Proof of Immortality II

[JoeMorgue]

- I assume that you assume that "impossible" precludes "potential." Correct?

WORDS MEAN THINGS!

 

[zooterkin]

And I think you'll find that Jabba has been trying to use this fact to argue that the number of potential brains is infinite, because even if the number of discrete organizations is finite, duplicate organizations are still different brains.

There's that equivocation again.

I think Jabba's real problem is lurking in the immortal soul assumption.

You don't say; if only someone had pointed that out before...

 

[Jabba]

Pointing out that two identical brains would not be the same brains does not mean their identities are not determined exclusively by their physical organization.

- How about their experiencers? Are their experiencers determined exclusively by their physical organization? Are their experiencers different from each other?

Yes. Every characteristic of the experiencer is determined by the brain, except for its location, which is obviously determined by the location of the brain.

...
Dave,
- Does the "Yes" apply to the last two questions immediately above?

...
Generally speaking, if I quote a question from somebody, and then type something immediately underneath that quote, I am answering the quoted question...

- There were three questions in my post, but you quoted only two of them. I need an answer to the third question -- i.e., "Are their experiencers different from each other?"

 

[godless dave]

- There were three questions in my post, but you quoted only two of them. I need an answer to the third question -- i.e., "Are their experiencers different from each other?"

The answer to that was included in my answer to the other two, plus it's a question I have answered several times already in this thread.

The experiencers would be two separate, identical experiencers.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Oh my God how is it that you have such a hard time with this!?

If you have two identical brains with two identical sets of sensory input they are going to have identical "experiences" which we all know you are just using as the umpteenth attempt at sneaking a code word for "Soul" into the discussion.

 

[godless dave]

If the ability to make identical copies meant there were an infinite number of potential copies, then that would mean there are an infinite number of potential Volkswagen Beetles. Does that mean the scientific model for how Volkswagen Beetles are created is wrong?

 

[carlitos]

Seriously, you don't even have to be a toddler to get this. A baby can understand that 2 cheerios are 2 separate, but identical things.

 

[Akhenaten]

I think Jabba's real problem is lurking in the immortal soul assumption.

Almost impossible to believe that nobody ever mentioned this before.

Although the potential was always there.

 

[Akhenaten]

Dave,
- The overall Bayesian formula seeks the posterior probability of a given hypothesis, given a newly considered, relevant outcome (event).

Unfortunately, your argument lacks:

1. An hypothesis,
   
   
2. Anything newly considered, or
   
   
3. a relevant outcome.

Apart from that, you're doing swimmingly shark jumpingly well.

Dave,
- Does the "Yes" apply to the last two questions immediately above?

No.

 

[Toontown]

If the ability to make identical copies meant there were an infinite number of potential copies, then that would mean there are an infinite number of potential Volkswagen Beetles. Does that mean the scientific model for how Volkswagen Beetles are created is wrong?

Considered in an informational vacuum? Of course not. However, it would mean the expected value of a particular potential volkswagen beetle is 1/infinity.

 

[Akhenaten]

Considered in an informational vacuum? Of course not. However, it would mean the expected value of a particular potential volkswagen beetle is 1/infinity.

Infinity is not a number, and therefore cannot serve as a divisor.

 

[Toontown]

Infinity is not a number, and therefore cannot serve as a divisor.

Infinities often arise as divisors in mathematical calculations. If you don't want the math to grind to a stupid halt when that happens, just create an axiom:

The limit of 1/x as x approaches Infinity is 0

 

[godless dave]

Considered in an informational vacuum? Of course not. However, it would mean the expected value of a particular potential volkswagen beetle is 1/infinity.

But Jabba's Bayes equation doesn't depend on an expected value, it depends on a likelihood of it existing.

 

[Akhenaten]

Please stop reposting dialogue. It's redundant and annoying. We can all read the thread for ourselves; there is no need to repost post the parts you like best or whatever.

It's Jabbanetics™, and it matters not one whit that you and I and everyone else can see straight through its pretence. As far as Jabba is concerned he's having the one-on-one debate that he's always craved, despite already having had it. Twice.

 

[Akhenaten]

Infinities often arise as divisors in mathematical calculations.

Looking forward to seeing some examples of this, along with the explanations of how they apply to Jabba's Theory of Immortality™.

If you don't want the math to grind to a stupid halt when that happens, just create an axiom:

The limit of 1/x as x approaches Infinity is 0

That's nothing like stating that 1/∞ is a valid expression.

 

[jsfisher]

Infinities often arise as divisors in mathematical calculations. If you don't want the math to grind to a stupid halt when that happens, just create an axiom:

The limit of 1/x as x approaches Infinity is 0

The existence of a mathematically consistent extended real line number system does not make "infinity" into a number, nor did you establish it as relevant to this discussion, nor is your claimed axiom an axiom.

Then again, nothing so far in this thread has been established as being infinite (or infinitely many or infinitely variable), so this aside is rather moot, and the original point stands.

 

[carlitos]

Infinities often arise as divisors in mathematical calculations. If you don't want the math to grind to a stupid halt when that happens, just create an axiom:

The limit of 1/x as x approaches Infinity is 0

No and yes. Jabba is not doing the limit thing.

 

[Toontown]

But Jabba's Bayes equation doesn't depend on an expected value, it depends on a likelihood of it existing.

That's just a special case of the same principle.

0 = x not observed

1 = x observed

n = number of trials

(0+0+0+0+0+1)/n=1/6=0.166...

expectation of observing x = 0.166...

 

[Akhenaten]

1221xt,
- I assume that you assume that "impossible" precludes "potential." Correct?

Isis wept, Jabba.

"Impossible" precludes everything.

No metaphysics involved. No arcane statistics. No fine points of jurisprudence.

Just plain, simple English.

I wish the terminal optimist who said "there's no such thing as a stupid question" could read this thread. I'm sure there'd be a revision.

 

[Akhenaten]

That's just a special case of the same principle.

0 = x not observed

1 = x observed

n = number of trials

(0+0+0+0+0+1)/n=1/6=0.166...

expectation of observing x = 0.166...

This proves immortality, does it?

Huzzah!