[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
- 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.
Click to expand...

Where did you state this? Link, please.

So your B is "we selves that currently exist are all the same regarding mortality/immortality"?

That still leaves ~A including "we will exist for N times, where N is any finite number". That's hardly immortality.
 
Jabba said:
- 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.
Click to expand...

*sigh*

- The part you underlined is not part of A as you presented it. It is an added condition. It doesn't change what ~A is. A is "we will exist for one, finite time". ~A is "at least one of us will not exist for one, finite time" (more or less).

- If you intended for A to include the conditional, then A takes on the form "if X then (all Y are Z)".

- The complement of this alternate version of A is "X and (at least one Y is not Z)".

- Note the distinct absence of conditional in the complement.

- Given you're heading towards the expression, P(A|B) = P(B|A)P(A) / [ P(B|A)P(A) + P(B|~A)P(~A) ], none of this is applicable anyway. So, why are you belaboring all of this?
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
- 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.
Click to expand...

We could also be "standing wave"(*) which your not-A does not consider.

(*) once we die our consciousness is wiped out, and we are again at our moment of birth. But all our action never change , history never change, and we are just condemned for eternity to repeat our life, the same life, for all eternity, without any change of a ioata of a second to it. Just going back and forth from birth to death. All the same. For ever eand ever.
De facto both mortal (we do not exists after our birth in the time line), and immortal (we never disappear just repeat infinitely the same life voer and over).

Does you find this pleasant ? me I don't find it pleasant, but it *is* one of the possibilities among many many others in your ~A

I would rather be mortal than be immortal as described above.
 
Last edited:
Good Morning, Mr. Savage!

At the risk of being accused of being condescending, I have a suggestion.

Instead of trying to manipulate symbolic logic so that the conclusion you want seems to be logically inevitable, and therefore the only possible conclusion (no matter what violence you have to do to the definitions of what you are setting up), consider an alternative approach.

Why not provide all of the evidence you have for the existence of a "soul"; or for the existence of a "self" independent of the brain (or neurosystem) in which the "self" is housed? It is almost as if you are trying to construct an apophatic definition, so that what you are calling "immortality" (or "essentially immortality") exists because of the lack of evidence.

What evidence (practical, objective, empirical evidence) makes you think that the "soul" exists at all, much less that the "soul" you think exists is "immortal"?
 
tsig said:
Knowledge of it's immortality would drive an intelligent entity insane,
Click to expand...

Thank you. We have now expressed the same idea to Jabba, each in our own style, mine wordy, yours succinct. We see to what effect.

Oh well, he's having fun.
 
Slowvehicle said:
...It is almost as if you are trying to construct an apophatic definition, so that [whatever] exists because of the lack of evidence....
Click to expand...

The ufoologists have been pulling that stunt since Christ was a corporal.

If Jabba will please excuse my lapse into old army slang.
 
Jabba said:
- 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."
Click to expand...

That is the problem: as explained to you here, you do not seem to understand what the terms in logic mean and how they are used. You use (and define) terms wrongly so you cannot use these incorrect "terms" in math. Others have politely explained this to you here.

I was quite surprised to learn that I understand more elementary logic than you do, and even I would not use Bayseian math to attempt to prove a point (based on my lack of knowledge in this area). For example. the complement of (If A than B) is (If A than at least one not B). This is the principle of logic.
It does not matter if you try to define it otherwise.

Given your lack of knowledge of logic, rather than try to redefine your terms yet again, I think you should give up on this whole endeavor.
 
Giordano said:
... the complement of (If A than B) is (If A than at least one not B)...
Click to expand...


I think you got tripped up by this.

~(if A then B) <==> ~(~A or B) <==> ~~A and ~B <==> A and ~B

A quick look at the truth table for if A then B and for A and ~B would confirm this. In if A then B, the statement is true except then A is true and B is false. In A and ~B, the statement is true only when A is true and B is false.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
- 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.
Click to expand...

Yes. Jabba did state that...

....back on page 26
Jabba said:
[November 2013]
- Simplified somewhat, my question has been, ‘We’re comparing two hypotheses: 1) We “selves” exist for one finite lifetime at most, and 2) We selves exist continuously. Given that I currently exist, which thesis has the greatest posterior probability?’
Click to expand...

This thread is like a game of Chutes and Ladders, if one were to replace all the ladders with chutes.
 
Not at all on topic: I did not know that the game we (in the UK) call Snakes and Ladders was given a different name when it was introduced to the USA. Puttin' the E into JREF; thank you Ladewig.

Back on topic: We seem to be going around in circles. Perhaps, Jabba, if the concept of ~A being absolutely everything that is not A is getting overwhelming for you, you could provide some evidence for your A, and some idea of what probability you would assign to your A (and why).
 
Humots said:
1) Where did you state this? Link, please.

2) So your B is "we selves that currently exist are all the same regarding mortality/immortality"?
That still leaves ~A including "we will exist for N times, where N is any finite number". That's hardly immortality.
Click to expand...
Humots,
Re #1:
Jabba said:
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.
Click to expand...
Re #2: Yeah. I was hoping that "all the same regarding mortality/immortality" would be understood as including all the possibilities under "more than once."

- Sorry that my propositions have been evolving. I'm finding out how difficult it is to express a complement correctly.
 
Jabba said:
- 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.
Click to expand...

Yes, I read the linked section.
I still don't understand what Jesus has to do with immortality. :(
 
Agatha said:
Not at all on topic: I did not know that the game we (in the UK) call Snakes and Ladders was given a different name when it was introduced to the USA. Puttin' the E into JREF; thank you Ladewig.

Back on topic: We seem to be going around in circles. Perhaps, Jabba, if the concept of ~A being absolutely everything that is not A is getting overwhelming for you, you could provide some evidence for your A, and some idea of what probability you would assign to your A (and why).
Click to expand...
Agatha,
- You might have told me before (before my last version of A and ~A) what was not included in what I claimed were complementary propositions; but if so, I can't remember what it was; and, if so it may not apply to my latest version anyway.
- Please tell me (again?) what possibility is not accounted for by the combination of A and ~A.
 
sackett said:
tsig said:
Knowledge of it's immortality would drive an intelligent entity insane,
Click to expand...

Thank you. We have now expressed the same idea to Jabba, each in our own style, mine wordy, yours succinct. We see to what effect.

Oh well, he's having fun.
Click to expand...
Let's see if I have any better luck with my approach--


You want to live forever
It's every human's dream
Old memories will wrack your mind
Like a tortured scream
People's faces blur together
They all look the same
Until you can't remember friends
Or anybody's name
Species change as they evolve
But you cannot, I fear
Because you never die
Your ancient traits won't disappear
Millennia will pass
And you will see the end of days
And everyone you've ever loved
Has long since passed away
The world has withered as you watched
Great nations come and gone
Humanity has had its turn
And now you're all alone
The growing sun engulfs the Earth
Consuming it in fire
Yet fate ensures you're left behind
For you cannot expire
Without a home you're set adrift
Across the universe
Where time speeds up, you grow insane
And galaxies disperse
You float without direction
Across the blackened sea
Is this what you imagined
For all eternity?
You want to live forever
'Til time comes to an end
Frozen in the dead of space
Without a single friend
 
Frozenwolf150 said:
Let's see if I have any better luck with my approach--


You want to live forever
It's every human's dream
Old memories will wrack your mind
Like a tortured scream
People's faces blur together
They all look the same
Until you can't remember friends
Or anybody's name
Species change as they evolve
But you cannot, I fear
Because you never die
Your ancient traits won't disappear
Millennia will pass
And you will see the end of days
And everyone you've ever loved
Has long since passed away
The world has withered as you watched
Great nations come and gone
Humanity has had its turn
And now you're all alone
The growing sun engulfs the Earth
Consuming it in fire
Yet fate ensures you're left behind
For you cannot expire
Without a home you're set adrift
Across the universe
Where time speeds up, you grow insane
And galaxies disperse
You float without direction
Across the blackened sea
Is this what you imagined
For all eternity?
You want to live forever
'Til time comes to an end
Frozen in the dead of space
Without a single friend
Click to expand...

Your poem seems to be about one single immortal.

What if there is a whole civilization of immortals? This would bring its own problems, but outliving your family and friends wouldn't be one of them.
 
Humots said:
Your poem seems to be about one single immortal.

What if there is a whole civilization of immortals? This would bring its own problems, but outliving your family and friends wouldn't be one of them.
Click to expand...

Aurthur C. Clarke - The city and the Stars. Explored this very idea.
 
Jabba said:
Agatha,
- You might have told me before (before my last version of A and ~A) what was not included in what I claimed were complementary propositions; but if so, I can't remember what it was; and, if so it may not apply to my latest version anyway.
- Please tell me (again?) what possibility is not accounted for by the combination of A and ~A.
Click to expand...

Look it is easy. Think of it as geometry in a 1D, 1.5D or 2D universe (with time).


A is a segment (---- the timeline infinite in both direction ++++ where our consciousness live B birth , D Death)
Code: 
---------------------B++++++++++++D-----------------

Not A is everything which is not a segment. This include :
1) a half-line open "before" (our consciousness lived from the start of the universe but die when we die in this life)
Code: 
+++++++++++++++B++++++++++++D-----------------
2) a line (we always existed since the start of the universe or even before in other universe and will always exists)
Code: 
+++++++++++++++B++++++++++++D++++++++++
3) another half line open "after" (we are born but then afterward eternal/immortal in some sort of universe paradise or hell or normal universe)
Code: 
--------------------------B++++++++++++D---------------
                                        \
                                        +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4) a closed loop (after we die our consciousness travel in time back to birth and relive our life with the exact same action, and we travel that loop infinitely)
Code: 
----------------------B++++++++++++D-----------
                       \           /
                         <========
5) a finite serie of segment (we are born and live different lives, but at some point we die truly) note that different lives does not mean human live... You could be in one live a human, in the next a rat, etc...
Code: 
------------------------(B++++++++++++D)[sub]n[/sub]----------------------
6) an infinite serie of segment (we are born and live different lives, a infinitum) note that different lives does not mean human live... You could be in one live a human, in the next a rat, etc...
Code: 
------------------------B++++++++++++D(.... repeat infinitely)

I think this is the basic. There might even be many more than that if one dig deeper. ETA: in fact thniking of this as 2D geometry I am seeing even more possibilities. I can lsit them if needed but frankly just the 6 above alone are enough to completly demolish Jabba's contention.

So your not-A, also contain stuff which are actually not immortality, but definitively aren't "we live only once".

An example cited above, is , our consciousness was born at the start of the universe, or even existed forever in other universe before, but once reincarnated into human, we live, then die, and it is the *end*.

The problem is that you will not be able to determine the probability of A or not A simply because there are so many unknown, some of which are actually not at all immortality as demonstrated above.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom