[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[lenny]

The question is, why did that brick hit you in the head? Better think fast. There might be another one coming.

again you jump from properties of "before" to properties of "after" and having agreed the two states differ, you use aspects of them simultaneously.

but i see you rejected the lottery altogether in another post.

so perhaps i simply do not understand what you are arguing for. lets start here:

You do not expect to observe a low probability event if the hypothesis is true.
You would not expect to observe anything at all, if the hypothesis is true, with near certainty.

what exactly is the hypothesis?

what is the space of events?

how (roughly) is the probability distributed on the event space?

when is the hypothesis being tested?

i expect you have stated these somewhere in the pages below, but i think each would require merely a one sentence answer and if you would be so kind as to provide them i might be able to respond to the argument that is actually of interest to you.

 

[Jabba]

I actually disagree that the lottery is a good analogy to the finite uniqueness question you've posed.

The lottery is not a hypothesis, it is a functioning system, the output of which is fully known and understood.

I used the lottery only to rebut what I believed was a bogus assertion.

Toon,
- It's hard to communicate this stuff, but I was using the lottery to show the difference between my existence and a lottery winner. My use of the word "analogy" could be the problem.

 

[Toontown]

And this is your least convincing bit yet, both from the birdseye and frogs eye views.

At what point did I become obligated to be convincing to you?

 

[Toontown]

again you jump from properties of "before" to properties of "after" and having agreed the two states differ, you use aspects of them simultaneously.

You'll have to explain what you mean by that. I can't parse it. What "properties"? What "states" have I agreed differ? What aspects of these differing states am I using simultaneously?

Even more incomprehensibly, you are ostensibly responding to my suggestion that you would in fact be surprised and determined to discover why that brick hit you in the head, even though it was only another low probability event in a day full of low probability events, which, according to your reasoning, should have made the brick strike completely unremarkable.

Frankly, your response looks like gobbledygook.

If you're interested in where I'm coming from, go through the thread and read all my posts. I'm not much inclined to add much to what I've already posted.

 

[Toontown]

Toon,
- It's hard to communicate this stuff, but I was using the lottery to show the difference between my existence and a lottery winner. My use of the word "analogy" could be the problem.

I know.

And look what you've stirred up. Now they're expecting to be convinced, demonstrated, informed, re-informed, and re-re-informed, because they don't understand why being hit in the head with a brick is different from the typical random low-probability event, causing them to accuse me of 'jumping from properties of "before" to properties of "after" and having agreed the two states differ, then using aspects of them simultaneously.'



I'm thinking there is some very messed-up selection bias going on with the participants of this thread.

 

[lenny]

what exactly is the hypothesis?

what is the space of events?

how (roughly) is the probability distributed on the event space?

when is the hypothesis being tested?

please.

 

[Toontown]

Of the origin of that series of comments. You imply that I began the conversation regarding surprise when in fact you did.

Red herring implication claim. I said nothing and meant nothing about who first said "surprise". Nor am I in any way regretful of the post in which I said it.

I understood exactly to what you were referring when you said, and I quote: "You don't have the chops." I suggest you read a bit more carefully when determining what I mean when I used the word.

You still haven't gotten over that?

Despite how my quoted post seems, I'm really not trying to be contentious. I enjoy such exchanges, particularly when I'm challenged, which I am here, so if any offense was implied, it wasn't intended, and you have my apologies.

There is nothing wrong with quoted posts, to keep things straight. Some forum engines do them automatically.

I would caution, though, that if such is the case that you should be a bit more careful with your own wording and challenges about who has what chops.

Why should I be the "careful" one? I haven't noticed anyone else being the least bit careful. Is this one of these little games where you make all the rules and then inform me when I've broken one?

Get over it. I merely offered to favor the hypothesis of anyone who can come up with a consistent, coherent one that does not make my existence ludicrously unlikely. I was just explaining my viewpoint.

Still waiting to have my "chops" remark disproved.

 

[Garrette]

At what point did I become obligated to be convincing to you?

Goodness, gracious me. Never, of course. Just as I never became obligated not to tell you that your posts are not convincing, particularly when you continually post with the seemingly obvious intent to convince not only of your correctness but our wrongness.

My observations are observations. Not once have I commanded you, so your umbrage at what I have not done is rather petty. No bother. Continue to be as unconvincing as you like.

 

[Garrette]

I know.

And look what you've stirred up. Now they're expecting to be convinced, demonstrated, informed, re-informed, and re-re-informed, because they don't understand why being hit in the head with a brick is different from the typical random low-probability event, causing them to accuse me of 'jumping from properties of "before" to properties of "after" and having agreed the two states differ, then using aspects of them simultaneously.'



I'm thinking there is some very messed-up selection bias going on with the participants of this thread.

Rather a gross misrepresentation of general behavior here. Jabba creates thread with a purpose of proving immortality (I know, I know, he didn't mean strictly prove). We point out what we perceive to be flaws in the steps of his proof as he makes them. How awfully boorish of us.

 

[jt512]

I know.

And look what you've stirred up. Now they're expecting to be convinced, demonstrated, informed, re-informed, and re-re-informed, because they don't understand why being hit in the head with a brick is different from the typical random low-probability event, causing them to accuse me of 'jumping from properties of "before" to properties of "after" and having agreed the two states differ, then using aspects of them simultaneously.'

What, in your opinion, is the probability of getting hit on the head by a brick? Why, in your opinion, would be getting hit on the head by a brick be any more or less surprising than any other event with that same probability. And what is the relevance of surprisal, anyway?

 

[Toontown]

What, in your opinion, is the probability of getting hit on the head by a brick? Why, in your opinion, would be getting hit on the head by a brick be any more or less surprising than any other event with that same probability. And what is the relevance of surprisal, anyway?

The brick to the head may well mean someone threw it at you. Better ascertain why that brick hit your head. The mere fact that the brick strike is a low probability event among other low probability events should not cause a sane, fully conscious person to ignore it.

Seriously? You guys don't get this?

 

[Garrette]

Red herring implication claim. I said nothing and meant nothing about who first said "surprise". Nor am I in any way regretful of the post in which I said it.

And there's the rabbit hole. You started the tangent with the idea of surprise; when it progressed you passed it off on me as its creator. Never suggested a need for regret.

You still haven't gotten over that?

I was always over it. If you don't care to be reminded of it, then just say so. In future you can point out up front what comments of yours you prefer we do not reference.

There is nothing wrong with quoted posts, to keep things straight. Some forum engines do them automatically.

?? I quote in nearly every post I make.

Why should I be the "careful" one? I haven't noticed anyone else being the least bit careful. Is this one of these little games where you make all the rules and then inform me when I've broken one?

Not at all. It is a pointing out of the fact that you were the one who was first and most dismissive of others and now take umbrage when it appears to happen back at you.

Get over it. I merely offered to favor the hypothesis of anyone who can come up with a consistent, coherent one that does not make my existence ludicrously unlikely. I was just explaining my viewpoint.

The point is that Jabba (and subsequently you) are the ones claiming such a hypothesis. If you will go back to my latest question to Jabba it makes this clear. On what basis has he determined that P(me|NR] < P[me|R) ?

If Jabba (or you on his behalf) cannot answer that question, then the topic of this thread is dead in the water.

Still waiting to have my "chops" remark disproved.

As I have said, I have no problem admitting when I fall short of something, and attempting that particular challenge is not only something I think might be beyond me but is also something I don't think exists, just not for the reasons you apparently assume. So you'll have to get that satisfaction somewhere else.

Agreed.

 

[jt512]

The brick to the head may well mean someone threw it at you. Better ascertain why that brick hit your head. The mere fact that the brick strike is a low probabity event among other low probability events should not cause a sane, fully conscious person to ignore it.

Seriously? You guys don't get this?

Now that you've explained what you meant, I get it. What I don't get is what it has to do with anything even vaguely relevant to the subject matter of the thread.

 

[abaddon]

The brick to the head may well mean someone threw it at you. Better ascertain why that brick hit your head. The mere fact that the brick strike is a low probabity event among other low probability events should not cause a sane, fully conscious person to ignore it.

Seriously? You guys don't get this?

It's 100% certain. Because I have the brick, and I'm swinging it in the end of my sock, and I'm behind you. Behold the Rincewind hypothesis.

 

[Toontown]

Now that you've explained what you meant, I get it. What I don't get is what it has to do with anything even vaguely relevant to the subject matter of the thread.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9622474#post9622474

I can't really respond to your complaint. I don't even know what you think the subject matter of the thread is.

 

[Toontown]

It's 100% certain. Because I have the brick, and I'm swinging it in the end of my sock, and I'm behind you. Behold the Rincewind hypothesis.

ATTENTION, jt512.

Are you seeing this? This guy is violating the integrity of the subject matter of this thread, talking about bricks and socks.

 

[Toontown]

It's 100% certain. Because I have the brick, and I'm swinging it in the end of my sock, and I'm behind you. Behold the Rincewind hypothesis.

How often do people hit you in the head with bricks? Does that happen to you a lot, or is it a low probability event or possibility?

sorry, it took me a while to snap to the nature of your particular misconception.

 

[Jabba]

Rather a gross misrepresentation of general behavior here. Jabba creates thread with a purpose of proving immortality (I know, I know, he didn't mean strictly prove). We point out what we perceive to be flaws in the steps of his proof as he makes them. How awfully boorish of us.

Garrette,
- I suspect that you've been too busy otherwise to address my #909 at
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=248163&page=23 -- and obviously, with all my excuses, I understand being too busy -- but, I suspect that you do find at least one problem with that argument, and I'd really like to hear what it is (or what they are).
- I think that these sorts of arguments are quite difficult to express in ways that actually communicate, so I suspect that for one thing, you don't really understand all that I'm trying to say in 909. Is that right?

 

[Garrette]

Jabba, somehow I missed that post earlier. I have given it a quick skim, but I am using my phone to read and post which hinders me. I will try to respond more fully tomorrow, but on first glance I think my first and primary objection/question remains the same. How do you justify your assigned probabilities of me given R and NR?

My second objection is related to the first and has been mentioned repeatedly already: why are you assuming multiple ways of non-finite uniqueness and only one way for it?

 

[Toontown]

what exactly is the hypothesis?

"You" are a one-off, because your existence is entirely dependent upon a unique brain occurring at unique spacetime coordinates, as an extremely indirect result of the chaotic quantum shuffle shortly after t=0+10^-43
"You" is roughly defined as a sentient experience which is actually experienced, rather than remote sentient experiences occurring in other brains, which are not experienced, but may be assumed to be experiencing themselves.

The corollary of the hypothesis is that experiencable sentience is not dependent upon the existence of one unique brain.

what is the space of events?

1 finite sentient experience at some time or nothing forever.

how (roughly) is the probability distributed on the event space?

1/infinity, 1-(1/infinity)

when is the hypothesis being tested?

Surely you jest. You're out to kill this line of speculation big time, aren't you.

Whenever someone is lucky enough to exist, skeptical enough to be suspicious, and decides to question the hypothesis. It's happened a few times that I am aware of, but it's a low probability event.

I'm aware of it having happened in 1933, 2006, and 2013.

Yes, it can only happen when the means exist. You gotta have an observation. That's right, only people who've "beaten the odds" can do the test, because they're the ones who have observations. But then, anyone who has any observation of any kind has beaten the odds against having said observation. If that's where you're headed.

Oh, but this is different, right? Because they'll all reach the same conclusion, and when everybody is destined to reach the same conclusion, it's meaningless. Right?

Or pretty damn obvious, like the moon. Only people who exist can look at the moon.

i expect you have stated these somewhere in the pages below, but i think each would require merely a one sentence answer and if you would be so kind as to provide them i might be able to respond to the argument that is actually of interest to you.

Yeah, right. One sentence answers. You've thought about this a lot, I'll bet.

You better come up with something good this time, after inconveniencing me like this.