[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Akhenaten]

<snip>

- So, if you want me to try to explain how my answer to what you said made sense, that's what I'll do. But keep in mind that then, as one ventures deeper and deeper into a discipline (math for instance), the logic becomes more and more difficult, and time consuming, to effectively communicate.

How would you know?

The deepest you've managed to get so far is "I'm special, therefore immortality!"

 

[Slowvehicle]

Pixel,
- Stipulated: my memory ain't what it used to be (not by a long shot), but my honest (albeit obviously biased) opinion is that while my logic does suffer to some extent from the memory loss, it's still damned good...

Demonstrate your understanding of the puddle analogy.

 

[Jabba]

Why does the "multiverse" "seem" "reasonable"?

And what has it to do with immortality?

Slowvehicle,

- I say it seems reasonable because so many relevant scholars claim that it is...
- Also, it's hard for me to accept any end to time and/or space... I hope that I don't have to defend that position...

The multiverse idea is relevant to immortality in that it seems to maybe undermine the anthropic claim, and I claim that the anthropic claim supports immortality.

 

[Pixel42]

- I'm not surprised, but not because my response didn't make sense. In my opinion, you just didn't understand the meaning of my response.

Your response suggested (to me at least) that you had missed the point of the car engine analogy altogether. If you really think it's an appropriate response by all means explain further.

Pixel,
- In my opinion (of course), I'm not the one struggling with the logic -- it's you guys who are struggling with the logic.

You certainly don't give the impression of having understood the point of the puddle analogy either, in fact your responses so far have been typical of those who don't get it.

 

[godless dave]

- Also, it's hard for me to accept any end to time and/or space... I hope that I don't have to defend that position...

I don't expect you defend the difficulty of accepting it emotionally, but I do expect you to defend why you think your emotional reaction to a concept has any bearing on whether it's true or not.

 

[Akhenaten]

Why does the "multiverse" "seem" "reasonable"?

And what has it to do with immortality?

Slowvehicle,

- I say it seems reasonable because so many relevant scholars claim that it is...

An appeal to anonymous authority?

There's a new twist.

- Also, it's hard for me to accept any end to time and/or space... I hope that I don't have to defend that position...

It's your argument from incredulity. Who do you think is going to defend it if you don't?

The multiverse idea is relevant to immortality in that it seems to maybe undermine the anthropic claim , and I claim that the anthropic claim supports immortality.

Seems legit.

Not.

 

[Jabba]

Demonstrate your understanding of the puddle analogy.

Slowvehicle,
- I try to demonstrate my understanding of the puddle analogy in the post below.

Pixel,
- I think that you're argument requires there to be many basically different ways for life to occur. For instance, if the universe was all gas, life could/would(?) still occur. (I understand that if the force of gravity was just slightly weaker, the universe would be all gas.)
- And so far, I think that's exactly what the puddle analogy is about. The fluid filling the puddle is totally "flexible." It would take on whatever shape is available. I think that such an analogy requires that life be totally (or, significantly) flexible. I assume that is not what you're saying.

- You guys are equating the rules governing the existence of life with the rules causing water to seek its own level. My claim is that such an equation (analogy) is incorrect, inapplicable. The rules governing the existence of life have no resemblance to the rules governing the shape that water takes.

 

[Jabba]

I don't expect you defend the difficulty of accepting it emotionally, but I do expect you to defend why you think your emotional reaction to a concept has any bearing on whether it's true or not.

Dave,
- I didn't mean to imply that this was an emotional reaction. My reaction is based upon reductionism.

 

[godless dave]

The fluid filling the puddle is totally "flexible." It would take on whatever shape is available. I think that such an analogy requires that life be totally (or, significantly) flexible. I assume that is not what you're saying.

Why do you assume that?

We don't know all the possible ways the universe could have developed. We don't know all the possible ways life could have developed.

Edit: Agatha's post below is better at getting at what the puddle analogy is about.

 

[dlorde]

dlorde,
- How can intelligent life find itself a universe capable of supporting intelligent life if there is only a single universe?

I wonder whether it is something to do with the simplicity of using the internet that causes people to become so lazy that when they read something that seems puzzling or confusing, rather than reread that text to ensure they have grasped its meaning, they will plough on with their misconception...

It would explain a lot of the nonsense posted here.

 

[carlitos]

Everyone else is struggling?



I'd get a second opinion if I were you.

Was there a poll on his other thread, or am I misremembering another poster?

 

[Akhenaten]

Slowvehicle,
- I try to demonstrate my understanding of the puddle analogy in the post below.

As most of us have suspected since it was first mentioned, you don't understand it.

 

[Agatha]

Oh! No, that's not what the puddle analogy is attempting to demonstrate to you, Jabba.

It's trying to demonstrate the fundamental error that some people make in thinking that the universe or our planet or the current time has been somehow fine-tuned or designed for us to be here.

Just as the puddle believes wrongly that the hole was designed for it to exist, so some people wrongly believe that our little hole (our planet) was designed for us.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- I didn't mean to imply that this was an emotional reaction. My reaction is based upon reductionism.

In that case, I definitely expect you to defend that position.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Slowvehicle,

- I say it seems reasonable because so many relevant scholars claim that it is...
- Also, it's hard for me to accept any end to time and/or space... I hope that I don't have to defend that position...

The multiverse idea is relevant to immortality in that it seems to maybe undermine the anthropic claim, and I claim that the anthropic claim supports immortality.

Mr. Savage:

I fear that you will claim that I am being insulting, but your post does not seem responsive, to me.

You say "the multiverse" theory seems reasonable to you because relevant scholars tell you it is reasonable.

You ignore the fact that there is no such thing as "the multiverse theory"; instead, there are a raft of ideas about how, and why, there may be more than one universe. Which is the one (or which are the ones) that seem (or seems) reasonable to you, and what about them (or it) (outside a bald appeal to authority) seems reasonable?

You don't have to defend any position. However, when you admit that you base your ideas on what you can, or can't accept the thought of, or what you want to be true, you should expect to be told that that is not a solid basis (as was pointed out to you in Shroud^TM and Shroud II^TM).

I fear that you may have lost your direction in your last sentence. You are trying to "essentially prove" immortality, yes? Let's ignore, for the nonce, the non-trivial problem of whatever "essentially prove" means, or the fact that "immortality" has a specific, useful definition, and look at what you said.

1. You claim that "the multiverse theory" seems reasonable.

2. You claim that "the multiverse theory" seems to maybe undermine the anthropic principle.

3. You claim that the anthropic principle supports immortality.

Am I missing something? It seems that you are saying that a theory that seems reasonable to you seems to undermine the thing you say you can "essentially prove".

Perhaps you might elucidate.

 

[Akhenaten]

Was there a poll on his other thread, or am I misremembering another poster?

That was DOC in the "Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth" thread but the situation is essentially the same.

 

[Pixel42]

Slowvehicle,
- I try to demonstrate my understanding of the puddle analogy in the post below.


- You guys are equating the rules governing the existence of life with the rules causing water to seek its own level. My claim is that such an equation (analogy) is incorrect, inapplicable. The rules governing the existence of life have no resemblance to the rules governing the shape that water takes.

I'm afraid you're still completely missing the point of the analogy.

Let's try taking it one step at a time.

The puddle deduces from the fact that the hole is exactly the right shape for it that the hole was specially designed for it.

First question: Is that a correct deduction?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Slowvehicle,
- I try to demonstrate my understanding of the puddle analogy in the post below.


- You guys are equating the rules governing the existence of life with the rules causing water to seek its own level. My claim is that such an equation (analogy) is incorrect, inapplicable. The rules governing the existence of life have no resemblance to the rules governing the shape that water takes.

Mr. Savage:

You have comprehensively missed the point of the puddle analogy. That is why I gave you the "Dr. Pangloss' simplifications, which you (evidently) found insulting.

The point of the puddle example has nothing to do with the physical constraints of water. The sentient puddle is an archetype; a metaphorical example of a being capable of self-awareness. The self-aware puddle finds herself in a "perfect" hole for her shape--which demonstrates (to her) that the hole was made just for her shape--completely missing that her shape is defined by the hole; the puddles in the other holes, with radically different shapes, also believe that their holes were made for their shapes.

Now, follow:

You are a CHON organism, with a fairly narrow band of of survival parameters. You look at this tiny little corner of the universe, and claim that the existence of an environment, parts of which meet your criteria, must have been designed for you. Like the puddles, you have it backwards--you evolved under these conditions. This environment was not made for you; you were made by this environment. Life as we know it is as we know it becasue it is what we know.

If the physical constraints of the universe were different, LAWKI could not have developed. However (this is the important part) if it were possible for some sort of sentient life to develop under those conditions, that sort of life would regard the universe in which it developed, and probably be tempted to think that the universe it regarded was designed for it, instead of realizing that it was, in fact, the result of the characteristics of that universe.

Noses are not provided to us in order to hold our glasses up; we took advantage of the fact that glasses could be designed to perch upon the noses that were already there.

 

[Jabba]

I'm afraid you're still completely missing the point of the analogy.

Let's try taking it one step at a time.

The puddle deduces from the fact that the hole is exactly the right shape for it that the hole was specially designed for it.

First question: Is that a correct deduction?

Pixel,
- No. Water fits the hole because it "seeks its own level" -- not because the hole was designed just for it.
- Are you saying that life, in effect, "seeks its own level"?

 

[Agatha]

No. Forget about the properties of water, that really isn't the point.

Are our noses and ears designed to be just the right shape for spectacles?
Is the puddle right in thinking (it's a sentient puddle for the purposes of the analogy) that the hole is designed to fit it?
Are some humans right in thinking that the land in the temperate zone of this planet is designed (or fine-tuned) to be just right for humans?

The answer to all these should be no.