[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
- If your claim is correct, there aught to be a text book, or an article by a recognized expert, pointing it out.
- I'm claiming that ~A has mathematical restrictions that can be expressed more explicitly than "anything and everything that is not A." I expressed ~A as "given that I currently exist, my existence will be either continuous, or more than once, or (somehow) both. I'm claiming that in mathematics, the possibilities are limited and identifiable.
Click to expand...

I have already provided with a case not covered in your not A, with an existence which was infinite in the past.

heck I can present you with a much more damning case : you existence is not continuous, you jsut "discontinue" to live at plank interval, jumping from plank interval to plank interval. But you will not feel it, because plank interval are small enough that it appears as smooth to you (10-44 seconds interval) .

So a discontinuous existence like that is not taken into account by you.


Or you could live but then arbitrarily EVERY time the 27 february is a monday then on midnight for 27 seconds you do not live, you do not exists. Et voila discontinuous existence.

You know how many such case I can build around YOU trying to define a fixed ~A ? A truckload. Every time you will try to refine your ~A , I can probably amuse myself to find a counter example missing from you ~A definition *because* it will be neigh impossible for you to catch and lock tied the ~A , as you defined the A.

(ETA: yes you did not forsee my usage of "infinite in the past" or "discontinuous" , but I bet you will pretend that this does not change you P(~A) probability)
 
Last edited:
Of course he will pretend that, Aepervius. Even when he apparently reads my posts he ignores when I point out such things. I have mentioned your posts specifically yet he ignores them.

Of course, in this case he will allege that your scenarios are covered under "multiple," conveniently ignoring his premise that the consciousness in each existence has no memory of its previous incarnations.
 
Jabba said:
- If your claim is correct, there aught to be a text book, or an article by a recognized expert, pointing it out.
- I'm claiming that ~A has mathematical restrictions that can be expressed more explicitly than "anything and everything that is not A." I expressed ~A as "given that I currently exist, my existence will be either continuous, or more than once, or (somehow) both. I'm claiming that in mathematics, the possibilities are limited and identifiable.
Click to expand...

If your claim is correct, then there ought to be a text book or an article by a recognised expert, pointing it out. Why don't you provide such a reference?
 
Aepervius said:
I have already provided with a case not covered in your not A, with an existence which was infinite in the past.
Click to expand...
- Is it no longer existing? If not, it isn't infinite, it's finite -- and, it's included in A.
 
False Dichotomy/Examples

Aepervius said:
heck I can present you with a much more damning case : you existence is not continuous, you jsut "discontinue" to live at plank interval, jumping from plank interval to plank interval. But you will not feel it, because plank interval are small enough that it appears as smooth to you (10-44 seconds interval) .

So a discontinuous existence like that is not taken into account by you...
Click to expand...
- Discontinuous existences are included in ~A. Such existences would be plural, multiple, more than once.
 
Last edited:
Aepervius said:
...
Or you could live but then arbitrarily EVERY time the 27 february is a monday then on midnight for 27 seconds you do not live, you do not exists. Et voila discontinuous existence...
Click to expand...
- Still multiple existences and included in ~A.
 
Garrette said:
No. You are still defining your problem down to an ideal to ensure the outcome you want, just like the die-rolling scenario I outlined.

You have a choice of one of the two formulations below where S = Single, F = Finite, and J = Jabba:

Option 1:
P(SFJ|J) = 1 – P(~SFJ|J)

Where ~SFJ = (Everything ~S) + (Everything ~F) + (Everything ~J)

OR

Option 2:
P(SF|J) = 1 – P(~SF|J)

Where ~SF = (Everything ~S) + (Everthing ~F)


You cannot define your issue down to a portion of the universe and then claim your conclusion applies to the universe.
Click to expand...
Which of these options do you choose, Jabba?
 
False Dichotomy/Examples/Support

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...
- Thanks, haibut. I plan on getting to my support for ~A if I can ever be satisfied with my defense of the wording for ~A.
- Currently, I need to do some more thinking about xtifr's examples of stuff I'm missing with my claimed dichotomy.
 
Jabba said:
- Is it no longer existing? If not, it isn't infinite, it's finite -- and, it's included in A.
Click to expand...

Good Morning, Mr. Savage:

This is exactly the objection I have been raising to your idiosyncratic concept servicef multiple sequential iterations of a "consciousness" being the same "self".

Follow:

For the last 30 hours or so, my internet access has been intermittent--there was a breakdown of the 4G grid from which I get my feeds. I will have access for 15 minutes or so, then the system will go down for another random interval. Every time service is restored, it's still "my account" (still a continuation of the "entity" that is my service access). I can demonstrate it is still "my account" because it has continuity: my passwords, my bookmarks, my fora,my works-in-proogress in the cloud; all are accessible to me,and function as they have been set up to do.

OTH, if my system were working as you conceive your multiple discontinuous iterations of the "same" "self", each time my service came up again after having "died", the new service would share nothing with the old--not account name, not passwords, not bookmarks, not hardware...not even software. In what way could that be considered to be the "same" account, the "same" service?

I apologize for the slight derail, but I cannot resist a teaching moment.

Did you read either of the sites for which you asked, that I provided? How are you proposing that your A/~A pair, in which you have define both elements, is"exhaustive"?

I am eager to read your answer...
 
False Dichotomy/Examples

xtifr said:
No, you've left out zero. And considering that at least one major world religion is based on the premise that life and self are illusions, that's an unforgivable oversight...
Click to expand...
xtifr,
- I've excluded zero with the conditional of my current existence.
- Even if it's all illusion, something is having the illusion.
 
Garrette said:
zooterkin said:
Why do you need anything more specific than "everything which is not A"?
Click to expand...


Because he doesn't want ~A to include anything he can't call a version of immortality.
Click to expand...




NutshellThread.jpg
 
Jabba said:
- Is it no longer existing? If not, it isn't infinite, it's finite -- and, it's included in A.
Click to expand...

Nope, if it is infinite in the past it is infinite.


Let me give you an example. The serie starting with U0=45 and Un=Un-1-1 is infinite but will not have any positive number beyond 45.

It is definitively infinite. ETA in fact it is the opposite in time of YOUR infinite. If one being born then living forever isn infinite then the above is infinite !!! Look You pretend that 0 , 1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ,5....etc is infinite , then -infinite.... -5 ,-4,-3,-2,-1,1,2,3,4,...,45 is infinite too.

Demonstration *IS* trivial. YOUR concept of infinity is
J0=0 and Jn=Jn-1+1
Trivially Un=45-Jn
Do you get it now ? You pretend an half segment starting at zero and continuying forever is infinite then a half segment ending at 45 (or zero or whatever) but coming from -infinite is also infinite.




Look, if you don't understand that concept of infinite, then maybe you should reconsider your reasonning.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom