[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[pakeha]

...ETA: It's funny, but reading that back makes me realise how much at home someone like Jabba would have been in ancient Egypt. No need for Bayes' theorem and weird definitions to essentially prove anything. Everyone already knew that immortality was a thing, as long as the right spells were cast and the appropriate offerings made.

I lift a goblet of Year VII vintage to honour your wisdom, O Pharaoh.

 

[carlitos]

That's a lot of words to parse. Sorry about that.

Given your track record, I can't imagine who would find this apology to be sincere.

 

[Akhenaten]

(I say "my current entry" because if I can't convince anyone here that the number of possible selves, from a scientific viewpoint, is infinite, I'll switch over to an unimaginable number instead.)

Yeah, that'll end well.

I wonder when it will dawn on you that you'll first need to come up with a definitition . . . no, wait . . . a denotation of the biggest number anyone can imagine.

I recommend using Pythagoras' theorem for that task.

 

[godless dave]

Yeah, that'll end well.

I wonder when it will dawn on you that you'll first need to come up with a definitition . . . no, wait . . . a denotation of the biggest number anyone can imagine.

I'll defer to the wisdom of Captain Solo - I can imagine quite a bit.

 

[Akhenaten]

I lift a goblet of Year VII vintage to honour your wisdom, O Pharaoh.

Aristean Year VII, or the real stuff?

 

[Aepervius]

me, given A, where my current entry for the number of possible selves is infinite. (I say "my current entry" because if I can't convince anyone here that the number of possible selves, from a scientific viewpoint, is infinite, I'll switch over to an unimaginable number instead.)

Translation : "I cannot use a fake number so i will make up another one, and pretend it is different, when it changes nothing. I am sure those darn skeptic will not realize it. Harf harf harf".

As long as you use infintie/unimaginable or anything which is not a real nubmer, tehre is no need to continue really.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

- My math for the posterior probability of A, involves a likelihood of the current me, given A, where my current entry for the number of possible selves is infinite. (I say "my current entry" because if I can't convince anyone here that the number of possible selves, from a scientific viewpoint, is infinite, I'll switch over to an unimaginable number instead.)

Define "unimaginable".

 

[Jabba]

But how can the number of possible selves in the scientific model be infinite?

Dave,
- I now think that you and I are talking about the same concept of "self."
- I am now going to try to make sure of a couple more members as to the concept they're talking about.
- At that point, I'll get back to trying to provide a scientific case for infinity.

 

[Garrette]

- My math for the posterior probability of A, involves a likelihood of the current me, given A, where my current entry for the number of possible selves is infinite. (I say "my current entry" because if I can't convince anyone here that the number of possible selves, from a scientific viewpoint, is infinite, I'll switch over to an unimaginable number instead.)

Define "unimaginable".

Jabba is correct in this instance. The number he is seeking is, in fact, unimaginable, much the same way that Lovecraft's "Color Out of Space" cannot be imagined or described. In other words, it does not exist. It goes without saying that this number is neither whole nor rational; it is perhaps axiomatic that it is not irrational or imaginary. No, no. It is, by definition, an unimaginable number.

Why? Because of what it portrays. It is a number which represents a finite amount but which can be made to act mathematically as if it were infinite. It is a number that allows Jabba to feign correction of error while clinging to fallacy. It exists and does not exist. It is limited and limitless. It is the Heisenberg number, knowable precisely either in definition or in size, but not both. It is the superposition of numbers, existing as both a quantifiable amount and as an incalculable infinity. This is the inverse Planck length; no number can be larger and no probability smaller.

It is Quantum Incarnate. I call it Bohr's Bane.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- I now think that you and I are talking about the same concept of "self."

I already said we were. Why not just go ahead and explain how, at any given time, there can be an infinite number of potential selves when there is a finite amount of material to make them out of and a finite number of situations that will create them.

 

[Akhenaten]

Dave,
- I now think that you and I are talking about the same concept of "self."

I'm having a little wager with myself about this, although the odds are pretty bad.

- I am now going to try to make sure of a couple more members as to the concept they're talking about.

I thought you said you don't care about the biased opinions of the members here.

- At that point, I'll get back to trying to provide a scientific case for infinity.

You just bloody well said you'd dropped infinity in favour of "unimaginable".

 

[jond]

Dave,
- I now think that you and I are talking about the same concept of "self."
- I am now going to try to make sure of a couple more members as to the concept they're talking about.
- At that point, I'll get back to trying to provide a scientific case for infinity.

- Every single member has made it known that they're clear about the concept.
- And every single member has similarly made it clear that you need to provide some sort of evidence for your concept of "self" before going anywhere. (Hint: there is none.)
- Your efforts to provide a scientific case for infinity are doomed from the start. (You still think that you can add two finite numbers to generate infinity, despite the infinite number of times your error has been pointed out.)
- You really need to stop pretending that you're engaging in a scientific discussion. You're only preaching your religious beliefs and are desperately trying to find a way to make them seem scientifically valid. And you are failing.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Dave,
- I now think that you and I are talking about the same concept of "self."
- I am now going to try to make sure of a couple more members as to the concept they're talking about.
- At that point, I'll get back to trying to provide a scientific case for infinity.

Good Morning, Mr. Savage!

What do you think the highlighted bit means?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Jabba is correct in this instance. The number he is seeking is, in fact, unimaginable, much the same way that Lovecraft's "Color Out of Space" cannot be imagined or described. In other words, it does not exist. It goes without saying that this number is neither whole nor rational; it is perhaps axiomatic that it is not irrational or imaginary. No, no. It is, by definition, an unimaginable number.

Why? Because of what it portrays. It is a number which represents a finite amount but which can be made to act mathematically as if it were infinite. It is a number that allows Jabba to feign correction of error while clinging to fallacy. It exists and does not exist. It is limited and limitless. It is the Heisenberg number, knowable precisely either in definition or in size, but not both. It is the superposition of numbers, existing as both a quantifiable amount and as an incalculable infinity. This is the inverse Planck length; no number can be larger and no probability smaller.

It is Quantum Incarnate. I call it Bohr's Bane.

It neither is, nor is not; nor is and is not; nor is nor is not. It is the mu-buddha; the number/no number.

 

[pakeha]

Aristean Year VII, or the real stuff?

"Will the real date please stand up?"

 

[Giordano]

You just bloody well said you'd dropped infinity in favour of "unimaginable".

This is only so he can say that 1/an unimaginable number is a very small number in his "equation." Of course, 1/an unimaginable number can be a very large number, too: I have trouble imagining picomoles, yet 1/a pmole is a very large number. 1/an unimaginable number is, by definition, undefined. I leave this to Jabba to discover.

 

[Humots]

Dave,

- My math for the posterior probability of A, involves a likelihood of the current me, given A, where my current entry for the number of possible selves is infinite. (I say "my current entry" because if I can't convince anyone here that the number of possible selves, from a scientific viewpoint, is infinite, I'll switch over to an unimaginable number instead.)

Is that unimaginable number extrinsic or intrinsic?

Seriously, Jabba, do you really think you can just invent any type of number that you please?

Perhaps you think that since there are imaginary numbers, there must be unimaginable numbers? As opposed to real numbers?

Does that mean that in addition to finite and rational numbers, there are also unfinite and untrancendental numbers?

Just put an "un" in front of it and you have invented a new number. Mathematicians, take note.

Considering that you use "numbers" like 1/∞, I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

 

[Jabba]

Speak for yourselves. I'm not a neutral observer. I'm biased as hell, and can admit to my bias. I've already explained my reasons why I think immortality would be an undesirable fate. Even now, as Jabba is getting into his arguments for a part of the self that remains unchanging over the course of one's life, my bias is kicking in and I can tell you that I'm subjectively opposed to the very idea.

That said, if he were to present the requested evidence and convincing arguments, I might consider it and change my mind. It's just very hard for me to remain unbiased about the thought of being psychologically tormented for all eternity.

- I understand your concern.
- But I do have at least three hopeful considerations. 1) We humans can't expect to really understand the edges of reality. An analogy might be a chimp trying to understanding calculus. 2) I don't know what to think about there being some ultimate purpose in life -- but so far, I do expect that there to be ultimate meaning (which should be just as good...). I think that ultimate meaning has to do with "love." 3) It seems like reincarnation minus memory could be a good thing.
- But, I certainly see your point if there is no real meaning to life...

- Did my DVD analogy make sense to you?

 

[Giordano]

Godless Dave,

I disagree about Jabba's definition of self, but I want to be clear about "self" as Jabba defines it. Sorry to ask, but do you believe:

1. that there a self that essentially doesn't change from birth to death?

2. that it is independent of the brain (the physical neural system)?

 

[Jabba]

Is that unimaginable number extrinsic or intrinsic?

Seriously, Jabba, do you really think you can just invent any type of number that you please?

Perhaps you think that since there are imaginary numbers, there must be unimaginable numbers? As opposed to real numbers?

Does that mean that in addition to finite and rational numbers, there are also unfinite and untrancendental numbers?

Just put an "un" in front of it and you have invented a new number. Mathematicians, take note.

Considering that you use "numbers" like 1/∞, I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

- How about "bigger than humungous"?
- If I can't convince any of you guys that the 'number' is best understood as infinite, I'll move on towards a better description of what "unimaginable" is.