[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
Dave,
- If it wouldn't be you, there is an infinity of potential selves.
Click to expand...

Really, inconceivably truly, truly, scary, giforbulently gigantonormos number
x really, inconceivably truly, truly, scary, giforbulently gigantonormos number
=
Really, even more inconceivably truly, truly, scary, giforbulently gigantonormos FINITE number.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
- But Dave, you (or others) could clone each new clone -- and, there's no intrinsic reason why that couldn't go on for ever and ever.
Click to expand...

Time is finite. The time this planet will exist for even more so.

Even if you were to spend the entire length of time that the universe existed creating the same number of clones as there are electrons in the universe evey millisecond then, by the time you've finished, you'll still not have counted up anywhere close to infinity. Infinity is not a really large number that you can count up to.
 
Jabba said:
- But Dave, you (or others) could clone each new clone -- and, there's no intrinsic reason why that couldn't go on for ever and ever.
Click to expand...

"Forever" is a semantic concept. The universe itself will not go on "forever".

Not to mention, bacteria (for instance) reproduce at the rate of once an hour or, or even less--and yet, even with the log law, there are not an "infinite" number of bacteria, any more than there are an "infinite" number of stars.

Once again: Really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really big numbers are not "infinite" numbers.

And clones do not share a "self",any more than twins do.

And what has any of this to do with "immortality"?
 
Last edited:
Slowvehicle said:
"Forever" is a semantic concept. The universe itself will not go on "forever".

Not to mention, bacteria (for instance) reproduce at the rate of once an hour or, or even less--and yet, even with the log law, there are not an "infinite" number of bacteria, any more than there are an "infinite" number of stars.

Once again: Really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really big numbers are not "infinite" numbers.

And clones do not share a "self",any more than twins do.

And what has any of this to do with "immortality"?
Click to expand...

If we keep this argument going forever we will be immortal.:wink8:
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Time is finite. The time this planet will exist for even more so.

Even if you were to spend the entire length of time that the universe existed creating the same number of clones as there are electrons in the universe evey millisecond then, by the time you've finished, you'll still not have counted up anywhere close to infinity. Infinity is not a really large number that you can count up to.
Click to expand...
Squeegee,
- Why do you say that time is finite?
 
Jabba said:
Squeegee,
- Why do you say that time is finite?
Click to expand...

Entropy. For all practical considerations - such as the making of clones - at heat death, time will stop.

Why do you consistently fixate on small, irrelevant distractions and avoid the major flaws in your own arguments?
 
Last edited:
And again you're focussing on a minor irrelevance, rather than on the gaping hole in your proposal. Do you think that by doing so you're going to convince anybody you're right?
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
And again you're focussing on a minor irrelevance, rather than on the gaping hole in your proposal. Do you think that by doing so you're going to convince anybody you're right?
Click to expand...


Welcome to the wonderful world of Truly Effective Debate™ where every detail of every fatally flawed premise, no matter how irrelevant, must be explored ad nauseum in faint hope that something or other will eventually be proved.

Essentially.
 
Akhenaten said:
Welcome to the wonderful world of Truly Effective Debate™ where every detail of every fatally flawed premise, no matter how irrelevant, must be explored ad nauseum in faint hope that something or other will eventually be proved.

Essentially.
Click to expand...

The Newlywed Spaghetti CookTM School of Truly Effective DebateTM?

At least the Shroud and Son-of-Shroud had pictures...
 
jt512 said:
Obvious? What's its cardinality?
Click to expand...


I have no idea, and yet it remains obvious to me in the light of my understanding that time had its beginning in the Big Bang.

Perhaps you'll explain why you disagree and at least bring something worthy of discussion into this sad ongoing tragedy of a thread.
 
Not to mention, unless Mr. Savage truly is postulating some sort of "consciousness" ("soul"?) that does not depend upon a human brain for emergence, that is, that is not an emergent property of a human brain, he has had, at most, 250,000 years for Homo sapiens to have demonstrated this "immortality", and will have, as a generous estimate, another 9-10 million years before H. sap. goes extinct. Hardly "forever"...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom