Proof of Immortality II

[Loss Leader]

- Which is more likely, that I am tremendously lucky or that "A" is not correct? Superficially at least, the answer seems obvious -- "A" is not correct.

- This way of expressing the issue seems to capture the essence of my claim.
- i'm still working on why it does that...

It does that by stripping out all math and logic and replacing it with a gut feeling.

I was once invited to a party for a stripper. Everyone there were strippers. And I spent the entire time thinking, "I can't believe this is happening to me." That doesn't mean that magic was involved or that the universe just ran for my pleasure. All it meant is that I lived in a world where such a thing was possible.

Stop being impressed by your own existence. It isn't new information. It isn't inconsistent with the universe as we know it. And it doesn't mean you are in any way special.

 

[John Jones]

It does that by stripping out all math and logic and replacing it with a gut feeling.

[...]

Loss Leader has got you there, Jabba.

After 2 years of your fallacious arguments, you have provided no support for immortality.

All you have left is gut feeling.

 

[xtifr]

- Which is more likely, that I am tremendously lucky or that "A" is not correct? Superficially at least, the answer seems obvious -- "A" is not correct.

Someone had to win the lottery. One side of that 10⁸⁰! sided die had to come up.* This is an argument by incredulity. Superficially, it may indeed seem obvious--but anyone who actually thinks about it realizes how ridiculous this is.

Even ignoring the overwhelming evidence for A, that still doesn't constitute anything resembling proof. At the very best, it might be considered suggestive. But then, there's the fact that one side of the die had to come up. Which puts us back in sharpshooter territory. Plus, all that evidence for A...

* I'm pretty sure that 10⁸⁰! is way larger than 10^80!, but I suppose what I really mean is max(10⁸⁰!, 10^80!).

 

[pakeha]

Jabba can mangle poor old Bayes
As often, in as many ways
As he can find, but never can
He change the final fate of man:
We'll none of us avoid the hearse.

This thread just went from bard to verse.

Nommed.

 

[Loss Leader]

* I'm pretty sure that 10⁸⁰! is way larger than 10^80!, but I suppose what I really mean is max(10⁸⁰!, 10^80!).

I think 10^80! is larger. Think about breaking out just the first two numbers:

1. 10^80! = 10^{80*79 ...}
whereas

2. 10⁸⁰! = 10⁸⁰*10⁷⁹ ...

In the first case, we would multiply 80 and 79 to get 6360.

In the second case, we would add 80 and 79 to get only 159.


Warning: Every time I do math, I just get it all completely wrong.

 

[Mojo]

- Which is more likely, that I am tremendously lucky or that "A" is not correct? Superficially at least, the answer seems obvious -- "A" is not correct.

Someone had to win the lottery. One side of that 10⁸⁰! sided die had to come up.* This is an argument by incredulity. Superficially, it may indeed seem obvious--but anyone who actually thinks about it realizes how ridiculous this is.

Remember, though, that Jabba needs to be just as lucky to exist if "A" is wrong as he does if "A" is correct, because the number of "potential selves" and the number of available bodies is the same in both cases. Jabba being tremendously lucky is more likely than Jabba being tremendously lucky and "A" not being correct because the former option includes not only the latter but also the possibility that Jabba is tremendously lucky and "A" is correct.

 

[xtifr]

I think 10^80! is larger. Think about breaking out just the first two numbers:

1. 10^80! = 10^{80*79 ...}
whereas

2. 10⁸⁰! = 10⁸⁰*10⁷⁹ ...

No.

2. 10⁸⁰! = 10⁸⁰ * (10⁸⁰ - 1) * (10⁸⁰ - 2) ...

Remember, (10⁸⁰ - 1) is represented by a sequence of eighty 9s. (10⁸⁰ - 2) is seventy-nine 9s followed by an 8. Both are eighty digit numbers.

You would have 9*10⁷⁹ multiplications of numbers larger than 10⁷⁹ just in the range between 10⁷⁹ and 10⁸⁰. And that's ignoring all the numbers less than 10⁷⁹, which also have to be multiplied in. So, there's 9*10⁷⁸ numbers larger than 10⁷⁸ in the range from 10⁷⁸ and 10⁷⁹ which also have to be multiplied in. And so on, for each additional range (10⁷⁷ to 10⁷⁸, 10⁷⁶ to 10⁷⁷, etc.).

Warning: Every time I do math, I just get it all completely wrong.

Clearly.

You were apparently omitting approximately (10⁸⁰ - 80) of the factors in 10⁸⁰!, 90% of which are eighty digit numbers. That is enough to make a pretty noticeable difference!

 

[Belz...]

- Can I credibly use 1/10⁸⁰ as my probability of ever existing?

It's actually 1. Haven't we explained this to you already ?

 

[Belz...]

Merely resting.

It's only mostly dead.

 

[jsfisher]

No.

Go easy on him. He is a lawyer afterall.

 

[Jabba]

- The formula: P(A|me) = P(me|A) P(A)/(P(me|A) P(A) + P(me|~A) P(~A))

The likelihood of me, given A, is the key term in the formula. I claim that it should be one over an enormous number. You guys Claim that it should be 1.00.
- My claim is based upon the conclusion that I am sufficiently "set apart" to warrant something less than one -- something a lot less than one.
- You guys don't think that what I say sets me apart does any such thing.
- I think that's our key disagreement.
- Do you agree?

- If my wording seems strange it's because I'm trying to dictate.

 

[godless dave]

- The formula: P(A|me) = P(me|A) P(A)/(P(me|A) P(A) + P(me|~A) P(~A))

The likelihood of me, given A, is the key term in the formula. I claim that it should be one over an enormous number. You guys Claim that it should be 1.00.

No, it is not. Our claim - mine at least, and I think I have agreement from some other posters - is that the likelihood of you, given A, is one over an enormous number. We think that's the likelihood of you predicted by A.

-
- My claim is based upon the conclusion that I am sufficiently "set apart" to warrant something less than one -- something a lot less than one.
- You guys don't think that what I say sets me apart does any such thing.
- I think that's our key disagreement.
- Do you agree?

I disagree that you are set apart in any way whatsoever. You were one of many possible outcomes.

 

[jsfisher]

- I think that's our key disagreement.
- Do you agree?

* No.
* We disagree on what ~A must, of necessity, entail, i.e. everything that is not A.
* We disagree on the significance of your existence given that you exploring the question at all is predicated on your existence.
* So many, many other things....

 

[Mojo]

The likelihood of me, given A, is the key term in the formula. I claim that it should be one over an enormous number. You guys Claim that it should be 1.00.

If you are capable of claiming anything it must be 1.

 

[Giordano]

- The formula: P(A|me) = P(me|A) P(A)/(P(me|A) P(A) + P(me|~A) P(~A))

The likelihood of me, given A, is the key term in the formula. I claim that it should be one over an enormous number. You guys Claim that it should be 1.00.
- My claim is based upon the conclusion that I am sufficiently "set apart" to warrant something less than one -- something a lot less than one.
- You guys don't think that what I say sets me apart does any such thing.
- I think that's our key disagreement.
- Do you agree?

- If my wording seems strange it's because I'm trying to dictate.

Actually, we disagree on almost everything. As you know, the advance probability of getting Jabba in particular is low, the advance probability of getting someone is high. Using the former as proof is the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.

It us interesting that you think you are special compared to any of the 7 billon people on Earth. Your numbers work out only if, 10s of billions of years ago something wanted to produce Jabba in particular, and arranged all the events in cosmology to do just that. Or that you are the only one of just one, or a few, immortal souls (did I see that in a movie?). In this case there were only a few souls to choose from in creating you. Not an infinity as your theory proposes. But even then you have the problem of why this rare immortal soul went into you, rather than into any of the other 7 billon bodies on Earth.

As to you disagreeing. That is what makes you wrong. It is not a question which is just an opinion. There are facts that determine who is right and who is wrong. Why bother with all this meaningless sidetracking that underscores how little you understand statistics. Just declare that you be believe in reincarnation and disagree with us.

 

[Jabba]

No, it is not. Our claim - mine at least, and I think I have agreement from some other posters - is that the likelihood of you, given A, is one over an enormous number. We think that's the likelihood of you predicted by A.




I disagree that you are set apart in any way whatsoever. You were one of many possible outcomes.

– But Dave, if I am not set apart, The likelihood of me, given A, is one. The appropriate entry for P(me|A) is one.

 

[godless dave]

– But Dave, if I am not set apart, The likelihood of me, given A, is one. The appropriate entry for P(me|A) is one.

I don't follow.

I thought the "set apart" thing was to explain why we should think your existence was significant even though it was just one of many possible unlikely outcomes.

 

[Giordano]

– But Dave, if I am not set apart, The likelihood of me, given A, is one. The appropriate entry for P(me|A) is one.

No. Not all coitus result in a fertilization. Not all fertilizations result in a normal baby. These are just examples; there are more issues as well. But much higher than the probability in advance of getting Jabba in particular, yes.

 

[Mojo]

No. Not all colitis result in a fertilization. Not all fertilizations result in a normal baby.

If you think colitis is likely to result in fertilization, you're probably doing it wrong.

 

[Giordano]

If you think colitis is likely to result in fertilization, you're probably doing it wrong.

Now you tell me!
Auto spell "check" on my iPad. Sorry.