[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[PixyMisa]

- Try this. It isn't actually my primary reason for believing the 'number' of potential selves to be infinite, but it seems to work, so I'll try it this time.
- If you accepted that the universe, or universes, will never end, would you accept that there is an infinity of potential selves?

Not until you:

1. Precisely define self.
2. Precisely define potential self in relation to self.
3. Show that there is an infinity of such.
4. Show that your definition of self maps at least as closely to observed reality as any other definition.

The problem is that there isn't an infinity of potential selves, any more than there is an infinite number of potential poker hands. Self - human identity - is brain function, and brains are finite, so the number of distinct selves is necessarily also finite.

And of course, even if you could demonstrate all the above points (which you can't) this would still get you precisely nowhere, because your argument is statistically invalid and proves nothing no matter what numbers you plug into it.

And even that ignores the problem that people are not immortal, as demonstrated by all the dead ones. You are trying to overturn every scientific experiment and observation ever based solely on your lack of understanding of proper statistical method.

Worse, it contradicts the second law of thermodynamics.

The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.

 

[Fudbucker]

Define fair deck. Normal deck in arranged order is still fair.

ETA: Garrette's whole statement deserves an eyeroll, for obvious reasons.

 

[Loss Leader]

Is anyone claiming that, after a draw like that, they would still believe that's a fair deck?

The problem with that analogy is that we know a whole lot about a deck of cards. We know all the possible cards and all the possible combinations. We know frequency of certain hands. We know that the casino has an interest in a random shuffle and that the casino has no interest in cheating to deal us winning cards.

In this case, however, the casino is the universe and this is the first and only hand we've ever seen. We don't know how many cards there are. We don't know what constitutes a winning hand. We don't know how many hands are played. We know absolutely nothing except that we are holding five cards.

So, the real question is: Knowing absolutely nothing about cards whatsoever, can you tell whether the game is rigged?

I believe you cannot.

 

[Mojo]

I read the first couple pages, and I was interested in a few replies to this scenario:

You come across a mysterious deck of cards, shuffle it a couple times, and take four cards from the top, which turn out to be four aces. Four more cards are drawn, which turn out to be four kings.

Is anyone claiming that, after a draw like that, they would still believe that's a fair deck?

What if you had drawn the ace of hearts, the six of clubs, the nine of clubs and the jack of spades, then the four of diamonds, the queen of diamonds, the eight of spades and the eight of diamonds? Would you think the deck was rigged? The odds of that sequence coming up are exactly the same as the odds for the sequence from the scenario. The only difference is that people think that the first sequence is somehow special.

Using the improbability of Jabba's existance as part of his argument involves begging the question, because it only matters if his existence is somehow special.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Is anyone claiming that, after a draw like that, they would still believe that's a fair deck?

The point isn't what seems fair or not fair. How things seem to human beings has historically proven to be an incredibly bad tool with which to determine the truth about reality.

 

[Jabba]

Even is I accepted that the universe will never end (which is highly questionable given the evidence), why should I accept FROM THAT that there is an infinity of potential souls? First, I don't accept "souls" as is usually defined. But even if the universe goes on for ever, how would I know if there are more and more "souls" with time, or if at some point "souls" are recycled? I believe the former, but I cannot be certain from the one that the other is or isn't true.

- If, somehow, the universe ends, shouldn't we expect a new one, another big bang (or whatever)? How was it "born" in the first place? Why wouldn't it keep happening?
- And then, how do we know that there is only one "universe"? After all, there are supposed to be a hundred billion stars in our galaxy, and a hundred billion galaxies in our universe...

How's this for your brain: in an infinite universe, all things possible will happen an infinite number of times. There will be not only more Jabbas, but infinite numbers of Jabbas. 1/2 of infinity is still infinity, just like 1/2 of zero is still zero

- Agreed.

 

[John Jones]

- If, somehow, the universe ends, shouldn't we expect a new one, another big bang (or whatever)? How was it "born" in the first place? Why wouldn't it keep happening?
- And then, how do we know that there is only one "universe"? After all, there are supposed to be a hundred billion stars in our galaxy, and a hundred billion galaxies in our universe...


.

Aren't these both arguments from ignorance?

 

[Mojo]

- If, somehow, the universe ends, shouldn't we expect a new one, another big bang (or whatever)?

Why? It looks a bit as if you're begging the question again, as well as using an argument from ignorance.

How was it "born" in the first place?

We don't know.

Why wouldn't it keep happening?

Why should it?

You might as well just be asking "why shouldn't I be immortal?" It doesn't get you any further.

- And then, how do we know that there is only one "universe"?

We don't. But that doesn't get you any nearer to proving that you're immortal.

 

[tsig]

- How many times have I had to change my wording?

Changing the wording without changing the meaning is meaningless.

 

[Garrette]

ETA: Garrette's whole statement deserves an eyeroll, for obvious reasons.

No. If you can neither define your terms nor explain why one arrangement is less likely than another, the eyes roll back atcha.

 

[Garrette]

- If, somehow, the universe ends, shouldn't we expect a new one, another big bang (or whatever)? How was it "born" in the first place? Why wouldn't it keep happening?
- And then, how do we know that there is only one "universe"? After all, there are supposed to be a hundred billion stars in our galaxy, and a hundred billion galaxies in our universe...


- Agreed.

You really, really don't think things through, do you? You are postulating infinite universes in which case there are infinite possibilities for you to exist as both finite and singular.

Every single way in which you have attempted to present your argument has ended with us back at this point: there is no reason to assume any of your various forms of immortality apply and every reason to assume single and finite mortality.

This is not because we do not understand your hypothesis; we do. It is not because we do not grasp Bayesian statistics; we do. It is not because we are left-brained or closed-minded or incapable of grasping non-analytical perspectives; we are not.

It is because your argument has been built by piling error upon misapplication, speculation upon misunderstanding, and ignorance upon hope.

 

[tsig]

The point isn't what seems fair or not fair. How things seem to human beings has historically proven to be an incredibly bad tool with which to determine the truth about reality.

How things seem to human beings tells us more about human beings than it does about reality.

 

[Jabba]

I read the first couple pages, and I was interested in a few replies to this scenario:

You come across a mysterious deck of cards, shuffle it a couple times, and take four cards from the top, which turn out to be four aces. Four more cards are drawn, which turn out to be four kings.

Is anyone claiming that, after a draw like that, they would still believe that's a fair deck?

Fudbucker,

- I agree with your idea, but would present it with a different situation.

Say that you find a deck of cards in the closet and decide to play some solitaire or something.

You sit down at the table and turn over the first card. It's an ace of spades. You place the ace back in the deck, shuffle the cards and once again, turn over the first card. This time, it's the ace of diamonds. Hmm. So, you try the same thing again. This time, you get the ace of spades again.

'Wait a minute…' You do it one more time, and this time, you get the ace of hearts.

If you’re paying attention, you’re growing suspicious about this deck you found in the closet. You’re starting to suspect that you don’t have the ordinary deck that you had assumed. But, why is that? Why are you suspicious?

You’re suspicious because the probability of drawing that 'hand' is so small if the deck is a normal deck.

Let’s try that again with a new deck. But, this time, the first card you draw is a 3 of diamonds, the second is a
Jack of spades, the third is a 9 of clubs and the fourth is a 9 of hearts. In this case, you probably are not suspicious.

But, of course you realize that the probability of drawing that hand, given a normal deck, is just as small as the probability of drawing that previous hand…

So, what’s the problem here? Why are you not suspicious of this deck, when you were suspicious of the first one?

It turns out that there are two factors causing you to be suspicious of that first deck -- and one is missing in regard to the second deck. There is nothing about the second hand that sets it apart in such a way as to suggest another plausible hypothesis… If there were, you’d be suspicious of that second deck as well. It’s as simple as that…

If, for instance, you were to remember that a few years back you had assembled a deck of 3’s, jacks, and 9’s (for some weird reason), the second hand would also stand out and would also make you suspicious. And, again, your suspicion would be mathematically justified…

Any time that new information you receive causes the overall information you have to logically favor a new ‘worldview,’ you are justified in revising your expectations accordingly. Who could argue with that?

And, that’s what happened when you drew the 4 aces, but did not happen when you drew the other hand.

The nature of a random "sample" has mathematical (probabalistic) implications about the
population the sample was taken from. The 4 aces, by being so improbable under your preexisting worldview regarding the deck, and by being so probable under a different, plausible, worldview about the deck, caused the overall information you had to logically favor the new worldview.

The "nondescript" hand, by not being especially probable under any other plausible worldview about the deck (that we can think of), even though it was specifically so improbable under the old worldview, does not cause the overall information you have to logically favor a new worldview.

By not suggesting another worldview, and thereby not setting itself apart from most other
possible hands, the nondescript hand "blends" with most other possible hands and effectively takes on the combined probability of most hands…

 

[Garrette]

So you are, again, going to ignore everything that points out your errors and latch on to the one post you can interpret as friendly. Well done, Jabba! That's the Christian way, indeed -- the way of the Immortals.

It turns out that there are two factors causing you to be suspicious of that first deck

And yet you do not mention either of them.

There is nothing about the second hand that sets it apart in such a way as to suggest another plausible hypothesis…

And yet you do not mention what it is about the first deck that sets it apart.

Let's ignore all the other problems and jump to the heart of the matter:

You are suspicious of the first deck but you have neither evidence nor proof that your suspicions are correct. The only way you can argue that you do have such evidence is to invoke prior knowledge, i.e., that such decks are usually created in a particular manner that makes such a hand unlikely.

Then, and this is the key part, you have to ignore the fact that statistical probability does not care one whit about personal significance, and you must conveniently fail to acknowledge that the consecutive Aces have only personal significance based on an arbitrary decision to ascribe meaning to that combination of cards.

So it is with your immortality gambit: Neither statistics in general, Bayes in particular, nor the universe at all, give one hoot damn about the fact that you find your existence personally meaningful. You're a 3 of clubs in a deck of spot cards that run to the billions.

 

[Jabba]

- I'll try again to explain why I think that the amount of potential "observers" (selves) is infinite.
1) Given that two different brains with exactly the same physical characteristics would not produce the same observer, science should hold that there is no limited pool of potential observers. Science should hold that each new observer is a brand new creation -- with no preceding "existence" of any kind.
- Can I get an Amen?

 

[Garrette]

- I'll try again to explain why I think that the amount of potential "observers" (selves) is infinite.
1) Given that two different brains with exactly the same physical characteristics would not produce the same observer, science should hold that there is no limited pool of potential observers. Science should hold that each new observer is a brand new creation -- with no preceding "existence" of any kind.
- Can I get an Amen?

No, and the real scientists here will go into better detail than I can, but once again you have not thought it through.

1. You still have not identified "self," and bringing in even yet one more term for it (observer) simply drives home the point that you're flopping around in the breeze hoping to latch on to something somehow.

2. A mind-bogglingly large number of potential consciousnesses does not equal an infinite number of potential consciousnesses.

 

[Garrette]

Now, then: What about the responses to your earlier posts? You should take some time to answer earlier critiques, for instance, in regard to your comment about infinite universes. If you don't, then it isn't another nail in the coffin of your idea; its' the last pebble of the last mountain of the last planet that has been shoveled onto its grave.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Good Morning, Mr. Savage!

How many times will you trot out this demonstration of the fact that you are not thinking about the responses to your arguments?

The only reason that the hand of Jacks and nines is "non-descript", while the hand of aces is "special", is that you have described the hand of aces (with,as you point out, the same chance, or "likelihood", or probability of being drawn) as special. You are picking one,and only one, of the bullet holes you put in the fence, and drawing a target, after the fact, around that one hole, and only that one hole.

No matter how often, or on how many fora, or in the contents of how many blogs, you describe this scenario, unless and until you describe it in such a way that the hand of aces "seems" just as likely as the hand of Jacks and nines, or describe it in such a way that the hand of Jacks and nines "seems" just as mysteriously unlikely as the hand of aces, all you are doing is repeating your Texas Sharpshooter error.

 

[Humots]

The problem with that analogy is that we know a whole lot about a deck of cards. We know all the possible cards and all the possible combinations. We know frequency of certain hands. We know that the casino has an interest in a random shuffle and that the casino has no interest in cheating to deal us winning cards.

In this case, however, the casino is the universe and this is the first and only hand we've ever seen. We don't know how many cards there are. We don't know what constitutes a winning hand. We don't know how many hands are played. We know absolutely nothing except that we are holding five cards.

So, the real question is: Knowing absolutely nothing about cards whatsoever, can you tell whether the game is rigged?

I believe you cannot.

I agree. And I think that this is the best explanation I have seen of the "cards" example.

Jabba has not drawn four Aces. He has drawn five cards, and is arguing that these cards must be significant because:

• They're all black.
• They're all red.
• Four are black and one is red.
• Four are red and one is black.
• They're all even numbers.
• They're all odd numbers.

...and so on.

In declaring himself to be four Aces, Jabba is begging the question (I've always wanted to say that) of whether he is a special hand.

 

[Akhenaten]

- If, somehow, the universe ends, shouldn't we expect a new one, another big bang (or whatever)?

There's no reason to, so no.

In any case, a new Universe means everything starts from scratch, including time.

There's no hope of immortality there for you, Jabba.

How was it "born" in the first place?

I don't know and neither do you, which makes the whole question completely pointless in terms of advancing your argument.

Why wouldn't it keep happening?

Nobody knows that it doesn't. Do you think this means that you get say "therefore immortality"?

It most certainly doesn't.

- And then, how do we know that there is only one "universe"?

We counted them.

After all, there are supposed to be a hundred billion stars in our galaxy, and a hundred billion galaxies in our universe...

So bloody what?