[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Giordano]

- This is where I need to make a distinction between two different "kinds" of infinity, for which I've never heard a distinction made. And then, this is where I need to show which one of them is appropriate for our purposes here... I tried to do that previously -- it didn't work. I'll have to try again.
- I'll be back.

Don't you think this says you have a problem? If I was working on a proof, and it produced 2=3, I would know I did something wrong in designing it or working it out. If all of my "proofs" yielded 2=3. I would think there was something fundamentally wrong with the proof.

 

[Giordano]

- If, somehow, the universe ends, shouldn't we expect a new one, another big bang (or whatever)?

Not according the most prevalent theory; once is probably all the chance it gets. But even if there are multiple starts, call it big bangs if you wish, everything ends at each big bang, including time and space. Everything ends.

So you propose that your consciousness is the only thing that survives? Evidence? (Dare I say, proof?)

There are theories that there are multiple universes, but far from shown. In one of these I am certain "Jabba" corrects his errors. But anything is possible.

 

[Giordano]

Fudbucker,

- I agree with your idea, but would present it with a different situation.

Say that you find a deck of cards in the closet and decide to play some solitaire or something.

You sit down at the table and turn over the first card. It's an ace of spades. You place the ace back in the deck, shuffle the cards and once again, turn over the first card. This time, it's the ace of diamonds. Hmm. So, you try the same thing again. This time, you get the ace of spades again.

'Wait a minute…' You do it one more time, and this time, you get the ace of hearts.

If you’re paying attention, you’re growing suspicious about this deck you found in the closet. You’re starting to suspect that you don’t have the ordinary deck that you had assumed. But, why is that? Why are you suspicious?

You’re suspicious because the probability of drawing that 'hand' is so small if the deck is a normal deck.

Let’s try that again with a new deck. But, this time, the first card you draw is a 3 of diamonds, the second is a
Jack of spades, the third is a 9 of clubs and the fourth is a 9 of hearts. In this case, you probably are not suspicious.

But, of course you realize that the probability of drawing that hand, given a normal deck, is just as small as the probability of drawing that previous hand…

So, what’s the problem here? Why are you not suspicious of this deck, when you were suspicious of the first one?

It turns out that there are two factors causing you to be suspicious of that first deck -- and one is missing in regard to the second deck. There is nothing about the second hand that sets it apart in such a way as to suggest another plausible hypothesis… If there were, you’d be suspicious of that second deck as well. It’s as simple as that…

If, for instance, you were to remember that a few years back you had assembled a deck of 3’s, jacks, and 9’s (for some weird reason), the second hand would also stand out and would also make you suspicious. And, again, your suspicion would be mathematically justified…

Any time that new information you receive causes the overall information you have to logically favor a new ‘worldview,’ you are justified in revising your expectations accordingly. Who could argue with that?

And, that’s what happened when you drew the 4 aces, but did not happen when you drew the other hand.

The nature of a random "sample" has mathematical (probabalistic) implications about the
population the sample was taken from. The 4 aces, by being so improbable under your preexisting worldview regarding the deck, and by being so probable under a different, plausible, worldview about the deck, caused the overall information you had to logically favor the new worldview.

The "nondescript" hand, by not being especially probable under any other plausible worldview about the deck (that we can think of), even though it was specifically so improbable under the old worldview, does not cause the overall information you have to logically favor a new worldview.

By not suggesting another worldview, and thereby not setting itself apart from most other
possible hands, the nondescript hand "blends" with most other possible hands and effectively takes on the combined probability of most hands…

As others explained, you are wrong here. Yes, you have as much chance of picking an ace as a 3 the first time; you have no reason to be suspicious of the deck at this point even if you picked an ace. The suspicion comes from ALWAYS drawing an ace 4 times in a row. The SAME suspicion should come if you ALWAYS drew the 3 four times in a row. The odds are against drawing 4 consecutive cards that are 4 of a kind. The repetition of the same type of card, 4 in a row, is unlikely. But strangely, it is only a suspicion, NOT PROOF that the deck is fixed; 4 of a kind happen every day using a good deck in Poker. In fact, choosing any sequence of 4 specific cards, (2C, 4S, 5H, 9D for e.g.) in advance, and then drawing it, is even less probable than drawing 4 of a kind. Four of a kind is only special because we have declared in advance it is; a suspicion can be attached to actually drawing any specific set of cards which is declared in advance against the odds.

Same idea if you are flipping a coin; the probability of heads or tails is virtually 50% on each flip. Eight heads in a row of 8 flips is unlikely, but can occur. Strangely the ninth flip still has a probability of 50% heads or tails.

 

[Giordano]

The only "proof" of a fixed deck is drawing the same card, say ace of hearts, twice in the same hand. If that happens in an Old West saloon, I am sure it will be "discussed" among the players.

 

[Giordano]

Given that two different brains with exactly the same physical characteristics would not produce the same observer.
- Can I get an Amen?

No! Could you prove that first? I don't think we can even do the experiment. Yes, two brains with the same genetics would not produce the same observer; we know that from identical twins and in-bred animals. But have we shown that two brains with exactly the same physical characteristics even exist let alone would think differently?

 

[godless dave]

Even if they wouldn't think differently, they would still be two different brains.

I don't think he's wrong about that detail, it just doesn't help his argument.

 

[Mojo]

You'll need to be explaining what you mean by "selves" and why you think calling them "observers" is in any way helpful first.

Quantum ahoy!

 

[Fudbucker]

Absolutely not. The potential number of people is bounded by all sorts of quantifiable limits: People could not and did not exist by any definition earlier that about 2 million years ago. The total number of children a woman can have has an upper limit. The expanding universe means that a definite time will come when there is not enough matter in one place to make a person.






You assume that you know you're playing poker. You assume you know how many cards are in a deck, which hands have meaning, and how shuffling works. You assume that the casino has an interest in fairness and has no interest in cheating to give you a winning hand.

We know nothing about the cards that we've been dealt except that we're holding them. We cannot conclude anything about the game we're playing.

I'm also assuming I'm not in a simulation, an evil demon's not messing with my mind, and a bunch of other meaningless stuff. This is the science forum, not philosophy.

Jabba's claim is absolute nonsense, but some of the people criticizing him are hilariously ignorant of conditional probability.

If I come across a deck of cards, shuffle it, and I get two royal flushes off the first 10 cards I draw, there's no way I would play poker with that deck for any amount of money, and anyone who would is an idiot.

 

[dlorde]

ETA - ninja'd by Monza...

 

[Humots]

I'm also assuming I'm not in a simulation, an evil demon's not messing with my mind, and a bunch of other meaningless stuff. This is the science forum, not philosophy.

Jabba's claim is absolute nonsense, but some of the people criticizing him are hilariously ignorant of conditional probability.

If I come across a deck of cards, shuffle it, and I get two royal flushes off the first 10 cards I draw, there's no way I would play poker with that deck for any amount of money, and anyone who would is an idiot.

I have to agree here. I think the problem is that Jabba is calling a hand all Aces because it's him.

Despite a brief moment of doubt, Jabba is still claiming that his existence is special, therefore invalidating science and letting magic loose in the world.

 

[Garrette]

I'm also assuming I'm not in a simulation, an evil demon's not messing with my mind, and a bunch of other meaningless stuff. This is the science forum, not philosophy.

Jabba's claim is absolute nonsense, but some of the people criticizing him are hilariously ignorant of conditional probability.

If I come across a deck of cards, shuffle it, and I get two royal flushes off the first 10 cards I draw, there's no way I would play poker with that deck for any amount of money, and anyone who would is an idiot.

Actually, I agree here, but your omission of the points that others have made, most recently Loss Leader's, is critical. We understand that you are making assumptions, but they are not all as ridiculous as your examples, and in context of Jabba's hypotheses, illuminating those assumptions is key.

 

[Aepervius]

I'm also assuming I'm not in a simulation, an evil demon's not messing with my mind, and a bunch of other meaningless stuff. This is the science forum, not philosophy.

Jabba's claim is absolute nonsense, but some of the people criticizing him are hilariously ignorant of conditional probability.

If I come across a deck of cards, shuffle it, and I get two royal flushes off the first 10 cards I draw, there's no way I would play poker with that deck for any amount of money, and anyone who would is an idiot.

Something similar happened to me (with play tarrot card actually). The deck was not rigged.

ETA: improbable is not impossible. So your "anyone who would is an idiot" is interresting.

 

[Garrette]

Something similar happened to me (with play tarrot card actually). The deck was not rigged.

ETA: improbable is not impossible. So your "anyone who would is an idiot" is interresting.

Such serendipity is also the cause of some of the most unforgettable magic tricks that from the magician's point of view happened as hoped but not as planned, and from the spectator's point of view happened exactly as planned. Even as an only rarely performing magi of sorts, such things have happened to me. The appropriate response when the spectator turns his/her chosen card over from the top of the deck unexpectedly?

Ta da! Isn't that amazing?!

 

[jsfisher]

Jabba,

Fiddle with your conditional probabilities all you like, but please remember one overriding fact:

P(me) = 1

...for all values of me = Jabba and all values of 1.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

You’re starting to suspect that you don’t have the ordinary deck that you had assumed. But, why is that? Why are you suspicious?

As I said, way back on page 3:

Because human beings have an in-built biological tendency to see significance where there is none, and to see patterns where there are none.

Sorry, but that's still the answer.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I'm also assuming I'm not in a simulation, an evil demon's not messing with my mind, and a bunch of other meaningless stuff. This is the science forum, not philosophy.

Have you read the thread, in particular Jabba's posts? Because you should realise that here you're not making an argument against the arguments put forth in this thread, you're making an argument against this thread being in the right subforum.

If I come across a deck of cards, shuffle it, and I get two royal flushes off the first 10 cards I draw, there's no way I would play poker with that deck for any amount of money, and anyone who would is an idiot.

But Jabba doesn't know he's playing poker. Nor does he know that he's got royal flushes.

 

[John Jones]

I have to agree here. I think the problem is that Jabba is calling a hand all Aces because it's him.

Despite a brief moment of doubt, Jabba is still claiming that his existence is special, therefore invalidating science and letting magic loose in the world.

Is there any other way to look at it?

Jabba, I hope you are able to pay attention.

 

[Jabba]

I fail to see what kinds of infinity has to do with this. At any given point in time, the number of potential different human beings that can be created is finite. There are only so many people and only so many different combinations for reproduction. The appearance of a new human being is a caused event, so you can't ignore time and causality if you're going to figure out the likelihood of it happening.

Dave,
- I think that you accept that there is no limited pool of potential specific selves that we existing selves come from. Is that correct?

 

[Loss Leader]

Dave,
- I think that you accept that there is no limited pool of potential specific selves that we existing selves come from. Is that correct?

There's no "pool" whatsoever. However, keep trying to get somebody - anybody - to agree that something - anything - is infinite.

 

[John Jones]

Dave,
- I think that you accept that there is no limited pool of potential specific selves that we existing selves come from. Is that correct?

Mister Savage,

I think you are trying to put words in Dave's mouth. Is that correct?

Please answer promptly and with deliberate honesty.