[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Sideroxylon]

I've been enjoying your work here and elsewhere too, Garrette.

 

[Garrette]

Garrette, you'll always be a genius to me. [qimg]http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/hello/hat-tip-smiley-emoticon.gif[/qimg]

I've been enjoying your work here and elsewhere too, Garrette.

Thanks, but I hope it's apparent I was joking and not really looking for praise. I think I tend to do okay in this kind of thread, but when it comes to expert dissection of claims such as Jabba's, I gladly take a back seat to the masters.

 

[Aepervius]

This comment has helped me grasp some earlier posts I did not fully follow. It might have been you who posted them, but I can't find them now.

Short version of those posts was that it appears that Jabba is actually proving he is less likely to be immortal than not, though Jabba does not realize that.

Short version of my equationification of that statement:

Premise 1: A = the Standard Model = finite potential selves
Premise 2: ~A = any other scenario = infinite potential selves

P(Jabba Existing | A) > P(Jabba Existing | ~A), simply by definition

(I wouldn't expect to pass a real stats course with the above, but you get my drift)

I am pretty sure this was said upthread. I am 100% sure it was subsequently ignored by Jabba.

 

[Garrette]

I am pretty sure this was said upthread. I am 100% sure it was subsequently ignored by Jabba.

I agree with both parts of your comment. I simply had not fully grasped what was said before. (Hence my occupation of the back seat and not the front)

 

[Slowvehicle]

Thank you. That helps a little. But what about all these other smarty-pants around here, huh? What about Slowvehicle and his sciencey degree-ification? What about Akhenaten and all his wisdom-of-the-ages and his Mad Computer Skilz? What about everybody else on this thread?

Do they acknowledge my geniusosity? Do they ever kow-tow or bow and scrape? Oh, no. I'm not gooood enough for the likes o' them.

Here I have it on highest authority (Jabba - best man in the fight) that I'm special, but not a one of those ingrates acknowledges it.

Harumph.

Here is a cow-tow, for you:

 

[Garrette]

Here is a cow-tow, for you:
[qimg]http://i1184.photobucket.com/albums/z323/slowvehicle/3920710-38955-a-cow-with-a-cart.jpg[/qimg]

Finally! Someone who appreciates me and provides me with the luxurious lifestyle I so richly deserve.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Before I read the image name, I thought you were trying to say he's staring at defeat.

 

[John Jones]

Thanks, but I hope it's apparent I was joking and not really looking for praise. I think I tend to do okay in this kind of thread, but when it comes to expert dissection of claims such as Jabba's, I gladly take a back seat to the masters.

Of course it was apparent, Garrette.

No one with any sense expects a logical argument out of the OP after 18 months of unrelenting disappointment.

Therefore, we come here to read and enjoy the erudite counter arguments. Yours, for example.

Congrats.

 

[jsfisher]

Before I read the image name, I thought you were trying to say he's staring at defeat.

A bit corny, no?

 

[Jabba]

If you're going to look at our selves as coming from a pool, the pool is, at any given time, the number of organisms that can reproduce and the chemicals necessary for them to do so. That pool is finite.

- In that sense, there is no pool. We are brand new; created out of thin air, so to speak; and as such, our potential numbers are infinite. Would you agree with that?

 

[Loss Leader]

- In that sense, there is no pool. We are brand new; created out of thin air, so to speak; and as such, our potential numbers are infinite. Would you agree with that?

No!

Literally nobody has agreed with that, for some very compelling reasons. Somehow, you've become fixated on godless dave even though he has stated multiple times that he does not believe there are an infinite number of possible people.

That pool is finite.

the number of "observers" is still limited by:

• The available material to make them out of.
• The preceding events required to make one.

At any given point in time, there are only a finite number of potential selves. Let's take me for an example. In October, 1969, which is roughly when I was conceived, there were a finite number of fertile human beings. There were only a finite number of potential mating pairs, and each had only a finite number of sperm and eggs that could meet, in a finite number of combinations.

Only one of those combinations would result in me. There was a large number of potential alternatives - my parents could have had intercourse a few minutes earlier, or a few minutes later, or not at all, or one or both of them could have even had intercourse with someone else. It was a large number, but not an infinite number.

Even with cloning, there is only a finite amount of genetic material to work with, and finite resources that an organism needs to grow.

 

[Garrette]

And as has been shown, you cannot assume the infinite potential or the creation out of thin air for your Standard Model; you can (possibly) only assume it for your Non-Standard Model, in which case it becomes obvious that you will have proven you are most likely mortal.

You are wanting the probability of a single finite you given the standard model but using a definition of the standard model that is actually the non-standard model.

 

[Jabba]

- I suspect that I should be trying to describe two kinds of finiteness, rather than two kinds of infinity…

- The number of possible hands in a game of Texas Poker is finite. The number of possible combinations in the Lottery is also finite. That’s because the cards in our hand and the numbers on our ticket are drawn from a limited pool of possibilities. I’ll call this intrinsic finiteness.
- I suggest that such is not the case for the number of possible selves – that any limitation on the number of possible selves is due to limits in external factors such as matter, energy and time. I’ll call that extrinsic finiteness; and in that sense, the number of possible selves is infinite.
- The same is true for the number of different potential Volkswagons.

- Then, I claim that extrinsic finiteness is intrinsic infinite.

- Then, I claim that this latter is the sense that applies to the number of potential selves.
- There is no intrinsic finiteness attached to the number of potential selves.
- There is no preceding set of potential selves; and in that sense, each new self comes out of “thin air,” and each new self is a brand new creation. There is no limit to thin air, and there is no preceding existence -- of any kind – for actualized selves…

- I’m claiming that such should be the scientific conclusion.

 

[Akhenaten]

- In that sense, there is no pool. We are brand new; created out of thin air, so to speak; and as such, our potential numbers are infinite. Would you agree with that?

No!

How many times do you need to be told? Nobody agrees with this.

 

[Garrette]

- I suspect that I should be trying to describe two kinds of finiteness, rather than two kinds of infinity…

- The number of possible hands in a game of Texas Poker is finite. The number of possible combinations in the Lottery is also finite. That’s because the cards in our hand and the numbers on our ticket are drawn from a limited pool of possibilities. I’ll call this intrinsic finiteness.
- I suggest that such is not the case for the number of possible selves – that any limitation on the number of possible selves is due to limits in external factors such as matter, energy and time. I’ll call that extrinsic finiteness; and in that sense, the number of possible selves is infinite.
- The same is true for the number of different potential Volkswagons.

- Then, I claim that extrinsic finiteness is intrinsic infinite.

- Then, I claim that this latter is the sense that applies to the number of potential selves.
- There is no intrinsic finiteness attached to the number of potential selves.
- There is no preceding set of potential selves; and in that sense, each new self comes out of “thin air,” and each new self is a brand new creation. There is no limit to thin air, and there is no preceding existence -- of any kind – for actualized selves…

- I’m claiming that such should be the scientific conclusion.

Your little thought experiment is riddled with claims and no proof, and it continues to ignore that it is not the Standard Model that you claim is the parameter. The Standard Model has consciousness as an emergent property, and is not "brand new, created out of think air." That's just your wishful ignorance talking.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- In that sense, there is no pool. We are brand new; created out of thin air, so to speak; and as such, our potential numbers are infinite. Would you agree with that?

Good Morning, Mr. Savage.

No.

Consciousness is an emergent property of a neurosystem.

Neurosystems are material.

There is a finite number of possible neurosystems.

 

[godless dave]

- In that sense, there is no pool. We are brand new; created out of thin air, so to speak; and as such, our potential numbers are infinite. Would you agree with that?

Absolutely not. That's the opposite of what I said. We are not created out of thin air, we are created out of chemicals - of which there is a finite supply - by a series of events that can occur in a large but finite number of ways.

Similarly, the number of potential Volkswagens is limited by the available raw materials and the production capacity of existing Volkswagen factories.

 

[Loss Leader]

- The number of possible hands in a game of Texas Poker is finite. The number of possible combinations in the Lottery is also finite. That’s because the cards in our hand and the numbers on our ticket are drawn from a limited pool of possibilities. I’ll call this intrinsic finiteness.
- I suggest that such is not the case for the number of possible selves – that any limitation on the number of possible selves is due to limits in external factors such as matter, energy and time. I’ll call that extrinsic finiteness; and in that sense, the number of possible selves is infinite.

Congratulations on inventing an entirely new branch of mathematics. Of course, there already is well-established math of infinite sets. but I'm sure these lifelong mathematicians can always use the help.

- Then, I claim that extrinsic finiteness is intrinsic infinite.

Why? Why can't something be extrinsically finite and intrinsically finite?

Also, what does it mater why something is finite? If it's finite, it can't be infinite ... ever.

- There is no preceding set of potential selves; and in that sense, each new self comes out of “thin air,” and each new self is a brand new creation. There is no limit to thin air, and there is no preceding existence -- of any kind – for actualized selves…

But there IS a limit to thin air. There is a finite amount of thin air (or, more correctly, matter in the universe). So there can only be a finite number of combinations of that matter.

- I’m claiming that such should be the scientific conclusion.

Scientific conclusions can be repeatedly tested and falsified. Can your conclusion be tested? Are there any facts that could possibly exist which would convince you that your idea is false?

 

[Agatha]

- I suspect that I should be trying to describe two kinds of finiteness, rather than two kinds of infinity…

- The number of possible hands in a game of Texas Poker is finite. The number of possible combinations in the Lottery is also finite. That’s because the cards in our hand and the numbers on our ticket are drawn from a limited pool of possibilities. I’ll call this intrinsic finiteness.
- I suggest that such is not the case for the number of possible selves – that any limitation on the number of possible selves is due to limits in external factors such as matter, energy and time. I’ll call that extrinsic finiteness; and in that sense, the number of possible selves is infinite.
- The same is true for the number of different potential Volkswagons.

- Then, I claim that extrinsic finiteness is intrinsic infinite.

- Then, I claim that this latter is the sense that applies to the number of potential selves.
- There is no intrinsic finiteness attached to the number of potential selves.
- There is no preceding set of potential selves; and in that sense, each new self comes out of “thin air,” and each new self is a brand new creation. There is no limit to thin air, and there is no preceding existence -- of any kind – for actualized selves…

- I’m claiming that such should be the scientific conclusion.

No. Just no.

Consciousness - the self, the soul, whatever you are calling it is a product (an emergent property) of the brain. Without the brain there is no 'self'. The brain exists in the body of a human (for our purposes on this thread ignoring other species).

Humans are not created out of thin air but created through a well understood process of fertilisation of the human egg with the human sperm. The DNA, chromosomes, alleles etc that make a person are all 'drawn from a pool of finite possibilities'.

Asserting that "extrinsic finiteness=intrinsic infiniteness" is so muddled that it's Stundie-worthy.

 

[Akhenaten]

- I suspect that I should be trying to describe two kinds of finiteness, rather than two kinds of infinity…

No, you should be acknowledging that your understanding of infinity is completely borked.

- The number of possible hands in a game of Texas Poker is finite. The number of possible combinations in the Lottery is also finite. That’s because the cards in our hand and the numbers on our ticket are drawn from a limited pool of possibilities. I’ll call this intrinsic finiteness.

You can call it Trixibelle if you like. It's your understanding that's at fault, not the label du jour that you decide on a whim to apply to it.

- I suggest that such is not the case for the number of possible selves – that any limitation on the number of possible selves is due to limits in external factors such as matter, energy and time. I’ll call that extrinsic finiteness; and in that sense, the number of possible selves is infinite.

As always, you are wrong

- The same is true for the number of different potential Volkswagons.

What's a Volkswagon?

For someone attempting to use mathematics to prove something as unlikely as immortality you seem to have a rather cavalier attitude as far as accuracy is concerned.

- Then, I claim that extrinsic finiteness is intrinsic infinite.

And I claim that a banana.

I'll bet you most observers think my claim makes more sense.

- Then, I claim that this latter is the sense that applies to the number of potential selves.

And I counter-claim that there is no sense in your postulate at all.

- There is no intrinsic finiteness attached to the number of potential selves.

There is no intrinsic makingsenseness attached to the number of potential arguments you'll attempt either.

So?

- There is no preceding set of potential selves; and in that sense, each new self comes out of “thin air,” and each new self is a brand new creation. There is no limit to thin air , and there is no preceding existence -- of any kind – for actualized selves…

Real "thin air" has very definite limits. Your personally-defined version, not so much.

The greater part of the failure of your whole approach to this (and other) issues is its reliance on acceptance of these ad hoc definitions that you keep trotting out.

- I’m claiming that such should be the scientific conclusion.

- Science doesn't give a rat's what you claim.