would be finite and remarkably close to zero.

 

[Giordano]

Jabba (and everybody else), did you miss this? Your argument is dead.

No, his argument is infinite. It will be endlessly resurrected.

 

[Loss Leader]

There is a difference between the finiteness of those two sets of possibilities.

Find one mathematician or statistician that agrees with you. One.

Union College math department

SUNY Albany deparment of math and statistics

Skidmore math department


That's about sixty people, all a pretty reasonable drive from you. You can talk to anyone, go in, and explain your ideas at length. You don't have to worry about typing emails or being misunderstood. Just pick a professor, explain your concept of different kinds of finiteness, and see what the person says. In my experience, professors love to talk about ideas. You won't be bothering them at all ...

... that is, of course, unless you already realize that your idea is nonsense.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

- I'm just saying that we can divide things like I have, and have different kinds of finiteness.

We can. But it's not a fair comparison. We can do it the other way, too. If we just apply the criteria the other way round so that we have finite resources with which to make specific combinations of VWs and infinite cards from which to draw hands of poker, then we can come up with the opposite result.

Which should tell you, if nothing else does, that what you're doing is sleight of hand, rather than something that has any kind of mathematical merit.

 

[Giordano]

- This is fun, but I gotta go. Seeya later.

Jabba, you may have me on ignore, I don't know, but since others here have asked you the same critical questions, it doesn't matter (also everyone else here can see my posts even if you can't).

Your absolute refusal to answer the posts that point out the fatal errors in your proof is extremely noticeable to every one here. If you are not playing with us, then clearly you have no answer to these critical posts, and no response to the fatal errors that have been pointed out in your proof. You can pretend that these errors don't exist, but clearly everyone here, even you, realize your errors and that your proof is fatally flawed. So why do you pretend?

 

[Monza]

Does Jabba have most of the people here on ignore? The intrinsic/extrinsic thing has been explained in several different fashions that should help anyone understand Jabba's logical error.

It's weird, he responds to both Slow Vehicle and Loss Leader*. Both of them have posted clear, unambiguous, and correct explanations regarding poker hands and VWs in the past hour. Yet his latest comments seem as if he has not read these replies at all.


* Edited to add Squeegee Beckenheim, jsfisher, Giordano, and godless dave