[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Akhenaten]

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.

Yes, of course you are, but adding a couple of redundant words is not going to do the trick.

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.

Would you similarly claim that the number of different, potential objects that could be made from Lego is not limited by the number of blocks you have?

You'd be just as wrong.

 

[Akhenaten]

I wonder what Jabba sees in the big spaces between godless dave's posts.

Would it be white space, solid blackness or perhaps something more like The Nothing in The NeverEnding Story?

 

[Slowvehicle]

I wonder what Jabba sees in the big spaces between godless dave's posts.

Would it be white space, solid blackness or perhaps something more like The Nothing in The NeverEnding Story?

The uncovered windows of Niven's OverCee.
http://bookre.org/reader?file=263759

 

[Monza]

Let's say there are a lot of marbles laying on the ground. A whole lot of them, as far as the eye could see. In fact, let's say that there are an infinite number of them. I understand the limitations, but just go with me.

So you are standing there looking at all of these marbles, an infinite number of marbles. One of the ones close to you catches your eye. You bend over to pick it up so you may admire its beauty. Just before you grab it, you wonder to yourself, "Hmmmm... What are the odds that I would have picked this one?"

Now what happens? Can you actually proceed to pick up this marble? Or do the odds of one over infinity (i.e. zero) prevent you from ever picking up a single one of these marbles? So this is the question for Jabba: Is it possible to pick up one marble from an infinite group of marbles, given that the odds of you doing so are zero?

 

[John Jones]

Not to bring up a delicate point, Mr. Savage, but have you yet corrected the scurrilous untrue accusation you made about JREF members, including me, in your message to "Roger"?

I'm still waiting for a retraction of his scurrilous claims that scientists are incompetent and dishonest regarding ¹⁴C dating of the Table Cloth of Turin.

If "Roger" shows up, I'm sure he would be appalled at the accusations Mr. Savage (Jabba) has tossed about like so many dice.

 

[Mojo]

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.

That was part of the problem I was alluding to.

But Jabba (in his attempt to "essentially prove immortality using Bayesian statistics" and all his attempts to define "A" and "~A" to force the conclusion he wants) is also trying to argue that that if his particular "self" has a single finite existence and there are an infnite number of potential selves, the likelyhood of his "self" currently existing is one over infinity, so the likleyhood that he does not have a single finite existence must be greater than this. But if the assumptions he is trying to force upon the argument are true, then the likelyhood of his "self" existing if it does not have a single finite existence is also one over infinity. Both options have an infinite number of "potential selves" but only finite resources for "selves" to actually exist within. It is Jabba's own argument, not "the scientific model", that implies that he can't exist. once he introduces infinity into his argument it's all nonsense because it crops up on both sides.

 

[xtifr]

But if the assumptions he is trying to force upon the argument are true, then the likelyhood of his "self" existing if it does not have a single finite existence is also one over infinity.

Well, yeah, but only if you think existence is random. If godditit, then it was a choice, and you don't have to worry about those pesky probabilities.

The problem I see is that godditit doesn't tell us why we should believe in immortality. Lots of gods don't make people immortal. Even if you say goddidit, it could be Zeus or Krishna or Amaterasu or some random god who's never bothered to give us his name. I can't wait to see how Jabba's going to try to convince us mathematically that his god (the immortality-providing one) is the only god that could possibly exist.

I suspect he hasn't even considered that difficulty. Heck, he probably doesn't know the first thing about the Trimurti^WP.

 

[Mojo]

In any case, he's supposed to be "essentially" proving immortality, not God. He's trying very hard to avoid goddidit.

 

[abaddon]

In any case, he's supposed to be "essentially" proving immortality, not God. He's trying very hard to avoid goddidit.

Maybe. But let's not pretend it isn't his endgame.

 

[Loss Leader]

Both options have an infinite number of "potential selves" but only finite resources for "selves" to actually exist within. It is Jabba's own argument, not "the scientific model", that implies that he can't exist. once he introduces infinity into his argument it's all nonsense because it crops up on both sides.

I suspect that if we were to ever agree to allow infinity to be used on the scientific model side, he would be vehemently opposed to allowing it on his immortality side. I'd like to see that argument, but I doubt any of us will live long enough for the discussion to progress to that point.

 

[Jabba]

I don't see how those are different things.

- Yeah. This is one of those distinctions that is especially hard to convey.
- Given that time &/or energy &/or matter are/is finite, the number of observers is limited and finite.
- But then, if there is no limited pool of different, potential, observers -- there being absolutely no preexistence of potential observers -- who actually comes is totally unlimited. In other words, the number of different, potential observers is unlimited.

- In the sense that you had absolutely no preexistence, you came from nothing -- which thought about, should take your breath away and show you that the likelihood of your current existence is, at best (remember the word "current"), one over infinity (given the hypothesis that each potential observer has but one, finite time to exist, at most).

- That, probably, will not give us closure -- but it should get us started.

 

[Jabba]

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

Dave,
- Yes -- if you mean one of those brains. But, we've accepted that the very same brains would not produce the same observer.

 

[godless dave]

- Yeah. This is one of those distinctions that is especially hard to convey.
- Given that time &/or energy &/or matter are/is finite, the number of observers is limited and finite.
- But then, if there is no limited pool of different, potential, observers -- there being absolutely no preexistence of potential observers -- who actually comes is totally unlimited. In other words, the number of different, potential observers is unlimited.

- In the sense that you had absolutely no preexistence, you came from nothing -- which thought about, should take your breath away and show you that the likelihood of your current existence is, at best (remember the word "current"), one over infinity (given the hypothesis that each potential observer has but one, finite time to exist, at most).

But I didn't come from nothing. I came from a sperm and an egg. And they didn't come from nothing. Who actually comes is determined by those factors.

I think your distinction is hard to convey because it doesn't exist.

Dave,
- Yes -- if you mean one of those brains. But, we've accepted that the very same brains would not produce the same observer.

Two separate, but identical, brains would produce two separate, but identical, observers. The number of potential observers is still limited by time, materials, and situations that could produce them.

Remember, in the scientific model, brains and observers are synonymous.

 

[pakeha]

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.

Yes.
Jabba's argument never really gets beyond rhetoric, does it?

Dave,
- Yes -- if you mean one of those brains. But, we've accepted that the very same brains would not produce the same observer.

What observer?
Do you mean consciousness?
If so, please use the term that's been generally accepted here.

 

[Jabba]

Let's say there are a lot of marbles laying on the ground. A whole lot of them, as far as the eye could see. In fact, let's say that there are an infinite number of them. I understand the limitations, but just go with me.

So you are standing there looking at all of these marbles, an infinite number of marbles. One of the ones close to you catches your eye. You bend over to pick it up so you may admire its beauty. Just before you grab it, you wonder to yourself, "Hmmmm... What are the odds that I would have picked this one?"

Now what happens? Can you actually proceed to pick up this marble? Or do the odds of one over infinity (i.e. zero) prevent you from ever picking up a single one of these marbles? So this is the question for Jabba: Is it possible to pick up one marble from an infinite group of marbles, given that the odds of you doing so are zero?

Monza,
- That's the "special case" issue, which I accept is critical, but doesn't seem quite as critical if I can show why infinity should be in the formula. Which is what I am now trying to do.
- Whatever, "special case" is the issue I plan to address next...

 

[PixyMisa]

- Yeah. This is one of those distinctions that is especially hard to convey.
- Given that time &/or energy &/or matter are/is finite, the number of observers is limited and finite.

Time, energy, and matter are all finite.

- But then, if there is no limited pool of different, potential, observers -- there being absolutely no preexistence of potential observers -- who actually comes is totally unlimited. In other words, the number of different, potential observers is unlimited.

Completely false.

Potential observers are limited precisely by the fact that they are emergent properties of finite, material brains.

- In the sense that you had absolutely no preexistence, you came from nothing -- which thought about, should take your breath away and show you that the likelihood of your current existence is, at best (remember the word "current"), one over infinity (given the hypothesis that each potential observer has but one, finite time to exist, at most).

I don't know about you, but I had parents.

 

[Jabba]

But I didn't come from nothing. I came from a sperm and an egg. And they didn't come from nothing. Who actually comes is determined by those factors.

I think your distinction is hard to convey because it doesn't exist...

- Your brain may come from a limited pool of possible brains, but your brain does not determine "who" your observer is -- in that two exact matches in brains would not produce the same observer.

 

[PixyMisa]

Dave,
- Yes -- if you mean one of those brains. But, we've accepted that the very same brains would not produce the same observer.

We've already covered this. Pay attention!

You can't have identical brains in identical locations. It's impossible. You can't draw any valid conclusion from a logically inconsistent hypothetical. You are talking nonsense.

 

[godless dave]

- Your brain may come from a limited pool of possible brains, but your brain does not determine "who" your observer is
-- in that two exact matches in brains would not produce the same observer.

That doesn't follow. In the scientific model, the brain "determines" who the observer is because the brain is the observer.

Two exact matches of brains would produce two identical, but separate, observers, just as a Volkswagen factory can produce two identical, but separate, 2013 Beetles.

 

[PixyMisa]

- Your brain may come from a limited pool of possible brains, but your brain does not determine "who" your observer is -- in that two exact matches in brains would not produce the same observer.

Your brain alone does not. What you are is a function of your brain and your experiences.

All of which is 100% material and 100% finite.