Proof of Immortality II

[Jabba]

xt,
- I think that I finally understand what you're saying. Actually, it seems obvious now, and I don't know why it didn't before...
- If I do understand you now, you're saying that no one would know whether it was the original self coming out or just a copy -- not even the self coming out would know.
- I'll need to think some more about what you're saying -- but off the top of my head, if it's the original coming out, I don't think it matters (to my claim) that no one would know. That's quick, for me, so I might change my mind about teleportation...

 

[Loss Leader]

That's quick, for me, so I might change my mind about teleportation...

But where will you come out on unicorns, flying carpets and magic beans?

 

[Giordano]

xt,
- I think that I finally understand what you're saying. Actually, it seems obvious now, and I don't know why it didn't before...

No hurry. No need at all to understand what any of us have been trying to tell you for the past two years. It's all blah, blah, blah anyway.

 

[Mojo]

And that the ever loving chuff does the size of the universe have to do with immortality?

In an infinite universe there are an infinite number of possibilities, therefore if you throw a six-sided dice the likelyhood of one particular side coming up is 1 over infinity. Or something.

 

[Hokulele]

xt,
- I think that I finally understand what you're saying. Actually, it seems obvious now, and I don't know why it didn't before...
- If I do understand you now, you're saying that no one would know whether it was the original self coming out or just a copy -- not even the self coming out would know.
- I'll need to think some more about what you're saying -- but off the top of my head, if it's the original coming out, I don't think it matters (to my claim) that no one would know. That's quick, for me, so I might change my mind about teleportation...

It absolutely matters to your claim. If no one can tell whether or not it is the original, including the copy him/herself, there is no difference between them. If there is no difference between them, your unique "sense of self" or soul does not exist.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Neither of the educators/authors he contacted met with him nor supported his position.

I'm shocked.

 

[Akhenaten]

1638



Dave,
- You're right. I left out an important word: "random." I should have said, "...the random likelihood of all the necessary events (for me to currently exist), actually occurring...

Random likelihood of necessary events?

For reals?

Oxymoron doesn't even begin to cover the ridiculosity of such a proposition.

- Does that make a difference for you?

Yep. The shark is getting bigger.

It's about 38 metres long so far, and growing.

 

[Akhenaten]

Jabba doesn't need to count his way to infinity. He's already in it.

You announce that as though it was some kind of affirmation of the validity of his argument and yet it sounds like the sort of crap we used to say in the seventies like, "Yeah, but what if Star Wars really happened?" and "Hey! don't Bogart, man!".

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...-universe-its-very-flat-and-probably-infinite

The linked article in no way measures up either to its own headline or to your own attempt to validate Jabba's fantasy.

The evidence keeps piling up. Boomerang, WMAPS, now BOSS.

Evidence for immortality? I hope these weirdly named fellows present it fairly soon.

Isis knows, Jabba could certainly use the help.

The burden of proof keeps weighing increasingly heavily upon those who assert a finite universe.

Not so heavy, however, as that which presses down upon those who wish to assume an infinite Universe as an axiomatic value to be used in calculating the odds in favour of immortality.

 

[Akhenaten]

Since you can be certain of neither what Jabba meant nor what I think he meant, how about we let Jabba himself clarify what he may have meant then move on from there?

I'm sure I understand what Jabba meant and what you think he meant.

You stay here and wait for clarification. I'll go on alone.

Yes, of course you will, but wouldn't you rather take part in this discussion?

In what way would the two be different? What test could be used to distinguish one from the other?

You could locate both of them. Each would be occupying different spacial coordinates.

That's not you were asked.

 

[Akhenaten]

The one in the copy vat is the copy. Not that it matters a whit. The point was, and remains, the two of them are different individuals, as evidenced by their different spacial locations.

You seem determined to explain this trivially obvious point to a heap of people who understood it years before this thread was begun.

What's worse though is that you seem to have missed the general and long-standing acknowledgement by All-But-One (pbtn)* that the situation to which you allude is as fleeting as the first dream that either individual experiences.

Has it yet occurred to anyone except me that it really shouldn't take weeks and weeks to agree that identical copies are different individuals?

Of course it has. It occurred to All-But-One (pbtn) months (if not years) ago and has been reiterated here more times than the Great River has flooded. I'm somewhat surprised that you haven't read enough of the thread to understand this.




* Praised Be Their Names

 

[Akhenaten]

Can we have a thread about immorality? That is likely to be more interesting.

I've frequently considered starting a thread titled "I think that I can essentially prove immortality using hieroglyphics" but I fear it would end up being merged with this thread, despite its potentially having a likelihood of presenting different (and far more compelling) evidence.

 

[Akhenaten]

xt,
- Mostly, I haven't responded cause I don't really understand your point.

The entire thread explained in one short sentence.

Are you just saying that teleportation would be problematic cause you wouldn't get the same person out that you put in?

What's more to the point is that neither the person going in or the person coming out would be in any way immortal.

 

[Akhenaten]

xt,
- I think that I finally understand what you're saying. Actually, it seems obvious now, and I don't know why it didn't before...

Probably Possibly Potentially because you haven't bothered to read any of the hundreds of other posts that have said exactly the same thing.

- If I do understand you now, you're saying that no one would know whether it was the original self coming out or just a copy -- not even the self coming out would know.

What you still seem to be failing to understand is that the distinction is irrelevant in terms of immortality.

The original would eventually have died and so will the copy.

- I'll need to think some more about what you're saying -- but off the top of my head, if it's the original coming out, I don't think it matters (to my claim) that no one would know.

It doesn't matter. None of this replication nonsense matters.

Whether replicated or teleported, the same rules affecting mortality remain in effect.

That's quick, for me, so I might change my mind about teleportation...

Believe it or not, reality will continue as it always has, regardless of the solidity of your opinion.

 

[Giordano]

The entire thread explained in one short sentence.

Akhenaten, your Greatness, I can see how reincarnation is a sore spot for you, but please forgive us who are your inferiors for any mistakes in our discussions of this topic.

Jabba: you would do well to review the posts that you do not understand in this thread, read them again very carefully, and if you still don't understand them, get an appropriate book or take an appropriate course until you do. If then you disagree with a given post, just explain to us why. But understand them first.

 

[Giordano]

Probably Possibly Potentially because you haven't bothered to read any of the hundreds of other posts that have said exactly the same thing.

It is possible. Certainly not impossible.

 

[jond]

It absolutely matters to your claim. If no one can tell whether or not it is the original, including the copy him/herself, there is no difference between them. If there is no difference between them, your unique "sense of self" or soul does not exist.

Quoting for Jabba, on the off chance he might have missed it...

 

[Loss Leader]

I've frequently considered starting a thread titled "I think that I can essentially prove immortality using hieroglyphics" but I fear it would end up being merged with this thread, despite its potentially having a likelihood of presenting different (and far more compelling) evidence.

I did start a thread proving immortality. My proof was logically sound and generally accepted by all, including frequent posters in this thread.

 

[Akhenaten]

Apologies for my forgetfulness, but it seems like that happened an infinity ago.

 

[Jabba]

Wouldn't the likelihood that you would exist if the theory is true be the likelihood that that theory predicts? In the scientific model, the likelihood of your existence is based on the events that led to your existence, not on the total number of potential people that can ecist throughout history, including the future.

- Yes. But, probability is a complicated, confusing mess when viewed beneath the surface…
- The KIND of probability that you have in mind includes such conclusions as the odds that the Jets will beat the Raiders this Sunday, or the percent probability that it will rain in Baton Rouge tomorrow. In making such predictions, we try to take every existing factor, we can, into account. Our bankroll may depend upon it.
- But, that isn’t the KIND of probability we’re seeking with P(me|A)...

- Here, we’re really asking about the random likelihood of all the necessary events (for me to currently exist), actually occurring, given the scientific consensus that we each have but one, finite, life to live.

Dave,
- I should probably already know the answer to the following question, but I don’t.
- Do you now accept that Bayes does not use the kind of probability (or, “likelihood”) that you have been assuming that it does?

 

[Mojo]

Here, we’re really asking about the random likelihood of all the necessary events (for me to currently exist), actually occurring, given the scientific consensus that we each have but one, finite, life to live.

Why would the likelihood of these events occurring be any different if you didn't have one finite life to live?