[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Agatha]

I googled MEST when it was used in another thread and eventually found an explanation on a Scientology page.

Agatha's argument about the finity of human genetic permutations is correct, but just barely. The number of possible viable permutations is giganogargantuan. (coined a word. like it. plan to use it again)

Credit goes to Pixel42, not me, for making the important point about DNA being limited in permutations. Yes, the number of possible combinations is giganogargantuan ( ) but even that enormous number isn't infinite, which is one of most people's objections to Jabba's maths. He maintains that enormous numbers are essentially infinity, and really really tiny numbers are essentially zero, but by doing so turns [improbable but possible] into [impossible].

So, a bit like God in THHGTTG, he's used faulty logic and faulty mathematics to disprove his own existence, and instead of looking at where the faults are in his proof, he's jumped to a supernatural explanation. In Pixel42's signature she quotes Sir David Attenborough "The correct scientific response to anything that is not understood is always to look harder for the explanation, not give up and assume a supernatural cause", which is apposite for this thread.

The one-ish-ness of your current existence either means you beat those giganogargantuan prior odds, or the uniqueness assumption which gave rise to the prior probability is wrong.

Indeed. The old puzzle about whether you would push a button that gave you £1m if by doing so you killed a random man in China relied on the thinking of oneself as a special snowflake while thinking of other people who we don't know, and who are outwith our familiar culture, as alike as drops of water and not really special at all. With global communications the puzzle has become less relevant because now we know much more about China (and other countries). Perhaps nowadays the puzzle should be recast, assuming a civilisation on a distant planet: If you could push a button and immediately get £1m, but by doing so you killed an intelligent alien on a far distant planet, would you do so?

The point is that all >7 billion of us are special snowflakes, just as the approx 100 billion humans who've already died were, and the unknown number of humans to come will be. With those kinds of numbers, knowing that every single one beat (or will beat) the gargantuan odds just to get born in the first place makes us all the lottery winners. The lottery losers are the ones who have never been born, and there's a great deal more of them than us.

But none of this makes a supernatural explanation for our existence any more likely, nor does it imply that consciousness can survive the physical death of the individual brain. And I think that Jabba's mistake is to jump from "we are all lottery winners" to "therefore we cannot just vanish when we die" without any of the supporting steps in between.

The inherent prior improbability of a particular person/DNA combination/consciousness arising is completely unconnected (at least so far in this thread) to the idea of consciousness surviving brain death; the unlikelihood of one has no bearing on the possibility of the other.

 

[Mojo]

The old puzzle about whether you would push a button that gave you £1m if by doing so you killed a random man in China...

what if Jabba can prove that the random man in China is immortal? Would you still get the £1m?

 

[Agatha]

I won't hold my breath waiting for the proof, put it that way.

 

[Jabba]

As the planet is only going to be capable of supporting life for about another billion years...

Pixel,

- You make several other claims in your post, but I should probably address only one at a time.

- I've read in two different places -- though, I can't remember just where -- that there are probably 100 Billion stars in our galaxy, and 100 billion galaxies in our universe. And now, of course, they're postulating the possibility of "multiverses"... I assume that there are at least NUMEROUS other places in our universe (and other universes?) where consciousness and selves are produced.
- And wouldn't science and reductionism figure that there would be numerous Big Bangs over time, probably an infinity of time -- in both directions -- and therefore, an infinity (in both time and space) of Big Bangs, and me(s)?

 

[abaddon]

Pixel,

- You make several other claims in your post, but I should probably address only one at a time.

- I've read in two different places -- though, I can't remember just where -- that there are probably 100 Billion stars in our galaxy, and 100 billion galaxies in our universe. And now, of course, they're postulating the possibility of "multiverses"... I assume that there are at least NUMEROUS other places in our universe (and other universes?) where consciousness and selves are produced.
- And wouldn't science and reductionism figure that there would be numerous Big Bangs over time, probably an infinity of time -- in both directions -- and therefore, an infinity (in both time and space) of Big Bangs, and me(s)?

Which renders your claim to be unique invalid, as there are thus many "yous".

 

[Garrette]

Which renders your claim to be unique invalid, as there are thus many "yous".

I had another response ready to go, but this tops it. Excellent example of cutting to the point.

ETA: Oh, what the heck. I'm bored. Here's my response:

Even if we grant the premise of infinite possible consciousnesses, the argument thus far boils down to this:

P1: It is a certainty that some consciousness would come into existence
P2: Some consciousness have, in fact, come into existence
C: This particular consciousness could not have come into existence

I see a large gap between the second and third lines.

 

[Pixel42]

I've read in two different places -- though, I can't remember just where -- that there are probably 100 Billion stars in our galaxy, and 100 billion galaxies in our universe. And now, of course, they're postulating the possibility of "multiverses"... I assume that there are at least NUMEROUS other places in our universe (and other universes?) where consciousness and selves are produced.

- And wouldn't science and reductionism figure that there would be numerous Big Bangs over time, probably an infinity of time -- in both directions -- and therefore, an infinity (in both time and space) of Big Bangs, and me(s)?

In that case every possible combination of events which would result in every possible consciousness would happen somewhere at least once, and there would be nothing at all improbable about your existence here and now.

 

[Jabba]

Dave and Agatha,
- I think you're wrong because potential ova and potential[/
U] sperm cells are theoretically infinite in number; in fact, they are
each infinity squared in that each lineage is potentially infinite in
length, and the number of potential lineages is also infinite. In
fact, they each might be infinite to the infinite power ... but, I'll
have to think about that some more.

...

No they aren't. DNA is a finite molecule,
therefore the number of possible permutations of genes that could end
up in each person's ova or sperm is finite. No matter how many
generations of theoretical possible combinations you include, the
total number of permutations remains finite.

...

Pixel,
- Does this mean that given enough time, we will exist again?

...

As the planet is only going to be capable of
supporting life for about another billion years (and even the universe
itself will not last forever) it's extremely unlikely that any of the
combinations of genes that have occurred to date will occur again...

...

Pixel,
- I've read in two different places -- though, I can't remember just
where -- that there are probably 100 Billion stars in our galaxy, and
100 billion galaxies in our universe. And now, of course, they're
postulating the possibility of "multiverses"... I assume that there
are at least NUMEROUS other places in our universe (and other
universes?) where consciousness and selves are produced.
- And wouldn't science and reductionism figure that there would be
numerous Big Bangs over time, probably an infinity of time -- in both
directions -- and therefore, an infinity (in both time and space) of
Big Bangs, and me(s)?

...

Which renders your claim to be unique invalid,
as there are thus many "yous".

Abbadon,
- Yes -- if Pixel IS right about DNA being finite (and, DNA can't evolve), and every potential life form requires what we call DNA -- and also, if I WAS right to imply that consciousness requires a life form and specifically a human life form, and the differences between DNA is responsible for producing the different selves (actually, I have a different, I think more likely, physical cause for each body having a different self -- that I'll talk about later).
- But then, if all that stuff is right, I probably shouldn't have just one finite life -- I should probably have an infinity of lives. Which is what I was claiming anyway.

 

[abaddon]

...

Abbadon,
- Yes -- if Pixel IS right about DNA being finite (and, DNA can't evolve), and every potential life form requires what we call DNA -- and also, if I WAS right to imply that consciousness requires a life form and specifically a human life form, and the differences between DNA is responsible for producing the different selves (actually, I have a different, I think more likely, physical cause for each body having a different self -- that I'll talk about later).
- But then, if all that stuff is right, I probably shouldn't have just one finite life -- I should probably have an infinity of lives. Which is what I was claiming anyway.

And you are wrong.

Pixel42 is correct to state that DNA is finite. Claiming the requirement that DNA cannot evolve is a strawman. Claiming that DNA is required for life is a strawman.

In an infinite multiverse, there will be an infinite number of Jabbas out there with identical DNA to you. This does not equate to one "you" with an infinity of consciousnesses, it is an infinity of "yous" each with their own individual conciousness.

 

[Toontown]

In that case every possible combination of events which would result in every possible consciousness would happen somewhere at least once, and there would be nothing at all improbable about your existence here and now.

Jabba has revealed enough of his plan to make it clear enough. There really is no excuse for posters to stubbornly continue to offer up irrelevant rebuttals which have no bearing on Jabba's long-awaited theorem - abaddon, Garrette, and yourself being the most recent offenders.

Jabba's plan is to (eventually) assert that there is, in fact, nothing at all improbable about his existence. OTC, the "immortality" Jabba hopes to prove would make his existence inevitable.

Jabba hopes to demonstrate that the uniqueness assumption, which gives rise to the apparent odds stacked against him, is far more likely to be wrong than other more likely alternatives Jabba hopes to convincingly present after sufficiently squashing the uniqueness assumption.

I disagree with your assertion above. In the scientific sense, a physical object is unique because it has a unique worldline which passes through a unique set of spacetime coordinates. This is what differentiates physical objects. Other similar physical objects existing in other spaces and times are different objects. Thus, if your physical body is the only cause that can ever give rise to a sentient experience identifiable as "you", then you are unique, and you have indeed beaten giganogargantuan odds.

 

[Agatha]

The differences between one individual's DNA and another person's DNA is not the only thing which makes them different from each other.

Identical twins have identical DNA (genotypes) but they are different phenotypes, and have different personalities, fingerprints and they do not share a consciousness.

You still haven't explained why consciousness being a product of an individual brain, or the likelihood of a specific consciousness being very small prior to that person's existence, should lead to a conclusion that consciousness should (or could) survive death or that you "should" have an infinity of lives. You need to fill in this gap in your reasoning.

 

[Pixel42]

@Toontown: you may well be guessing correctly where Jabba is going with this, I have no idea. I can only respond to each post as I understand it. Your point about unique worldlines is valid, but my previous interactions with Jabba don't lead me to think that it's one he's capable of grasping, let alone making.

 

[Toontown]

@Toontown: you may well be guessing correctly where Jabba is going with this, I have no idea. I can only respond to each post as I understand it. Your point about unique worldlines is valid, but my previous interactions with Jabba don't lead me to think that it's one he's capable of grasping, let alone making.

I'm pretty sure I've grasped the basics of Jabba's plan of attack. I've also predicted that Jabba's alternatives to the uniqueness assumption will not include the correct one. I'm just playing the odds on that.

 

[wollery]

Jabba, your problem really all boils down to your misunderstanding of a simple bit of maths. When you were taught in your correspondence course on statistics that incredibly large numbers could be approximated to infinity and very very small numbers could be approximated to zero you were very slightly misled.

Whilst it is true that for first approximations and general maths extremely large numbers can be considered to be equal to infinity and extremely small numbers can be approximated to zero it is completely and utterly NOT TRUE for any maths where you are trying to prove something.

If a number is non zero then for the purposes of mathematical proof (which is what you are attempting) it can never be approximated to zero. No matter how small the number is it is non-zero and must not be considered to be zero.

If a number is finite, then similarly, for the purposes of mathematical proof it cannot be considered infinite. It is finite and must be considered as such.

Any non-zero number divided by any finite number gives a non-zero finite answer, and any finite number divided by any non-zero number also gives a non-zero finite answer.

You cannot say, "oh it seems to me that it must be infinite", or , "the probability is so small it's practically zero so we'll say it's zero". You must instead prove infinity or zero in a rigorous mathematical sense in order to use them.

You have failed to do so. All you have done is argue that you have a very large number and a very small one and stated that they are infinite and zero.

Your attempt at a proof is invalid for this simple reason.

 

[Jabba]

Bayes/Divisors

Jabba has revealed enough of his plan to make it clear enough. There really is no excuse for posters to stubbornly continue to offer up irrelevant rebuttals which have no bearing on Jabba's long-awaited theorem - abaddon, Garrette, and yourself being the most recent offenders.

Jabba's plan is to (eventually) assert that there is, in fact, nothing at all improbable about his existence. OTC, the "immortality" Jabba hopes to prove would make his existence inevitable.

Jabba hopes to demonstrate that the uniqueness assumption, which gives rise to the apparent odds stacked against him, is far more likely to be wrong than other more likely alternatives Jabba hopes to convincingly present after sufficiently squashing the uniqueness assumption.

I disagree with your assertion above. In the scientific sense, a physical object is unique because it has a unique worldline which passes through a unique set of spacetime coordinates. This is what differentiates physical objects. Other similar physical objects existing in other spaces and times are different objects. Thus, if your physical body is the only cause that can ever give rise to a sentient experience identifiable as "you", then you are unique, and you have indeed beaten giganogargantuan odds.

Toontown,

- I'm pretty sure that you and I are in almost total agreement, so far -- even that the prior probability of my existence, given the current scientific model regarding the "self," (keep in mind the Big Bang(s)) is one over infinity. But even minus that agreement, the divisor in that formula is, indeed, giganogargantuan -- and, that's all that matters if I can show that the divisor in the prior probability formula for any other possible model being correct (the sum of prior probabilities of all other possible models) is not giganogargantuan.
- I think I said that right...

- The rest is left up to Bayes.

 

[Mojo]

...even that the prior probability of my existence, given the current scientific model regarding the "self," (keep in mind the Big Bang(s)) is one over infinity.

This is only significant if your existence is the purpose of the universe.

 

[Jabba]

Jabba, your problem really all boils down to your misunderstanding of a simple bit of maths. When you were taught in your correspondence course on statistics that incredibly large numbers could be approximated to infinity and very very small numbers could be approximated to zero you were very slightly misled.

Whilst it is true that for first approximations and general maths extremely large numbers can be considered to be equal to infinity and extremely small numbers can be approximated to zero it is completely and utterly NOT TRUE for any maths where you are trying to prove something.

If a number is non zero then for the purposes of mathematical proof (which is what you are attempting) it can never be approximated to zero. No matter how small the number is it is non-zero and must not be considered to be zero.

If a number is finite, then similarly, for the purposes of mathematical proof it cannot be considered infinite. It is finite and must be considered as such.

Any non-zero number divided by any finite number gives a non-zero finite answer, and any finite number divided by any non-zero number also gives a non-zero finite answer.

You cannot say, "oh it seems to me that it must be infinite", or , "the probability is so small it's practically zero so we'll say it's zero". You must instead prove infinity or zero in a rigorous mathematical sense in order to use them.

You have failed to do so. All you have done is argue that you have a very large number and a very small one and stated that they are infinite and zero.

Your attempt at a proof is invalid for this simple reason.

Wollery,

- You are wrong. I do understand the difference. And, I still think that I can show that the number of potential selves is infinite (not just "giganogargantuan") given the modern scientific model.
- But again, "giganogargantuan" also works for Bayes anyway...

- But then, my argument will take awhile to compose.
- So, I'll be back.

 

[Jabba]

This is only significant if your existence is the purpose of the universe.

Mojo,
- I wouldn't use the word "purpose" -- but, however the universe relates to me, it relates to you also (unless you're an android).

 

[Akhenaten]

- But then, my argument will take awhile to compose.

Why don't you just repost the argument you used in your previous existence?

 

[Mojo]

Mojo,
- I wouldn't use the word "purpose" -- but, however the universe relates to me, it relates to you also (unless you're an android).

...and it also relates just as much to all the other potential outcomes. You're drawing a target around your own existence and saying "wow! that's unlikely". It's no more unlikely than anything else.