[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Loss Leader]

Apparently the scientific model must not only be improbable for Jabba, but it must be impossible!

This is correct, and it shows a real flaw in his flow of thought. Jabba initially wanted to compare the chance of coming to exist with the chance of always having existed.

Now, he appears to be abandoning any comparison of probabilities. Instead, he's just proceeding with the straightforward: Anything other than immortality (read: the hand of God) is impossible.

It would be a fascinating study to determine if he understands the difference between the two argument.

 

[Giordano]

It would be a fascinating study to determine if he understands the difference between the two argument.

I think that long ago I gave up any expectation that Jabba would actually get to his proof. Now I follow the thread mainly to correct any misunderstanding he expresses of the scientific model, and because I find the psychology behind his lengthy thread fascinating.

 

[xtifr]

5. In that sense, you came from nothing.

No, you come from whatever caused you. If I make a sphere out of clay, it doesn't matter that there's no "blueprint". I still made the sphere. It didn't "come out of nothing".

6. That is the sense that counts in our math, and

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean, but I am certain that whatever it means, it does not lead to:

7. The denominator in the formula for my existence, given the scientific model, is ∞.

Because the denominator in the formula for your existence, given this scientific model, is not and never will be ∞! The universe is finite!

If we kept redoing the process, we'd keep getting different brains, and different selves.

If you kept doing the process, you'd keep getting identical brains. Whether the "self" can be considered different or not is a matter of semantics, but, more importantly, is irrelevant to your thesis.

If somehow, we could keep doing this forever, we would get new brains, and selves, forever.

This is where you went off the tracks. You can't keep doing it forever because there's a finite number of possible arrangements of particles in the universe!

Everything else is irrelevant to this key point: There are only a finite number of potential arrangements of particles in the universe, therefore, there are only a finite number of selves that can exist, therefore, the probability of your existence does not and cannot have a denominator of infinity.

If the universe were infinite, then we'd be having a whole different argument. But it's not.

 

[jond]

... and I because I find the psychology behind his lengthy thread fascinating.

Indeed; it is infinitely fascinating. I've come to think that any positive discussion can only revolve around Jabba and the psychology involved. Certainly the facts surrounding his musings have long since destroyed his arguments...

 

[John Jones]

Dave,
- I probably should have left out that stuff about "sharing" -- it seems to be more distracting than illustrative. I should have left #4 as,

4. There is no chemistry exclusive to just one self.
- And then,

5. In that sense, you came from nothing.
6. That is the sense that counts in our math, and
7. The denominator in the formula for my existence, given the scientific model, is ∞.

- Those last three are what I will begin trying to support.

5.1. Your self is not taken from a pool of potential selves.
5.2. Scientifically speaking, there is no such thing as a potential self.
5.3. You were not a potential self before becoming an actual self.
5.4. You were nothing before your actual conception.

Given your history, that's a lie. If you live another 71 years, I predict that you will never begin trying to support those things you promised to begin supporting. You have made this same empty claim again and again and again. You have never followed-up as far as I can ascertain.

Your points are nothing but abuses of electrons and your interlocutors' patience.

Here's hoping you have a nice day, Mr. Rich Savage.

I have to ask: Have you run these incredible wastes of time like The Tablecloth of Turin and the Bayes Immortality Proof past any of your educated loved ones (presuming such exist)?

 

[John Jones]

I think that long ago I gave up any expectation that Jabba would actually get to his proof. Now I follow the thread mainly to correct any misunderstanding he expresses of the scientific model, and because I find the psychology behind his lengthy thread fascinating.

And to help ensure his non-extant invisible jury isn't taken-in by his utter lack of reasoning, rhetoric, and critical thinking.

I mean that in the positive, critical thinking sense

 

[pakeha]

... there's a finite number of possible arrangements of particles in the universe!

Everything else is irrelevant to this key point: There are only a finite number of potential arrangements of particles in the universe, therefore, there are only a finite number of selves that can exist, therefore, the probability of your existence does not and cannot have a denominator of infinity.

If the universe were infinite, then we'd be having a whole different argument. But it's not.

It's really that simply, isn't it.
Infinity can't come out of finite numbers.

So yes, this is the Turin Tablecloth thread in different clothing.

 

[Mojo]

I probably should have left out that stuff about "sharing" -- it seems to be more distracting than illustrative. I should have left #4 as,

4. There is no chemistry exclusive to just one self.
- And then,

5. In that sense, you came from nothing.
6. That is the sense that counts in our math, and
7. The denominator in the formula for my existence, given the scientific model, is ∞.

- Those last three are what I will begin trying to support.

What you need to try to support is either:

a) the proposition that the "self" (or whatever you are going to call it) can exist independently of a functioning body; or

b) the proposition that a body can function indefinitely.

One or other of these is necessary for immortality. If you can't support one or other of these you have nothing.

 

[xtifr]

It's really that simply, isn't it.
Infinity can't come out of finite numbers.

So yes, this is the Turin Tablecloth thread in different clothing.

Yeah, that's why I've been cutting him some slack on some of the picky details--even going to so far as to semi-defend him in a couple of cases where what he said struck me as more reasonable than the way people were trying to interpret it--and, generally, looking like Least Critical Poster. I knew he was about to run into this brick wall. Why strain at gnats when you know your opponent is going to try to swallow a camel?

What you need to try to support is either:

a) the proposition that the "self" (or whatever you are going to call it) can exist independently of a functioning body; or

b) the proposition that a body can function indefinitely.

One or other of these is necessary for immortality. If you can't support one or other of these you have nothing.

He's still trying to define the scientific model of consciousness. He hasn't reached the point of presenting alternatives yet. First he has to show that he's impossible under the SM by introducing unjustified infinities.

Frankly, I think he should consider trying your approach though. He couldn't do worse!

 

[Aepervius]

I think that long ago I gave up any expectation that Jabba would actually get to his proof. Now I follow the thread mainly to correct any misunderstanding he expresses of the scientific model, and because I find the psychology behind his lengthy thread fascinating.

That's brave of you. I am only coming to this thread for emotion : anger , dismay , laugh or giggle , depending on whom post I am reading.

 

[Slowvehicle]

It's really that simply, isn't it.
Infinity can't come out of finite numbers.

So yes, this is the Turin Tablecloth thread in different clothing.

Truly, it always has been.

 

[Jabba]

6459-6452

Dave,
- I don't think that you're saying what you mean to be saying.
- First you say that your specifications reapplied would produce a copy of you. It would not produce you.
- Then, when I say that you seem to be saying that there are no specifications for you, you say that there are, and provide the above. But, are these the specifications for "you," or are they specifications for copies of you?

6461-6459

I don't see the difference.

6467-6461

Dave,
- Before, you said that specifications of "me" would yield copies of me, rather than me. Do your "expanded" specifications yield you?

6468-6467

I don't understand the question.
A copy of me is identical to me. That's what makes it a copy. The specifications that produce me would also produce a copy of me (if that were physically possible to do). That's what makes them copies.

6470-6468

- I guess you're saying that your expanded specifications would yield you once, but after that they would only yield copies of you?

6472-6470

That's the definition of "copy", yes.

6509-6472

Dave,
- To me, you seem to be saying that your specs do not "specify" you, they simply allow for you. Can I go with that?

6512-6509

No.

6520-6512

- But Dave, you say that an exact recreation of your DNA and the first three years of your life would produce a copy of you rather than you. Those same specs would not specify you in the sense that they would distinguish between ou and your copies -- by referring to your specs, we could not pick you out of a crowd consisting of you and your copies.

6522-6520

It's precisely because the specifications would not distinguish between me and the copies that they specify "me". All the "me"s would be indistinguishable from each other. You could take one of the copies and say the specs specify him and be just as correct as if you said it specified me.
It's like in the second or third Matrix movie where Agent Smith starts replicating himself. Me, me, me, me. Me, too.

Dave,
- Try this.
- What we have here is a failure to communicate.
- More specifically, what we have here is an issue of degree. From your perspective, your "specs" do not specify you specifically. They do not specify you as opposed to your copies. They do not distinguish between you and your copies. I'll call your version "specify₁."
- I'll call what I mean by "specify," "specify₂." "Specify₂" does distinguish between you and your copies. "Specify₁" does not.
- So, your specs do not specify₂ you.
- So far, so good?

 

[Slowvehicle]

<snip>
- What we have here is a failure to communicate.

And this:

6459-6452
6461-6459
6467-6461
6468-6467
6470-6468
6472-6470
6509-6472
6512-6509
6520-6512
6522-6520<snip>

And this:

From your perspective, your "specs" do not specify you specifically. They do not specify you as opposed to your copies. They do not distinguish between you and your copies. I'll call your version "specify₁."
- I'll call what I mean by "specify," "specify₂." "Specify₂" does distinguish between you and your copies. "Specify₁" does not.
- So, your specs do not specify₂ you.
- So far, so good?

Are symptomatic of the reasons.

If "communication" were your goal, you would not continue with this pretense that simply listing the numbers of posts {numbers which are, demonstrably, subject to change} was, in any way, a useful method of referencing the "information" in those posts--this has been pointed out to you.

If "communication" were your goal, you would not keep flailing about trying to to "package" a concept with which multiple posters have taken issue, and of which multiple posters have repeatedly pointed out the weaknesses and shortcomings, in such a way as to be able to pretend to consensus.

Forget Thing 1 and Thing 2.

Forget idiosyncratic claims that depend upon misdefinition of a "Scientific Model" of straw.

The question has been called. Present your evidence.

 

[Akhenaten]

6459-6452

6461-6459

6467-6461

6468-6467

6470-6468

6472-6470

6509-6472

6512-6509

6520-6512

You really should stop this nonsense. It's making your argument look silly.

Oh, wait . . .

6522-6520Dave,
- Try this.
- What we have here is a failure to communicate.

We?

I'd say a more accurate summation would be that you have a refusal to communicate.

- More specifically, what we have here is an issue of degree. From your perspective, your "specs" do not specify you specifically.

And your arguments arguably don't argue your case very well.

They do not specify you as opposed to your copies.

If something doesn't have the same specifications as the original then it's not a copy.

They do not distinguish between you and your copies. I'll call your version "specify₁."

You can call it a haddock for all the difference it makes. You're talking nonsense and attempting to pass it off as something someone else has said.

- I'll call what I mean by "specify," "specify₂." "Specify₂" does distinguish between you and your copies. "Specify₁" does not.

Truly effective gobbledygook.

- So, your specs do not specify₂ you.

Since the whole sad mess above is of your own creation it seems highly unfair to blame poor old Dave for it not working.

- So far, so good?

Same old train smash really.

 

[Sideroxylon]

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

Says the person who has constantly brought up the same nonsense with near total disregard to counter argumentation, recently making absurd presence at having addressed counter points by resorting to an unexplained numbered reference system.

 

[godless dave]

6459-6452

6461-6459

6467-6461

6468-6467

6470-6468

6472-6470

6509-6472

6512-6509

6520-6512

6522-6520Dave,
- Try this.
- What we have here is a failure to communicate.
- More specifically, what we have here is an issue of degree. From your perspective, your "specs" do not specify you specifically. They do not specify you as opposed to your copies. They do not distinguish between you and your copies. I'll call your version "specify₁."
- I'll call what I mean by "specify," "specify₂." "Specify₂" does distinguish between you and your copies. "Specify₁" does not.
- So, your specs do not specify₂ you.
- So far, so good?

No, because the very nature of copies is that they are indistinguishable from each other. Anything that specifies me also specifies copies of me and vice versa, because the copies (in this thought experiment, which, as has been discussed, doesn't happen in nature) are identical.

 

[Pixel42]

The only way to distinguish between copies is to specify their coordinates in spacetime.

 

[Garrette]

- What we have here is a failure to communicate.

What we have here is a failure of your understanding, a failure of your willingness to step back and view objectively what you have been told.

 

[Mojo]

"Specify₂" does distinguish between you and your copies.

How does it distinguish between identical items?

 

[Mojo]

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

What we have here is a failure to essentially prove immortality using Bayesian statistics.*






*Or by any other means.