[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[lenny]

I revisit the thread after 3 months, and this is where it's at? Is there such a thing as recursive deja-vu?

There is. But I've forgotten what it is called, again.

It does seem to me, revisiting after only a few weeks, that some interesting things have come up, more interesting than I could dredge up before. An statement of the problem one can engage with, some interesting discussion near the question of how close to one a probability needs to be for 'x' is effectively certain, and attack on 'effectively' and Bayes' theorem finally appeared, effectively.

What was it Bayes was actually trying to prove back when he introduced (well, wrote) his theorem?

 

[lenny]

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.
...snip...
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
.

It has been a while since I read Borel on this, but he seemed to at least be hedging his bets on probabilities (very) near zero or one. Do you know/reject those arguments? (I am on a train or I wd include a citation)

 

[Jabba]

- I wonder -- is one over infinity close enough to zero to resolve this conundrum?

 

[Toontown]

- I wonder -- is one over infinity close enough to zero to resolve this conundrum?

Don't offer to absolutely prove anything in the first place. In doing so, you create a bone of contention which opponents jaws can be inextricably locked on.

One over infinity is close enough to zero for me, because I am a reasonable person. If the odds of being wrong are almost infinite, why not go ahead, take the plunge, and risk whatever dire consequences may befall if it turns out that you've been infinitely cleverly tricked? The considerable upside is that it's not some kind of satanic trick, and you have somehow managed to blunder into the correct conclusion by picking the infinitely likely alternative.

Anyhow, you can't really divide by infinity, because infinity is not a number. Infinity is the antithesis of a number - The Antinumber. So the entire question about what you get when you divide a finite number by infinity is invalid. You won't get anything, because you can't do it. You are asking how many infinities are in the finite number. It's an invalid question. It's not like asking how many 10's are in a 1. Obviously, there are (0.10) 10's in a 1. It's a measurable proportion. But infinity is not a measurable number.

You have to reason it out non-mathematically. If there is 1 way A happens, and an infinity of ways B happens, then B is an infinitely safe bet.

 

[lenny]

You have to reason it out non-mathematically. If there is 1 way A happens, and an infinity of ways B happens, then B is an infinitely safe bet.

Unfortunately it is not that simple, as you cannot assume the probability of each "way" is equal.

There may be only one way A happens, but if the prob of that way is .99 and the integral of the prob over the infinity of ways B happens is less that 0.005, the B is far from being a safe bet. No?

 

[Toontown]

Unfortunately it is not that simple, as you cannot assume the probability of each "way" is equal.

There may be only one way A happens, but if the prob of that way is .99 and the integral of the prob over the infinity of ways B happens is less that 0.005, the B is far from being a safe bet. No?

It is that simple if you set it up to be that simple.

Jabba's expression is simply (1/infinity). He wondered if the evaluation of that specific expression is close enough to zero. What you're bringing up is an entirely different expression. And you're doing it in a meaninglessly cumbersome way. You've stated that the probability that A happens is 0.99. No wierd variable weights required. Your wierd problem is tautological. (0.99 A , 0.01 B)

"way" has a specific conventional meaning in terms of expressing or discussing odds. All "ways" are equal. For example, there is one "way" you draw the ace of clubs from a standard deck, and 51 "ways" you don't.

In the case you proposed, there are 99 "ways" A happens, and 1 "way" B happens.

 

[Toontown]

- So anyway, I suspect that life, consciousness and free will are the result of strong emergence, and smack of "magic." What do you think?

More about this:

You have concluded that the uniqueness assumption is probabilistically insupportable. Rejecting that doesn't leave you with a lot of alternatives. I count one. Looks to me as if you are left with sentient experience, for which there is no alternative.

If you are thinking of using strong emergence to explain that lone alternative, then I think you are working the wrong end of the turtle stack. There lies an enchanted forest of complexities, from which you are unlikely to emerge with anything resembling an explanation.

What you are presumably trying to identify or explain has no alternative. You've rejected the alternative.
You might be better off looking at the bottom end of the turtle stack. Everything down there is fundamental, tautological, unexplainable, and devoid of alternatives. That might be a good place to look for something for which there is no alternative.

 

[Jabba]

More about this:

You have concluded that the uniqueness assumption is probabilistically insupportable. Rejecting that doesn't leave you with a lot of alternatives. I count one. Looks to me as if you are left with sentient experience, for which there is no alternative...

Toon,
- Unfortunately, I'm not following you...
- I think that I have two alternatives -- continuous sentient experience, or repetitive sentient experience.

 

[Toontown]

Toon,
- Unfortunately, I'm not following you...
- I think that I have two alternatives -- continuous sentient experience, or repetitive sentient experience.

Neither of which is an alternative to sentient experience.

 

[jt512]

Anyhow, you can't really divide by infinity, because infinity is not a number. Infinity is the antithesis of a number - The Antinumber. So the entire question about what you get when you divide a finite number by infinity is invalid. You won't get anything, because you can't do it..

In the extended real number system x / +∞ = 0 for any real number x. What is questionable is whether Jabba's divisor is really +∞ rather than some very large finite number.

 

[Toontown]

In the extended real number system x / +∞ = 0 for any real number x.

That's axiomatically logical.

What is questionable is whether Jabba's divisor is really +∞ rather than some very large finite number.

That difficulty can be avoided by not trying to prove anything absolutely. Just risk that 1 in a trillion chance, or whatever. What's the worst that can happen?

 

[jt512]

In the extended real number system x / +∞ = 0 for any real number x.

That's axiomatically logical.

I don't know what you mean by that. If you mean that x / +∞ = 0 for any real number x is defined to be true, then you're right, although I have no idea why you think that is anything special, if in fact you do.

 

[Toontown]

I don't know what you mean by that. If you mean that x / +∞ = 0 for any real number x is defined to be true, then you're right, although I have no idea why you think that is anything special, if in fact you do.

I mean it is axiomatically logical to define it that way, because it's one of those things you have to feel to be true, and you don't have to live like a refugee because you can't divide by infinity.

 

[Akhenaten]

Have we proved immortality yet?

 

[Toontown]

Have we proved immortality yet?

Relax. You have nothing to worry about. You'll die. I promise.

Hey. It's better than being wrong.

But I can't make any promises about what happens after that. It will be as if you had never been born. Just like it was before you were born. So the only precedent you have for that is being born. But I'm sure there is nothing to worry about. Surely the nothingness will last forever this time. I mean, what are the odds? Seriously.

 

[Akhenaten]

Relax. You have nothing to worry about. You'll die. I promise.

That's what the Amunists said.

And now they're all gone.

Hey. It's better than being wrong.

I wouldn't know.

But I can't make any promises about what happens after that.

I can.

It will be as if you had never been born. Just like it was before you were born. So the only precedent you have for that is being born. But I'm sure there is nothing to worry about. Surely the nothingness will last forever this time. I mean, what are the odds? Seriously.

Π/∞² - the number you first thought of.

 

[Akhenaten]

Toon,
- Unfortunately, I'm not following you...

Well knock me down with a feather.

- I think that I have two alternatives -- continuous sentient experience, or repetitive sentient experience.

As usual, you're trying to start with your foregone conclusion and work backwards.

 

[Akhenaten]

- Here, with "move," I'm suggesting a chess kind of format, where we each have a series of moves in mind, but we make only one move at a time, and ultimately base our next moves upon our opponent's consequent moves.

Suggest what you like, but so far this thread has more in common with a game of Snakes and Ladders than anything else. Except that the board you're playing with only has snakes.

I'm suggesting that such is a scheme that will actually make headway in a debate.

A suggestion made all the more comical by coming as it does as the 120th post in which you have failed to explain what the hell you're talking about.

 

[Akhenaten]

Toon,

- I agree that it is very unlikely that my argument will “win the day” in my lifetime, in any forum … 1%?

Ambitions ≠ capabilities.

Or to put it another way, you've set yourself an extraordinarily low standard and failed to achieve it.

- However, I do still think that I’m right… 99%?

That's just an obvious consequence of starting with your conclusion. I'm actually a bit surprised you didn't claim 100%.

I do think that we’re due for a paradigm shift of revolutionary proportions…

This phrase belongs in exactly the same pigeon hole as "Wow, like, look at the colours, man!"

Have you been in the breakfast nook again?

I think that as we study individual consciousness, we will be forced to conclude that reality is “magical.”

I think "think" doesn't mean what you think it means.

Reductionistically speaking, reality just doesn’t make sense.

As luck would have it, reality doesn't care whether you can make sense of it, no matter how much or little you think about it.

The whole IS greater than the sum of its parts. Reality is “alive” (like “Johnny Five”), and free (as in free-will v determinism)…

Now you're just blathering.

- And, I do think that there is an “upside” here…

- The above is a “brief” of what I’ll be trying to argue.

Yeah, the upside is yet another thread full of comedy gold.

- If you haven’t read my thesis on “effective debate,” you can find two different presentations at http://messiahornot.com/Treatise.php and http://shrouddebates.com/?page_id=88.

Not to mention the practical demonstration of how well your method works as provided by the Tablecloth thread, wherein you absolutely blitzed all opposition.


Oh, wait . . .


That didn't happen, did it?

 

[Toontown]

That's what the Amunists said.

And now they're all gone.

See? You have nothing to worry about. Everyone dies.

I wouldn't know.

Sure you would. You're wrong about not knowing, for starters. Tip of the iceberg.

I can.

Don't bother.

Π/∞² - the number you first thought of.

Exactly. You won't slip those surly bonds. Those are one-off odds.

Yeah, I know. If you're a one-off, then you've already slipped them once. But don't worry. It won't happen again. They're one-off odds for a reason. But not because you've squared infinity - an empty gesture.

Trust me. Soon the accursed sentience will never again wrap it's wretched tentacles around a subjective identity. The freak accident is running it's course and is slipping away. Surely eternal nothingness waits to reclaim you.