[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Giordano]

- 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?

1. So when will you ask that this thread be moved to Religion and Philosophy? I am serious about this. Does any of this have to do with Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology?

2. If we humans can't expect to really understand the edges of reality (whatever you intend to mean here) how, in your OP, do you promise to use human knowledge of math to prove things at or beyond "the edges of reality? As I asked before, and you never responded, if the idea is to prove magic exists, I don't see how you can do that using math, which comes from our non-magical view of the universe. Once you "prove" magic exists, it would invalidate your very method of proof.

3. Did you read where I and other people pointed out that your analogy to a DVD was fatally flawed? If we are wrong, please explain why. Do you care at all when people point out your errors, or will you just ignore them?

 

[Jabba]

I disagree, 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)?

- Though you didn't really address your question to me, I'll assume that it was meant for me.
1) Yes. Like it's still the same non-physical DVD -- what it contains has changed.
2) Yes -- ultimately.

 

[Giordano]

- 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.

If it is "bigger than humungous" then 1/it must be "smaller than tiny."

Again, do you think you can make up any number you wish and insert it into a mathematic proof, and have us believe the proof? Have you seen any mathematic equation with the term "bigger than humungous" in it? Why are you talking only to Godless Dave when other people very knowledgeable about statistics have pointed out your math errors and you have ignored them?

 

[jond]

- Though you didn't really address your question to me, I'll assume that it was meant for me.
1) Yes. Like it's still the same non-physical DVD -- what it contains has changed.
2) Yes -- ultimately.

- And you'll be providing evidence for this "self" when, exactly?

 

[Giordano]

- Though you didn't really address your question to me, I'll assume that it was meant for me.
1) Yes. Like it's still the same non-physical DVD -- what it contains has changed.
2) Yes -- ultimately.

Sorry, I corrected this by editing to make clear my post is directed at Godless Dave. Nonetheless, I appreciate your response and I therefore ask Dave if he and you do, in fact, agree on this. Thanks!

By the way, what is a non-physical DVD? I've been buying physical DVDs that often cost too much. Are you referring to a movie "recorded" on the physical DVD?

 

[godless dave]

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)?

No and no. Earlier, Jabba agreed that my definition was the scientific definition of the self, and thus the appropriate definition for proposition A.

 

[Loss Leader]

- 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.

You seem completely at sea, now. Are you talking about the chance that you would exist in this universe? Are you talking about the total possible number of people in the universe? Are you done with infinite? Are you satisfied that the number will be finite?

Assuming a finite number, are you ready to deal with the problem of a deterministic/random universe?

 

[Slowvehicle]

- 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.

Good Afternoon, Mr. Savage!

The problem is not that any of us don't know what you are trying to do with "unimaginable", "nearly infinite", "practically infinite", "big enough so that it might as well be infinite" and "1/∞". The problem is that those numbers are not infinite. As such, they do not support nay argument based upon an infinite number of "potential souls", or mooseberries, or whatever.

How about some evidence, instead?

 

[Humots]

- 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.

Please do. And be sure it's better. Much better.

"Humungous". "Best understood as infinite." What an elegant (sarcasm) use of mathematical terms.

 

[Sideroxylon]

You seem completely at sea, now.

But fortunately surrounded by a humongous number of life preservers cast over a rather lengthy but finite period.

 

[John Jones]

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.

 

[dafydd]

- And you'll be providing evidence for this "self"

That is truly unimaginable.

 

[Garrette]

Jabba,

Quick question: Do you consider it even possible that we do, in fact, understand exactly what you are trying to convey with your various presentations of "self," and that our disagreement is based not on our misunderstanding but on your being mistaken?

Possible at all?

 

[Giordano]

This^^^^. Already asked.

Or do we not understand because we are not as all-understanding as Jabba?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

- How about "bigger than humungous"?

Is that exactly "bigger than humongous"? Or is it maybe "bigger than humongous".254?

 

[jsfisher]

I have a suggestion, Jabba. Rather than ruminating about the probability of a specific "self", how about we just leave it as an unknown and call it δ. I'm a little partial to the name, delta. At any rate:

δ = P(me|A)​

Ok, what now? Oh, keep in mind that P(me) is still unity.

 

[Garrette]

Is that exactly "bigger than humongous"? Or is it maybe "bigger than humongous".254?

No. You're thinking "way larger than humongous." We're talking about "humongous plus some."

I haven't checked, but I'm certain it's in the tables of the Department of Weights and Measures.

 

[Slowvehicle]

No. You're thinking "way larger than humongous." We're talking about "humongous plus some."

I haven't checked, but I'm certain it's in the tables of the Department of Weights and Measures.

I hate to contribute to a derail, but don't you mean, "humongous^humongous"?

 

[Garrette]

I hate to contribute to a derail, but don't you mean, "humongous^humongous"?

Perhaps you're right. I had forgotten about the Double Humung Number.

 

[dafydd]

I hate to contribute to a derail, but don't you mean, "humongous^humongous"?

Back in Wales humongous squared was "mulgies".