Proof of Immortality II

[godless dave]

The following comes from private messages during thread cleaning.

With my permission, which Jabba asked for before making this post.

OK. Do you accept that there is an exclusive, pre-existing, physics formula for the same ME?

Each brain would have a series of events that led up to it coming into existence, ultimately going back to the beginning of the universe, so actually calculating the likelihood of a particular brain coming into existence would not be practical. That doesn't mean you can declare the likelihood to be 1/∞.

For the first brain, the "physical formula" that includes with a particular sperm and egg meeting and combining their DNA, with all the variables both those things entail. Then the embryo would develop in the womb, with all the variables that entails.

In the third week of development the embryo would have the beginnings of what will become its brain. A good overview of this is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_development#Overview_of_brain_development

This is the part of the new human that will eventually have what we are calling the sense of self. The brain starts to do what we call thinking and by some time has formed the concept that exists distinctly from everything around it. You could take the whole series of events that led to this point in time and space and try to calculate the likelihood of it happening in exactly this way.

With me so far?

Now, we can imagine some distant science fiction future where someone found a way to replicate exactly the conditions that led to the existence of a particular human. If they did so, you could take all the events that led to the creation of the original and all the events that led up to the creation of the copy, and try to calculate the likelihood of the second event happening. If you've developed the capability of duplicating humans I suppose you would probably also have developed computers capable of doing calculations like that.

In which case, you would calculate a likelihood that would not be 1/∞.

 

[Mojo]

Do you accept that there is an exclusive, pre-existing, physics formula for the same ME?

No. You don't exist until you exist, and the concept of the particular you doesn't exist until you exist and someone (this includes yourself, of course) is aware that you exist. There is no "pre-existing formula", and no "pool of selves" from which you have been selected. The self is the result of the functioning of your nervous system, and is entirely defined by the state of your nervious system, but this doesn't mean that it was planned in advance. And the self is not exclusive; if two completely identical brains existed they would have identical selves.

The "pre-existing formula" and the "exclusive ME" you are alluding to appear to be another attempt to sneak your desired conclusion into your premises.

 

[pakeha]

[ . . . ] Do you accept that there is an exclusive, pre-existing, physics formula for the same ME?

I can't imagine that anyone here would accept such an idea, Jabba.
Remember how a sense of self is defined?

 

[Giordano]

Nay Sayer,
- Your statement suggests that we humans are pretty close to understanding and explaining everything -- that we're not missing anything important. Is that what you believe?

I think that the statement only indicates that "we" know certain things, like mortality is real, not everything. Nor does it claim that we know everything. Why do you think otherwise?

 

[xtifr]

OK. Do you accept that there is an exclusive, pre-existing, physics formula for the same ME?

What do you mean by "pre-existing"? That's the phrase here that troubles me most. You are a physical phenomenon. Your consciousness is an emergent property of the functioning of your brain. The atoms that make up your body and brain are not the same atoms that would make up a chemically identical copy. But I'm not seeing anything "pre-existing" except the chain of causality that lead to your existence here and now.

Furthermore, unlike, say, a rock, "you" are a constantly changing phenomenon. The cells in your body regenerate. New memories are stored in your brain, and change your consciousness. At what point does the food you eat become "you"? Which raises the question: what do you mean by "the same ME"? Frankly, that's a silly phrase. In some senses, a perfect copy of you created at this exact moment would be more "you" than the six-year-old child that eventually grew into what you are right this moment. Even though it would have a separate consciousness. (In sense, so did that six-year-old.)

 

[PixyMisa]

Nay Sayer,
- Your statement suggests that we humans are pretty close to understanding and explaining everything -- that we're not missing anything important. Is that what you believe?

It's a little more complicated than that. We don't know what dark matter is, or dark energy, or how to integrate general relativity with quantum mechanics.

We do know, however, that none of this affects our everyday lives. We know that there is no reincarnation, no afterlife of any kind. Quite apart from the problem that your argument is invalid and unsound in a quite surprising number of ways, we know for a fact that what you are arguing for is entirely impossible.

 

[Aepervius]

To make it in layman term, everything in the world is about interactions, fields. If it interact with us, then it is detectable as a field. On our level, brain and chemistry, we have a complete picture of the physic.

Jabba what you mean with your hypothesis of survival of the soul or whatever , would mean that there would be an interaction with the brain at death or shortly before death.

This cannot be a normal chemical reaction or it would have long been detected.

But since we have a complete mapping at those energy level and for those field, it cannot be anything remotely similar to what we discovered on our every day level otherwise it would have been detected in accelerator or theorized from the interaction possible.

In the very end that leaves only very weakly interacting particle, extremely short lived, or too heavy particle, none of which would interact with normal matter on our every day life (and death) without being detectable by particle accelerator.

That's the same content of the PM I sent you last week.

basically it compeltely destroy any afterlife claim, or even some other woo claim like the "brain as antena".

You can still believe in those, but you may not use normal physic as hypothesis for those. In other word , your premise of using Bayesian statistic is invalid.

 

[Jabba]

- My question:
Quote:
OK. Do you accept that there is an exclusive, pre-existing, physics formula for the same ME?

...Each brain would have a series of events that led up to it coming into existence, ultimately going back to the beginning of the universe, so actually calculating the likelihood of a particular brain coming into existence would not be practical. That doesn't mean you can declare the likelihood to be 1/∞.

For the first brain, the "physical formula" that includes with a particular sperm and egg meeting and combining their DNA, with all the variables both those things entail. Then the embryo would develop in the womb, with all the variables that entails.

In the third week of development the embryo would have the beginnings of what will become its brain. A good overview of this is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_development#Overview_of_brain_development

This is the part of the new human that will eventually have what we are calling the sense of self. The brain starts to do what we call thinking and by some time has formed the concept that exists distinctly from everything around it. You could take the whole series of events that led to this point in time and space and try to calculate the likelihood of it happening in exactly this way.

With me so far?

Now, we can imagine some distant science fiction future where someone found a way to replicate exactly the conditions that led to the existence of a particular human. If they did so, you could take all the events that led to the creation of the original and all the events that led up to the creation of the copy, and try to calculate the likelihood of the second event happening. If you've developed the capability of duplicating humans I suppose you would probably also have developed computers capable of doing calculations like that.

In which case, you would calculate a likelihood that would not be 1/∞.

Dave,
- I don't think you answered my question.

 

[Jabba]

...
- OK. Do you accept that there is an exclusive, pre-existing, physics formula for the same ME?

What do you mean by "pre-existing"? That's the phrase here that troubles me most. You are a physical phenomenon. Your consciousness is an emergent property of the functioning of your brain. The atoms that make up your body and brain are not the same atoms that would make up a chemically identical copy. But I'm not seeing anything "pre-existing" except the chain of causality that lead to your existence here and now...

xtifr,
- I probably didn't need to include the word "pre-existing"...
- Do we each have a physics formula exclusive to ourself?
- If we do (and time and space are indeed finite), even if that 'formula' includes the specific atoms (and other things?) that each brain is made of, I would be stuck with a finite number (albeit a HUMUNGUS number) of potential selves.
- As always, does that help?

 

[godless dave]

- My question:
Quote:
OK. Do you accept that there is an exclusive, pre-existing, physics formula for the same ME?

Dave,
- I don't think you answered my question.

Your question didn't really make sense. I answered it to the best of my ability.

The "physics" formula for you is all the events that led up to your birth.

The "physics" formula for a duplicate of you would be all the events leading up to the birth of the duplicate.

In both cases, the sense of self would be produced by the brain, which is produced by the biological process that creates human brains. In this hypothetical, the process would be identical each time, so the brains would be identical each time, so the senses of self would be identical each time.

The only way we could re-create the same you is by reanimating your corpse.

 

[pakeha]

xtifr,
- I probably didn't need to include the word "pre-existing"...
- Do we each have a physics formula exclusive to ourself?
- If we do (and time and space are indeed finite), even if that 'formula' includes the specific atoms (and other things?) that each brain is made of, I would be stuck with a finite number (albeit a HUMUNGUS number) of potential selves.
- As always, does that help?

Not really, Jabba.
Remember what a sense of self is?

 

[xtifr]

xtifr,
- I probably didn't need to include the word "pre-existing"...
- Do we each have a physics formula exclusive to ourself?

Hmm, the word "formula" is a bit funny. We are each the result of a series of causally linked physical events. But perhaps that's a detail not worth quibbling over.

- If we do (and time and space are indeed finite), even if that 'formula' includes the specific atoms (and other things?) that each brain is made of, I would be stuck with a finite number (albeit a HUMUNGUS number) of potential selves.
- As always, does that help?

Yes, that helps. I'm still not entirely sure our communication is misunderstanding-free, but if you're not going to try to inject infinity into the scientific model in places it doesn't belong, then I'm tentatively willing to move to the next step.

So, if your existence or mine is not infinitely improbable, but merely extraordinarily unlikely, where does that leave us?

In fact, if your proof still works without the assumption of infinite improbability, why don't we just move on to that version of the proof, since it will surely cover the case of infinite improbability as well, which renders the question moot.

 

[Mojo]

Do we each have a physics formula exclusive to ourself?

Yes, but only because we do not have the means to perfectly replicate a person. If we could perfectly replicate the state of a person's nervous system at a particular moment then we would perfectly replicate their "self" as it was at that particular moment.

 

[Giordano]

xtifr,
- I probably didn't need to include the word "pre-existing"...
- Do we each have a physics formula exclusive to ourself?
- If we do (and time and space are indeed finite), even if that 'formula' includes the specific atoms (and other things?) that each brain is made of, I would be stuck with a finite number (albeit a HUMUNGUS number) of potential selves.
- As always, does that help?

Are you describing the SM or your own model here? According to the SM there would be only one potential self given a single physically totally determined brain. Just one per brain. If there are two physically identical brains you would have two identical selfs. But different brains are physically different due to genetics, random events in development, and different experiences. Does your own model propose otherwise? If so, why?

 

[PixyMisa]

- Do we each have a physics formula exclusive to ourself?

Sure. It's the sum of the histories of our component particles.

 

[Jabba]

Sure. It's the sum of the histories of our component particles.

Pixy,
- If we were somehow able to recreate the history of your brain, would we create the "same you," or just an "identical you"?

 

[Jabba]

Yes, but only because we do not have the means to perfectly replicate a person. If we could perfectly replicate the state of a person's nervous system at a particular moment then we would perfectly replicate their "self" as it was at that particular moment.

Mojo,
- Would this "self" be the "same self," or just an identical self?

 

[Jabba]

...Yes, that helps. 1) I'm still not entirely sure our communication is misunderstanding-free, 2) but if you're not going to try to inject infinity into the scientific model in places it doesn't belong, then I'm tentatively willing to move to the next step...

xtifr,
- Re #1: Me neither.
- Re #2: Sorry about that -- I didn't mean to imply that I was discounting the possibility of infinity. I still suspect that there is no physical formula for ME (the same me). I'll try to make my argument against such a physical formula my next focus.

 

[godless dave]

Jabba, if I have a recipe for banana bread, can I use it to bake the same loaf twice? Or am I limited to baking separate, identical loaves?

 

[zooterkin]

Mojo,
- Would this "self" be the "same self," or just an identical self?

What do you think 'replicate' means?