[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Akhenaten]

Pixel,
- We certainly don't remember being conscious during dreamless sleep , but there is electrical activity in the brain during dreamless sleep...

That's essentially what being unconscious is all about, Jabba.

- But mostly, when we wake up, we seem to be the same person. Somehow that consciousness, that "self," had persisted while resting...

It's almost as though our brains essentially remain alive while we're asleep.

cf. "dead"

- I'll have to think some more about this question.

I have a feeling that you've essentially already overthunk it.

I can see some merit to it -- but so far, as you might expect, I think that the perceived merit is misleading...

You think the perceived merit in considering 'unconscious' to be the opposite of 'conscious' is misleading?

Or do you think the perceived merit of believing that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain is misleading?

Both?

 

[Pixel42]

But mostly, when we wake up, we seem to be the same person. Somehow that consciousness, that "self," had persisted while resting...

The same brain that generated our consciousness before we slept is generating it afterwards, so it's more or less the same consciousness (though it does change over time, of course, as previously discussed, and even one night's changes might make a significant difference). I don't see how you can claim that it "persisted", though, when it's discontinuous.

 

[Humots]

-

And most recently, in order to do that, I was arguing that the likelihood of my current existence -- given the scientific model -- is one over infinity.

No, Jabba. Just no.

Before you were conceived, the odds of you being "Jabba" were one over a very large number, but not one over infinity. Just as, before I draw a card from a deck, the chance that it will be the 4 of Hearts is 1 / 52.

But you have already been conceived and born. You exist now, so the chance of you being "Jabba" is 1 / 1. Just as once I draw a card and see what it is, the chance of the card being what I see it is is 1 / 1.

You are not some kind of Ace, any more than the person who wins a lottery can point to the chance of his winning before the winning number is drawn can claim to have some special quality.

I can easily imagine a con man whose shtick is contacting the winner of a lottery and telling him that since he won the lottery against all the odds he therefore has some special quality. The con man then asks for a big donation to research this special quality.

The obvious catch is that the con man makes this pitch after the lottery is done, and he knows who won.

-


Such a likelihood is not zero, but it has to be expressed as a "limit" -- and, the limit of 1/x as x approaches infinity IS zero.

The likelihood, or probability, of an event does not have to be expressed as a limit. Where did you get that idea?

 

[carlitos]

This seems to be essentially on topic:

​

Interesting. As an early Altavista user, I never knew what "babelfish" meant. I caught the tower of babel reference, but that's it. Babelfish.altavista.com was the first online language translation program I was aware of.

 

[xtifr]

- And most recently, in order to do that, I was arguing that the likelihood of my current existence -- given the scientific model -- is one over infinity. Such a likelihood is not zero, but it has to be expressed as a "limit" -- and, the limit of 1/x as x approaches infinity IS zero.

This leads to what we call a reductio ad absurdum: if the probability of you existing were zero, you wouldn't exist, therefore, the probability is demonstrably not zero.

It doesn't matter how small the chance is. It can be one in a googol (10^100), a googolplex (10^googol), 10^googolplex, googolplex^googolplex, or even smaller. The fact is that for something to have occurred, it has to have a non-zero chance. The chance can approach 1/infinity to any sort of mind-boggling degree you might want, but it cannot reach zero if the event can actually occur (which is easy to prove if it did).

It may help to remember that quantum mechanics says the universe is not infinitely divisible; distances smaller than the Planck length^WP, for example, are basically meaningless. Therefore, even if your probability might be mathematically equivalent to 1/infinity, physics may constrain it to be much higher.

 

[jt512]

The chance can approach 1/infinity to any sort of mind-boggling degree you might want, but it cannot reach zero if the event can actually occur...

You're wrong about that, almost surely.

 

[Jabba]

This leads to what we call a reductio ad absurdum: if the probability of you existing were zero, you wouldn't exist, therefore, the probability is demonstrably not zero.

It doesn't matter how small the chance is. It can be one in a googol (10^100), a googolplex (10^googol), 10^googolplex, googolplex^googolplex, or even smaller. The fact is that for something to have occurred, it has to have a non-zero chance. The chance can approach 1/infinity to any sort of mind-boggling degree you might want, but it cannot reach zero if the event can actually occur (which is easy to prove if it did).

It may help to remember that quantum mechanics says the universe is not infinitely divisible; distances smaller than the Planck length^WP, for example, are basically meaningless. Therefore, even if your probability might be mathematically equivalent to 1/infinity, physics may constrain it to be much higher.

xtifr,
- I wasn't claiming that the probability of my current existence is one over infinity -- I was claiming that the likelihood of my current existence is one over infinity given the scientific model.
- I'm claiming that the scientific model is not correct.

 

[Akhenaten]

xtifr,
- I wasn't claiming that the probability of my current existence is one over infinity -- I was claiming that the likelihood of my current existence is one over infinity given the scientific model.

Apparently your version of the scientific model is completely wrong then, since here you are.

Do you need evidence of your herebeing?

- I'm claiming that the scientific model is not correct.

Which scientific model?

The one that says you don't exist?


Good luck with that.

 

[Jabba]

The likelihood, or probability, of an event does not have to be expressed as a limit. Where did you get that idea?

Humots,
- I'm not claiming that the likelihood of an event has to be expressed as a limit; I'm claiming that one over infinity has to be expressed as a limit.

 

[godless dave]

Humots,
- I'm not claiming that the likelihood of an event has to be expressed as a limit; I'm claiming that one over infinity has to be expressed as a limit.

Why?

 

[Humots]

Humots,
- I'm not claiming that the likelihood of an event has to be expressed as a limit; I'm claiming that one over infinity has to be expressed as a limit.

You said:

xtifr,
- I wasn't claiming that the probability of my current existence is one over infinity -- I was claiming that the likelihood of my current existence is one over infinity given the scientific model.
- I'm claiming that the scientific model is not correct.

If by "given the scientific model" you mean using probability in the accepted sense, this is wrong. It is a very small number before the event “Jabba exists”, but it is not one over infinity.

Such a likelihood is not zero, but it has to be expressed as a "limit"

the limit of 1/x as x approaches infinity IS zero.

These two statements are contradictory. If the probability is not zero, then it cannot also be expressed as a limit that goes to zero.

Jabba, all you are doing is using big words without understanding what they actually mean.

 

[Toontown]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation

"The path integral formulation of quantum mechanics is a description of quantum theory which generalizes the action principle of classical mechanics. It replaces the classical notion of a single, unique trajectory for a system with a sum, or functional integral, over [an infinity of possible trajectories] to compute a quantum amplitude."

According to the standard cosmological model, at t=0+10^-43 seconds after expansion began, the universe was essentially a dense, hot quantum soup.

Given the path integral formulation of quantum mechanics, it follows that there were an infinity of possible configurations of mass/energy at the moment at which physics began to 'make sense'.

It therefore follows that there were an infinity of possible sentient beings at that moment.

Not that it makes any practical difference. Infinity, a google, how does it matter? At any rate, you're all so far off the mark, you're not even wrong.

No, I'm not suggesting Jabba's 'eternal soul' hypothesis is correct. I'm saying you're all "not even wrong".

And you're going to stay not even wrong.

 

[godless dave]

So if, at the very beginning, anything is possible, it follows that no specific thing is possible?

Not that it makes any practical difference. Infinity, a google, how does it matter?

There is an enormous practical difference between a large number and infinity.

 

[xtifr]

Given the path integral formulation of quantum mechanics, it follows that there were an infinity of possible configurations of mass/energy at the moment at which physics began to 'make sense'.

An oversimplification that ignores the Planck length I mentioned earlier. In fact, once you take the Planck length into account, it is easy to see that there are only a finite number of possible positions for all possible particles in the Universe, because differences in position smaller than the Planck length are meaningless and can be ignored.

 

[pakeha]

- How about this?
- A "self" is simply a consciousness. According to modern science (at least where humans are concerned), each new consciousness begins sometime after conception (or even, perhaps, at conception) and continues (most of the time at least) until we die -- to never return. That's the "self" that I claim is immortal.

Since when does modern science determine that consciousness begins around conception?

That's the breakfast hookah.

Or breakfast of champions.
Now, considering what Jabba wrote here

Pixel,
- We certainly don't remember being conscious during dreamless sleep, but there is electrical activity in the brain during dreamless sleep...
- But mostly, when we wake up, we seem to be the same person. Somehow that consciousness, that "self," had persisted while resting...

Can we deduce that "self" persists during breakfast?

 

[Toontown]

An oversimplification that ignores the Planck length I mentioned earlier. In fact, once you take the Planck length into account, it is easy to see that there are only a finite number of possible positions for all possible particles in the Universe, because differences in position smaller than the Planck length are meaningless and can be ignored.

An oversimplification which ignores the fact that a particle can occupy a point more than once. Any point. Any time. The wave function gives a non-zero probability of a particle being anywhere, any time.

 

[Toontown]

So if, at the very beginning, anything is possible, it follows that no specific thing is possible?

Did I say that?

There is an enormous practical difference between a large number and infinity.

The Enormous Practical Difference:

If Source A gives an observation an expectation of 1 in a google, and Source B gives the observation an expectation of 1, then Source A must be a google more likely than Source B to give Source A an even chance of being the source of the observation.

If Source A gives an observation an expectation of 1/infinity, and Source B gives the observation an expectation of 1, then Source A must be infinitely more likely than Source B to give Source A an even chance of being the source of the observation.

I demonstrated this principle with the pearl analogy earlier in the thread, which was promptly transformed into a strawman of itself by assuming additional conditions, and then studiously ignored by all. To see it more clearly, just make it a million times more likely that the urn containing only 1 white pearl is drawn from, and then do the math.

 

[godless dave]

Did I say that?

Yes.

The Enormous Practical Difference:

If Source A gives an observation an expectation of 1 in a google, and Source B gives the observation an expectation of 1, then Source A must be a google more likely than Source B to give Source A an even chance of being the source of the observation.

If Source A gives an observation an expectation of 1/infinity, and Source B gives the observation an expectation of 1, then Source A must be infinitely more likely than Source B to give Source A an even chance of being the source of the observation.

Exactly. That's an enormous difference. Infinite, in fact.

 

[Toontown]

Yes.



Exactly. That's an enormous difference. Infinite, in fact.

I take it, then, that you would not reject a hypothesis that has a one in a google shot of being correct, but you would reject a hypothesis that has a 1/ infinity shot of being correct.

I would reject both of them. That is the "practical" difference between them. You know, "practical". That word you studiously left out.

 

[Toontown]

Yes.

No.

Exactly. That's an enormous difference. Infinite, in fact.

I take it, then, that you would not reject a hypothesis that has a one in a google shot of being correct, but you would reject a hypothesis that has a 1/ infinity shot of being correct.

I would reject both of them. That is the "practical" difference between them. You know, "practical". That word you studiously left out.