[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[jt512]

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

The Internet needs more people like you.

 

[godless dave]

- There is no limit on who will actually arrive.

There is no "who" until the new person is created - fertilization of the egg at the very earliest. They don't come from anywhere; they're made out of cells.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

- 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.

Oh, I'm glad we're going back to this. For a moment there I thought the conversation was going to move forwards to where we were 6 months ago. I'm glad that that was just a brief fad and we can now safely go back to the past 6 months of batting this back and forth.

 

[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 I tried repeatedly to communicate to you: once you invoke magic, then there is no counter argument. If you are invoking magic, you can say anything is true and I can not say otherwise: a magical unicorn that only you can see, an ability to transfer your body around the planet using mind only, or that there is an infinity of things that come from nothing... If I bring up a fact using known physics (conservation of matter and energy for example) you can just say that in your magical world this fact doesn't exist.

But also you can have no "proof" by the very nature of your argument.

You are seeking to prove something using Bayes Theorem and accepted physics. You already know that we do not accept your idea of a "self," let alone an infinite source of potential selves. This is not accepted math or physics, this is therefore an unacceptable premise to begin your scientific proof. You cannot, therefore, prove anything using your premises.

You are free to believe in magic if you wish, and I will not argue with you, But then, isn't this religion, and not science or math?

 

[jsfisher]

Actually, we can randomly pick an integer from the set of all integers.

Ok, maybe I'm still sleepy, but how would you do that without limiting yourself to a finite subset?

 

[Giordano]

Jabba,

There are a lot of studies indicating that identical twins, who share genetically identical brains, see the world in similar but not identical (due to different experiences and random developmental choices) ways. If there is a truly infinite number of potential selves, why is this true? Does something or someone intentionally assign similar selfs to identical twins out of a number of infinite potential selves? My brother, dad and I have similar senses of humor and perspectives: were we too assigned similar selves? Who does the assignment of selves so that families get similar selves?

 

[jt512]

Ok, maybe I'm still sleepy, but how would you do that without limiting yourself to a finite subset?

We need to give them unequal probabilities that sum to 1 over the entire set. Let's consider the set of all positive integers i, i=1,2,3,.... We could, for instance, assign each integer the probability (1/2)ⁱ. These probabilities sum to 1 over the set of all integers, as required, and otherwise satisfy the axioms of probability.

 

[Giordano]

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.

You might be right! So one proof will "prove" God and immortality. Nice...

 

[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.

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

Probability is a concept, too, and you misused it. You wrote:

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.

The first two sentences, above, contradict each other. If a sample space is countable (ie, "countably infinite"), then the probability of each element cannot be 0, because the sum of the probabilities would then be 0, which contradicts the requirement that it be 1.

If you're going to try to disprove Jabba's argument using mathematics, your mathematics need be correct.

 

[jsfisher]

We need to give them unequal probabilities that sum to 1 over the entire set. Let's consider the set of all positive integers i, i=1,2,3,.... We could, for instance, assign each integer the probability (1/2)ⁱ. These probabilities sum to 1 over the set of all integers, as required, and otherwise satisfy the axioms of probability.

Sure, I understand that part. How would you make the actual selection? You need a selection algorithm guaranteed to terminate.

 

[jt512]

We need to give them unequal probabilities that sum to 1 over the entire set. Let's consider the set of all positive integers i, i=1,2,3,.... We could, for instance, assign each integer the probability (1/2)ⁱ. These probabilities sum to 1 over the set of all integers, as required, and otherwise satisfy the axioms of probability.

Sure, I understand that part. How would you make the actual selection? You need a selection algorithm guaranteed to terminate.

Would this work?

# Choose an integer i from the set of all positive integers s.t. Pr(i)=(1/2)^i

x := 0
i := 0
while x = 0 do
    x := random {0,1}     # Pr(0)=Pr(1)=1/2
    i := i + 1
endwhile

 

[jsfisher]

Would this work?

It may never stop.

 

[jt512]

It may never stop.

Yeah, but that's exactly the behavior it needs to have, and it is guaranteed to stop in the sense that the probability of it stopping goes to 1 as n goes to infinity. That's good enough for me.

 

[Mojo]

If you're going to try to disprove Jabba's argument using mathematics, your mathematics need be correct.

They're as correct as Jabba's, aren't they?

 

[xtifr]

- 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.

Because the brain is partially dependent on location, which means different experiences, modifying the brain from the original from the moment of creation--assuming we're talking about suddenly creating a duplicate here.

If you could magically duplicate a person, the new person would have identical memories and experiences *up to the moment of duplication*, but would be a separate individual who would start diverging at the moment of creation, because it would be experiencing different things.

The only way you could have two identical brains remain identical is to have them occupy the same spot in space-time, which has some...practical difficulties. Like, two things can't occupy the same spot.

- Yeah. Given A, none of us should exist. That's why B is so "attractive."

No, because the same "logic" you're applying to proposition A also applies to proposition B. A single, infinitely-extended, eternal "self" has at least as low a probability of spontaneously appearing as a single, finite, mortal one does. And, in my estimation, much lower. There's nothing attractive about prop. B, except in a childish, "I wish it were true" sense.

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

I suspect you're right, but it still doesn't help! God can choose to create mortal or immortal beings as He/She/It/They will(s). And given that the universe appears to be finite, I see no reason why the gods would have chosen a different approach in designing ourselves.

That's the curious thing about this whole thread. No matter how much rope I imagine giving him, in terms of illogical premises to try to draw conclusions from, I don't see how he gets to "we're immortal". Nothing he's said so far leads to that conclusion.

And I suspect I've read a lot more of the Upanishads than Jabba has, so I probably know a lot more about gods than he does!

 

[jt512]

They're as correct as Jabba's, aren't they?

Huh. I never thought of it that way.

 

[godless dave]

Jabba it sort of seems like you're using your conception of the self in A. But that can't be right because your conception of the self is from ~A. A is the scientific model, which has a solely material self.

Can you help me understand?

 

[Giordano]

You know, I've never really understood how there can be an infinity of whole numbers, but an infinity of fractions too. Shouldn't there be twice infinity when counting by halves given that there is an infinity when counting by whole integers?

However, the more Jabba posts I read, the more I begin to think I am right. Are whole numbers intrinsically infinite but fractions extrinsically infinite? This could be my solution.

 

[jt512]

You know, I've never really understood how there can be an infinity of whole numbers, but an infinity of fractions too. Shouldn't there be twice infinity when counting by halves given that there is an infinity when counting by whole integers?

However, the more Jabba posts I read, the more I begin to think I am right. Are whole numbers intrinsically infinite but fractions extrinsically infinite? This could be my solution.

Some day mathematicians will acknowledge their debt to Jabba for leading them out of the dead-end cardinality paradigm and into the light of extrinsic–intrinsic finiteness duality.

The question is, will Jabba live to see that day come?

 

[Jabba]

Extrinsic v Intrinsic Finiteness

- I need to narrow my focus.

- I understand that no one here, but me, thinks that it's useful to try to distinguish between intrinsic and extrinsic finiteness.
- In addition, I can't find anyone in the world, but me, making that distinction.
- Doesn't sound good for my side.

- Does anyone here accept that such a distinction can be made?