Proof of Immortality II

[Agatha]

The odds of Jabba addressing this post are less than the odds that souls exist and are immortal.

I recognise this, but there is no paint currently drying in my house that I could watch.

 

[jond]

I recognise this, but there is no paint currently drying in my house that I could watch.

Yeah, I know. Nevertheless, I greatly appreciate your posts.

 

[pakeha]

[ . . . ]- I’m just claiming that the odds of your experiencer existing at any particular time depends, in part, upon the number of potential alternative experiencers – which includes all those potential alternatives that have not yet been “rolled.”

No, Jabba.
Remember that an experiencer is neither more nor less than an emergent property of a functioning neurosystem.
This means that "rolls" have nothing to do with the subject.

 

[Jabba]

The number of combinations possible on that roll, not on all rolls in the future.

The only possible experiencers at a given point in time are those that can be created by sexual reproduction of all the living humans of reproductive age at that point in time. That's a finite number.

My grandfather couldn't have been born in 1980, because his parents weren't alive then.

My niece couldn't have been born in 1970, because her parents weren't alive yet.

Dave,
- What is the number you would substitute for P(me|A) in the Bayes formula of P(A|me) = P(me|A)P(A)/(P(me|A)P(A)+P(me|~A)P(~A))?

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- What is the number you would substitute for P(me|A) in the Bayes formula of P(A|me) = P(me|A)P(A)/(P(me|A)P(A)+P(me|~A)P(~A))?

I'd start with the number of human males of reproductive age alive in October of 1969 and the number of human females of reproductive age alive in October of 1969, then look up whatever math is necessary to give the number of possible male-female pairs.

This would be a gross overestimate of the denominator, because it would assume every male had a chance to mate with every female alive. I'd have to figure out how to narrow it down somehow to account for geography and eliminate the number of people of reproductive age who were infertile.

Once I did that, I'd have to figure out how many possible ways there were for paternal and maternal DNA to combine for each possible pair.

ETA: According to this site, the total world population in 1969 was 3,616,108,749. So that's our starting point.

 

[Akhenaten]

Dave,
- What is the number you would substitute for P(me|A) in the Bayes formula of P(A|me) = P(me|A)P(A)/(P(me|A)P(A)+P(me|~A)P(~A))?

42, obviously.

 

[carlitos]

42, obviously.

In honor of Jackie Robinson. A no-brainer.

 

[abaddon]

I'd start with the number of human males of reproductive age alive in October of 1969 and the number of human females of reproductive age alive in October of 1969, then look up whatever math is necessary to give the number of possible male-female pairs.

This would be a gross overestimate of the denominator, because it would assume every male had a chance to mate with every female alive. I'd have to figure out how to narrow it down somehow to account for geography and eliminate the number of people of reproductive age who were infertile.

Once I did that, I'd have to figure out how many possible ways there were for paternal and maternal DNA to combine for each possible pair.

ETA: According to this site, the total world population in 1969 was 3,616,108,749. So that's our starting point.

And the take into account that in 1969, while life expectancy was about 70, males remain reproductive for all of that time while females do not.

Meh. That's science. Jabba will pay it no heed

 

[godless dave]

And the take into account that in 1969, while life expectancy was about 70, males remain reproductive for all of that time while females do not.

Yep. So let's say males age 11 and up and females from age 11 to 50.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I recognise this, but there is no paint currently drying in my house that I could watch.

There are some weeds growing in my south lot--shall I take some video?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Dave,
- What is the number you would substitute for P(me|A) in the Bayes formula of P(A|me) = P(me|A)P(A)/(P(me|A)P(A)+P(me|~A)P(~A))?

Jab:

What evidence has led you to believe that the "soul" exists, and is "immortal"?

 

[Jabba]

916

- Let’s try it this way.
- The “odds” of something happening depends, in part, upon the number of alternatives possible. For instance, the odds of getting a total of seven when rolling a pair of dice depends, in part, upon the number of combinations possible.
- I’m just claiming that the odds of your experiencer existing at any particular time depends, in part, upon the number of potential alternative experiencers – which includes all those potential alternatives that have not yet been “rolled.”

920

The number of combinations possible on that roll, not on all rolls in the future.
The only possible experiencers at a given point in time are those that can be created by sexual reproduction of all the living humans of reproductive age at that point in time. That's a finite number.
My grandfather couldn't have been born in 1980, because his parents weren't alive then.
My niece couldn't have been born in 1970, because her parents weren't alive yet.

927

Dave,
- What is the number you would substitute for P(me|A) in the Bayes formula of P(A|me) = P(me|A)P(A)/(P(me|A)P(A)+P(me|~A)P(~A))?

928

I'd start with the number of human males of reproductive age alive in October of 1969 and the number of human females of reproductive age alive in October of 1969, then look up whatever math is necessary to give the number of possible male-female pairs.
This would be a gross overestimate of the denominator, because it would assume every male had a chance to mate with every female alive. I'd have to figure out how to narrow it down somehow to account for geography and eliminate the number of people of reproductive age who were infertile.
Once I did that, I'd have to figure out how many possible ways there were for paternal and maternal DNA to combine for each possible pair.
ETA: According to this site, the total world population in 1969 was 3,616,108,749. So that's our starting point.

Dave,
- In determining the number of potential experiencers, wouldn’t you have to count (at least) every possible combination of sperm cell and ovum throughout human history? All those potential experiencers from your Dad’s sperm cells and Cleopatra ova (all quintillion of them) just never had a chance.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

,
- In determining the number of potential experiencers, wouldn’t you have to count (at least) every possible combination of sperm cell and ovum throughout human history?

Perhaps it's something that you could do with your "two hours a day?" More worthwhile than trolling a sceptical forum I'd wager.

 

[godless dave]

916

920

927

928Dave,
- In determining the number of potential experiencers, wouldn’t you have to count (at least) every possible combination of sperm cell and ovum throughout human history? All those potential experiencers from your Dad’s sperm cells and Cleopatra ova (all quintillion of them) just never had a chance.

It's precisely because they never had a chance that we don't need to count them. The only experiencers with a possibility of existing are the ones that could be created by a combination of sperms and eggs that were in existence at the same time.

My dad and Cleopatra weren't alive at the same time. There are no potential offspring from their union.

For all we know, my dad's existence was dependent on Cleopatra's existence centuries earlier.

 

[carlitos]

Well, that seems obvious. I guess you could make an exception for the few decades where cryogenics has been an option, but seriously, it's a rounding error at best.

 

[Akhenaten]

Perhaps it's something that you could do with your "two hours a day?" More worthwhile than trolling a sceptical forum I'd wager.

Only this and nothing more.

 

[carlitos]

All those potential experiencers from your Dad’s sperm cells and Cleopatra ova (all quintillion of them) just never had a chance.

As stupid as this imaginary cross-global, cross-millennial breeding hypothesis is without the math, you don't even have the math right.

Dad produces about 500 Billion sperm in his lifetime, including the seed spilled in the shower and what not. Cleopatra, if she were the healthiest woman in the Empire, could have released 500 mature eggs in her lifetime. That's 250 Trillion, or about four orders of magnitude less than a Quintillion.

Maybe you could get a calculator and Wikipedia for your next 2-hour session (the above took me around 3 minutes)

 

[Akhenaten]

916

920

927

928Dave,
- In determining the number of potential experiencers, wouldn’t you have to count (at least) every possible combination of sperm cell and ovum throughout human history?

Yes.

To date (since 50,000 BCE) the number of people that have ever lived is about 106 billion.

THAT is a fairly decent representation of "every possible combination of sperm cell and ovum throughout human history".

You may note that it's considerably less than infinity.

All those potential experiencers from your Dad’s sperm cells and Cleopatra ova (all quintillion of them) just never had a chance.

Dave's dad never met Cleopatra.

Trust me, I'm in a position to know these things.

 

[Jabba]

It's precisely because they never had a chance that we don't need to count them. The only experiencers with a possibility of existing are the ones that could be created by a combination of sperms and eggs that were in existence at the same time.

My dad and Cleopatra weren't alive at the same time. There are no potential offspring from their union.

For all we know, my dad's existence was dependent on Cleopatra's existence centuries earlier.

Dave,
- Would you say that a sperm cell from you and an ovum from Kate Middleton, together, do not represent a potential brain, and therefore, a potential experiencer?

 

[Akhenaten]

Dave,
- Would you say that a sperm cell from you and an ovum from Kate Middleton, together, do not represent a potential brain, and therefore, a potential experiencer?

Jabba, would you please return to reality and answer the consensus question?

Where is your evidence for the existence of immortal souls?​