[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

Status
Not open for further replies.
Slowvehicle said:
Once you presume to define your ~A in terms of characteristics, while at the same time defining your A in terms of characteristics (that is, once you define neither of them as "anything and everything that is not the other one"), you have, by definition, created the second diagram. .
Click to expand...

I don't want anyone to think I am agreeing with Jabba, but I am a bit uncertain about this. If the proposition (A) is:

I am an electric elk called Simon

then !A is:

I am either not an electric elk
OR
I am not called Simon

Or both.

And that's everything.

And that seems to match Jabba's "My life is finite and singular". What am I missing?
 
haibut said:
I don't want anyone to think I am agreeing with Jabba, but I am a bit uncertain about this. If the proposition (A) is:

I am an electric elk called Simon

then !A is:

I am either not an electric elk
OR
I am not called Simon

Or both.

And that's everything.

And that seems to match Jabba's "My life is finite and singular". What am I missing?
Click to expand...

You aren't missing anything. Your A/~A pair is inclusive, because you have properly (if informally) stated A as, "I am an electric elk named Simon", and your ~A as, "~(I am an electric elk named Simon)".

You did not, for instance, try to define ~A in terms of what you are, e.g., "I am a tapir (which has occasionally been mistaken for an elk) named Fred (which kinda sounds like Simon)".

Mr. Savage could define, for instance, A as, "My 'self' lives only once, and that for a limited time".
If he would then define ~A as, "~(My 'self' will live only once, and that for a limited time)", he would still have an uphill row to hoe, but it would not be due to improper construction.

Instead, as I understand it, Mr. Savage is now defining ~A as, "I am either immortal, or exist more than once (which amounts to 'immortality')". (Note, for instance, that a "self" that lived only once, but was extinguished by mischance before the end of eternity, is included in neither Mr. Savage's A, nor his ~A.)
 
Slowvehicle said:
You aren't missing anything. Your A/~A pair is inclusive, because you have properly (if informally) stated A as, "I am an electric elk named Simon", and your ~A as, "~(I am an electric elk named Simon)".

You did not, for instance, try to define ~A in terms of what you are, e.g., "I am a tapir (which has occasionally been mistaken for an elk) named Fred (which kinda sounds like Simon)".

Mr. Savage could define, for instance, A as, "My 'self' lives only once, and that for a limited time".
If he would then define ~A as, "~(My 'self' will live only once, and that for a limited time)", he would still have an uphill row to hoe, but it would not be due to improper construction.

Instead, as I understand it, Mr. Savage is now defining ~A as, "I am either immortal, or exist more than once (which amounts to 'immortality')". (Note, for instance, that a "self" that lived only once, but was extinguished by mischance before the end of eternity, is included in neither Mr. Savage's A, nor his ~A.)
Click to expand...

Damn it, you have got me INTERESTED now.

OK let's let P = "I am mortal"
and Q be "I have exactly one life"

If proposition A is (P AND Q) then,
just by the law of inverse negation, ~(P.Q) == (~P + ~Q), right?

So, if the proposition "I am both mortal (P) and have one life (Q) is to be negated, the negation is "I am either immortal, or I live multiple lives". Right?

so your note, of a self that lives once but is not immortal satisfies !Q and is therefore in ~A.

Now the uphill row to hoe is getting from A to ~A. And it ain't just uphill, it's damn near vertical.

ETA: Come to think of it, a "self" that lived only once, but was extinguished by mischance before the end of eternity, is actually in A. It's mortal.
 
Last edited:
haibut said:
Damn it, you have got me INTERESTED now.

OK let's let P = "I am mortal"
and Q be "I have exactly one life"

If proposition A is (P AND Q) then,
just by the law of inverse negation, ~(P.Q) == (~P + ~Q), right?

So, if the proposition "I am both mortal (P) and have one life (Q) is to be negated, the negation is "I am either immortal, or I live multiple lives". Right?

so your note, of a self that lives once but is not immortal satisfies !Q and is therefore in ~A.

Now the uphill row to how is getting from A to ~A. And it ain't just uphill, it's damn near vertical.
Click to expand...


Well...I would hold out for, "I am not mortal, or I do not live exactly one life".

ETA: (Since living three, finite lives, does not satisfy any useful definition of "immortality", there are, in fact, deeper problems with Mr. Savage's assertions...but those can be addressed another day.)

And, with all due respect, the particulars of ~A must be iterations of, well, NOT A. Which is why trying to encompass ~A in a list of particulars, that is, "defining ~A by characteristics", leaves you with two (and only two) options:

Either defining ~A leaves A undefined (except as, "~(~A)"), or, defining both A and ~A results in a false dichotomy.

At the risk of obscuring the formal structure with informal expression, (A U ~A) must represent the universal set. In this case, the informal expression is good enough, to avoid another year and a half of arguing over symbols.
 
Last edited:
haibut said:
Damn it, you have got me INTERESTED now.

OK let's let P = "I am mortal"
and Q be "I have exactly one life"

If proposition A is (P AND Q) then,
just by the law of inverse negation, ~(P.Q) == (~P + ~Q), right?

So, if the proposition "I am both mortal (P) and have one life (Q) is to be negated, the negation is "I am either immortal, or I live multiple lives". Right?

so your note, of a self that lives once but is not immortal satisfies !Q and is therefore in ~A.

Now the uphill row to hoe is getting from A to ~A. And it ain't just uphill, it's damn near vertical.
Click to expand...

You would need to include the possibility you don't exist at all, not just multiple times, if you want the true complement of single. May sound silly, but if you are going to give footing to immortality, then you really need to consider non-existence as well.

There is also a question of what it means to have multiple lives. Jabba has suggested that it may involve a complete wipe of memory, personality, whatever. Is that a meaningful concept of multiple lives?

And are mortal and immortal true complements? Is immortality forever existence, or does it include semi-eternal (i.e. beginning with no end or an end with no beginning)?
 
Slowvehicle said:
Well...I would hold out for, "I am not mortal, or I do not live exactly one life".

ETA: (Since living three, finite lives, does not satisfy any useful definition of "immortality", there are, in fact, deeper problems with Mr. Savage's assertions...but those can be addressed another day.)

And, with all due respect, the particulars of ~A must be iterations of, well, NOT A. Which is why trying to encompass ~A in a list of particulars, that is, "defining ~A by characteristics", leaves you with two (and only two) options:

Either defining ~A leaves A undefined (except as, "~(~A)"), or, defining both A and ~A results in a false dichotomy.

At the risk of obscuring the formal structure with informal expression, (A U ~A) must represent the universal set. In this case, the informal expression is good enough, to avoid another year and a half of arguing over symbols.
Click to expand...

Well the question rather depends on cardinilty, I would say. I suppose the question of "infinite lives" or a number of lives is not expressed in my formulation. But you can encompass, of course, any given "not x" with a list of particulars - like "I am en electric elk called Simon" is negated by "I am an electric elk called Duncan", or "I am a Tapir called Frank".

Jabba's formulation is "I have ONE life, and it IS finite." it's an (A.B). The contrary, therefore is !(A.B), which is just ~A + ~B.

A U ~A must represent the universal set, though, I don't think I have any disagreement with you there (or anywhere really)


Thing is: Jabba needs to get FROM A TO B. That's seems to be the sticking point.
 
haibut said:
And that seems to match Jabba's "My life is finite and singular". What am I missing?
Click to expand...

Just to start with, "singular" is not the complement of "multiple". For example, zero matches neither. Likewise, negative one, the square root of negative one, and one plus the square root of negative one.

Likewise, "immortal" is not the complement of "my life is finite", because immortal means you never die, so someone whose life extends infinitely into the past, but not into the future would fit into neither category.
 
jsfisher said:
You would need to include the possibility you don't exist at all, not just multiple times, if you want the true complement of single. May sound silly, but if you are going to give footing to immortality, then you really need to consider non-existence as well.

There is also a question of what it means to have multiple lives. Jabba has suggested that it may involve a complete wipe of memory, personality, whatever. Is that a meaningful concept of multiple lives?

And are mortal and immortal true complements? Is immortality forever existence, or does it include semi-eternal (i.e. beginning with no end or an end with no beginning)?
Click to expand...

"You don't exist at all" actually satisifies !P AND !Q in my argument, so it does fit. But I am only quibbling about logic. There is no reason to even START to imagine one is immortal, save old age and fear of death. Even then..
 
haibut said:
"You don't exist at all" actually satisifies !P AND !Q in my argument, so it does fit. But I am only quibbling about logic. There is no reason to even START to imagine one is immortal, save old age and fear of death. Even then..
Click to expand...

Then there are parallel existences, I suppose. :boxedin:
 
haibut said:
"You don't exist at all" actually satisifies !P AND !Q in my argument, so it does fit. But I am only quibbling about logic. There is no reason to even START to imagine one is immortal, save old age and fear of death. Even then..
Click to expand...

...I think we are' "essentially" (sorry) on the same page.

Which is why I have been asking Mr. Savage to consider starting at the "other end", with evidence.

Oh, well...

ETA: BTW, welcome to JREF!
 
xtifr said:
Just to start with, "singular" is not the complement of "multiple". For example, zero matches neither. Likewise, negative one, the square root of negative one, and one plus the square root of negative one.

Likewise, "immortal" is not the complement of "my life is finite", because immortal means you never die, so someone whose life extends infinitely into the past, but not into the future would fit into neither category.
Click to expand...

Gosh, you guys are picky arent you? :-)

OK so here's what I think Jabba's argument is:

Axiom: We live an integral number of lives. (I don't think that's unreasonable)

Proposition A: We live one life (P) and it is finite in either direction (Q)

The negation (~A) = ~(P.Q) = ~P + ~Q

therefore the negation of proposition A is that EITHER we live multiple lives, OR we live for a infinite time (in one direction on another). Or both.

or something like that. Having structured Jabba's argument FOR him, to save us a year or two, perhaps he could SUPPORT the argument?
 
Slowvehicle said:
...I think we are' "essentially" (sorry) on the same page.

Which is why I have been asking Mr. Savage to consider starting at the "other end", with evidence.

Oh, well...

ETA: BTW, welcome to JREF!
Click to expand...

Yes, I rather agree with you you there about the other end. And thanks for the welcome - 6 years and 65 posts. Perhaps not prolific.
 
Slowvehicle said:
Sorry (blush)

I just looked at the number of posts, not the join date.

I could use the "Canadian front" that appears to have moved in as an excuse...
Click to expand...

No, no, I wasn't having a dig - I am just the eternal newbie! Manwhile, perhaps Jabba might move forward after our progress tonight
 
haibut said:
Gosh, you guys are picky arent you? :-)

OK so here's what I think Jabba's argument is:

Axiom: We live an integral number of lives. (I don't think that's unreasonable)

Proposition A: We live one life (P) and it is finite in either direction (Q)

The negation (~A) = ~(P.Q) = ~P + ~Q

therefore the negation of proposition A is that EITHER we live multiple lives, OR we live for a infinite time (in one direction on another). Or both.

or something like that. Having structured Jabba's argument FOR him, to save us a year or two, perhaps he could SUPPORT the argument?
Click to expand...
Zero is not an integer.

For every unique potential consciousness there are two possibilities: either the circumstances which produce it happen at some time during the finite period of time in which they might, or they don't. Either a unique potential consciousness gets to exist (once, and for a finite period of time) or it doesn't.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom