[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

This sentence has no meaning whatsoever. Since each person is different, the set of all possible people is the same as the set of all different possible people. Since each possible person is a potential person, the set of all possible observers is the same as the set of all different, potential observers.

You've just said nothing ... not a blessed thing.

No, I think you're misunderstanding Jabba.

Imagine this scenario. There's a computer program which will create 10 little sprites. Each sprite will look identical, except for their colour. Each sprite will have values of r, g and b, with each being a randomly chosen value between 1 and 10 - 1 being none of the corresponding colour, and 10 being 255 in standard computer RGB format. So, in other words, if all 3 numbers are 1 then the sprite will be black, and if all 3 numbers are 10, then the sprite will be white. There is also a subroutine within this program which means that if all three of the values of r, g and b for any particular sprite have been used already then each value will be generated again. This way, we will get 10 different-coloured sprites.

Now, to make this analogous to what Jabba is saying, in one time of this program being run the "sprites possible" is 10, because that's what the program has the "resources" to create. However the "different, potential sprites possible" is 1,000, because that's how many permutations of the values of r, g and b those 10 sprites are being created from.

This doesn't make him right, of course, but what he's saying makes more sense within its own internal logic than you seem to think.

 

[John Jones]

Dave,
- I was trying to distinguish between the number of observers possible, given physical reality, and the number of different, potential observers possible, given physical reality. I claim that they are not the same, and that the number of different, potential observers is not limited by the specific physical makeup of brains.

I think we all know what you were trying to do: Stack the rhetorical deck in your favor and hope we're too dumb to notice.

You're still having this major fail thing going with regard to logic and evidence.

 

[Giordano]

Jabba, would you agree that there are an infinite number of possible grains of sand in the universe?

A whole darn lot = infinity in Jabba's logic. Not matter what math or we say 1/infinity is a defined number for him. Try that in computer software.

Thankfully that also means there is an infinity of beer in the universe, which is good.

 

[Loss Leader]

No, I think you're misunderstanding Jabba.

Okay, I understand what you're saying. The difference between your hypothetical and Jabba's is that, in yours, there is a pool of potential sprites. There is a hard limit on the number of possible sprites that can be created. In Jabba's version of the scientific model, there is no pool of potential people. So, his possible and his potential are the same.

You're probably right in figuring out how he's thinking.

 

[godless dave]

13 &14. In the standard model, consciousness is an emergent property of the physical brain. This is the physical limit, based on genetics, development, and experience, on who I could have been as an "observer" (by which you mean "self"). I could/can not have been anyone. Nor can the next "observer" be anyone. I was determined from a limited number of possibilities, by my genetics, development, and experiences. I was born to human parents. and thus was very likely to have a human "self" not a dog "self." Further, I was very likely to think like my siblings and like my parents, not like Charlie Manson.

Well put. Saying a new person "could be anyone" isn't accurate. There's only one observer each new person could be.

 

[PixyMisa]

1. I've been trying to develop a syllogism from the different premises upon which Dave and I agree. Here's where I am so far. I’ve included numbers so as to make reference easier.

2. CONSCIOUSNESS is an emergent property of a certain type of physical occurrence or situation.

Physical system, or process.

3. This “type” of physical situation may be that of a living brain. (Dave says that it is that of a living brain.)

A brain, or another computer of equivalent power and complexity, yes.

4. Each consciousness involves a DIFFERENT “self” -- or, different “observer ” – than do the rest of consciousnesses.

The observer IS that consciousness.

5. You are one of those observers.

Yes.

6. You have been that observer for a number of years, despite all your experiences during that time.

Yes. Which does not imply that any aspect of your identity is unchanging or immaterial, just that there is a continuity.

7. So, in that sense, you have been the same observer for all those years.

In the sense of continuity, yes.

8. This difference (or, separation) between lifetime observers is not the result of specific physical situations. (Two brains that were exactly alike would not produce the same observer.)

WRONG. The difference between observers is PRECISELY the result of specific physical situations.

9. In that sense, the number of lifetime observers possible is not limited by physics, chemistry or biology.

WRONG.

10. The only physical limitation to the number of lifetime observers would be in the amount of time, energy or matter available.

Essentially, yes.

11. Barring a finite amount of time, energy or matter, the amount of potential lifetime observers is infinite.

All of those are finite.

12. If any of these is finite, the number of observers possible would seem to be finite...

All of those are finite.

13. You, however, were NOT drawn from any preexisting limited pool of potential observers.

Correct.

14. You are a BRAND NEW observer, having no preexistence of any kind; and in other words, there is absolutely no limit on who the next observer will be...

WRONG. The number of possible distinct identities is finite.

15. That is the sense in which the 'number' of potential observers is infinite, and why the likelihood of YOUR current existence -- given the hypothesis of one finite life at most -- is 1/∞.

And that is the sense in which you're wrong.

 

[Jabba]

It's not limited by the specific physical makeup of brains, but it's still limited by physics, chemistry, and biology.

Dave,
- There were two different things that I talked about being limited -- number of possible observers, and number of different, potential, observers -- which is the one you were referring to?

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- There were two different things that I talked about being limited -- number of possible observers, and number of different, potential, observers -- which is the one you were referring to?

I don't see how those are different things.

 

[Monza]

No, I think you're misunderstanding Jabba.

Imagine this scenario. There's a computer program which will create 10 little sprites. Each sprite will look identical, except for their colour. Each sprite will have values of r, g and b, with each being a randomly chosen value between 1 and 10 - 1 being none of the corresponding colour, and 10 being 255 in standard computer RGB format. So, in other words, if all 3 numbers are 1 then the sprite will be black, and if all 3 numbers are 10, then the sprite will be white. There is also a subroutine within this program which means that if all three of the values of r, g and b for any particular sprite have been used already then each value will be generated again. This way, we will get 10 different-coloured sprites.

Now, to make this analogous to what Jabba is saying, in one time of this program being run the "sprites possible" is 10, because that's what the program has the "resources" to create. However the "different, potential sprites possible" is 1,000, because that's how many permutations of the values of r, g and b those 10 sprites are being created from.

This doesn't make him right, of course, but what he's saying makes more sense within its own internal logic than you seem to think.

Okay, I understand what you're saying. The difference between your hypothetical and Jabba's is that, in yours, there is a pool of potential sprites. There is a hard limit on the number of possible sprites that can be created. In Jabba's version of the scientific model, there is no pool of potential people. So, his possible and his potential are the same.

You're probably right in figuring out how he's thinking.

Ahhh.... I get what Squeegee Beckenheim is saying. To put it back into Jabba's observer example, it should be like this:

The number of possible observers is limited by the number of brains that can be created. It is based on the limit of resources such as the number of humans able to procreate, the time in the universe to do so, etc. This number is finite.

The number of potential observers is a function of the number of permutations possible that could make up a brain. Jabba thinks this number is infinite.

However, as many here have said, a brain is made of matter (atoms) that can be arranged in a gargantuan number of permutations. This number is so far in excess of the number of possible brains that it is almost impossible to imagine. Yet, this number (though super large huge) is also finite. If brains were created at a super fast rate from now until the death of the universe, not all of the potential brains will have come into existence. It is this that makes Jabba think the latter is infinite. It is not, it is just so much larger than the other. In Squeegee Beckenheim's example, the only reason every potential sprite didn't come into existence is the limitation of the number of sprites allowed by the program. Though large, the number of potential sprites is still finite.

Computer program limit of the number of sprites = number of brains that can be created given a finite universe

Permutations of potential sprite varieties = Permutations of potential brain physiology

Jabba thinks the first set is finite and second is infinite. In reality, both sets are finite.

 

[godless dave]

Even recognizing that distinction, wouldn't you use the number of possible brains when calculating the probability of one existing?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Dave,
- There were two different things that I talked about being limited -- number of possible observers, and number of different, potential, observers -- which is the one you were referring to?

Good Evening, Mr. Savage!

I wonder if you might explain to me why you do not think it rude, disrespectful, and downright dishonest to pretend that godless dave is the only person whose posts are worth reading and responding to?

I also wonder if you might explain, for the several of us who have asked, what, in your mind, is the difference between the "number of possible observers" and the "number of different, potential observers"? To many of us, those terms seem indistinguishable.

Further, the universe is, in fact, finite. Finite in terms of available matter; finite in terms of available energy; finite in terms of space; and finite in time. The potential number of any object that is tied to, or comprised of, or an emergent property of, a physical object, is finite.

Do be so kind as to address this.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Ahhh.... I get what Squeegee Beckenheim is saying. To put it back into Jabba's observer example, it should be like this:

The number of possible observers is limited by the number of brains that can be created. It is based on the limit of resources such as the number of humans able to procreate, the time in the universe to do so, etc. This number is finite.

The number of potential observers is a function of the number of permutations possible that could make up a brain. Jabba thinks this number is infinite.

However, as many here have said, a brain is made of matter (atoms) that can be arranged in a gargantuan number of permutations. This number is so far in excess of the number of possible brains that it is almost impossible to imagine. Yet, this number (though super large huge) is also finite. If brains were created at a super fast rate from now until the death of the universe, not all of the potential brains will have come into existence. It is this that makes Jabba think the latter is infinite. It is not, it is just so much larger than the other. In Squeegee Beckenheim's example, the only reason every potential sprite didn't come into existence is the limitation of the number of sprites allowed by the program. Though large, the number of potential sprites is still finite.

Computer program limit of the number of sprites = number of brains that can be created given a finite universe

Permutations of potential sprite varieties = Permutations of potential brain physiology

Jabba thinks the first set is finite and second is infinite. In reality, both sets are finite.

I wonder if Mr. Savage would be so kind as to address this, either to endorse this explanation, or to explain how it falls short of his vision.

 

[Mojo]

Dave,
- I was trying to distinguish between the number of observers possible, given physical reality, and the number of different, potential observers possible, given physical reality. I claim that they are not the same, and that the number of different, potential observers is not limited by the specific physical makeup of brains.

Yes, but there have only been a finite number of brains. So if the number of potential "observers" is infinite, then no matter whether the "observers" exist for one finite lifetime or not the likelyhood of a particular "observer" existing is one over infinity.

Assuming that your argument is valid, of course.

So either:

A) you don't exist

or:

B) there is a problem with your argument.

Which seems more likely?

 

[xtifr]

So either:

A) you don't exist

or:

B) there is a problem with your argument.

Which seems more likely?

B is the option he's aiming for. He wants to prove that the scientific model is self-contradictory, and therefore wrong, because it says that there's zero chance he exists.

Unfortunately for him, infinity does not enter into it. The number of potential "observers" is not infinite. There's a finite number of potential arrangements of particles in the universe. But he keeps relentlessly trying to find a way to squeeze infinity in there so he can say "Aha! Goddidit!"

eta: in other words, he's trying for a reductio ad absurdum, but he doesn't quite understand the model he's trying to reduce.

 

[PixyMisa]

Dave,
- There were two different things that I talked about being limited -- number of possible observers, and number of different, potential, observers -- which is the one you were referring to?

Both are finite.

The observable Universe is finite. So are human brains. There is only a finite number of people who can exist at one time, or who can ever exist, and there is only a finite number of different people who can exist. Since brains are finite, that second limit would apply even if the Universe were infinite.

 

[PixyMisa]

Jabba thinks the first set is finite and second is infinite. In reality, both sets are finite.

Exactly.

 

[John Jones]

Dave,
- I was trying to distinguish between the number of observers possible, given physical reality, and the number of different, potential observers possible, given physical reality.

You failed.

I claim that they are not the same, and that the number of different, potential observers is not limited by the specific physical makeup of brains.

Jabba, you claim a lot of things. You haven't demonstrated or proven them. Get to work on that.

I was thinking about starting a new thread about proving your mortality via Bayesian statistics, but you've already done the heavy lifting.

 

[jond]

Ultimately, I think the problem is that Jabba is still thinking of the "self"/"soul" (and now introducing "observer" to make it more obvious) as a thing rather than the process that it is. As always, unless and until he provides evidence that this "thing" exists, it's all a giant loop. Statistics have nothing to do with any of this, no matter how much he'd like to think it does.

 

[Giordano]

Dave,
- There were two different things that I talked about being limited -- number of possible observers, and number of different, potential, observers -- which is the one you were referring to?

Forget it… The other posters have well explained it.

 

[PixyMisa]

Ultimately, I think the problem is that Jabba is still thinking of the "self"/"soul" (and now introducing "observer" to make it more obvious) as a thing rather than the process that it is.

You always see that when someone attempts a proof-by-contradiction of immaterialism. The supposed contradiction in materialism is invariably some immaterial concept they've latched on to and inserted unexamined.

Even Berkeley fell victim to this trap. And Jabba, with all due respect, is no Berkeley.