[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Agatha,
- I accept that my alternative model to the SM model is not quite complementary. My claim, however, is that it is close enough to being complementary, that the difference doesn't really matter -- .

Yes, but like many of the things which you arbitrarily claim, this is utterly incorrect. This has been explained to you many times over.

 

[dafydd]

Saying that immortality is the complement of mortality is like saying that being a serial killer is the complement of being a law abiding citizen.

 

[steenkh]

- I accept that my alternative model to the SM model is not quite complementary. My claim, however, is that it is close enough to being complementary, that the difference doesn't really matter

A subset of the complementary model are the possibilities that we have no life at all, or the possibility that we have exactly two lives. Can you outline how you will show immortality to be so much more likely that we can practically ignore these two possibilities of the complementary model?

 

[dafydd]

A subset of the complementary model are the possibilities that we have no life at all, or the possibility that we have exactly two lives. Can you outline how you will show immortality to be so much more likely that we can practically ignore these two possibilities of the complementary model?

The answer to that question is religion, in my opinion.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Agatha,
- I accept that my alternative model to the SM model is not quite complementary. My claim, however, is that it is close enough to being complementary, that the difference doesn't really matter -- which, I'll try to show after I've said all I need to say about what I'm claiming to be the real complementary model.

Good Morning, Mr. Savage!

At the risk of being declared "unfriendly, I would like to point out that "close enough" is not an adequate standard. As long as you pretend that "immortality" ("essentially") is the only other option to "one short life, at most", your demonstrations and claims are based upon a self-deception. This has been pointed out to you before.

If p is "chocolate ice cream", ~p is ALL that is not chocolate ice cream: vanilla ice cream, crème brûlée, durian pudding, asparagus...

If p is "baseball", ~p is ALL that is not baseball: cricket, town ball, water skiing, stamp collecting, Cubs games...

If p is "one short life to live at most", ~p is ALL that is not "one short life to live at most": two lives, three lives, never-being-alive-at-all, vacationing in Houston, TX...

You may not pretend that one option out of ~p is "close enough" (even if all you claim you are trying to do is "essentially prove"). It would be more honest simply to declare that you hope you are immortal because it comforts you in the face of your fear of death, and leave it at that.

 

[dafydd]

. It would be more honest simply to declare that you hope you are immortal because it comforts you in the face of your fear of death, and leave it at that.

That would make a good end to the thread.

 

[Akhenaten]

Agatha,
- I accept that my alternative model to the SM model is not quite complementary.

That's big of you.

Bigger still would be an acceptance that your entire premise (and even calling it that is gilding the lily) is a complete crock.

Of course this will never happen but, as Will said, "We are such stuff as dreams are made on, and our little life is rounded with a sleep."

although he also said, "To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub"

Big choices here, Jabba.

My claim, however, is that it is close enough to being complementary, that the difference doesn't really matter . . .

Initial claim:

- I think that I can essentially prove immortality using Bayesian statistics.

Current claim:

I think (maybe) that I can make a completely baseless assertion that immortality kind of exists but it all depends on "immortality" having a hitherto unknown meaning and "essential proof" meaning "the dog ate my homework and the grandkids are running amok in the breakfast nook. Also, Bayes."

The difference does indeed matter, Jabba, your beliefs notwithstanding.

-- which, I'll try to show after I've said all I need to say about what I'm claiming to be the real complementary model.

Hope springs eternal in the human breast;
Man never is, but always to be blessed:
The soul, uneasy and confined from home,
Rests and expatiates in a life to come.​

 

[Slowvehicle]

I think (maybe) that I can make a completely baseless assertion that immortality kind of exists but it all depends on "immortality" having a hitherto unknown meaning and "essential proof" meaning "the dog ate my homework and the grandkids are running amok in the breakfast nook. Also, Bayes."

"Essentially " Nominated...(as soon as I mop up some spilled coffee...)

 

[Loss Leader]

Agatha,
- I accept that my alternative model to the SM model is not quite complementary. My claim, however, is that it is close enough to being complementary, that the difference doesn't really matter -- which, I'll try to show after I've said all I need to say about what I'm claiming to be the real complementary model.

Your claim is wrong. At least one possibility of the complement cannot be known and at least one possibility of the complement is known for certain.

You cannot know if we are in a random or deterministic universe. If the universe is deterministic, then your existence, however brief, had a probability of 1. There is no way of testing whether the universe is random or predetermined. The is no way of knowing whether, if it were run from the beginning, it would turn out the same.

You do know that 7 billion other people exist. One of the complements to you coming into existence is that anybody else might exist as well. We do (or, at least, we have as much right to claim we exist as you do). So, one of the complements to the probability that you were formed in a random universe has already come to pass. Logically, you must be wrong.

But please, instead of telling us what you will try to show, just show it. You claim that you answered criticism in various posts. Looking at those posts, all you did way say that you would try to answer later. Sit down and set forth your ideas in detail.

Otherwise, just admit that you have taken something on faith and stop bothering other people with it.

 

[dafydd]

I was under the impression that Christians believe that after they pop their clogs they go to an eternal life in Heaven. Immortality on Earth doesn't come into it. Is there a Christian sect who believe in reincarnation?

 

[Jabba]

Agatha,
- I accept that my alternative model to the SM model is not quite complementary. My claim, however, is that it is close enough to being complementary, that the difference doesn't really matter -- which, I'll try to show after I've said all I need to say about what I'm claiming to be the real complementary model.

Yes, but like many of the things which you arbitrarily claim, this is utterly incorrect. This has been explained to you many times over.

Squeegee,
- I assume that "this" refers to my highlighted claim above.
- If so, a proposed explanation for why it is utterly incorrect may have been given many times over -- but if it was, I'm not sure where. And whatever, it was never accepted.

 

[John Jones]

Agatha,
- I accept that my alternative model to the SM model is not quite complementary. My claim, however, is that it is close enough to being complementary, that the difference doesn't really matter -- which, I'll try to show after I've said all I need to say about what I'm claiming to be the real complementary model.

Stop lying.

 

[dafydd]

Squeegee,
- I assume that "this" refers to my highlighted claim above.
- If so, a proposed explanation for why it is utterly incorrect may have been given many times over -- but if it was, I'm not sure where. And whatever, it was never accepted.

Are you a Christian?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Squeegee,
- I assume that "this" refers to my highlighted claim above.
- If so, a proposed explanation for why it is utterly incorrect may have been given many times over -- but if it was, I'm not sure where. And whatever, it was never accepted.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9803268#post9803268

 

[jsfisher]

Squeegee,
- I assume that "this" refers to my highlighted claim above.
- If so, a proposed explanation for why it is utterly incorrect may have been given many times over -- but if it was, I'm not sure where. And whatever, it was never accepted.

Since you are the one trying to do the convincing, then shouldn't your focus be on what we accept of your arguments, not the other way around?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Squeegee,
- I assume that "this" refers to my highlighted claim above.

No, it's the actual claim - that " it is close enough to being complementary". It's not. There are a massive amount of things which could be true if what you call "the standard scientific model" isn't true. There have been lists of them posted in this thread, many times, by many posters. Here's another alternative for you - that what you call "the standard scientific model" is wrong, but only by a tiny amount, and you're still mortal under the correct scientific model. The ways that the scientific model could be different are almost infinite in number, and then you're still left with you being mortal.

That's all before we get in to the ideas that this is all a computer simulation, etc.

There are an almost infinite number of alternatives to what you have defined "p" as being. There's a much higher number of those than there are for what you've been claiming as infinite. You don't get to show that p is false and thereby declare just one of those almost infinite possibilities as true.

And whatever, it was never accepted.

I don't think anybody expects you to ever accept anything that demonstrates that you're wrong, no matter how well or how often it's explained to you. That doesn't mean that you're not wrong.

 

[Loss Leader]

- I assume that "this" refers to my highlighted claim above. - If so, a proposed explanation for why it is utterly incorrect may have been given many times over -- but if it was, I'm not sure where.

You don't know where? You don't know where??? Try here:

Your claim is wrong. At least one possibility of the complement cannot be known and at least one possibility of the complement is known for certain.

You cannot know if we are in a random or deterministic universe. If the universe is deterministic, then your existence, however brief, had a probability of 1. There is no way of testing whether the universe is random or predetermined. The is no way of knowing whether, if it were run from the beginning, it would turn out the same.

You do know that 7 billion other people exist. One of the complements to you coming into existence is that anybody else might exist as well. We do (or, at least, we have as much right to claim we exist as you do). So, one of the complements to the probability that you were formed in a random universe has already come to pass. Logically, you must be wrong.

As long as you pretend that "immortality" ("essentially") is the only other option to "one short life, at most", your demonstrations and claims are based upon a self-deception. This has been pointed out to you before.

If p is "chocolate ice cream", ~p is ALL that is not chocolate ice cream: vanilla ice cream, crème brûlée, durian pudding, asparagus...

If p is "baseball", ~p is ALL that is not baseball: cricket, town ball, water skiing, stamp collecting, Cubs games...

If p is "one short life to live at most", ~p is ALL that is not "one short life to live at most": two lives, three lives, never-being-alive-at-all, vacationing in Houston, TX...

You may not pretend that one option out of ~p is "close enough" (even if all you claim you are trying to do is "essentially prove").

A subset of the complementary model are the possibilities that we have no life at all, or the possibility that we have exactly two lives. Can you outline how you will show immortality to be so much more likely that we can practically ignore these two possibilities of the complementary model?

Saying that immortality is the complement of mortality is like saying that being a serial killer is the complement of being a law abiding citizen.

In predicting the probability that he, Jabba, would exist, he accidentally excluded the probability that anybody else might exist. According to his numbers, if taken to mean what he says they mean, he and only he can be immortal. Of course, this just points out how deficient his definitions of his proposition and its complement really are.

No, your model is certainly not complementary. The opposite of p is [not p]. Your [not p] only has a couple of ill thought-out, ill-explained possibilities.

Start with defining your new P: that is, that you are immortal in a sense that you will explain. Then, come up with a probability for this P that takes into account all of our knowledge and evidence about the world. That way, you can be sure that 'everything else' is in ~P. If you try to define ~P, you will be unable to do so since it is only limited by people's imagination.

One of the complements to your existence in a non-deterministic universe is that everybody else exists. We know that to be true. So we know that one of the possibilities actually can and did happen. Other people exist. Separating out the difference between your immortal existence and the mortality of the entire species should prove to be impossible.

At the same time, one of the other possible complements is that we live in a deterministic universe. If the universe ran from the beginning, it would turn out exactly the same way. There is no experiment that can be devised that could show the universe to be random, rather than predetermined. Philosophically, it is an intractable, unsolvable problem. So, good luck with that.

At the risk of being accused of being "unfriendly", I must point out to you that you are, apparently, still dropping the ball as far as ~p being everything but p.

Let's simplify: Suppose "p" is the condition "being Rich Savage". In that case, "~p" would NOT be,"being Loss Leader"; or "being Akhenaten"; or "being Agatha"; nor yet "being the third mushroom from the left under the bridge to Lulongomeela". "~p" would be..."not being Rich Savage". Everything that satisfies the condition, "not being Rich Savage" is "~p".

t is the simple logical fallacy of false dichotomy which is hampering Jabba's "essential proof".

Let's use the analogy of a six-sided die. Let's say that "the scientific model", as you describe it, is rolling a 6. Immortality is rolling a 1. What you're now saying is that you're going to try to prove that rolling a 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 is more likely than rolling a 6. From there you intend to prove that rolling a 1 is more likely than any other result.

Your numbers do not matter. Your probabilities, however you establish them, are meaningless. The only thing that matters is that the probabilities of all of the possible conditions add up to 1. Defining the total possible conditions is essential. However, I see no way for you to do so.

You must define both things at once and they must cover all possibilities.

If one side is that "my self will exist and it will exist continuously, or for multiple lifetimes," the other side must be defined as anything other than that. That includes: that the universe is deterministic, that you are mortal, that other people are mortal, that other people are immortal, that the universe is ten minutes old, and every other possible thing that can be imagined.

It is meaningless for you to state one side of a complementary model. You must state both sides.

That's the problem, though, Jabba. There's not just one complementary model.

Example:

At the moment, all evidence indicates that the sky appears blue. Doesn't matter why the sky appears blue; that's the current scientific model, so to speak. If I want to argue that the current scientific model regarding the apparent color of the sky is wrong and posit that the opposite is true, I have to define what that opposite scenario is.

I might be tempted to assume that the opposite of blue is orange; therefore, if the sky isn't blue, it must be orange, but the opposite of blue isn't orange. The opposite of blue, for the sake of this example, is everything that is not blue, so I have to take into account every other color possibility that exists, not just orange.

The opposite of one finite life isn't eternal life. The opposite of one finite life is every possible scenario that would fall under the category of not one finite life. Eternal life, or however you're definiting immortality, is just one scenario, but there are plenty of others.

I said that you've identified two conditions as covering ALL possibilities: Either you are mortal or immortal. However immortality IS NOT the complement of mortality. The complement is "any possibility other than your mortality in a random universe." You have not explained how you've separated out immortality from any other possibility.

All that you've computed is the chance that you are not the only mortal alive in a random universe. You haven't separated out any of the possible reasons why you are not the only mortal in the universe. You've just declared that the reason is that you're immortal. But literally any other thing is part of your number, including that there are other mortals in the universe besides you.

The best way to demonstrate how wrong you are is to calculate your probabilities backwards. Since your two conditions are complements of each other, the probabilities should work out both ways. So, what is the chance that you are an immortal being, living forever through reincarnation in a random universe? What forces would have had to come together over how long and under what circumstances to create you in a continuous form? How many times would the universe have to start from the beginning until it made you again? Now consider the odds of anything other than that.

The numbers don't work backwards, do they? That's because your two conditions do not cover all possibilities.

The fatal issue that you must deal with in order for anything you say to have meaning is the definition of the condition and the negation of the condition.

You have defined the condition, p, as your being mortal in a random universe.

The negation of that condition, ~p, has been defined by you as your punctuated or continuous immortality in a random universe. However, the correct definition of ~p should be ANYTHING OTHER THAN p. That includes: your mortality in a deterministic universe, the mortality of anyone else in a random universe, the chance that the universe was created 30 minutes ago, and everything else that isn't p.

Otherwise, you cannot say that p V ~P = 1. Unless you can show why everything other than your immortality is impossible, your proof is illogical. For example: if we live in a deterministic universe, you are wrong. But your probabilities don't account for the chance that the universe is deterministic.

This is absolutely fatal to your argument. Playing with the probability that you are mortal is meaningless. It is shuffling deck chairs. The complimentary condition must be properly defined. Can you do this?

Now you have an easy reference where you can find exactly what logical mistake you are making.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Are you a Christian?

Yes he is.

 

[Akhenaten]

I was under the impression that Christians believe that after they pop their clogs they go to an eternal life in Heaven.

I'm under the impressions that the crap Christians believe is so messed up that no individual amongst them knows exactly what he or she is supposed to believe.

The only common theme I've ever been able to identify is that there needs to be some kind of huge balcony set up in heaven from which all of the righteous can view the eternal torment of their former comrades.

Bit sick, really.

Immortality on Earth doesn't come into it. Is there a Christian sect who believe in reincarnation?

If not, wait five minutes. Some wanker will invent one.

 

[John Jones]

Since you are the one trying to do the convincing, then shouldn't your focus be on what we accept of your arguments, not the other way around?

Exactly. He's tried shifting that ol' burden of proof before in the shroud thread,