[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Aepervius]

- Discontinuous existences are included in ~A. Such existences would be plural, multiple, more than once.

It *isn't*.

It is a single live, say for example born 1/1/1900 died 1/1/2000 *but* was not continuous from those date.

Look it is getting ridiculous, if you don't understand that concept, then it is utterly hopeless for you to prove anything with probability.

 

[Akhenaten]

BURMA!

Same wavelength. We has it.

 

[Aepervius]

- Still multiple existences and included in ~A.

It is a *single* existence, you don't get it ? It is the same person, but that person does not exists at some point in time between birth and death.

Heck, I have a NEW one for you.

Two persons, being supperposed in existence. They both start separated at birth, but at some point they get their mind/soul/whatever fused and are one person. A hive mind.

Want others ?

Well there is a single person, and that person because her corpsum callum is destroyed and all pathway between the two half, is now two single mind in one single brain.

Want others ? I have plenty for you, not in your not A.

 

[Akhenaten]

xtifr,
- I've excluded zero with the conditional of my current existence.

O rly?

- Even if it's all illusion, something is having the illusion.

Let's just restate your OP in its currently modified form, shall we?

"Something" which "believes" "itself" to be "Jabba" "claims" that "it" can "essentially" "prove" that "something" is "immortal"

Gosh! Stop the presses!


Not to put too fine a point on it, Jabba, but all of those words that I've (almost mockingly) quoted and underlined above are words for which you've spectacularly failed to forge new meanings during the course of this thread. Your claim, as it would be read in this Universe, is reduced to nothing more than the following:

"which to be that can that is"​

Against all odds (and I'm sure Bayes would agree with me), this makes at least as much sense as anything you've actually posted yourself.

 

[Loss Leader]

- I've excluded zero with the conditional of my current existence.

No, you haven't. You give the chance of A (you coming into existence as a finite being) as infinitely small. Thus, you are talking about yourself and only yourself. The chance of somebody coming to exist who could make your argument is not part of your A. The chance that the universe would produce intelligent life or any life at all is not part of your A. Otherwise, A would be significantly greater.

So, if it's not part of your A, it must logically be part of ~A. However, you seek to define ~A in such a way as to limit it to you and only you. You have to include that chance somewhere.

For that matter, you also have to include the chance that we live in a deterministic universe in which it is certain that you would come to exist and then die. That's not in your A or your ~A, either.

 

[Slowvehicle]

It is a *single* existence, you don't get it ? It is the same person, but that person does not exists at some point in time between birth and death.

Heck, I have a NEW one for you.

Two persons, being supperposed in existence. They both start separated at birth, but at some point they get their mind/soul/whatever fused and are one person. A hive mind.

Want others ?

Well there is a single person, and that person because her corpsum callum is destroyed and all pathway between the two half, is now two single mind in one single brain.

Want others ? I have plenty for you, not in your not A.

...and the beat goes on...

 

[Slowvehicle]

<hierographical snip for focus>

"which to be that can that is"​

<snip>

This must be used as the title of a TAM workshop. Or a blog. Or a neo-synth-punk opera.

 

[Aepervius]

...and the beat goes on...

It is a fun game. But I am cheating. I am simply taking mathematical concept (half line, segment, circle, linked segment, unlinked segment, Y form segment etc....) and just applying them to the problem at hand.

I am just waiting Jabba attempting to tighten his ~A to introduce more funny concept, hyper plan, non euclidian stuff but applied to life concept.


Fun fun fun.

Thanks gods (hihi) Jabba did not think this thru so can make my meninge work.

ETA: I especially waiting excitedly to introduce the non euclidian stuff.

 

[Jabba]

Good Morning, Mr. Savage:
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...

Slowvehicle,
- I have only glanced at the links that you and others have provided. In that glancing, there didn't seem to be anything that I would have any problems with -- but, I need to get back to them before I can make any credible comments.
- This is a very busy day anyway, and we're in the midst of a serious snow storm.
- But per usual, I'll be back

 

[Akhenaten]

Slowvehicle,
- I have only glanced at the links that you and others have provided. In that glancing, there didn't seem to be anything that I would have any problems with -- but, I need to get back to them before I can make any credible comments.

So this very post itself is, according to your own definition, not credible.

- This is a very busy day anyway, and we're in the midst of a serious snow storm.

If you can post this pap, you can just as easily post something responsive to the many questions that you have so far ignored.

- But per usual, I'll be back

Why?

I mean it. Seriously. What are you hoping to gain here?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Slowvehicle,
- I have only glanced at the links that you and others have provided. In that glancing, there didn't seem to be anything that I would have any problems with -- but, I need to get back to them before I can make any credible comments.
- This is a very busy day anyway, and we're in the midst of a serious snow storm.
- But per usual, I'll be back

Good Morning, Mr. Savage:

Focus, if you will, on the fact that, even mathematically, A and ~A must be "exclusive" AND "exhaustive".

Stay warm, and be careful shoveling.

 

[Slowvehicle]

It is a fun game. But I am cheating. I am simply taking mathematical concept (half line, segment, circle, linked segment, unlinked segment, Y form segment etc....) and just applying them to the problem at hand.

I am just waiting Jabba attempting to tighten his ~A to introduce more funny concept, hyper plan, non euclidian stuff but applied to life concept.


Fun fun fun.

Thanks gods (hihi) Jabba did not think this thru so can make my meninge work.

ETA: I especially waiting excitedly to introduce the non euclidian stuff.

Not at all "cheating"--going straight to the root of why "exhaustive" cannot be defined other than as (sing it with me, you know the words)

"Anything, and everything, that is not A."

 

[tsig]

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.)

The confusion in this thread is so monumental it deserves to be emblazoned on mountains as a warning to future travelers.

 

[John Jones]

Slowvehicle,
- I have only glanced at the links that you and others have provided. In that glancing, there didn't seem to be anything that I would have any problems with -- but, I need to get back to them before I can make any credible comments.
- This is a very busy day anyway, and we're in the midst of a serious snow storm.
- But per usual, I'll be back

Jabba, you have so many reasons why you can't answer your interlocutors. You ought to write a book!

 

[haibut]

- 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.

Why not, RIGHT NOW, dispense with the A/~A stuff and just fill in the blanks to "I think I am immortal because __________"

It is evident that your belief in your immortality predates your attempt to apply Bayes theorem. Why not answer the question: WHY do you think you are immortal?

 

[Loss Leader]

Just for fun, the best of Jabba through November 2013

Otherwise, I'll present my case here.

Typically, I can commit about an hour a day to the topic, and as you can see I have received numerous questions and objections to answer, and addressing one leads to new Q’s and O’s to answer… In other words, I can only do so much, and unless some sort of spokesperson for the other side is willing to tell me which Q/O to answer next (which is actually what I’d prefer), I’m stuck with answering the one I personally find most deserving or profitable…

I assumed that it is too long to present here in one post.

-I'll leave it there for now -- I have miles yet to go.

I keep catching stomach viruses from my grandchildren, my own lap top is being repaired, and I wanted to show that I'm still around... I'll try to clean up my whole story and present it as concisely as possible in my next post.

- This will take me awhile to figure out...

I seem to get more confused with each exchange.

- I think that Wollery has been asking me for that justification, and I just haven't really gotten around to it except to refer people to my website.

- I haven't stopped to count -- nor probably , CAN I count -- the number of qac’s (questions, accusations and comments otherwise) with which you guys have hosed me in this thread (alone) -- but then, I think that I have GOOD ANSWERS to all of them anyway (though, at least for one of them, my answer is, "You're right -- I made a mistake").
- The trouble is that 1) good answers often take awhile to effectively compose, 2) for each one that I offer an answer, I'll probably be swamped with multiple new ones, and 3) answering them all is, therefore, inconceivable! (The Princess Bride, anyone?)

- My basic effort here is to evaluate the scientific hypothesis that -- at most -- we each have but one short life to live.

- I was about to attempt an answer to Humot's #232, but at least a few of you guys would like me to attempt answers to your set of five questions instead. I can only answer one at a time.

- These are not easy, yes/no, questions -- even though we can phrase them as such. Something like, "Have you quit beating your wife?" And it naturally takes me a while to express my take in order to have any chance of effectively conveying it...

- Gotta go.

- I'm going to give my quick answer. If you find something wrong with it, I'll re-think.

- Sorry about that. - When you get to be 70, I bet you have the same problem.

- I've been busy – and, responding to your post isn't easy. I've been working on a response for a few days (off and on) now, and have decided to let you know that I am working on it, and also to ask for patience.

- You guys are too fast for me.

- I'm still struggling.

- I'll try to be more specific, but I don't really understand why they are not specific enough already.

We're expecting the appropriate snow storm tomorrow.

- my 15 month old grandson is on my lap, so i'm typing with one hand.-

- There is much more to discuss about the logic here -- but hopefully, the above will give you and I a good jumping off place.

I’ll try to answer your major objections, one at a time.

- I didn't mention your question cause I din't really understand it. I'll think some more about it and get back to you.

- I'm still struggling.

- Anyway, I still think that I can essentially disprove the hypothesis that we each have just one, finite life to live at most. For now, I should stick with that more narrow claim.

- I guess there's no way to re-open my previous thread on immortality and Bayesian Statistics, so I'll start a new one by saying that I'll be focusing on the Shroud thread for awhile, and won't be saying much over here for awhile, but fear not, I'm back.

- Just to get us restarted.

- I probably will keep telling you my plans, but by trying harder to keep my focus very narrow, and responding to only one question/comment at a time (not what I’m doing in this response) and making you guys mad at me for a growing pile of unanswered questions, I’ll finally finish a branch of the argument tree, and return to the pile for a new one.

- This is a bit of math that is difficult (at least, for me) to explain.

- If you agree, I’ll try to move on past technicalities.

- I'll have to do some more thinking.

If you agree, I’ll try to move on past technicalities.

- Whatever, I'm still working on an answer to your quibble...

- I think that the basic problem here is that I'm so slow that observers don't realize that I'm moving.

- I've been away for awhile trying to figure out how best to proceed -- the appropriate words are singularly evasive...
- In my next post, I'll try to show that the prior probability of my occurrence -- given the generally accepted scientific worldview -- is actually one over infinity (as it is for the rest of you guys). Then (in my current plan), I will try to show why some non-chance explanations are, indeed, much more than somewhat plausible.

- Next, I’ll try to show that the divisor for the sum of the probabilities for other possible models isn’t so large.

a few days ago I was going to start my discussion with the Big Bang(s), but figured that would take me too long.

... but, I'll have to think about that some more.

- I'll try to tell you in a future post why I think you're wrong about permutations being finite.

- You make several other claims in your post, but I should probably address only one at a time.

- But then, my argument will take awhile to compose. So, I'll be back.

- Unfortunately, I'll be babysitting two year olds for most of the day, so won't be able to add much to the discussion today.

I have a lot to say about "unique" -- just that my time of late has been especially stretched by the need to babysit my sick, twin grandkids.

- Note that I said "essentially prove." I've never said that I can prove immortality.

I THINK that I have an effective answer to this objection, but like before, it will take me a while to compose.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

"Best man in the fight," essentially

 

[Akhenaten]

Just for fun, the best of Jabba through November 2013

Awesome!

 

[Jabba]

Why not, RIGHT NOW, dispense with the A/~A stuff and just fill in the blanks to "I think I am immortal because __________"

It is evident that your belief in your immortality predates your attempt to apply Bayes theorem. Why not answer the question: WHY do you think you are immortal?

haibut,
- I do want to say more about A/~A, but for now...
- My belief in immortality does predate my attempt to apply Bayes theorem -- but only because I had never heard of Bayes theorem. It was 1956, I was 14 and I had a "Eurica Moment." I think of it as an epiphany or revelation... All of a sudden, I could see statistical implications in my own current existence. I could see that given the scientific position that we each exist for one finite time, the likelihood of my current existence was 1/∞ (or something similar), which meant that that scientific position was probably wrong, and the most likely explanation for my current existence was that I was somehow eternal. That's when I began to believe in immortality.

 

[MikeG]

..... My belief in immortality does predate my attempt to apply Bayes theorem.......It was 1956, I was 14 and I had a "Eurica Moment."..........

Almost everything that I thought I knew when I was 14 turned out to be wrong, so it's curious that you appear have learned nothing about science in the 57/ 58 years since.

Eureka