[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I understand that no one here, but me, thinks that it's useful to try to distinguish between intrinsic and extrinsic finiteness.

Useful or not, you're applying your criteria for determining which is which inconsistently. If you applied them consistently, then you'd see that VWs, poker hands or "selves" are all finite in the same way under the same conditions, and all infinite in the same way under the same conditions.

 

[Loss Leader]

- Doesn't sound good for my side.

Perhaps one of your problems is the belief that you even have a "side". The only thing that should matter is whether logic and observation lead to your conclusion being necessarily true.

 

[jt512]

- I need to narrow my focus.

- I understand that no one here, but me, thinks that it's useful to try to distinguish between intrinsic and extrinsic finiteness.
- In addition, I can't find anyone in the world, but me, making that distinction.
- Doesn't sound good for my side.

- Does anyone here accept that such a distinction can be made?

Before it is even worth thinking about that, answer my questions in posts #4533 and #4538. Depending on your answers, your question may be moot.

 

[pakeha]

- I need to narrow my focus.

- I understand that no one here, but me, thinks that it's useful to try to distinguish between intrinsic and extrinsic finiteness.
- In addition, I can't find anyone in the world, but me, making that distinction.
- Doesn't sound good for my side.

- Does anyone here accept that such a distinction can be made?

Only in the sense that you can define anything as you please- the only question is whether you can convince anyone your definition is correct or desirable or enlightening.

There's no one in the world that agrees with your distinction or parameters?
What does that tell you?

 

[Giordano]

- I need to narrow my focus.

- I understand that no one here, but me, thinks that it's useful to try to distinguish between intrinsic and extrinsic finiteness.
- In addition, I can't find anyone in the world, but me, making that distinction.
- Doesn't sound good for my side.

- Does anyone here accept that such a distinction can be made?

No on here agrees with you, and you can't find any one else in the world who does. Perhaps you should not maintain this idea?

Just to make it clear, no, I do not accept such a distinction.

And believe it or not, there are no sides. Everyone here wants to discover and highlight the truth.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- I need to narrow my focus.

- I understand that no one here, but me, thinks that it's useful to try to distinguish between intrinsic and extrinsic finiteness.
- In addition, I can't find anyone in the world, but me, making that distinction.
- Doesn't sound good for my side.

- Does anyone here accept that such a distinction can be made?

You can make such a distinction, but it has no effect; like making the distinction between food your unicorn instrumentally likes, and food your unicorn expressively likes. Because your distinction is predicated upon an idiosyncratic version of reality, it is not congruent, luminous, or fruitful for anyone else.

As far as "side", you only have one opponent: observed reality.

 

[JoeMorgue]

- I need to narrow my focus.

- I understand that no one here, but me, thinks that it's useful to try to distinguish between intrinsic and extrinsic finiteness.
- In addition, I can't find anyone in the world, but me, making that distinction.
- Doesn't sound good for my side.

- Does anyone here accept that such a distinction can be made?

- You need to make sense.
- Playing the "Lone misunderstood genius" card, even backhandedly, doesn't help your case.
- You need to make sense.
- You need to drop this "Everyone has to argue exactly as I say they should for me to make my point" fetish.
- You need to make sense.
- We're not falling for yet another transparently false "Argumentative Reset" from you.
- You need to make sense.
- It would be just monumentally helpful to your opinion if you would actually address one single solitary point that the dozens of other people have made in response to your claim.
- You need to make sense.
- You need to stop using pseudo-intellectual but meaningless ten dollar words instead of actually explaining your claims or backing them up with evidence.
- You need to make sense.

 

[PixyMisa]

- One basic problem here is that most of you are still not referring to the same sense of "self" as I am.
- "You" would agree that you change continuously over a lifetime -- but note that there is a single you that is existing through a lifetime in your agreement.
- In one sense, you change continuously. But in another sense, you are still "you." That latter sense is the one I'm talking about.

Jabba, EVERYONE KNOWS WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. You are talking about what are commonly known as immaterial souls. According to all available evidence, THERE IS NO SUCH THING.

That's your problem. It's not a question of communication, or who is "on the same page". Before you can even begin your argument, you must demonstrate the existence of immaterial souls.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Jabba, EVERYONE KNOWS WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. You are talking about what are commonly known as immaterial souls. According to all available evidence, THERE IS NO SUCH THING.

That's your problem. It's not a question of communication, or who is "on the same page". Before you can even begin your argument, you must demonstrate the existence of immaterial souls.

"♪♫♫♪ Livin' with im-ma-terial souls,
Fulfillin' im-ma-terial rôles ♪♫♫♪
♪♫♫♪ Because we're livin' with im-ma-terial souls,
And diggin' im-ma-terial holes ♪♫♫♪..."

 

[abaddon]

Jabba, EVERYONE KNOWS WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. You are talking about what are commonly known as immaterial souls. According to all available evidence, THERE IS NO SUCH THING.

That's your problem. It's not a question of communication, or who is "on the same page". Before you can even begin your argument, you must demonstrate the existence of immaterial souls.

That's all well and good, but are you "essentially" on the same page? Surely you can see I and my invisible hordes of supporters are on a different virtual page while being on the same essential page which you are also on but don't realise it, so you are wrong.

 

[PixyMisa]

"♪♫♫♪ Livin' with im-ma-terial souls,
Fulfillin' im-ma-terial rôles ♪♫♫♪
♪♫♫♪ Because we're livin' with im-ma-terial souls,
And diggin' im-ma-terial holes ♪♫♫♪..."

♫Some souls lie and some souls die and that's alright with me,
If they're not almost infinite I'll skip right to ~B♫.

Speaking of which, Jabba, if you can demonstrate the existence of immaterial souls then your argument is unnecessary.

 

[pakeha]

...And believe it or not, there are no sides. Everyone here wants to discover and highlight the truth.

At the end of the day, Jabba, it comes down this.
Just as in the case of the TS as well.

Everyone here wants one thing and one thing only: the honest truth.
Life's too short and wonderful to waste time on jive.

 

[Jabba]

Into which term in Bayes theorem is this number of potential selves to be inserted?

- The denominator in the likelihood of me given A.

 

[Mojo]

- The denominator in the likelihood of me given A.

Why should it not also be inserted into the denominator in the likelihood of you given ~A?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Infinity is a mathematical concept, not a number per se. You can't just drop it in an equation and try to prove something that way.

It's like the old joke about two children arguing and one goes "Times infinity!" and the other one retorts with "Infinity plus 1!" It doesn't work that way.

 

[Garrette]

- The denominator in the likelihood of me given A.

As has been repeatedly and repeatedly said, this is a fundamental error.

Your description of self/soul does not fit A; it fits ~A. For A, you must use what is known, not what you wish.

 

[Humots]

Would this work?

# Choose an integer i from the set of all positive integers s.t. Pr(i)=(1/2)^i

x := 0
i := 0
while x = 0 do
    x := random {0,1}     # Pr(0)=Pr(1)=1/2
    i := i + 1
endwhile

Yes! Elegant!

 

[JoeMorgue]

Jabba I seriously am at a total loss as to how to make the following statement any clearer:

It doesn't matter how many times you change your argument (although you need to put a lot more work into that as well), your starting point is faulty. Therefore your conclusions was, is, and will remain erroneous.

So far the only thing you've proved is that if you start from the wrong place and make up your route as you go you can wind up anywhere.

 

[godless dave]

- Does anyone here accept that such a distinction can be made?

I don't. I also don't accept the existence of immaterial selves, in case that wasn't clear.

 

[Akhenaten]

Dave,
- If there is no preexisting pool of potential selves, each new self is brand new -- coming from nothing -- and, how can we put a limit on the number of things that can come from nothing ?

You are wrong in assuming that selves come from nothing.

Bad enough on its own, but in the face of having been told the same thing hundreds of times it's not much better than lying to yourself in order to support a delusion.