Proof of Immortality III

[Toontown]

No, you are most likely dead, with odds of survival exactly equal to 1 in 10^80!. This is not zero, and does not converge on one.

This is not complicated.

No, 1 versus Giganogargantua isn't complicated.

The complicated part is getting across to you how close to nothing that 1 is when it's up against Giganogargantua.

Unless the game is rigged.

 

[Toontown]

It isn't tap-dancing. I have already answered your question. That I did not give the answer you wanted to hear is none of my concern, as you have repeatedly demonstrated that you are not concerned with the actuality of the situation.

In case you missed it:

No, I didn't miss anything. I noticed the rationales you gave for refusing to answer your captors' question. Even though you knew the correct answer.

Oh well. You died with your horse shoes on. True to your principles to the end. Too bad flexibility and reason were not among them.

 

[Nonpareil]

No, 1 versus Giganogargantua isn't complicated.

The complicated part is getting across to you how close to nothing that 1 is when it's up against Giganogargantua.

No, I fully understand that.

What you seem incapable of grasping is that, so long as that chance is not zero, it can still come up.

 

[Toontown]

No, I fully understand that.

What you seem incapable of grasping is that, so long as that chance is not zero, it can still come up.

And you seem incapable of grasping a number of concepts. Such as the concept of using your subjective perspective instead of pretending it doesn't exist just because other subjective perspectives exist. A willingness to do that would have allowed you to answer your captives' question instead of tap dancing until time ran out.

Also the concept of "probability of chance". This is what my genetics I textbook called it. It was the calculated probability that chance alone accounts for an outcome, rather than a false hypothesis. We had to use the concept to test 25 or so hypotheses about fruit fly heredity. It worked with 100% efficiency for me.

And never once did I fail to grasp that a suspiciously skewed distribution of offspring could have happened by chance. I just didn't believe it, and neither did the math. Sure, there was a small chance that I could have been wrong when I ruled out a hypothesis, but you wouldn't want to bet on it. And that's what you'd be doing if you hold on to a ruled-out hypothesis. You'd be betting the data is skewed to very unlikely extent. And you would be correspondingly likely to be wrong.

How can it be that a group of chance events did not happen by chance? Well, it can't be. They did happen by chance. But maybe, relative to the sample size, they shouldn't have happened at all if hypothesis x is correct. Or maybe too many or too few of them happened.

So your continual harping on how something could happen by chance is meaningless in terms of a statistical test of a hypothesis. That is implicate in a statistical test. If there is no element of chance, there is no use for a statistical test.

 

[Nonpareil]

And you seem incapable of grasping a number of concepts. Such as the concept of using your subjective perspective instead of pretending it doesn't exist just because other subjective perspectives exist.

You seem to be operating under the delusion that "huh that's weird" trumps the actual laws of probability.

It does not.

Also the concept of "probability of chance". This is what my genetics I textbook called it. It was the calculated probability that chance alone accounts for an outcome, rather than a false hypothesis. We had to use the concept to test 25 or so hypotheses about fruit fly heredity. It worked with 100% efficiency for me.

And never once did I fail to grasp that a suspiciously skewed distribution of offspring could have happened by chance. I just didn't believe it, and neither did the math.

If you wish to argue that the mathematics of probability are against the idea of any given brain coming into existence by chance, then produce the math. If it is, as you say, on your side, it should not be hard.

On the other hand, as it isn't on your side, given that you don't seem to actually understand the situation being discussed or how to model it, you may find yourself having some trouble.

 

[Pixel42]

No, it's not. The fact that no specific combination of cards is more likely than any other is both true and entirely relevant to the discussion. It is, in fact, a complete rebuttal of Jabba's nonsense in and of itself.

The fact that the winning numbers in a six ball lottery are as likely to be 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 as they are any other set of 6 numbers is something a lot of people have trouble believing. I think that's essentially the same issue that Jabba has; he thinks of his own existence as a "special" outcome, and therefore (erroneously) as a less likely one than any other. Whether it's also Toontown's issue is much harder to tell.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Oh well. So much for statistical tests of hypotheses. Now that you've revealed the flaw in the formulation of probability theory.

Statistical tests worked pretty well while they lasted though. But the Blue Mask cursed them. Now they're useless.

Actually, I think you are smarter than that. Statistics are used to try to PREDICT outcomes. And it us quite useful for that. However, once we know the actual outcome, no amount of statistical gymnastics can change it.

Hans

 

[zooterkin]

The fact that the winning numbers in a six ball lottery are as likely to be 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 as they are any other set of 6 numbers is something a lot of people have trouble believing. I think that's essentially the same issue that Jabba has; he thinks of his own existence as a "special" outcome, and therefore (erroneously) as a less likely one than any other. Whether it's also Toontown's issue is much harder to tell.

I think he's saying something subtly different. Not that it's a special outcome, but that it was so unlikely that the fact that it happened means that it can't have simply happened by chance.

 

[Pixel42]

I think he's saying something subtly different. Not that it's a special outcome, but that it was so unlikely that the fact that it happened means that it can't have simply happened by chance.

But the problem with that argument has been explained to him many times. I suspect it's a conviction of his own specialness that stops him understanding/accepting that explanation.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

I could well be wrong, but it was something along these lines that in a long ago thread (or long ago incarnation of this thread) that I concluded is Toontown's end game. I recall asking if his position involved either Emerson's Over-Soul or some variation. I got no response.

Thanks for that comment. I am astoundingly poor read and did not know of that work and just consulted some links. (Serves me right for living in a non-English speaking country and yet not liking to read anything in translation.)

/aside

 

[Jabba]

- I gotta admit that these are interesting questions...

- Try this.

- Your explanation doesn't really rule out the scientific explanation.
- And, for your hypothetical to be analogous to my question of individual consciousness, it has to do that...

- Your powerful entity could have used, or installed, the scientific explanation in order to get the specific mountain shape that It did.
- And then, the likelihood of that particular shape not involving the laws of science and being, instead, the whim of a powerful entity, mathematically has to be smaller than the likelihood of either stipulation by itself.
- In other words, your explanation of a powerful entity building this mountain without the use of the scientific explanation, has to be less probable than the scientific explanation itself. In this case, your explanation cannot be potentially more probable than the scientific explanation.

So you're saying if I did come up with an alternative hypothesis that ruled out the scientific explanation, we would have to accept that the scientific explanation is wrong because the result - the precise appearance of Mount Rainier at the time that photo was taken - is so improbable?

Dave,

- Before I answer your question, I probably should have a better understanding of it.
- By “come up with an alternative conclusion,” do you mean “invent an alternative conclusion,” or do you mean “find a (reasonable) alternative conclusion”?
- If you mean the former, the answer is no.
- If you mean the latter, the answer is yes. (Though, instead of “ruled out,” you should say “didn’t involve.”)
- Which do you mean?

- Like I said, this stuff is difficult to convey.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,

- Before I answer your question, I probably should have a better understanding of it.
- By “come up with an alternative conclusion,” do you mean “invent an alternative conclusion,” or do you mean “find a (reasonable) alternative conclusion”?
- If you mean the former, the answer is no.
- If you mean the latter, the answer is yes. (Though, instead of “ruled out,” you should say “didn’t involve.”)
- Which do you mean?

Either one. It doesn't matter.

In the case of immortality, you've either invented an alternative conclusion or found one invented by others.

The fact that you recognize that the very low likelihood of Mount Rainier being exactly that shape when that photograph was taken does not invalidate the scientific explanation of how mountains form is the point we've been trying to make for four years.

 

[Toontown]

Actually, I think you are smarter than that. Statistics are used to try to PREDICT outcomes. And it us quite useful for that. However, once we know the actual outcome, no amount of statistical gymnastics can change it.

Hans

Ok, I'll try to prove I'm smarter than that.

You don't try to change the evidence via statistical gymnastics when you see it. You simply use it.

Jabba's formula uses his existence as evidence, employing his subjective perspective. If you don't think the subjective perspective is valid, you can argue with it by showing why.

 

[Toontown]

I think he's saying something subtly different. Not that it's a special outcome, but that it was so unlikely that the fact that it happened means that it can't have simply happened by chance.

That's in the ball game. Trouble is, it's taken a long time for any of you to get this far. You're almost to square 1. A couple more years, maybe, and you may reach square 1. It's not worth it, and I won't be involved in this thread much longer.

If you're referring to my specific brain, it did happen by chance. Statistical evidence happens by chance. As I pointed out in a post yesterday, the chance aspect of the evidence is implicate in a statistical test.

The prior odds against the emergence of this brain were giganogargantuan. I accept that. But I don't have to accept the assumption that this particular giganogargantuan longshot was the only way to see the light of day.

 

[Jabba]

Dave,

- Before I answer your question, I probably should have a better understanding of it.
- By “come up with an alternative conclusion,” do you mean “invent an alternative conclusion,” or do you mean “find a (reasonable) alternative conclusion”?
- If you mean the former, the answer is no.
- If you mean the latter, the answer is yes. (Though, instead of “ruled out,” you should say “didn’t involve.”)
- Which do you mean?

- Like I said, this stuff is difficult to convey.

Either one. It doesn't matter.

In the case of immortality, you've either invented an alternative conclusion or found one invented by others.

The fact that you recognize that the very low likelihood of Mount Rainier being exactly that shape when that photograph was taken does not invalidate the scientific explanation of how mountains form is the point we've been trying to make for four years.

Dave,
- You left out a critical word re the latter alternative -- you left out "reasonable."

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- You left out a critical word re the latter alternative -- you left out "reasonable."

I don't see how that's critical or why it even matters.

 

[Nonpareil]

Your obvious problem is, I don't want to argue that, you know it and so does anyone else who can read with comprehension

Whether or not you want to argue it is irrelevant. You need to, if you want anyone to take what you said seriously.

If you want to bring up the issue of skewed data sets (which we don't have) indicating a probability (which you cannot calculate) that the hypothesis is wrong, but refuse to actually do anything with that concept, no one here is going to care very much.

Jabba's formula uses his existence as evidence, employing his subjective perspective. If you don't think the subjective perspective is valid, you can argue with it by showing why.

This has already been done many, many times. That neither you nor Jabba want to accept it is entirely irrelevant.

Jabba's subjective perspective (that is, the fact that he exists, while quite a lot of other potential people do not) is not in any way an indication of specialness on his part, no matter how much you wish it was. The odds against his specific existence may be staggering, but every other potential person, whether they came into existence or not, had the same odds. One of them was going to come up.

This is the point that you continuously fail to grasp, and no amount of screaming about "subjective perspective" will change that fact.

If you're referring to my specific brain, it did happen by chance. Statistical evidence happens by chance. As I pointed out in a post yesterday, the chance aspect of the evidence is implicate in a statistical test.

The prior odds against the emergence of this brain were giganogargantuan. I accept that. But I don't have to accept the assumption that this particular giganogargantuan longshot was the only way to see the light of day.

That is not an assumption. That is a conclusion, resulting from a great deal of research into what humans are and how they are made. Like it or not, there was never any guarantee that you were going to exist rather than someone else.

And no amount of saying "but that's such an unbelievable long shot" will change that.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove moderated content and response to same

 

[Toontown]

It's really not, and your analogy fails to support the idea regardless.

You don't seem to grasp the whole thing about a hypothetical situation not serving as a particularly good demonstration of such a concept precisely because the only rules in play are the ones that the creator wants to be. If I wished, I could present you with an equivalent scenario - but when you answered "yes" to the question of whether or not the scenario was rigged, I could have your captors shoot you in the teeth for impugning their honor.

I see. So you know the correct answer to the jam I described to you is 'the game was rigged'. And presumably you know why you know.

And your rebuttal is to speculate that your captors go ahead and shoot you anyway when you give the correct answer. Oh well. Maybe, but you still should have tried to use your subjective perspective and state the correct answer.

Yeah. The answer is still correct whether they shoot you or not. Because you did not beat Giganogargantua. You did not roll that 1 by chance. The game was rigged, for any sane definition of certainty.

 

[John Jones]

I see. So you know the correct answer to the jam I described to you is 'the game was rigged'. And presumably you know why you know.

And your rebuttal is to speculate that your captors go ahead and shoot you anyway when you give the correct answer. Oh well. Maybe, but you still should have tried to use your subjective perspective and state the correct answer.

Yeah. The answer is still correct whether they shoot you or not. Because you did not beat Giganogargantua. You did not roll that 1 by chance. The game was rigged, for any sane definition of certainty.

If the above used the passive voice more often, it could pass for post-modernism

 

[MRC_Hans]

Ok, I'll try to prove I'm smarter than that.

You don't try to change the evidence via statistical gymnastics when you see it. You simply use it.

Problem is, post hoc, there are very few useful applications of statistics.

Jabba's formula uses his existence as evidence, employing his subjective perspective. If you don't think the subjective perspective is valid, you can argue with it by showing why.

I know what Jabba is trying to do, and I'm pointing out that it is not valid. No matter how unlikely our individual existences are before the fact, the fact that we now exist only proves that our lottery tickets came out, UNLESS someone can show some function that might predict just that.

That is not nice thing about statistics: It can in fact be used to prove predictions post hoc. But you must show what the prediction was and why it was there. The post hoc fact cannot show it, that will be a circular argument.

Hans