[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[pakeha]

...everybody fusses about it when I refer anyone to my own site.

It's called spamming and actually against the rules here.
That's why people fuss.

What does all this have to do with immortality?

Numbers, like diamonds, are forever?
Or is the thread more related to "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

 

[Humots]

Both of those equations are wrong. If you're going to explicitly include the background information k in Bayes Theorem, then it has to appear in every probability term and always behind the bar '|', like this:

...

Jay

Jay:

I have seen expressions such as "P(me|NR or k)" and "P(me|NR and k)" but not the expression "P(me|NR,k).

Could you clarify this?

 

[Jabba]

jt512 & Humots,
- Can we just make the k implicit and use the following formula?
P(NR|me) = P(me|NR)P(NR)/(P(me|NR)P(NR)+P(me|R)P(R))
--- Jabba

 

[dafydd]

Why not make the thread title implicit and provide us with the proof of immortality?

 

[Humots]

jt512 & Humots,
- Can we just make the k implicit and use the following formula?
P(NR|me) = P(me|NR)P(NR)/(P(me|NR)P(NR)+P(me|R)P(R))
--- Jabba

The k is irrelevant, not implicit.

Leaving it out means you now have a syntactically correct probability equation. Whether it makes any probabilistic sense is another question.

 

[Jabba]

The k is irrelevant, not implicit.

Leaving it out means you now have a syntactically correct probability equation. Whether it makes any probabilistic sense is another question.

jt512,
- Do you agree with Humots that k is "irrelevant" rather than "implicit" (within the probabilities)?
--- Jabba

 

[Jabba]

The k is irrelevant, not implicit.

Leaving it out means you now have a syntactically correct probability equation. Whether it makes any probabilistic sense is another question.

Humots,
- By your last sentence, do you mean, "Whether or not the equation actually applies to this issue is another question."?
--- Jabba

 

[zooterkin]

Humots,
- By your last sentence, do you mean, "Whether or not the equation actually applies to this issue is another question."?
--- Jabba

How about you stop messing around and tell us what the thread's actually about?

Where does immortality come in?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Yes please. Jabba, it's been 2 weeks now since you started this thread. You've been asked many times in this thread to actually post the information that should have been in the OP. So, now, please will you post your argument, clearly and concisely in this thread?

 

[Belz...]

- I think that I can essentially prove immortality using Bayesian statistics.

It would be more useful if you could actually _invent_ something that gives us immortality. As an added bonus, you'd prove its existence at the same time.

 

[Humots]

How about you stop messing around and tell us what the thread's actually about?

Where does immortality come in?

Yes please. Jabba, it's been 2 weeks now since you started this thread. You've been asked many times in this thread to actually post the information that should have been in the OP. So, now, please will you post your argument, clearly and concisely in this thread?

YES! Continue with

P(NR|me) = P(me|NR)P(NR)/(P(me|NR)P(NR)+P(me|R)P(R))

and stop fooling around.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Jabba, am I right in that you are trying to show that the existence of each of us is highly improbable?

- And that you then intend to show that immortality is somehow less improbable?

- And that you will then conclude that hence immortality must be true?

If yes, look up 'non-sequitur'.

Hans

 

[Slowvehicle]

Jabba, am I right in that you are trying to show that the existence of each of us is highly improbable?

- And that you then intend to show that immortality is somehow less improbable?

- And that you will then conclude that hence immortality must be true?

If yes, look up 'non-sequitur'.

Hans

...where's a chirping cricket smiley when you need one?

 

[jt512]

Jay:

I have seen expressions such as "P(me|NR or k)" and "P(me|NR and k)" but not the expression "P(me|NR,k).

Could you clarify this?

The comma means "and," so P(A | B, C) means the probability of A conditional on both B and C.

Jay

 

[Jabba]

1. We’ll start with P(NR|me) = P(me|NR)P(NR)/(P(me|NR)P(NR)+P(me|R)P(R)).

2. Using "-->" for "approaches zero," and injecting my proposed numbers, I get, P(NR|me) = -->0*.99/(-->0*.99)+(.05*.01) = -->0/.0005; and, P(NR|me) = -->0.

3. So, I’m claiming that given the non-religious hypothesis (that we each have just one, short, life to live -- at most), the probability of my personal consciousness existing right now approaches zero. (Not necessarily “asymptotic,” but close.) I’m just claiming that the probability is so small, at best, that we can’t imagine the number of 0’s after the decimal and before the 1.

4. My explanation for this crazy number begins with the explanation I had given before (slightly revised)…
4.1. According to the typical non-religious hypothesis of personal existence, you are a random -- and one (at most), short-lived -- accident, and would never exist if your parents had never met.
4.2. The same would be true if your grandparents had never met – on either side of the family.
4.3. This can be traced back for … a long time -- say 100,000 generations , just to include Homo-habilis.
4.4. But why stop there?

4.5. And, note that as we go back, the number of grand-etc-parents involved doubles for awhile.
4.6. I assume that a lot of inbreeding ‘begins’ to take place, so maybe we could figure this doubling going on for say 10,000 generations.
4.7. And if just one of these chance meetings had not taken place, you would never exist.
4.8. So, just going back 200,000 years, the number of your grand-parents involved in that particular generation should be about 400,000; and the number involved 20 years later, or 199,980 years ago, would be about 399,960.
4.9. So, counting just 2 of those very early generations leading to you would require at least the meeting of almost 800,000 of your grand-etc-parents. I might be getting something wrong -- but whatever, by the time you come along, you’ve got a whole LOT of grand-etc-parents involved…

4.10. And then, it gets worse.
4.11. Not only did all your grand-etc-parents have to meet, but in each case, the two had to have sex, and the right sperm cell had to meet the right ovum. Otherwise, the results wouldn’t be you – it would be your brother or sister, or some ‘grand’-etc- cousin (I think I got that right).
4.12. And, as it turns out, your father probably produced a sextillion (no pun intended) sperm cells in his lifetime and your mother was born with several hundred ova.
4.13. Apparently, you happen to be the specific combination of just one of those sperm cells and just one of those ova – no other combination would do.
4.14. Which would be true for your 4 grandparents, and the rest of your ancestry…
4.15. And, just think of all those potential offspring from your Dad and Cleopatra -- they never had a chance!
4.16. Nor did any of those potential offspring from your dad and all other women of different generations

4.17. And then, don’t we really have to go back to the beginning of life – on, at least, this planet.
4.18. And what about the BIG Bang, or even a Singularity (or something)?
4.19. And then, the depression hit! (An old Joke from Phil Silvers and Sgt Bilko.)

4.20. And, it only gets worse.
4.21. Since you will only live for about 100 years, there is another, infinitesimally small, probability that has to be factored in – the probability that now would coincide with your particular existence. It is much more likely that now would be some other time altogether along this infinite(?) continuum of time…

4.22. So, what’s wrong with this picture?

4.23. And still, it gets worse.
4.24. Does your personal consciousness really depend upon a particular sperm cell and ovum becoming attached to each other – or, is consciousness an emergent property naturally produced when certain physical elements come together, and by definition involves some kind of new INDIVIDUAL “self” that is totally dependent upon a specific temporal event that by definition can never happen again?
4.25. If so, the number of potential selves is infinite, and you can thank your lucky stars that you were ever created, and that you happen to be existing right now.

5. Next, I'll try to explain why this crazy probability is not something that we can just chalk up to chance.

--- Jabba

 

[jt512]

jt512,
- Do you agree with Humots that k is "irrelevant" rather than "implicit" (within the probabilities)?
--- Jabba

Jaynes considered the background information fundamental to probabilistic reasoning, but since it appears in every term in Bayes' Theorem, the equation is correct with or without it; so, unless your argument requires that you stress the importance of the background information, you can write Bayes' Theorem without it.

Jay

 

[Slowvehicle]

1. We’ll start with P(NR|me) = P(me|NR)P(NR)/(P(me|NR)P(NR)+P(me|R)P(R)).

2. Using "-->" for "approaches zero," and injecting my proposed numbers, I get, P(NR|me) = -->0*.99/(-->0*.99)+(.05*.01) = -->0/.0005; and, P(NR|me) = -->0.

3. So, I’m claiming that given the non-religious hypothesis (that we each have just one, short, life to live -- at most), the probability of my personal consciousness existing right now approaches zero. (Not necessarily “asymptotic,” but close.) I’m just claiming that the probability is so small, at best, that we can’t imagine the number of 0’s after the decimal and before the 1.

4. My explanation for this crazy number begins with the explanation I had given before (slightly revised)…
4.1. According to the typical non-religious hypothesis of personal existence, you are a random -- and one (at most), short-lived -- accident, and would never exist if your parents had never met.
4.2. The same would be true if your grandparents had never met – on either side of the family.
4.3. This can be traced back for … a long time -- say 100,000 generations , just to include Homo-habilis.
4.4. But why stop there?

4.5. And, note that as we go back, the number of grand-etc-parents involved doubles for awhile.
4.6. I assume that a lot of inbreeding ‘begins’ to take place, so maybe we could figure this doubling going on for say 10,000 generations.
4.7. And if just one of these chance meetings had not taken place, you would never exist.
4.8. So, just going back 200,000 years, the number of your grand-parents involved in that particular generation should be about 400,000; and the number involved 20 years later, or 199,980 years ago, would be about 399,960.
4.9. So, counting just 2 of those very early generations leading to you would require at least the meeting of almost 800,000 of your grand-etc-parents. I might be getting something wrong -- but whatever, by the time you come along, you’ve got a whole LOT of grand-etc-parents involved…

4.10. And then, it gets worse.
4.11. Not only did all your grand-etc-parents have to meet, but in each case, the two had to have sex, and the right sperm cell had to meet the right ovum. Otherwise, the results wouldn’t be you – it would be your brother or sister, or some ‘grand’-etc- cousin (I think I got that right).
4.12. And, as it turns out, your father probably produced a sextillion (no pun intended) sperm cells in his lifetime and your mother was born with several hundred ova.
4.13. Apparently, you happen to be the specific combination of just one of those sperm cells and just one of those ova – no other combination would do.
4.14. Which would be true for your 4 grandparents, and the rest of your ancestry…
4.15. And, just think of all those potential offspring from your Dad and Cleopatra -- they never had a chance!
4.16. Nor did any of those potential offspring from your dad and all other women of different generations

4.17. And then, don’t we really have to go back to the beginning of life – on, at least, this planet.
4.18. And what about the BIG Bang, or even a Singularity (or something)?
4.19. And then, the depression hit! (An old Joke from Phil Silvers and Sgt Bilko.)

4.20. And, it only gets worse.
4.21. Since you will only live for about 100 years, there is another, infinitesimally small, probability that has to be factored in – the probability that now would coincide with your particular existence. It is much more likely that now would be some other time altogether along this infinite(?) continuum of time…

4.22. So, what’s wrong with this picture?

4.23. And still, it gets worse.
4.24. Does your personal consciousness really depend upon a particular sperm cell and ovum becoming attached to each other – or, is consciousness an emergent property naturally produced when certain physical elements come together, and by definition involves some kind of new INDIVIDUAL “self” that is totally dependent upon a specific temporal event that by definition can never happen again?
4.25. If so, the number of potential selves is infinite, and you can thank your lucky stars that you were ever created, and that you happen to be existing right now.

5. Next, I'll try to explain why this crazy probability is not something that we can just chalk up to chance.

--- Jabba

Rich:

You are completely ignoring that that the probability of something that has, in fact, happened, happening, is 1.

 

[The_Animus]

I can't speak to the statistics as that goes beyond my stats courses I've taken.

I will say that all your statistics seem to rely on assumptions concerning religious, or non-religious, or concepts of ME and consciousness.

As you say being born as ME is incredibly unlikely, but then so is being born the female version of me, or being born to a different father, or having a different sperm fertilize the egg. And instead of ME typing here it would be a female ME2, or a black ME3. That person however would still self identify the way anyone would.

It feels like you are basically saying that because the chance of any one set of lottery numbers is incredibly unlikely we should just assume that it didn't happen according to statistical chance and instead say "it is an emergent property naturally produced when certain physical elements come together". Whatever that means. I suspect that the likelihood of what you describe as an alternative is even less likely statistically.

 

[dafydd]

5. Next, I'll try to explain why this crazy probability is not something that we can just chalk up to chance.

Don't bother. Please, don't bother.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

1. We’ll start with P(NR|me) = P(me|NR)P(NR)/(P(me|NR)P(NR)+P(me|R)P(R)).

2. Using "-->" for "approaches zero," and injecting my proposed numbers, I get, P(NR|me) = -->0*.99/(-->0*.99)+(.05*.01) = -->0/.0005; and, P(NR|me) = -->0.

3. So, I’m claiming that given the non-religious hypothesis (that we each have just one, short, life to live -- at most), the probability of my personal consciousness existing right now approaches zero. (Not necessarily “asymptotic,” but close.) I’m just claiming that the probability is so small, at best, that we can’t imagine the number of 0’s after the decimal and before the 1.

4. My explanation for this crazy number begins with the explanation I had given before (slightly revised)…
4.1. According to the typical non-religious hypothesis of personal existence, you are a random -- and one (at most), short-lived -- accident, and would never exist if your parents had never met.
4.2. The same would be true if your grandparents had never met – on either side of the family.
4.3. This can be traced back for … a long time -- say 100,000 generations , just to include Homo-habilis.
4.4. But why stop there?

4.5. And, note that as we go back, the number of grand-etc-parents involved doubles for awhile.
4.6. I assume that a lot of inbreeding ‘begins’ to take place, so maybe we could figure this doubling going on for say 10,000 generations.
4.7. And if just one of these chance meetings had not taken place, you would never exist.
4.8. So, just going back 200,000 years, the number of your grand-parents involved in that particular generation should be about 400,000; and the number involved 20 years later, or 199,980 years ago, would be about 399,960.
4.9. So, counting just 2 of those very early generations leading to you would require at least the meeting of almost 800,000 of your grand-etc-parents. I might be getting something wrong -- but whatever, by the time you come along, you’ve got a whole LOT of grand-etc-parents involved…

4.10. And then, it gets worse.
4.11. Not only did all your grand-etc-parents have to meet, but in each case, the two had to have sex, and the right sperm cell had to meet the right ovum. Otherwise, the results wouldn’t be you – it would be your brother or sister, or some ‘grand’-etc- cousin (I think I got that right).
4.12. And, as it turns out, your father probably produced a sextillion (no pun intended) sperm cells in his lifetime and your mother was born with several hundred ova.
4.13. Apparently, you happen to be the specific combination of just one of those sperm cells and just one of those ova – no other combination would do.
4.14. Which would be true for your 4 grandparents, and the rest of your ancestry…
4.15. And, just think of all those potential offspring from your Dad and Cleopatra -- they never had a chance!
4.16. Nor did any of those potential offspring from your dad and all other women of different generations

4.17. And then, don’t we really have to go back to the beginning of life – on, at least, this planet.
4.18. And what about the BIG Bang, or even a Singularity (or something)?
4.19. And then, the depression hit! (An old Joke from Phil Silvers and Sgt Bilko.)

4.20. And, it only gets worse.
4.21. Since you will only live for about 100 years, there is another, infinitesimally small, probability that has to be factored in – the probability that now would coincide with your particular existence. It is much more likely that now would be some other time altogether along this infinite(?) continuum of time…

4.22. So, what’s wrong with this picture?

4.23. And still, it gets worse.
4.24. Does your personal consciousness really depend upon a particular sperm cell and ovum becoming attached to each other – or, is consciousness an emergent property naturally produced when certain physical elements come together, and by definition involves some kind of new INDIVIDUAL “self” that is totally dependent upon a specific temporal event that by definition can never happen again?
4.25. If so, the number of potential selves is infinite, and you can thank your lucky stars that you were ever created, and that you happen to be existing right now.

5. Next, I'll try to explain why this crazy probability is not something that we can just chalk up to chance.

--- Jabba

Again, you're making the mistake of something being unlikely to happen to a specific person means that it's unlikely to happen at all. It's 14m to 1 on a specific person winning the lottery. Yet almost every week someone does.

If I flip a coin 10 times in a row, the chances of me getting the sequence htthhhthht are 1/1064. But the chances of me getting any other sequence is also 1/1064. Sure, the chances of the specific me being here are very small. Similarly, had a different sperm fertilised my mother's egg, the chances of that person being here would be the same number. Had a different sperm still fertilised my mother's egg,the chances of that person being here would be the same number. And so on.

And the thing is, this idea of yours is even more stupid than you think. This morning I passed a car with the numberplate T 174 OAW. Just think, had I left my house a minute earlier then I'd never have seen that particular numberplate. I left my house when I did because I was replying to a post on this forum. Which means that the timing of my leaving wasn't just down to me, but was also influenced by the life of someone else posting something on the other side of the world. How unlikely is that? On my way to where I was going I went over a pedestrian crossing that someone else had pushed the button for. Had they been 30 seconds later we'd both have had to wait for it, and I'd never have seen that car. Had the person driving the car left their house a minute later I'd never have seen the car. But, more than that, had that person's mum not had sex with his dad at the particular moment she did, she'd not have had him as a child so he could never have driven that car and I'd never have seen it. And the same goes for my parents. And our grandparents. And their parents. And so on and so on.

So, while you may think my example is banal (and it is), the thing is that my example relies on all the coincidences that your example does plus many more coincidences, too. Which means that my example is even less likely than yours. Which must mean that it's even more significant than yours. Which, as it's not significant at al, is to say that your example of existing isn't significant at all either.

Or, to put it another way...

Because human beings have an in-built biological tendency to see significance where there is none, and to see patterns where there are none.

I might have mentioned that before.