[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
- You think I might be a computer?!
Click to expand...


Well, you keep producing the same output despite the input.



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.
Click to expand...


No, you've missed an important set of assumptions that Jabba has built in. The most glaring is that he believes we live in a non-deterministic universe. He demonstrates this belief when he sets he odds for A at anything less than 1. So, his real statement A is closer to: I live one finite life in a random universe. Thus, his ~A must include the possibility that the universe is deterministic - that his existence, however brief, was foreordained at the beginning of the universe. If we ran the thing from the beginning, he would always come to briefly exist.

Since the question of a random/deterministic universe is unanswerable, his entire conclusion becomes unknowable as well.

But he's hidden something more insidious in his odds. Having calculated the chance of his coming into existence at near 1:infinity, he has ignored the odds that someone somewhere would come into existence. His life may be a rare event, but the possibility of any life in the universe may be quite good.

Of course, we know that he exists (or we're willing to grant it). But the odds that someone would be making some similar argument might be high. He just randomly happens to be the one who got to be here.

So, his real A is closer to: I and I alone exist briefly and mortally in a random universe. ~A would include at least: Jabba is not alone; Jabba is not "I"; the universe is deterministic; and everything else that has been said.

Strangely, we know for a fact that Jabba is not alone in the universe. We are here as well (or, at least, we're as much here as he is). So one of his possible ~A scenarios has already come to pass. This makes ~A correct. However, it also makes it impossible to separate out Jabba's preferred ~A (that he's immortal) from one aspect of the actual ~A (that other people exist).

His argument must logically be wrong. Even without definitions of soul and immortality, he cannot be correct.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, Jabba, but even giving you all the benefit of the doubt I can muster, I cannot accept that your ~A plus your A is equal to 1. There are simply too many scenarios not included.

One simply cannot define both A and ~A; one can only define either A or ~A, and let the complement encompass everything remaining undefined.

ETA I was going to illustrate this with a Sean Bean picture saying "One cannot simply define both A and ~A", but "simply cannot" and "cannot simply" are not quite the same thing. :(
 
Last edited:
I got to the first 12 pages and gave up. Could somebody quickly fill me in, did he ever end up posting his proof and if so what page is it on?
 
atecom said:
I got to the first 12 pages and gave up. Could somebody quickly fill me in, did he ever end up posting his proof and if so what page is it on?
Click to expand...
P(Proof in rest of thread) + P(~Proof in rest of thread) = 1

P(Proof in rest of thread | Jabba has promised to provide it) = 0

Jabba has promised to provide it

ergo: P(~Proof in rest of thread) = 1 - 0 = 1
 
Is it? Darn it, sorry. My brain is mashed (prescribed drugs) and that's my excuse since I can't blame Canadian font :D
 
No worries, Agatha.
I'll send around some Uruk-Hai around later to explain the error of your ways.
Fancy allowing some prescribed drugs to interfere with your memory of anything Sean Bean said in that film.
 
pakeha said:
No worries, Agatha.

I'll send around some Uruk-Hai around later to explain the error of your ways.

Fancy allowing some prescribed drugs to interfere with your memory of anything Sean Bean said in that film.
Click to expand...


I am suitably chastened. On the upside, I might have to watch the film soon (though obviously I have to plan around Winter Olympics viewing). :)
 
:D
Thanks for not mentioning the around/around error, O TLA winner!
Enjoy the Winter Olympics!
 
Slowvehicle said:
Good Morning, Mr. Savage! I hope your morning is progressing as pleasantly as mine is (my favorite intern was able to come home last night, if only for a brief visit).

I am sorry that you have chosen to take this route, the same route you chose in Shroud and in Shroud II, that is, standing by your claim even though it is demonstrably incorrect.

Let me emphasize that it is not me with whom you are disagreeing, but with the fundamental nature of dichotomy.

Follow:

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. No matter how cleverly, or subtly, or creatively, or with what nuance you, personally, think you have listed the characteristics of "anything and everything that is not the other one", unless you have actually listed everything (which is, by nature, impossible) your limited "complementary couple" are not true complements, that is, they do not, in union, describe the universal set. You may have crafted a vernacular "opposite", or even "antithesis"; You have not constructed a complementary pair for the purposes of logic. You have merely created the red area in the second diagram.

It is the very fact that you are working so hard not to let your ~A be "indefinite" that makes your A/~A unrespresentative of complementarity.

Not to mention the fact that you are still working the apophatic side of the street. You have been hoping all along to establish that what has, in fact, happened, is so very unlikely, so (in practical terms) "impossible", even though it has, demonstrably, happened, that whatever alternative scenario you invent, presented without any evidence at all, is "more likely" than what is observed to happen; what can be demonstrated.

I encourage you, again, to seriously consider pulling at the other end of the knot. Why not simply present, in detail as gross or as fine as you can muster, your evidence (your practical. empirical, objective evidence) that the "soul" exists, and is "immortal".

Please notice that the claim, "Well, it just seems unlikely to me that we are mortal", is not evidence. Notice that "Statistically, I think it is less likely that consciousness is an emergent property of the specific neurosystem in which it is found than that some indefinable essence (that is not common experience, nor memory, nor identity, nor any demonstrable continuity) is more likely that that to which the evidence leads", is not evidence. Particularly notice that, "I fear the void", is not evidence.

Why do you think the "soul" exists?

Why do you think any of your versions (so very different from, say, the xianist claim of everlasting "life" after one "death"--which is not, BTW, defined into your ~A, above, and does not encompass your novel idea of "immortality" as unrelated sequential consciousnesses) explain reality better than the observed evidence?

I hope that you do not simply say that we will have to agree to disagree, so that you can "move on". You are, of course, free to believe whatever comforts you; I will champion your right to whatever faith fills your needs. it is when you try to "prove" that an article of your faith is more likely than observed reality; or when you try to claim that the fact that you believe should be enough indication that I, and others, should adopt your belief; or that your faith gives you the right to dictate the behaviours of others who do not, for whatever reason, share your belief, that you do err.

If you need to believe that you are "immortal" in order to face the darkness, feel free. If you want to pretend that I should be able to see that Bayes' system, or Venn's approach, or Houdini's beliefs, or Edward's claims, or Pascal's philosophy, or any other system can and does compel me, or anyone else, to accept an unevidenced contrafactual claim, you will need to apply more rigour than you have to date.

I encourage you again: start at the "other end" of the problem. Start with your evidence.
Click to expand...
Slowvehicle,

- Unfortunately, I still think that I have mathematically included (with my proposed complement) all the Venn rectangle of "anything and everything that is not a member of A". And, I don't know how to improve upon my argument... In other words, I suspect that I should “move on,” but that I should start at the "other end" of the problem -- i.e. the "evidence"...

- But then, I still have one more foray to attempt before I move on.
- In this case, I won't present my alternative hypothesis as ~A -- I'll just present it as B, in which case it's prior probability would be even less than 1%. But then the posterior probability of A|me would still be 1/∞, and obviously much smaller than the posterior probability of B.
 
Agatha said:
Sorry, Jabba, but even giving you all the benefit of the doubt I can muster, I cannot accept that your ~A plus your A is equal to 1. There are simply too many scenarios not included.

One simply cannot define both A and ~A; one can only define either A or ~A, and let the complement encompass everything remaining undefined.
ETA I was going to illustrate this with a Sean Bean picture saying "One cannot simply define both A and ~A", but "simply cannot" and "cannot simply" are not quite the same thing. :(
Click to expand...
- Can you provide a source for your claim?
 
Jabba said:
Slowvehicle,

- Unfortunately, I still think that I have mathematically included (with my proposed complement) all the Venn rectangle of "anything and everything that is not a member of A".
Click to expand...
You undoubtedly mean to apply "unfortunately" to the state of the argument when in fact you should mean to apply it to the fact that you "still think that." You have been shown over and over why you have not handle your ~A properly yet you cling to the flaw.


Jabba said:
And, I don't know how to improve upon my argument...
Click to expand...
This should tell you something, and this is not a slam on you. You can improve upon the statement of your argument by applying Bayes correctly; you have been shown how to do that. What this does, however, is make your argument false insofar that it does not prove -- essentially or otherwise -- anything at all.


Jabba said:
In other words, I suspect that I should “move on,” but that I should start at the "other end" of the problem -- i.e. the "evidence"...
Click to expand...
If only someone had thought of this before and suggested it to you.


Jabba said:
- But then, I still have one more foray to attempt before I move on.
- In this case, I won't present my alternative hypothesis as ~A -- I'll just present it as B, in which case it's prior probability would be even less than 1%. But then the posterior probability of A|me would still be 1/∞, and obviously much smaller than the posterior probability of B.
Click to expand...
Sigh.

No. You still need to show how you got your probabilities, and you still need to deal with many of the shortcomings already outlined. As has been pointed out, P(A|Jabba) may well = 1 because P(Jabba) may well = 1. Alternatively, P(Someone) may = 1, and Jabba would fulfill Someone, in which case you would be looking at P(A|Someone).
 
Jabba said:
- Can you provide a source for your claim?
Click to expand...
Reality.

More specifically, logic and the limit of human imagination. We cannot know all the possibilities that exist, or might exist, or may have existed in the past, or may exist in the future.

If you define A (or B, or whatever label) then the complement is EVERYTHING else which is not included in your definition. Unless you claim to be omniscient, it's not possible to define everything which is going to fall into your complement.

If you define both A and B, then you are left with A+B+x=1, where x is non-zero and includes everything not in A and not in B.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom