[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[abaddon]

Giordiano can at least edit his quote of it - and I think there is still ten minutes or so for Jabba to edit his post (two hour edit window, I believe).

Jabba, I thought the idea of emailing Dr Hoerl was to talk about your notion of intrinsic and extrinsic infinity? As he's a maths professor rather than a philosopher, "potential selves" is probably not his area of expertise.

Apologies, it's a buzz item for me. People just won't pay attention. This very night I have the company of a laptop infected by a root kit for the third time despite me telling the yahoo how to not click the OK button on the dumbass adverts. A nice, genuine guy, but I swear, if his lappy said "Jump off the nearest cliff, he would call me to find out where there nearest cliff could be found.

 

[Giordano]

Giordiano can at least edit his quote of it - and I think there is still ten minutes or so for Jabba to edit his post (two hour edit window, I believe).

Jabba, I thought the idea of emailing Dr Hoerl was to talk about your notion of intrinsic and extrinsic infinity? As he's a maths professor rather than a philosopher, "potential selves" is probably not his area of expertise.

Done! Stupid of me. Sorry!

 

[abaddon]

Done! Stupid of me. Sorry!

And I thank you, Sir.

 

[John Jones]

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

I can.

Start at the first post in this enormous time-devouring thread, and count until you get to the point where you 'essentially prove' immortality using Bayesian statistics.

Say something!

 

[John Jones]

JS,
- I just emailed Dr. Hoerl at Union. Thanks for the effort. I'll let you know what happens.

I'll just bet you will. If that sounds like a sarcastic rejoinder, it's only because I legitimately question your sincerity after all these years.

Best regards,

John Jones

 

[John Jones]

- I think that I can essentially prove immortality using Bayesian statistics.
- If this belongs in a different thread, or has already been done, please let me know. Otherwise, I'll present my case here.
--- Jabba

Present your case anywhere. It'll still be an excellent example of utter failure.

You've had more than 2 years with nothing to show for it except shame and humiliation.

 

[jsfisher]

Jabba,
Some of us cannot help but notice that Loss Leader provided you the names of Mathematics faculty of 3 local colleges and universities in your general area, one within walking distance of your home. You ignored Loss Leader's post.

I, on the other hand, provided the name of just a single faculty member at an area college, and for that you rush off to send an email.

The only difference between the two is the work that would have been required by you to pick one. No work at all was required for the case I provided, but for Loss Leader, you'd actually have to make a selection.

Would that have been too much effort, picking one of the 60+ names Loss Leader provided? Have you no darts, coins, or ouija boards?

I suppose then, too, it was a blessing Loss Leader did not expand his list to include faculty from three other area colleges and institute along with several community colleges. Brains may have exploded.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

I expect Jabba's missive to be given the measure of shrift it deserves. Physics may be rocked on its heels by something shorter than the Planck length.

 

[Mojo]

Jabba,
Some of us cannot help but notice that Loss Leader provided you the names of Mathematics faculty of 3 local colleges and universities in your general area, one within walking distance of your home. You ignored Loss Leader's post.

I, on the other hand, provided the name of just a single faculty member at an area college, and for that you rush off to send an email.

The only difference between the two is the work that would have been required by you to pick one. No work at all was required for the case I provided, but for Loss Leader, you'd actually have to make a selection.

Would that have been too much effort, picking one of the 60+ names Loss Leader provided? Have you no darts, coins, or ouija boards?

I suppose then, too, it was a blessing Loss Leader did not expand his list to include faculty from three other area colleges and institute along with several community colleges. Brains may have exploded.

Loss Leader's list is extrinsically finite, therefore potentially infinite, which means that the probability of any particular faculty member on it currently existing is one over infinity. There wouldn't be any point in Jabba trying to contact any of them.

 

[Garrette]

I expect Jabba's missive to be given the measure of shrift it deserves. Physics may be rocked on its heels by something shorter than the Planck length.

Yes. Even if I were gregariis and extremely curious and generous with my time, the most hospitable reply I could muster to such an aimless email from a stranger would be along the lines of:

I am sorry, but I cannot spare the time or effort to dissect such a long debate when you have not even summarized either your argument or their objections. If there is something specific you wish me to discuss, kindly lay it out clearly and succinctly in your next email.

Note that when the idea of contacting a mathematician was suggested it was clearly focused on evaluation of one or two specific points and not the entire argument, extrinsic and intrinsic finiteness and infiniteness (?) come to mind. Yet Jabba chose rather to ask for a look at the unspecified debate as a whole without mention of any math. I strongly suspect that this is because Jabba knows his claims will not withstand detailed scrutiny. It is as if he is consciously framing the future exchange in such a way that he will be able to dishonestly claim that even college professors could not refute his argument, conveniently forgetting that he never presented his argument at all.

 

[Jabba]

Extrinsic v Intrinsic/Distinguish?

- 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.

Dave and Slowvehicle,
- Isn’t that exactly what I’m saying? These are different types of limitations.

 

[Jabba]

- I’m hoping to meet with Dr. Hoerl for lunch. I’ll try to be prepared with a summary, and I’ll let you guys see it as soon as it seems coherent to me.
- For the moment, I’m just hoping he’ll respond. If he is willing, but prefers email, I’ll be happy to oblige. I’ll even invite him to join us – though, I doubt he’ll want to do that.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Dave and Slowvehicle,
- Isn’t that exactly what I’m saying? These are different types of limitations.

Good Morning, Mr. Savage.

No.

That is not "exactly what you are saying". You are pretending that there is a fundamental difference between the number of five-card hands that may be made from limited resources, and the number of Volkswagens that might be made form "infinite" resources, as if the difference were in the card hands, or the Volkswagens, themselves. What you are actually comparing is the trivial difference between the number of 5-card hands that may be made from one deck, and the number of 5-card hands that might be made from an infinite number of decks of cards. The distinction you are making is not a distinction of kind, but a distinction of the amount of resource.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- I’m hoping to meet with Dr. Hoerl for lunch. I’ll try to be prepared with a summary, and I’ll let you guys see it as soon as it seems coherent to me.
- For the moment, I’m just hoping he’ll respond. If he is willing, but prefers email, I’ll be happy to oblige. I’ll even invite him to join us – though, I doubt he’ll want to do that.

I hope that you are planning to clarify, to him, your misuse of scare quotes around "skeptic" and your demonstrably false statement that everyone on this forum thinks you are stupid, or crazy...

 

[George]

- I’m hoping to meet with Dr. Hoerl for lunch. I’ll try to be prepared with a summary, and I’ll let you guys see it as soon as it seems coherent to me.
- For the moment, I’m just hoping he’ll respond. If he is willing, but prefers email, I’ll be happy to oblige. I’ll even invite him to join us – though, I doubt he’ll want to do that.

I dare say he's had a peep at this thread so I would hold off with the banquet arrangements for now.

 

[godless dave]

Dave and Slowvehicle,
- Isn’t that exactly what I’m saying? These are different types of limitations.

We're saying they aren't different types of limitations.

 

[Loss Leader]

Isn’t that exactly what I’m saying? These are different types of limitations.

It's exactly the opposite of what you are saying.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I've just re-read the first 2 pages of this thread. I'll be very, very surprised if the professor that Jabba has emailed even gets that far.

 

[Jabba]

Good Morning, Mr. Savage.

No.

That is not "exactly what you are saying". You are pretending that there is a fundamental difference between the number of five-card hands that may be made from limited resources, and the number of Volkswagens that might be made form "infinite" resources, as if the difference were in the card hands, or the Volkswagens, themselves. What you are actually comparing is the trivial difference between the number of 5-card hands that may be made from one deck,an thd enumber of 5-card hands that might be made from an infinite number of decks of cards. The distinction you are making is not a distinction of kind, but a distinction of the amount of resource.

Slowvehicle,
- Can I define a situation in such a way as to completely limit its possible outcomes?

 

[Garrette]

Slowvehicle,
- Can I define a situation in such a way as to completely limit its possible outcomes?

Of course you can, but that is not the issue. What you cannot do is define things incorrectly, inconsistently, or inappropriately for the argument being made and still expect the argument to have any validity.