[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Akhenaten]

js,
- Let me know if this latest attempt doesn't equal one.

It definitely equals one. A great big steaming one.

 

[Jabba]

First I don't think the NSM is what you think it is... See the comments by the others here.
But even more so, I think that you can only prove that your existence is impossible if you applied the same math to that question. This may be true...

- Don't understand.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Slowvehicle,
- This is getting embarrassing -- even to me -- but, I need to change my dichotomy again. Hopefully, this one will stick.
- Given (the "conditional") that we selves that currently exist are all the same regarding mortality/immortality, (A) we will exist for one, finite time, or (~A), we will exist continuously, or more than once.

Good morning, Mr. Savage.

At the risk of being accused of being condescending. This is not only no better; it is exactly the same argument, with the same logical error, as you have been promoting all along. I realize that you do not understand the idea of the complement, so I will keep trying.

If your A is, as you have it, "we ["selves"] will exist for one, finite time". the only accurate, honest, correct statement of ~A is, "we ["selves"] will not exist for one, finite time".

Forget metaphors--~A can only be, and must be everything that is not A.

For that matter, I am not willing to concede your conditional, either, but it is immaterial in the face of your misidentification of your ~A.

 

[Jabba]

What does Jesus have to do with immortality?

- The section I linked was dealing with what reductionists would call "magic," in that it (that section) was dealing with things that don't make sense to reductionistic thinking. To reductionists, a Jesus as described in the Christian Bible is magical. I was trying to show how I think that there is such a thing as "magic," and how our two different ways of processing data explain it.

 

[Jabba]

Good morning, Mr. Savage.

At the risk of being accused of being condescending. This is not only no better; it is exactly the same argument, with the same logical error, as you have been promoting all along. I realize that you do not understand the idea of the complement, so I will keep trying.

If your A is, as you have it, "we ["selves"] will exist for one, finite time". the only accurate, honest, correct statement of ~A is, "we ["selves"] will not exist for one, finite time". Forget metaphors--~A can only be, and must be everything that is not A.

For that matter, I am not willing to concede your conditional, either, but it is immaterial in the face of your misidentification of your ~A.

- But Slowvehicle, what possibilities would that include?

 

[abaddon]

- But Slowvehicle, what possibilities would that include?

Seriously?

All of the other possibilities which have been posted and more. Do you not read responses?

 

[dafydd]

To reductionists, a Jesus as described in the Christian Bible is magical. I was trying to show how I think that there is such a thing as "magic," and how our two different ways of processing data explain it.

Being described as magic is not the same as being magic.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- But Slowvehicle, what possibilities would that include?

Good morning, Mr. Savage!

At the risk of being accused of being "disrespectful", I have to as: have you even been reading the responses to your posts? It is disrespectful of you to ignore them.

I say this, because your problem with selective limitation of ~A lies at the heart of your attempts to pre-load your conclusion into your premises.

If your A is, as you have it, "we ["selves"] will exist for one, finite time". the only accurate, honest, correct statement of ~A is, "we ["selves"] will not exist for one, finite time". Everything that satisfies that statement is ~A:

-we "selves" will exist for two finite times
-we "selves" will exist for three finite times
-we "selves" will exist for some other number of finite times
-we "selves" only have the illusion of existence
-some "selves" are immortal

...and so on. It is a pointless mug's game to try to list all of the conditions that will satisfy ~A; it can be stated with confidence, however, that one defined iteration does not encompass ~A; which must comprise anything and everything that is not A.

 

[jsfisher]

Slowvehicle,
- This is getting embarrassing -- even to me -- but, I need to change my dichotomy again. Hopefully, this one will stick.
- Given (the "conditional") that we selves that currently exist are all the same regarding mortality/immortality, (A) we will exist for one, finite time, or (~A), we will exist continuously, or more than once.

The complement of "all X are Y" is not "all X are not Y" no matter how many times you continue to say it.

The complement of "all X are Y" is "at least one X is not Y".

Your "given ('conditional')" doesn't change what ~A is, nor is it of any use when you finally get to your Bayesian inference formulation.

js,
- Let me know if this latest attempt doesn't equal one.

Yours does not.

 

[Jabba]

Good morning, Mr. Savage!

At the risk of being accused of being "disrespectful", I have to as: have you even been reading the responses to your posts? It is disrespectful of you to ignore them.

I say this, because your problem with selective limitation of ~A lies at the heart of your attempts to pre-load your conclusion into your premises.

If your A is, as you have it, "we ["selves"] will exist for one, finite time". the only accurate, honest, correct statement of ~A is, "we ["selves"] will not exist for one, finite time". Everything that satisfies that statement is ~A:

-we "selves" will exist for two finite times
-we "selves" will exist for three finite times
-we "selves" will exist for some other number of finite times
-we "selves" only have the illusion of existence
-some "selves" are immortal

...and so on. It is a pointless mug's game to try to list all of the conditions that will satisfy ~A; it can be stated with confidence, however, that one defined iteration does not encompass ~A; which must comprise anything and everything that is not A.

- But Slowvehicle, my complement includes all of those when it allows for the possibility that we will exist "more than once.."

 

[Jabba]

The complement of "all X are Y" is not "all X are not Y" no matter how many times you continue to say it.

The complement of "all X are Y" is "at least one X is not Y".

Your "given ('conditional')" doesn't change what ~A is...

- I don't understand why it wouldn't. Under the condition given, the complement is more restricted than otherwise, and there is nothing mathematically inappropriate about dealing with a "conditional complement."

 

[steenkh]

- But Slowvehicle, my complement includes all of those when it allows for the possibility that we will exist "more than once.."

No. You definitely miss out on the possibilities that "We do not exist at all", and "Only some humans are immortal, not every one", and there are probably other possibilities.

 

[Jabba]

No. You definitely miss out on the possibilities that "We do not exist at all", and "Only some humans are immortal, not every one", and there are probably other possibilities.

Steen,
- I think that 1) I'm just using a conditional compliment, 2) the conditional complement excludes the other possibilities, and 3) it's mathematically appropriate to use conditional complements. The Bayesian hypotheses would both include the condition.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- But Slowvehicle, my complement includes all of those when it allows for the possibility that we will exist "more than once.."

Good morning, Mr. Savage.

Your ~A does not, however, encompass all of permutations of some "souls" being "immortal" while others are not; nor of the possibilities of the illusions of immortality, or, for that matter,of existence; nor for the possibilities involving some other, as yet unknown state...

I am sorry that you do not see this,but you are still trying to craft the ~A into forcing your desired conclusion.

~A is anything and everything that is not A.

 

[jsfisher]

- I don't understand why it wouldn't. Under the condition given, the complement is more restricted than otherwise, and there is nothing mathematically inappropriate about dealing with a "conditional complement."

- I see you are inventing terminology. What did you mean by "conditional complement"? Both 'conditional' and 'complement' are terms in logic and in probability, but the combination you have offered is not meaningful in either.

- You seem to be heading towards this relationship: P(A|B) = 1 - P(~A|B), where A and B are statements in logic describing events. That's great, but do notice that ~A is independent of B. ~A is completely determined by A. B only influences the probability of the conditional event, not what the complement is.

- You stated that A was "we will exist for one, finite time". The complement, ~A, is fixed by that. No additional conditions imposed on A can change ~A.

 

[Humots]

Steen,
- I think that 1) I'm just using a conditional compliment, 2) the conditional complement excludes the other possibilities, and 3) it's mathematically appropriate to use conditional complements. The Bayesian hypotheses would both include the condition.

So you are heading towards P(A|B) = 1 - P(~A|B), where B is the conditional.

A is something of the form "We all exist only for one short period of time."

But what is B? You haven't defined it.

Also, is it valid to refer to P(~A|B) as a conditional complement? As if the complement could be conditional, but the hypothesis is not?

 

[jsfisher]

So you are heading towards P(A|B) = 1 - P(~A|B), where B is the conditional.

A is something of the form "We all exist only for one short period of time."

But what is B? You haven't defined it.

Also, is it valid to refer to P(~A|B) as a conditional complement? As if the complement could be conditional, but the hypothesis is not?

Add to that the fact he's trying to get to an expression of the form:

P(A|B) = P(B|A)P(A) / [ P(B|A)P(A) + P(B|~A)P(~A) ]​

Neither occurrence of the ~A in that expression appears at the front of a conditional.

There is a lot of self-imposed confusion in Schenectady right now.

 

[Jabba]

- I see you are inventing terminology. What did you mean by "conditional complement"? Both 'conditional' and 'complement' are terms in logic and in probability, but the combination you have offered is not meaningful in either.

- You seem to be heading towards this relationship: P(A|B) = 1 - P(~A|B), where A and B are statements in logic describing events. That's great, but do notice that ~A is independent of B. ~A is completely determined by A. B only influences the probability of the conditional event, not what the complement is.

- You stated that A was "we will exist for one, finite time". The complement, ~A, is fixed by that. No additional conditions imposed on A can change ~A.

- No. I stated that if we selves that currently exist are all the same regarding mortality/immortality, (A) we will exist for one, finite time, or (~A), we will exist continuously, or more than once.

 

[Humots]

Well, Jabba, let’s try something different.

Consider what it would be like to survive bodily death, consciousness intact (that’s what immortality means, right?), and know that you would never die, not ever, not even when the universe had expanded until every subatomic particle was octillions of kilometers from the next one. Why, the first instant of eternity would not have elapsed even then! Do you really think your human mind could take that?

What would not taking it mean anyway? Would you beg your deterministic/nondeterministic God to let you cease to exist, to fall mercifully asleep and not awaken? He’d just reply, “Nuh-uh, buddy. Nobody told you to be born, you started existing on your own. In my eternity, you take what you get. If you’re bored, try doing crosswords or sumpin’.” Because if you could die in that bodiless state, then it wouldn't be immortality at all, now would it? God would never let you get away with a cheap trick like that, country boy!

This matter of immortality comes up on JREF from time to time. I can recall a thread of some years back in which we – brace yourself for the sheer improbability of it – actually reached a consensus! Yes, we JREFers, atheists, agnostics (whatever those are), and religious believers, all agreed: In order to endure immortal existence, we’d have to become something other than human.

Maybe you’re a closet Mormon and think you’ll grow up to be a god, but in my estimation, we’d have to become something considerably less than human – that means, in your case, something considerably less than Jabba. Creepy thought, innit?

A poster here observed, in that thread or some other, that “the most exquisite paradise would become an unendurable hell in no more than an aeon or two.”

So I hope you’ll put aside that bowl of salad you’re been mixing for two years and think about what you say you desire, that is, immortality. Don’t try to think rationally; that’s not your game. Instead, try to feel your human limitations in the immensity of the universe, and be glad that, in cosmic terms, you exist only for a fragment of a second.

The science fiction writer Isaac Asimov, wrote a story The_Last_Answer on this topic.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- No. I stated that if we selves that currently exist are all the same regarding mortality/immortality, (A) we will exist for one, finite time, or (~A), we will exist continuously, or more than once.

Good Morning, Mr. Savage!

At the risk of being told I am being condescending, simply repeating a statement, the deficiencies of which have been explained to you, does not repair those deficiencies.

Seriously, it doesn't.