Proof of Immortality II

[pakeha]

Dave,
- Just to set the stage: [ . . . ]
- I know that everyone has been asking me to move on to that issue, but I was hoping to clear up the infinity issue first.

- Hopefully, I’ll be able to organize that better, and get on with the “me” vs “anyone” issue in my next posting.

Was this post supposed to "clear up the infinity issue"?
How?

 

[Jabba]

Dave,
- Just to set the stage:
- In arguing towards an infinite number of potential selves, I had been claiming that combinations of sperm cells and ova from your dad and Cleopatra, respectively, represented potential selves. You said that such would require time travel, which is impossible. I came back with impossible does not preclude potential…

And you're wrong…

- It certainly sounds like I’m wrong – but, there’s more here than first meets the eye (ear?). Though, so far, I haven’t been able to divulge effectively what’s hidden below…

- I’ll try again, one step at a time.
1. The basic idea is that every combination of actual human sperm cell and actual human ovum represents a different potential human/self – i.e., if we could somehow combine each of these two, we’d get new, and different persons each time.
2. The vast majority of these potential persons, of course, never see the light of day – for numerous reasons.
3. And, even if the ‘parents’ (of these reproduction cells) happen to live at the same time, the vast majority of such parents never do meet, and the potential offspring of their pairings are themselves impossible…
4. IOW, all past potential pairing (of reproduction cells) that never occurred, were impossible.
5. ISOW, by the logic you’re using, any past potential offspring that did not occur was impossible.

- Where do you disagree?

 

[Resume]

- It certainly sounds like I’m wrong . . .

This is a very good start. And a very good stopping place.

 

[jsfisher]

...
4. IOW, all past potential pairing (of reproduction cells) that never occurred, were impossible.
5. ISOW, by the logic you’re using, any past potential offspring that did not occur was impossible.

- Where do you disagree?

Wrong tense.

 

[godless dave]

- It certainly sounds like I’m wrong – but, there’s more here than first meets the eye (ear?). Though, so far, I haven’t been able to divulge effectively what’s hidden below…

- I’ll try again, one step at a time.
1. The basic idea is that every combination of actual human sperm cell and actual human ovum represents a different potential human/self – i.e., if we could somehow combine each of these two, we’d get new, and different persons each time.
2. The vast majority of these potential persons, of course, never see the light of day – for numerous reasons.
3. And, even if the ‘parents’ (of these reproduction cells) happen to live at the same time, the vast majority of such parents never do meet, and the potential offspring of their pairings are themselves impossible…
4. IOW, all past potential pairing (of reproduction cells) that never occurred, were impossible.
5. ISOW, by the logic you’re using, any past potential offspring that did not occur was impossible.

- Where do you disagree?

I disagree with #4. It was not impossible for two people, both alive and of reproductive age, to meet and reproduce in AD 1969. Even if they never did meet, it was not impossible for them to do so. There are multiple possible scenarios where it could have happened.

It was impossible for someone alive in 150 BC to meet and reproduce with someone alive in AD 1969. There is no possible scenario where that could have happened.

 

[abaddon]

- It certainly sounds like I’m wrong – but, there’s more here than first meets the eye (ear?). Though, so far, I haven’t been able to divulge effectively what’s hidden below…

- I’ll try again, one step at a time.
1. The basic idea is that every combination of actual human sperm cell and actual human ovum represents a different potential human/self – i.e., if we could somehow combine each of these two, we’d get new, and different persons each time.

In much the same way that every combination of velociraptor and duck billed platypus sperm and ovum represent the famed platysaurus or possibly velocipus. No.

2. The vast majority of these potential persons, of course, never see the light of day – for numerous reasons.

And are hence not "potential" anything. By definition they are not potential, or possible, or anything more than imaginings.

3. And, even if the ‘parents’ (of these reproduction cells) happen to live at the same time, the vast majority of such parents never do meet, and the potential offspring of their pairings are themselves impossible…

Nope. If they parents coexist in the same time, a coupling is at least possible and unlikely as it may be, it is possible that I might get to invade Katie Perry's underwear. This is not true of Cleopatra, and can never be true. You are simply attempting to include impossibilities as being possibilities just to shore up your argument.

4. IOW, all past potential pairing (of reproduction cells) that never occurred, were impossible.

No. Just no. None of us can go back and seduce Cleopatra. It is not possible.

5. ISOW, by the logic you’re using, any past potential offspring that did not occur was impossible.

No. Many combinations of sperm and ovum were possible when you or I were conceived. You and I happen to be the combination which succeeded in our respective cases. There could well have been other combinations which could have succeeded. None of these would include Cleopatra.

- Where do you disagree?

Everywhere.

 

[Jabba]

...And, we're really asking, "What is the likelihood (in a random universe) that all the factors necessary for leading to my current existence would occur?...

Obviously there's no way to give a precise answer to that question, but we can give a lower bound. It's greater than one over the total number of possible arrangements of all particles in the universe over the time period where matter can exist (after the rise of the strong and weak nuclear forces, and before the decay of the last proton). I might actually limit it to the stelliferous period of the universe (where stars exist), but I won't insist on that, since the important bottom line is: that number is finite.
And yes, as John Jones points out, another important question is: can you provide any evidence at all that immortality exists?

xt,
- Just maybe, my previous response to Dave will help re the "infinity" issue. I claim that impossible does not preclude potential, and I try to explain such a remark in that note to Dave.
- Otherwise, I'll now try to explain why I think that "unimaginably large" also works.

- It's clear that the conditional likelihood of me currently existing (given "A") is unimaginably small. However, the conditional probability of someone/anyone existing (given A) must be close to 1.00 (I guess)...
- Consequently, we have an issue as to me being "special" enough to warrant using my specific likelihood in the formula instead of someone/anyone's likelihood.
- Does that address your objection?

 

[Jabba]

...Would you like to propose a Bayesian formula for the likelyhood of your argument being correct given that you exist?
*NB: I'm not saying that you are.

Mojo,
- This might partially answer your question...
- For P(me|~A) I insert a guess of 50%, and for P(~A) I insert 1%.

 

[abaddon]

Oh well, LCP status evades me, apparently.

 

[Jabba]

Jabba, have you thought about the implications for your agument if you are correct*, that souls are actual things that somehow inhabit bodies, and there is an infinite number of potential souls? You are arguing that because there is an infinite number of potential souls, if they ony have a single finite existence then the likelyhood of your particular soul inhabiting your body is zero because in any formula for the likelyhood of that particular soul inhabiting your body you need to divide by the number of potential souls, which is infinity. But by the same argument, if there is an infinite number of potential souls that are eternal or have more than one finite existence, then the likelyhood of your particular soul inhabiting your body is still zero, because while the universe contains a finite amount of material and has existed for a finite amount of time you still have to put infinity into your formula to account for the number of potential souls...

Mojo,
- I see your point, but it’s my current existence that’s at issue.

 

[Giordano]

Jabba, have you thought about the implications for your agument if you are correct*, that souls are actual things that somehow inhabit bodies, and there is an infinite number of potential souls? You are arguing that because there is an infinite number of potential souls, if they ony have a single finite existence then the likelyhood of your particular soul inhabiting your body is zero because in any formula for the likelyhood of that particular soul inhabiting your body you need to divide by the number of potential souls, which is infinity. But by the same argument, if there is an infinite number of potential souls that are eternal or have more than one finite existence, then the likelyhood of your particular soul inhabiting your body is still zero, because while the universe contains a finite amount of material and has existed for a finite amount of time you still have to put infinity into your formula to account for the number of potential souls.

Would you like to propose a Bayesian formula for the likelyhood of your argument being correct given that you exist?





*NB: I'm not saying that you are.

Great point! It appears that Jabba's model has exactly the same problem that he falsely attributes to the scientific model. For the same reason. Except the scientific model is not as he proposes, so it doesn't have this problem at all.

 

[Giordano]

- It certainly sounds like I’m wrong – but, there’s more here than first meets the eye (ear?). Though, so far, I haven’t been able to divulge effectively what’s hidden below…

- I’ll try again, one step at a time.
1. The basic idea is that every combination of actual human sperm cell and actual human ovum represents a different potential human/self – i.e., if we could somehow combine each of these two, we’d get new, and different persons each time.
2. The vast majority of these potential persons, of course, never see the light of day – for numerous reasons.
3. And, even if the ‘parents’ (of these reproduction cells) happen to live at the same time, the vast majority of such parents never do meet, and the potential offspring of their pairings are themselves impossible…
4. IOW, all past potential pairing (of reproduction cells) that never occurred, were impossible.
5. ISOW, by the logic you’re using, any past potential offspring that did not occur was impossible.

- Where do you disagree?

Are you thinking that we just didn't understand you at first and maybe if you wrote loud enough and repeat it we would "get" it? No, we all understand you, and you are increasingly wrong.

At any given coitis, one of my many million sperm may fertilize that month's ovum from my wife, so each combination has 1 chance in a million of becoming a fertilized zygote this coitis (assuming we produce a child this time). Each combination is has a real, if low potential of actually occurring. The chance of one of my sperm fertilizing last month's ovum is virtually zero (unless we froze it), so the potential combinations of last month's ovum with this month's sperm are essentially zero. The chances of a combination of this month's sperm with Cleo's ovum is even closer to zero, and the potential of forming the human beings resulting from the corresponding fertilized zygotes is near zero. So there is a big difference between the parings that might have occurred (are potential), and those which never could (are not potential).

I like the dice analogy others have given you more than once: if you throw a standard numbered pair of six-sided dice, the chance of getting a 2 is 1/12, of a 3 is 2/12. etc. But the chance of throwing a 24 is zero. There is a tiny chance of the dice staying on edge, so you might even want to include this tiny chance in you overall calculations (although you would have to insert it in your calculation of overall probability as small indeed). But the chance of getting a 24 is zero. Zero potential of 24 occurring. Impossible.

Similarly, the chance of me creating a specific pairing of gametes and producing the corresponding child with my wife (at least when we were younger) was small, the chance of me having a child with Scarlett Johansson even smaller, and with the wife of Putin smaller still (okay, perhaps we should invert the last two), but all of these combinations had some above zero, if very very tiny, potential. But there is zero potential of any of the children I could have produced with Cleopatra, because I couldn't (zero potential) because she is dead and there is no time travel. Plus, I don't think she would have be attracted to me.

Impossible events by definition have zero potential. By definition.

 

[Giordano]

I should add, given your training in statistics (remember that?) that impossible is not the same as possible, but having low probability. The chance of me drawing the King of Hearts from a standard card deck is possible, but low (1:52). The chance of me drawing a one ton Miata from a standard card deck is impossible.

 

[Giordano]

Mojo,
- I see your point, but it’s my current existence that’s at issue.

You just argued that your current existence (= 1) was only relevant to test (using Bayesian theory) if a given theory predicting your existence was correct. You used your incorrect interpretation of the Scientific Model to state that the predictions of your existence by the SM were so small that it must be incorrect, given your actual existence. Now you are saying that your own theory, which has exactly the same problems that you have incorrectly assigned to the SM, is not analogous. Would you please explain why you think that the reasoning is different in these two cases, preferably in more detail? Thanks?

 

[pakeha]

- It certainly sounds like I’m wrong – but, there’s more here than first meets the eye (ear?). Though, so far, I haven’t been able to divulge effectively what’s hidden below…

- I’ll try again, one step at a time.
1. The basic idea is that every combination of actual human sperm cell and actual human ovum represents a different potential human/self – i.e., if we could somehow combine each of these two, we’d get new, and different persons each time.
2. The vast majority of these potential persons, of course, never see the light of day – for numerous reasons.
3. And, even if the ‘parents’ (of these reproduction cells) happen to live at the same time, the vast majority of such parents never do meet, and the potential offspring of their pairings are themselves impossible…
4. IOW, all past potential pairing (of reproduction cells) that never occurred, were impossible.
5. ISOW, by the logic you’re using, any past potential offspring that did not occur was impossible.

- Where do you disagree?

In much the same way that every combination of velociraptor and duck billed platypus sperm and ovum represent the famed platysaurus or possibly velocipus. No.

And are hence not "potential" anything. By definition they are not potential, or possible, or anything more than imaginings.

Nope. If they parents coexist in the same time, a coupling is at least possible and unlikely as it may be, it is possible that I might get to invade Katie Perry's underwear. This is not true of Cleopatra, and can never be true. You are simply attempting to include impossibilities as being possibilities just to shore up your argument.
No. Just no. None of us can go back and seduce Cleopatra. It is not possible.

No. Many combinations of sperm and ovum were possible when you or I were conceived. You and I happen to be the combination which succeeded in our respective cases. There could well have been other combinations which could have succeeded. None of these would include Cleopatra.

Everywhere.

xt,
- Just maybe, my previous response to Dave will help re the "infinity" issue. I claim that impossible does not preclude potential, and I try to explain such a remark in that note to Dave.
- Otherwise, I'll now try to explain why I think that "unimaginably large" also works.

- It's clear that the conditional likelihood of me currently existing (given "A") is unimaginably small. However, the conditional probability of someone/anyone existing (given A) must be close to 1.00 (I guess)...
- Consequently, we have an issue as to me being "special" enough to warrant using my specific likelihood in the formula instead of someone/anyone's likelihood.
- Does that address your objection?

No, Jabba. Just, no.

 

[abaddon]

No, Jabba. Just, no.

Soz, but you are no more LCP than I.

 

[Loss Leader]

Dave,
- For the moment, I'll discuss the possibilities before artificial insemination. After artificial insemination, the possibilities are much more complex...
- If a man and a woman do not exist at the same time, it is impossible for them to have kids.
- If they meet, but never have intercourse, it is impossible for them to have kids.
- If they have intercourse, but he never finishes the job within her, it is impossible for them to have kids.
- If they never have intercourse while she is ovulating, it is impossible for them to have kids.

-The point is, these all depend on "ifs" -- even that first example. Given their ifs, they're all impossible. I don't see why, in considering potentiality, we should be able to change that first if and not the others.

So, Jabba, how would you rate the possibilities in each scenario? What would you set as odds of a person being born from each scenario?

 

[Mojo]

You just argued that your current existence (= 1) was only relevant to test (using Bayesian theory) if a given theory predicting your existence was correct.

Another problem that Jabba faces (or rather, ignores) is that "the sientific model" doesn't actually say anything about Jabba's existence, or Jabba's specific soul. As far as it says anything relevant, it says that a functioning neurosystem will result in a consciousness. The existence of Jabba's specific consciousness, given that his body has a functioning neurosystem, is entirely consistent with this but it is not a prediction made by the theory.

 

[HighRiser]

Jabba, please explain what the implication you're alluding to, but not describing is.

"The probability of drawing a particular sample from a particular population has mathematical implications re the probability that a particular sample was, in fact, drawn from THAT population..."*(My own quote -- you might want to read that again.)

 

[Mojo]

So, Jabba, how would you rate the possibilities in each scenario? What would you set as odds of a person being born from each scenario?

I think he's trying to sneak back to the infinite pool of souls.