[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Jabba]

Graham's number http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham's_numberis a humungously larger number than other well-known large numbers such as a 147 break in snooker or a three dart finish. But then it is even smaller than your credibility rating. You are a good one Jabba but you will never be a great one.
Why? Because you are boring. You've had are having a good run though.
The poster 'American' on the other hand was entertaining to the last. Now put your diamonds on the table mister and let's see what you've got.

- Thanks, George. I'll try to do that.

 

[Giordano]

- Thanks, George. I'll try to do that.

Jabba, have you considered Graham's number plus 1? It is even larger and would make your proof even better.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Jabba, have you considered Graham's number plus 1? It is even larger and would make your proof even better.

Graham's # +1 will hereteofore be known a "Giordano's #".

Now, consider this:

Giordano's # +1.

 

[Mojo]

Graham's # +1 will hereteofore be known a "Giordano's #".

Now, consider this:

Giordano's # +1.

OK, we'll call that "Slowvehicle's #".

But Slowvehicle's # +1 is even larger than that.

 

[Jabba]

- OK -- Once again, one last try...

- Effectively defining the "self" to which I am trying to refer seems either especially difficult, or effectively impossible. I think that I have a better chance of isolating and identifying this self by denotation and analogy than I do by definition.
- The denotation: this is the self that those who fear death perceive to be continuous during life, and which they hope is continuous after death.
- The analogy: this self is analogous to the disk of the DVD. It's the same disk after recording as it was before recording. One difference is that this self is what we call "mental."
- Some of us think that the lifetime continuation of this self is an illusion. We may also think that mental is just another form of physical.
- If the lifetime continuation is just an illusion, it is this illusion that I am referring to as the "self."

 

[Hokulele]

If you can't define it, it is likely because it doesn't actually, you know, exist.

 

[John Jones]

What is wrong with dictionary definitions like this?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/self

 

[Jabba]

Jabba, have you considered Graham's number plus 1? It is even larger and would make your proof even better.

- I had never heard of Graham's number, but Wikipedia said, "Graham's number is unimaginably larger than other well-known large numbers..."
- Note the use of "unimaginably."

 

[Garrette]

- I had never heard of Graham's number, but Wikipedia said, "Graham's number is unimaginably larger than other well-known large numbers..."
- Note the use of "unimaginably."

Yes, do note it. Note that it is clear that Graham's number is not synonymous with infinite.

 

[Garrette]

One more time, Jabba:

Is it possible that you are wrong?

 

[jond]

If you can't define it, it is likely because it doesn't actually, you know, exist.

- Gosh, it seems like he's been told this, like, an infinity of times.
- And, yet, it continues to be ignored.

 

[Giordano]

- OK -- Once again, one last try...

- Effectively defining the "self" to which I am trying to refer seems either especially difficult, or effectively impossible. I think that I have a better chance of isolating and identifying this self by denotation and analogy than I do by definition.
- The denotation: this is the self that those who fear death perceive to be continuous during life, and which they hope is continuous after death.
- The analogy: this self is analogous to the disk of the DVD. It's the same disk after recording as it was before recording. One difference is that this self is what we call "mental."
- Some of us think that the lifetime continuation of this self is an illusion. We may also think that mental is just another form of physical.
- If the lifetime continuation is just an illusion, it is this illusion that I am referring to as the "self."

Do you see how your definition, and thus your equation "proof" depends on religion, not math? Please ask that this thread be moved to Religion!

You cannot mathematically "prove" anything if "self" refers to what only some believe. Obviously, most of those here do not agree, so it won't prove anything to them.

Even more so, can you not see that you are starting your "proof" with your intended conclusion: "and which they hope is continuous after death?"

Finally, how many times do I have to explain? A DVD is a physical object, like our neural system. The recording on it is due to physical changes in the DVD (microscopic but real bumps and ridges), just like our consciousness is due to physical changes in our neural system (new synapses and action potentials). It is NOT the same disk before as after recording (if you do not believe me, hold the disk up to reflect the light). Your "analogy" only proves my point, not yours; given that reality, though, feel free to use it as often as you want.

 

[Giordano]

- I had never heard of Graham's number, but Wikipedia said, "Graham's number is unimaginably larger than other well-known large numbers..."
- Note the use of "unimaginably."

Are you using Google as a correct guide to mathematics?

Is Graham's number defined originally as "unimaginably" larger than other well known numbers? Or does it have a defined value and "unimaginably" in this case was used as hyperbole? Do you think you can use an "unimaginable" number in a calculation?

 

[Slowvehicle]

- OK -- Once again, one last try...

- Effectively defining the "self" to which I am trying to refer seems either especially difficult, or effectively impossible. I think that I have a better chance of isolating and identifying this self by denotation and analogy than I do by definition.
- The denotation: this is the self that those who fear death perceive to be continuous during life, and which they hope is continuous after death.
- The analogy: this self is analogous to the disk of the DVD. It's the same disk after recording as it was before recording. One difference is that this self is what we call "mental."
- Some of us think that the lifetime continuation of this self is an illusion. We may also think that mental is just another form of physical.
- If the lifetime continuation is just an illusion, it is this illusion that I am referring to as the "self."

Good Morning, Mr. Savage!

I wonder if you realize that what you have done, is, effectively, create an air-tight tautology.

The "self" is the "illusion" of "continuation" that those who fear "not continuing"" perceive" (transcendently) as "continuing", because the "recording" on a "DVD" is effectively "independent" of the "material" existence of the "DVD" since those who "fear" not "continuing" can "imagine" that the "recording" on the "DVD" "continues", because if it "didn't", they would have to fear "not continuing". Because "immortality".

Am I "right"?

 

[Slowvehicle]

OK, we'll call that "Slowvehicle's #".

But Slowvehicle's # +1 is even larger than that.

Oh, yeah? Well watch this:

Slowvehicle's # +1 =Mojo's #.

Now, consider....

Slowvehicle's #^{Mojo's #}.

And don't even get me started on 1/log_{AKhenaten's #}...

 

[zooterkin]

one last try.

If only...

 

[Giordano]

- The analogy: this self is analogous to the disk of the DVD. It's the same disk after recording as it was before recording.

Did you really think that a DVD is physically the same disk after as before recording?

To emphasize, it is not!

This is particularly easy to show visually for a DVD. It is a bit harder for magnetic tape (which has physically different magnetic domains after recording, but is visually much the same).

 

[Giordano]

Oh, yeah? Well watch this:

Slowvehicle's # +1 =Mojo's #.

Now, consider....

Slowvehicle's #^{Mojo's #}.

And don't even get me started on 1/log_{AKhenaten's #}...

Isn't half of infinity less than infinity? Or is it infinity? Or both?

When does a fraction of infinity become less than "unimaginable large?" Surely 1/100000000000000000000 of infinity is a small number, right?

 

[pakeha]

- OK -- Once again, one last try...

- Effectively defining the "self" to which I am trying to refer seems either especially difficult, or effectively impossible. I think that I have a better chance of isolating and identifying this self by denotation and analogy than I do by definition.
- The denotation: this is the self that those who fear death perceive to be continuous during life, and which they hope is continuous after death.
- The analogy: this self is analogous to the disk of the DVD. It's the same disk after recording as it was before recording. One difference is that this self is what we call "mental."
- Some of us think that the lifetime continuation of this self is an illusion. We may also think that mental is just another form of physical.
- If the lifetime continuation is just an illusion, it is this illusion that I am referring to as the "self."

What part of these terms is susceptible to a mathematical analysis?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Isn't half of infinity less than infinity? Or is it infinity? Or both?

When does a fraction of infinity become less than "unimaginable large?" Surely 1/100000000000000000000 of infinity is a small number, right?

"Half of infinity" is still "infinity"; it's just a smaller "infinity" than "all of infinity".

You are almost there.

Now consider "infinity, doubled".

I'll be here...