[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Slowvehicle]

And what exactly are you claiming A is today?

I venture to suggest what is being implied is ~(~A)...

 

[Jabba]

You didn't answer the question. Assuming your new math is in any way right, why is your intrinsic number the value that should be put into the Bayes equation?

- There is no limit on who will actually arrive.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- First of all, I thought that you didn't think that the same brain would produce the same self. If we could deliberately produce the same brain over and over again, we'd get different selves each time.

Mr. Savage:

It is not possible to "produce" the "same brain" (with the "same experiences", and the "same reactions to them") twice.

Please demonstrate otherwise, or stop using this idea to pretend that you are justified in assuming your consequent.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Humans don't poof into existence.

Rule one! No Poofters!

 

[jt512]

OK, let's say that the number of potential "selves" is infinite. That means that the probability of a particular "self" existing is one over infinity, or zero. To get the probability of any self existing we need to add all the probabilities of each particular self existing together. This gives a total probability of zero. So if the number of potential "selves" is infinite then "selves" don't exist.

If your argument is correct, then integers don't exist either.

 

[Garrette]

Humans don't poof into existence.

No, but they do hetero into it.


ETA: Dagnabbit. Slowvehicle stole my thunder. I want it back.

 

[Garrette]

- There is no limit on who will actually arrive.

Perhaps in your Non-Scientific Model, but in the Scientific Model, yes there is.

That is the point. One of many points, actually, but the current point. If you want to calculate the probability of Jabba given the Scientific Model then you must use the Scientific Model, hence a limited pool of selves because selves, in the Scientific Model, are emergent properties, finitely bound by all the things already listed.

It isn't hard yet you continue to miss it.

 

[Garrette]

If your argument is correct, then integers don't exist either.

Apparently if I wish fervently enough that they do not I can use Bayes to prove it.

 

[Giordano]

Dave,
- If there is no preexisting pool of potential selves, each new self is brand new -- coming from nothing -- and, how can we put a limit on the number of things that can come from nothing?

As asked before, do you realize that this, if somehow true, would invalidate your own "proof?" If each new self is coming from nothing, why need there be reincarnation at all? If you yourself are so unlikely that you must have previously existed as a "self" that was reused, then the number of selves you were "selected" from must have been limited, not infinite. If you try to explain the population explosion of people on this planet as a mix of reincarnated and newly made "selves" then at least the newly made "selves" must have been extremely unlikely by your own "math." 1/infinity as you put it. Do you believe that there are two types of people on the planet, people like you that are unique, and therefore unlikely and reincarnated, and "fresh" people who are not unique, and therefore could exist despite their previous improbability?

Does the bother you any? Apparently not, because you never answered this question.

 

[Garrette]

As asked before, do you realize that this, if somehow true, would invalidate your own "proof?" If each new self is coming from nothing, why need there be reincarnation at all? If you yourself are so unlikely that you must have previously existed as a "self" that was reused, then the number of selves you were "selected" from must have been limited, not infinite. If you try to explain the population explosion of people on this planet as a mix of reincarnated and newly made "selves" then at least the newly made "selves" must have been extremely unlikely by your own "math." 1/infinity as you put it. Do you believe that there are two types of people on the planet, people like you that are unique, and therefore unlikely and reincarnated, and "fresh" people who are not unique, and therefore could exist despite their previous improbability?

Does the bother you any? Apparently not, because you never answered this question.

I don't think this is the route he intends to travel, and my reason is his earlier insistence on his own (and our) specialness.

There is an infinite pool of selves, therefore it is inconceivable that any one individual self exists unless there is something that removes the randomness from the equation. That something is God. I exist because God chose me from the infinite pool, just as he chose the non-believing JREFers, hence the eternal immensity of the infinite pool of selves doesn't matter because we did not arise randomly from it but purposefully.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- If there is no preexisting pool of potential selves, each new self is brand new -- coming from nothing -- and, how can we put a limit on the number of things that can come from nothing?

As I pointed out a few pages back, they don't come from nothing.

 

[Loss Leader]

- There is no limit on who will actually arrive.

Then there is no limit on what deck will actually produce our straight flush; there is no limit on which balls will actually produce our winning lotto numbers; there is no limit on which VW will be produced by the factory.

What is the difference between any of these things and the human baby? In this universe, there is a limit on what we can produce - bound by time, space, energy and matter at least.

You have declared souls infinite and then used that to prove they are infinite. You have not explained why we should ignore the rules of the physical universe.

Nor have you solved the problem that 1/inf. is zero. Many times it has been pointed out that if your chances of coming into being were 1/inf., then you could not exist in this universe. And yet, you do exist. You answer about how the fact that you shouldn't exist means your immortality idea is better, but that begs the question. It is not that you shouldn't exist, it's that you can't exist.

So, how does your scientific universe side work at all? You are declaring that in the universe as we know it, you cannot exist. Yet here you are. Moving over to your immortality side, do you adopt the same theory of "selves"? Are there still infinite possible selves where you are immortal? If not, what changed? How are those selves bounded but the others unbounded? If there are an infinite number of possible immortal beings, then how do you account for your existence at all?

 

[godless dave]

- One basic problem here is that most of you are still not referring to the same sense of "self" as I am.
- "You" would agree that you change continuously over a lifetime -- but note that there is a single you that is existing through a lifetime in your agreement.
- In one sense, you change continuously. But in another sense, you are still "you." That latter sense is the one I'm talking about.

It doesn't matter. It's still limited by what you're calling "extrinsic" factors.

 

[jond]

- One basic problem here is that most of you are still not referring to the same sense of "self" as I am.
- "You" would agree that you change continuously over a lifetime -- but note that there is a single you that is existing through a lifetime in your agreement.
- In one sense, you change continuously. But in another sense, you are still "you." That latter sense is the one I'm talking about.

Everyone already knows this, as has been pointed out a bazillion times. The problem is, and the problem you refuse to acknowledge, is that the "self" to which you are ignoring does not exist in the real world. It is imaginary. Therefore, your first step needs to be to provide evidence for this "self".

You will, of course, ignore this as you always do...

 

[Loss Leader]

If your argument is correct, then integers don't exist either.

Not exactly. Any given integer has no chance of being picked randomly from the set of all integers.

However, we can non-randomly choose an integer. We can also impose limits on the set of integers we want to use. Lotto numbers are limited from 1 to 48 (in my state).

 

[Garrette]

Not exactly. Any given integer has no chance of being picked randomly from the set of all integers.

However, we can non-randomly choose an integer. We can also impose limits on the set of integers we want to use. Lotto numbers are limited from 1 to 48 (in my state).

This. It's where Jabba wants to go. God can non-randomly choose selves.

He wants to avoid saying God, but it's where he's headed. Not that it matters whether he says God or not; he can't get over the very clear hurdle of using a a definition from the Non-Scientific Model in the Scientific Model part of the equation.

 

[jsfisher]

Not exactly. Any given integer has no chance of being picked randomly from the set of all integers.

However, we can non-randomly choose an integer. We can also impose limits on the set of integers we want to use. Lotto numbers are limited from 1 to 48 (in my state).

Psst: 1 to 59.

 

[jt512]

Not exactly. Any given integer has no chance of being picked randomly from the set of all integers.

However, we can non-randomly choose an integer. We can also impose limits on the set of integers we want to use. Lotto numbers are limited from 1 to 48 (in my state).

Actually, we can randomly pick an integer from the set of all integers. What we can't do is assign a uniform distribution to a countable sample space (integers, Jabbian selves, etc.) and satisfy the axioms of probability.

 

[Loss Leader]

This. It's where Jabba wants to go. God can non-randomly choose selves.

I agree. You've stripped away all pretense from his theories.

Actually, we can randomly pick an integer from the set of all integers. What we can't do is assign a uniform distribution to a countable sample space (integers, Jabbian selves, etc.) and satisfy the axioms of probability.

I'm just going to agree with you because you clearly know what you're talking about and I clearly do not.

 

[Mojo]

If your argument is correct, then integers don't exist either.

They exist in the same way as Jabba's "selves" exist; as a concept.