[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Jabba]

No. The limitations you are trying to impose are self-serving, but other than that have no basis.

- Can you elaborate on what you mean by "no basis"?

 

[Loss Leader]

- They can be, but that wasn't my question.

All limits are the same. All limits are the same. All limits are the same.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- Can you explain why you say "no"?

What's wrong with all the explanations that have already been posted?

 

[jond]

- Can you elaborate on what you mean by "no basis"?

- I have a better idea:
- How about YOU elaborate on your evidence for this "self/soul" you claim exists?

 

[Humots]

- How about this.

- I've defined the poker situation as a "closed" system -- the possibilities are limited by the givens. Such is not the case in the Volkswagen situation -- if the number of possible different (separate) Volkswagens is limited, it is limited by "non-givens."
- These are two different types of limitations -- two different types of "finiteness."

- Can you agree to that, so far? By agreeing, you will not be committing to anything else -- and, you will still be free to change your mind, anyway.

NO spells no.

 

[carlitos]

I'm not seeing it myself, though his quoting of Charles Bukowski's paraphrase of Russell gives me a chuckle from time to time. Do you mean the Italian quote? I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that means he won't reply.

Yeah, it's the Italian thing. Pretentious douchebaggery, google-translated to be even more pretentious in Italian.

- Can you elaborate on what you mean by "no basis"?

No basis. Google it.

 

[Akhenaten]

- How about this.

- I've defined the poker situation as a "closed" system -- the possibilities are limited by the givens.

You can define a ham sammich as the King of Siam if you want to, but it doesn't make it so.

The fact is, in terms of your attempted argument, the Universe is a closed system. The possibilities are limited by the amount of time, matter and energy available.

Such is not the case in the Volkswagen situation -- if the number of possible different (separate) Volkswagens is limited, it is limited by "non-givens."

You appear to think that as long as you don't specify the limits then they aren't "givens" and therefore they don't exist.

And so we see that the Jabbaverse is indeed Jabbacentric.

- These are two different types of limitations -- two different types of "finiteness."

No, just two different types of nonsense.

- Can you agree to that, so far? By agreeing, you will not be committing to anything else -- and, you will still be free to change your mind, anyway.

That's very generous of you. When were you put in charge of whether or not people are allowed to change their minds?

 

[Jabba]

So, the limits I imposed on the two "situations" are not different types of limitations?

No.

Dave,
- Can you explain why you say "no"?

What's wrong with all the explanations that have already been posted?

- As far as I can tell, no one has said why those are not different types of limitations. Can you point me to a post that you think does?

 

[Akhenaten]

Hey! Dave's already had a turn at being LCP.

Not fair, Prickly Pear!

 

[HighRiser]

Jabba, I looked around the WWW for mathematically minded people discussing intrinsic and extrinsic fineteness or infiniteness and found bumpkus. Seems to me that the general consensus is that anything that is not infinite is finite: and anything not finite is infinite.

Infinity is not a very large number.

Infinity does not have real-world analogues.

I think slowvehicle's idea of presenting evidence that supports your syllogisticly-derived premises is the best route to follow. Science has moved on a bit since Plato's day, by the way.

Also, I don't know if you don't realize that on the interwebs, underlined words are usually hyperlinks to websites that the underliner thought was relevant to the discussion. I have not yet abandoned the notion that clicking on your (seemingly random) underlinings will redirect my browser to a webpage that has some supporting information you thought would further my understanding.

 

[PixyMisa]

- As far as I can tell, no one has said why those are not different types of limitations. Can you point me to a post that you think does?

Why do you think they are different types of limitations? A limitation is a limitation. If a limitation applies to a scenario, but you neglect to mention it, it is still a limitation, and it still applies.

Likewise, finite is finite, and infinite is infinite.

If you want to argue that people in some imaginary universe are immortal, then go ahead. If you wish to argue that people in our Universe are immortal, then everything about our Universe is applicable to your argument. Everything. You don't get to pick and choose, or toss in counterfactuals, or just conveniently forget whichever branch of science happens to disprove your claim.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Let's see if this makes it clearer for Jabba.

The problem in the way that you're looking at it is that you're comparing different things. You're looking at a VW as an object, and you're looking at a poker hand as an object. But a poker hand isn't an object, it's a collection of 5 objects. So, let's say that a VW is a collection of 5 objects, too - wheels, body, electrics, motor and glass.

Now, poker hands are distinguished from each other because there are different varieties of objects which can be combined to create one poker hand. So, to make the comparison apt we need to allow there to be different varieties of wheels, bodies, electrics, motors and glass. If we say that there are 10 of each then we're picking our objects from a pool of 50 objects, just like with a poker hand we're picking them from a pool of 52 objects.

Now we've got 2 situations that are not identical but genuinely comparable. A poker hand is a combination of 5 objects, and a VW is a combination of 5 objects.

Okay, so, what you're calling the "intrinsic" finiteness is the number of permutations of objects collected together that we can call a unique poker hand. But, as you can see, if we understand that a VW is also a collection of 5 objects, then there is also an "intrinsic" finiteness to the number of permutations of its constituent parts. There are only so many ways you can combine 10 types of wheel, 10 types of body, 10 types of engine, 10 types of electrics, and 10 types of glass before you run out of unique combinations.

So, as you can see, if you're comparing the same thing in both examples, then VWs and poker hands are both "intrinsically" finite.

What about "extrinsically"? Well, then we have the same thing. A poker hand is made up of the "pool" of 52 cards. A VW is made up of the "pool" of 50 objects. If you don't require your VWs to be unique, then you can postulate infinite resources and create an infinite amount of each type of VW you can make by combining the 5 different types of object. But if you don't require your poker hand to be unique, then you can also postulate infinite resources and create an infinite amount of each type of poker hand. That's what you're calling "extrinsic".

So, if you require your poker hand to be unique, then you must require your VW to be unique. If you don't require your VW to be unique, then you cannot require your poker hand to be unique. But, because you've been ignoring the fact that a VW is not an object, but a collection of objects, just like a poker hand is a collection of objects, you've failed to see that you're requiring your poker hand to be unique while not requiring your VW to be unique.

 

[jsfisher]

- Can you elaborate on what you mean by "no basis"?

Um, actually it would require elaboration by you that there is a basis. Either way, though, your analogy deals with results produced from raw materials. As others have explained, you are arbitrarily disregarding the limits for one set of raw materials while highlighting the other.

By the way, your habit of re-asking the same questions hoping someone will change their answer is rude and tiresome. You analogy failed and for multiple reasons, as has been explained by several.

Move on.

 

[Agatha]

Jabba, a limitation is a limitation is a limitation. In one of your analogies you limit the inputs. In the other you do not limit the inputs, not even to the amount of matter available in the universe. Your analogies are mismatched.

As HighRiser says, "infinity" is not a synonym for "very big number". It's a specific mathematical concept, and there is no mathematical concept of 'extrinsic' or 'intrinsic' infinity.

ETA Squeegee Beckenheim, that is a very clear explanation of what many of us have been attempting to convey to Jabba. I hope he will read and understand your post.

 

[Humots]

Jabba, with your cards and poker hands analogy you limit yourself to one deck of cards. With your VW analogy, you do not limit the supply of VW parts. For the analogies to match, you need to have either:

1. One deck of cards and one warehouse of VW parts (resulting in large finite numbers of poker hands or VWs)
OR
2. Infinite decks of cards and infinite VW parts (resulting in infinite numbers of poker hands or VWs)

Your intrinsic/extrinsic distinction has been artificially introduced by you because you have mismatched your inputs.

Here's an alternate form.

(1)

We have a definition of a hand of cards: five individual cards, chosen from a deck of 52 cards, which consists of four suits, with 13 different cards in each suit.

The number of different five card hands is limited by the number of possible combinations of these available cards.

If we had infinite time/space/matter/energy, we could create an infinite number of five card hands, but we would start repeating hands after the first
2,598,960.

So we have an infinite number of hands, but only a finite number of different hands.
​

(2)

We have a definition of a VW: N individual parts, each with M possible choices. Then an upper bound on the number of different VWs is M^N. This is very simplistic, since an actual definition would include each part having its own number of possible choices, and parts that are used multiple times.

The number of different VWs is limited by the number of possible combinations of these available parts.

If we had infinite time/space/matter/energy, we could create an infinite number of VWs, but we would definitely start repeating VWs after the first M^N cars.

In effect, we have a warehouse containing an infinite number of VW parts, but only a finite number of types of each part.

So we have an infinite number of VWs, but only a finite number of different VWs.​

Jabba may argue that no such definition of VW exists. But it does exist, in principle. We've just never had the need to create one.

Jabba may also argue that this definition of "VW" is arbitrary. Well, so is the definition of a hand, and a deck, of cards.

Ninga'd by SqueeGee!

 

[carlitos]

J
Also, I don't know if you don't realize that on the interwebs, underlined words are usually hyperlinks to websites that the underliner thought was relevant to the discussion. I have not yet abandoned the notion that clicking on your (seemingly random) underlinings will redirect my browser to a webpage that has some supporting information you thought would further my understanding.

Eschewing social conventions is a hallmark of woo beliefs.

In the world of Internet forums, this is usually demonstrated via non-standard formatting. He can't bring himself to conform; he is too special.

Indeed. Also, "most good ideas don't work."

 

[godless dave]

- As far as I can tell, no one has said why those are not different types of limitations. Can you point me to a post that you think does?

Here are three:

Good Morning, Mr. Savage!

If you are going to limit yourself to the number of unique combinations of 5 cards (not permutations, as the order of the cards in the hand does not matter) that can be made from the cards in one deck of cards, then to be appositive, you must limit yourself to the number of unique combinations of Volkswagen parts that can be made form one unreplenished warehouse full of VW parts.

If you are going to allow yourself to fantasize about "infinite" time, materials, space, and energy while constructing your VWs, you must also consider how many 5-card hands could be made form an "infinite" number of decks of playing cards.

No, he has imposed limits, the same way you have imposed limits on your poker hands. If you want your hands drawn from one deck of cards, why shouldn't you agree that your Volkswagens should be built from one set of parts?

There are 52 cards in a standard deck, but I am certain you know of forms of Poker where you draw 7 cards and make a hand from them. In theory, you can draw from 3 decks, or 5, or an infinity of card decks to form an infinity of potential hands. There is no inherent limit to potential card decks or hands, except we usually draw from one deck. In home Blackjack, you play with a 52-card deck, but in casinos you draw from three or more 52 card decks. It is still called Blackjack. Thus, there is no real (intrinsic) limit to the number of decks from which you can form a hand. You can also define a card hand to be 7 long, or an infinite number of cards long. There is no intrinsic limit to the length of a hand. Or if you insist on saying that Poker is only 5 cards per hand, you would note that the 2 aces and 3 kings that you drew from an infinity of decks is a physically different hand from the 2 aces and 3 kings that I drew from the same decks. An infinity of physically different 5 card hands at the atomic level at least.

You should say that it is impossible to produce an infinity of card decks; we would run out of factories, resources, energy and time. But the very same applies to VWs. You have tried to get around that limitation by proposing infinite time, energy, and resources from which to assemble VWs. But if we had that, we could also make an infinity of card decks. This is where you have been inconsistent: an infinity of VWs means an infinity of card decks and card hands; they are equivalent in the universe you propose (if one can produce an infinity of anything is another issue; in short, no). Yes, at some point you might produce two VWs that look almost exactly alike, like the two Full Houses I mentioned before, although physically they would be different cars at the atomic level. See?

 

[Mojo]

- They can be, but that wasn't my question.

Why does your proof of immortality not apply just as much to Volkswagens as it does to "selves"?

 

[Filippo Lippi]

By the way, your habit of re-asking the same questions hoping someone will change their answer is rude and tiresome.

Jabba is debating effectively and, because the rules of effective debate (as defined by Jabba) prohibit rudeness, his 'habit' cannot be considered rude.

I would have underlined some words in the above statement, thereby increasing its effectiveness, but I'm not sure how to do it on my phone.

 

[Loss Leader]

- As far as I can tell, no one has said why those are not different types of limitations. Can you point me to a post that you think does?

I wonder if you fully appreciate how all-encompassingly rude you're being. More than half a dozen people have been expounding on this point for over six pages. You either chose not to read them, or you read them and chose to pretend they didn't exist. In any case, here are some of my favorites:

You are comparing combinations of cards in a single deck to all possible Volkswagens (people) that could be produced given infinite resources.

Why aren't you comparing combinations of cards in a single deck to the current combinations of paint/engine/models of Volswagens or the combinations of genes possible for a single married couple?

In one instance, you have imposed a limit - a single deck of cards dealt once. In the other instance, you have removed a limit - an infinite amount of time, energy and material.

If you remove your artificial limit, then we could keep making cards forever and we could keep generating hands. Any two hands might have identical value according to the rules of poker, but they would be separate cards existing in different places at disparate times. Similarly, any two twins might be genetically identical but they are two different people.

How do you reconcile this?

No, poker hands and lottery tickets are not "closed." They are bounded by factors you are imposing. You are declaring that we are making poker hands out of only one deck. You are declaring that all winning lottery tickets are the same.

If we were to impose those same limits on humans, we would say that the number of possible new people are limited to only two parents - George and Roseanne DeSotto of Baltimore, Maryland. Or we would say that all twins are the same (or all people born with the same DNA).

But if we count all possible poker hands from all possible decks of cards with no limit on time, space, matter or energy, we can have an infinite number of them. My straight flush at Ceaser's is different from George DeSotto's straight flush at the Luxor. They are physically different cards held in different locations. They have different properties (Mine won me $200.00 at a poker table; George's won him $80,000.00 at a Pai Gow table). You cannot even observe one from the location of the other.

You are doing the same thing with people.

Your "intrinsic" v. "extrinsic" is an artifact of the unspoken starting limitations you have created.

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.

This doesn't follow at all.

1. a. From any given deck of 52 cards, there are a finite number of combinations that can be made.
b. From any given number of genes, there are a finite number of humans that can be made.

2. a. Two hands of 10JQKA spades can be made with two decks , each containing the same cards in some order.
b. Two genetically identical people can be made from two sets of parents, each containing the same genes in some order.

3. a. Two royal flushes from two different decks are not the same. They do not occupy the same space, they can be counted, they can be divided, one can be sent to Borneo.
b. Two identical twins are not the same. They do not occupy the same space, they can be counted, they can be divided, one can be sent to Borneo.

4. a. The only limit on the number of straight flushes that can be made is the number of decks of cards that can be manufactured with the materials and time we have in this universe.
b. The only limit on the number of people that can be made is the number of parents we can manufacture with the materials and time we have in this universe.

5. Cards and people appear to function mathematically identically.

How come your card example is limited to only one deck while your human example is allowed to mix and match countlessly?

How come your card example has artificial limits imposed by you while your human example has artificial infinities imposed by you?

The number of combinations of human DNA is intrinsicly finite. The number of total people we could create with infinite time, matter and energy is infinite.

The number of combinations of cards is intrinisicly finite. The number of total cards we could create with infinite time, matter and energy is infinite.

Where is the difference?

With the lottery example, you are saying that for any finite set of numbers, there are a finite set of six numbers one could draw randomly. But you could have any number of lottery balls painted with those finite numbers. You could have billions of balls. There would still be a finite set of six numbers. You could just draw that set more than once.

People have a finite set of genes and there are a finite number of ways those genes can be combined. But you could have any number of people walking around with those same finite genes.

What's the difference?

So, there are a couple posts to get you started.