Proof of Immortality II

[Agatha]

The way Jabba engages in 'debate' is enough to make the most patient and forbearing person flip their lid, climb a clocktower and take out the town.

Jabba, instead of fringe resetting to what is (essentially) the beginning of the thread, how about you:

1. Address the points that people are making, and

2. Provide some evidence for any of your ideas about immortality.

For the avoidance of doubt, the fact that people are all individual despite there being lots of us has nothing to do with immortality.

 

[zooterkin]

-
3. More specifically yet, I’m trying to essentially prove that the scientific belief that each potential human has only one finite life to live, at most, is wrong.

When are you going to provide anything that supports the idea that we might have more than one finite life to live?

 

[John Jones]

When are you going to provide anything that supports the idea that we might have more than one finite life to live?

Ooooh! Ooooh! I know!


Never.

 

[Akhenaten]

- Here’s my story.

Seldom told.


No, wait . . .

1. I’m trying to essentially prove immortality using Bayesian Statistics.

Whilst failing to realise that the thing for which you are claiming immortality hasn't been shown to exist in the first place.

2. More specifically, I’m trying to essentially prove that the scientific belief (A) -- that each of us humans has only one finite life to live -- is wrong.

Trouble is, your belief of what constitutes "we humans" has nothing whatsoever to do with what science understands.

Your version of "we humans" includes the yet-to-be-demonstrated component of immortal souls.

3. More specifically yet, I’m trying to essentially prove that the scientific belief that each potential human has only one finite life to live, at most, is wrong.

There's no point in trying to make ever more specific claims based on an overarching claim which fell flat on its face at the first hurdle.

4. I’ve been saying “essentially” because I’m only trying to show that the truth value of that scientific belief is extremely improbable – probably so improbable, as to approach zero.

Scientific belief???

Jabba, how many people do you know that have died?

How many of them are no longer still dead?

There's nothing scientific about it at all.

(If you guys know what I mean by this, but I’m not expressing it correctly, please let me know how it should be expressed. )

How are we supposed to let you know?

The only means of communication we have is this thread and you refuse to read it.

5. My current, more specific objective is to clarify what I mean by “potential,” and to show why that particular meaning is the appropriate meaning to use in the current dispute re how many different, potential human brains and experiencers there are.

We already know what you mean by "potential".

It means everything that you can imagine and includes even those things which you yourself regard as being impossible.

IOW, the Jabbanese word "potential" has no meaning in any Earth-based language.

6. The formula I’m using: P(A|me) = P(me|A)P(A)/((P(me|A)P(A)+P(me|~A)P(~A)).

It doesn't matter if you use Pythagoras' Theorem. The point which you refuse to grasp is that it's the values you're using that have no basis in reality.

7. The most important term in this formula – the one that I think simply trumps all others -- and the one that I’m currently addressing, is P(me|A).

What trumps everything is your refusal to accept that infinity isn't a number.

8. In order to determine the appropriate numerical entry for P(me|A) we need first to determine the number of actual human brains/experiencers currently existing, and divide that by the overall number of “potential” human brains/experiencers.

"We" have no such need.

9. My claim so far is that the overall number of potential human brains is infinite. (I accept that, technically speaking, infinity is not a “number” -- yet, it is a concept that I need to interject into this formula…)

"My math is completely wrong from the outset but I insist that we proceed as though it wasn't."

Srsly?

10. I may have to abandon the infinity effort as my argument for infinity may be too difficult to communicate effectively (or, it might even be wrong).

11. I’ve stuck with the infinity argument, so far, because I figured that the unimaginably-large-number argument requires that I show that I am a “special case” – and, that you guys are special cases -- is even more difficult to communicate effectively than is the infinity argument…

You've stuck with the infinity argument because it's a deflection from the question that, despite having been asked of you hundreds of times, you refuse even to acknowledge.

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

12. And, here we are.

Exactly where we started two years ago.

Any comment about how this reflects on your own theories concerning "truly effective debate"?

991

996

998


1004

Fortune does not include time travel.

Dave,

- Again … now this could be where I’ll have to agree to disagree.

Your stated position thus being that time travel is a part of fortune.

This'll end well.

This could be one of our basic divergences. I still think that my reasoning is correct -- I, simply, may not be able to communicate it effectively.

It's a basic divergence from reality.

The fact is, your reasoning is an incomprehensible mish-mash of poorly understood statistical theory, a refusal to accept number theory, religious dogmatism, adamant denial of the meanings of common words and self-imposed blindness to any explanation presented to you for where and how you've got it all wrong.

Mind you, your communication of the above has been extremely effective.

- Though, I’ll try anyway.

Just in case doing exactly the same thing over and over suddenly yields a different result.

- I’m suggesting that these potential persons who never had a chance due to timing are just as real (as potentials) as are those potential persons which in your figuring did have a chance due to timing.

We know. It's an idiotic suggestion.

The communal level of surprise is too small to measure.

- “And there -- but for fortune -- go you or (sic) I.”

I suspect that there are other explanations.

Whatever they are, I'm grateful for them

- And in reality, if you look more closely, you’ll suspect that the only ones who really had a chance (those that were not impossible) were those who were actually conceived…

It is known.

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.

 

[carlitos]

- Here’s my story.

1. I’m trying to essentially prove immortality using Bayesian Statistics.

And failing spectacularly.

(I accept that, technically speaking, infinity is not a “number” -- yet, it is a concept that I need to interject into this formula…)

I accept that, technically speaking, freedom is not a “number” -- yet, it is a concept that I need to interject into this formula…
I accept that, technically speaking, love is not a “number” -- yet, it is a concept that I need to interject into this formula…
I accept that, technically speaking, potato is not a “number” -- yet, it is a concept that I need to interject into this formula…
I accept that, technically speaking, togetherness is not a “number” -- yet, it is a concept that I need to interject into this formula…
I accept that, technically speaking, brightness is not a “number” -- yet, it is a concept that I need to interject into this formula…
I accept that, technically speaking, warfare is not a “number” -- yet, it is a concept that I need to interject into this formula…

 

[Monza]

I accept that, technically speaking, potato is not a “number” -- yet, it is a concept that I need to interject into this formula…

 

[jsfisher]

...
6. The formula I’m using: P(A|me) = P(me|A)P(A)/((P(me|A)P(A)+P(me|~A)P(~A)).

7. The most important term in this formula – the one that I think simply trumps all others -- and the one that I’m currently addressing, is P(me|A).
...

1. P(me|~A) is equally important. What would you estimate for it, and why?

2. Then there is just plain P(me). That really should be your starting place. What would you estimate for P(me) and why?

3. In ~A, there is no requirement that Jabba be immortal. Establishing that A is less probable than ~A does not get you where you want to go.

 

[Humots]

- Here’s my story.

1. I’m trying to essentially prove immortality using Bayesian Statistics.
2. More specifically, I’m trying to essentially prove that the scientific belief (A) -- that each of us humans has only one finite life to live -- is wrong.
3. More specifically yet, I’m trying to essentially prove that the scientific belief that each potential human has only one finite life to live, at most, is wrong.

4. I’ve been saying “essentially” because I’m only trying to show that the truth value of that scientific belief is extremely improbable – probably so improbable, as to approach zero. (If you guys know what I mean by this, but I’m not expressing it correctly, please let me know how it should be expressed. )

You should have started out by saying the bolded above instead of saying "essentially".

What happened to scientific model? Now it's scientific belief? Jabba, are you playing word games again?

6. The formula I’m using: P(A|me) = P(me|A)P(A)/((P(me|A)P(A)+P(me|~A)P(~A)).

7. The most important term in this formula – the one that I think simply trumps all others -- and the one that I’m currently addressing, is P(me|A).
8. In order to determine the appropriate numerical entry for P(me|A) we need first to determine the number of actual human brains/experiencers currently existing, and divide that by the overall number of “potential” human brains/experiencers.

9. My claim so far is that the overall number of potential human brains is infinite. (I accept that, technically speaking, infinity is not a “number” -- yet, it is a concept that I need to interject into this formula…)

You do not inject "concepts" into formulas. You inject values.

10. I may have to abandon the infinity effort as my argument for infinity may be too difficult to communicate effectively (or, it might even be wrong).

Gee, ya think?

11. I’ve stuck with the infinity argument, so far, because I figured that the unimaginably-large-number argument requires that I show that I am a “special case” – and, that you guys are special cases -- is even more difficult to communicate effectively than is the infinity argument…

So you decided to use a ridiculous argument to avoid trying to explain how you and we are "special cases"?

12. And, here we are.

Right back where we were at the beginning of the thread, two or so years ago. My, how time flies when you're having fun.

Again … now this could be where I’ll have to agree to disagree. This could be one of our basic divergences. I still think that my reasoning is correct -- I, simply, may not be able to communicate it effectively.

You'll have to agree to disagree? What about the rest of us? We're not agreeing to disagree.

You don't get to dismiss objections so easily, Jabba.

 

[Loss Leader]

- I’m suggesting that these potential persons who never had a chance due to timing are just as real (as potentials) as are those potential persons which in your figuring did have a chance due to timing.

So, what would you estimate is the chance of a potential person who never had a chance. I estimate it to be zero. How does adding zero to your probability change it in any way?

Also, everything everybody else said including the unrebutted point that proving ~A wouldn't be meaningful in proving immortality.

 

[Humots]

9. My claim so far is that the overall number of potential human brains is infinite. (I accept that, technically speaking, infinity is not a “number” -- yet, it is a concept that I need to interject into this formula…)

Jabba, I think you are suffering from a fundamental misconception concerning probability.

Even if you are talking about an infinite set of "persons", you cannot assume the probability of choosing a particular person at random is zero.

You seem to be thinking:

(1) given a set of N elements, if I choose one element at random, the probability that I will choose a particular element is 1/N.

(2) If the set is infinite, then the probability that I will choose a particular element at random is 1/infinity = 0.

(3) Therefore, for an infinite set, the probability of choosing any element at random is zero.

Statement (1) is wrong. The probability of choosing a particular element at random from a set of N elements need not be 1/N.

The only requirement is that the sum of probabilities of choosing each element sum to 1.

Suppose I choose randomly from the set of numbers S = {2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12} by rolling a pair of dice.

Is the probabilty of choosing 7 given by 1/11? No, it's 1/6.

The same is true for an infinite set. If each positive integer in the set {1, 2, 3, ...} was assigned the probability 1/2ⁱ where i is the integer, the series 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... would sum to 1.

Note: this was first pointed out by jt512, and I referred to it in this post back in March of this year. Are jt512 and I on Ignore?

This is a case where the probability of choosing a particular element of an infinite set at random is NOT zero.

Other examples involving infinite sets exist, such as the Normal Distribution, which (IIRC) assigns a non-zero probability to every real number.

So (1) is wrong, which shoots down (2), (3) and your whole "infinite" argument.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Mr. Savage:

Why not simply present the evidence that convinces you that the "soul" exists, and is "immortal"?

 

[Filippo Lippi]

He apparently has a certificate in stats, what more evidence do you need?

 

[pakeha]

- Here’s my story.

1. I’m trying to essentially prove immortality using Bayesian Statistics.
2. More specifically, I’m trying to essentially prove that the scientific belief (A) -- that each of us humans has only one finite life to live -- is wrong.
3. More specifically yet, I’m trying to essentially prove that the scientific belief that each potential human has only one finite life to live, at most, is wrong.

4. I’ve been saying “essentially” because I’m only trying to show that the truth value of that scientific belief is extremely improbable – probably so improbable, as to approach zero. (If you guys know what I mean by this, but I’m not expressing it correctly, please let me know how it should be expressed. )

5. My current, more specific objective is to clarify what I mean by “potential,” and to show why that particular meaning is the appropriate meaning to use in the current dispute re how many different, potential human brains and experiencers there are.

6. The formula I’m using: P(A|me) = P(me|A)P(A)/((P(me|A)P(A)+P(me|~A)P(~A)).

7. The most important term in this formula – the one that I think simply trumps all others -- and the one that I’m currently addressing, is P(me|A).
8. In order to determine the appropriate numerical entry for P(me|A) we need first to determine the number of actual human brains/experiencers currently existing, and divide that by the overall number of “potential” human brains/experiencers.
9. My claim so far is that the overall number of potential human brains is infinite. (I accept that, technically speaking, infinity is not a “number” -- yet, it is a concept that I need to interject into this formula…)
10. I may have to abandon the infinity effort as my argument for infinity may be too difficult to communicate effectively (or, it might even be wrong).
11. I’ve stuck with the infinity argument, so far, because I figured that the unimaginably-large-number argument requires that I show that I am a “special case” – and, that you guys are special cases -- is even more difficult to communicate effectively than is the infinity argument…
12. And, here we are.

991

996

998

1004Dave,

- Again … now this could be where I’ll have to agree to disagree. This could be one of our basic divergences. I still think that my reasoning is correct -- I, simply, may not be able to communicate it effectively.
- Though, I’ll try anyway.

- I’m suggesting that these potential persons who never had a chance due to timing are just as real (as potentials) as are those potential persons which in your figuring did have a chance due to timing.
- “And there -- but for fortune -- go you or (sic) I.”
- And in reality, if you look more closely, you’ll suspect that the only ones who really had a chance (those that were not impossible) were those who were actually conceived…

Here's your problem, Jabba.


7. The most important term in this formula – the one that I think simply trumps all others -- and the one that I’m currently addressing, is P(me|A).


me, or sense of self, isn't a factor, it's part of consciousness, an emergent property of a functioning neurosystem.

 

[Toontown]

Jabba, I think you are suffering from a fundamental misconception concerning probability.

Even if you are talking about an infinite set of "persons", you cannot assume the probability of choosing a particular person at random is zero.

You seem to be thinking:

<details of what Jabba seems to be thinking, and why it is wrong - snipped>

Congratulations. You have managed to show that the probability of a particular brain is not exactly zero.

Only very, very close to zero.

But not close enough, apparently, to pique the curiosity of a "skeptic".

Actually, I'm pretty sure Jabba has been so stubbornly arguing for N=infinity simply because it short-circuits the equally stubborn and vapid argument that his brain's probability is incalculable because 1/N is not precisely known, therefore the entire formula is useless.

 

[Akhenaten]

Actually, I'm pretty sure Jabba has been so stubbornly arguing for N=infinity simply because it short-circuits the equally stubborn and vapid argument that his brain's probability is incalculable because 1/N is not precisely known, therefore the entire formula is useless.

 

[Humots]

- Here’s my story.

1. I’m trying to essentially prove immortality using Bayesian Statistics.
2. More specifically, I’m trying to essentially prove that the scientific belief (A) -- that each of us humans has only one finite life to live -- is wrong.
3. More specifically yet, I’m trying to essentially prove that the scientific belief that each potential human has only one finite life to live, at most, is wrong.

Jabba, you need to clarify your sudden use of the term scientific belief

Before, you said scientific model, meaning (I assume) the full set of beliefs held by science, including "each of us humans has only one finite life to live".

Now you say scientific belief. By this do you mean only "each of us humans has only one finite life to live"?

If so, you have massively redefined P(me|A).

 

[Mojo]

Actually, I'm pretty sure Jabba has been so stubbornly arguing for N=infinity simply because it short-circuits the equally stubborn and vapid argument that his brain's probability is incalculable because 1/N is not precisely known, therefore the entire formula is useless.

No, he needs infinity in there because he already exists.

 

[xtifr]

1. I’m trying to essentially prove immortality using Bayesian Statistics.

Yes, and you've gone badly wrong at two points.

9. My claim so far is that the overall number of potential human brains is infinite. (I accept that, technically speaking, infinity is not a “number” -- yet, it is a concept that I need to interject into this formula…)

This is the first place you went wrong. The number is not infinite.

10. I may have to abandon the infinity effort as my argument for infinity may be too difficult to communicate effectively (or, it might even be wrong).

There's no may about it. You have to abandon it because it's wrong.

11. I’ve stuck with the infinity argument, so far, because I figured that the unimaginably-large-number argument requires that I show that I am a “special case” – and, that you guys are special cases -- is even more difficult to communicate effectively than is the infinity argument…

Indeed, this is the second place you went wrong: assuming you could show you, or any of us, are somehow special. This is where you invoke the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.

12. And, here we are.

Indeed, here we are. Your thesis has been completely disproven. The only question remaining is: will you ever be willing to realize it?

 

[Loss Leader]

Congratulations. You have managed to show that the probability of a particular brain is not exactly zero.

Only very, very close to zero.

But not close enough, apparently, to pique the curiosity of a "skeptic".

That's very dismissively stated. I think the evidence shows that scientists and skeptics are massively interested in the chain of causation that goes into the production of a single person - from doctors who study obstetrics to biologists who study evolution to chemists who study how complex protein molecules can form to physicists who study the conditions in the universe that allow for life.

There is a difference between 1) curiosity about life; 2) arguing that a rare event that already happened is somehow logically impossible.

 

[Toontown]

No, he needs infinity in there because he already exists.

All observations already exist. That's what makes them observations.