Proof of Immortality III

[Jabba]

Below I've linked to a photo of Mount Rainier. Consider the exact details of what it looks like, the position of each piece of rock. What do you think was the likelihood that it would look exactly like that at the time the photo was taken?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mount_Rainier_from_the_Silver_Queen_Peak.jpg

Dave,
-Virtually zero.

So we can conclude that the scientific explanation for how mountains are formed is probably wrong?

Dave,
- Not unless you have a potentially better explanation for the mountain's exact shape.

What if I propose that a powerful, intelligent entity designed it to have precisely that shape?

- 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.

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."

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

Dave,

- Sorry -- I've been grasping at straws (note "Try this," above) trying to explain why your Mt Rainier example is not analogous to my OOFLam example.

- What I was missing was that P(E|H) is an "estimate," and the estimate should be about 1.00 rather than .00...
- Not that we could accurately predict the exact shape from the scientific model and the relevant info we had prior to predicting the shape -- but that science has essentially proven how the making of mountains proceeds, and given the exact shape, we would be able to eventually figure out what specific components caused the shape, and before figuring that out, we'd estimate that the likelihood of that exact shape given the scientific model would be essentially 100%.

 

[Jabba]

Jabba,

How was lunch?

js,
- Good.
- I'm waiting for something (brief) in writing from Dr.Hoerl.
- He doesn't agree with me -- so far. But also, so far, I don't understand his reservation...
- We still have a lot of discussion to do, but he has a publication due in two weeks, and won't be able to continue till then. I'll post his (brief) reservation in writing as soon as I get it.

 

[MRC_Hans]

js,
- Good.
- I'm waiting for something (brief) in writing from Dr.Hoerl.
- He doesn't agree with me -- so far. But also, so far, I don't understand his reservation...- We still have a lot of discussion to do, but he has a publication due in two weeks, and won't be able to continue till then. I'll post his (brief) reservation in writing as soon as I get it.

Jabba, I can't help but notice that you never seem to understand why people don't agree with you.

Have you ever considered the possibility that you might simply be wrong?

Hans

 

[John Jones]

Dave,

- Sorry -- I've been grasping at straws (note "Try this," above) [...]

For 4 years

 

[godless dave]

Dave,

- Sorry -- I've been grasping at straws (note "Try this," above) trying to explain why your Mt Rainier example is not analogous to my OOFLam example.

- What I was missing was that P(E|H) is an "estimate," and the estimate should be about 1.00 rather than .00...
- Not that we could accurately predict the exact shape from the scientific model and the relevant info we had prior to predicting the shape -- but that science has essentially proven how the making of mountains proceeds, and given the exact shape, we would be able to eventually figure out what specific components caused the shape, and before figuring that out, we'd estimate that the likelihood of that exact shape given the scientific model would be essentially 100%.

How is that different from human selves?

 

[Nonpareil]

- Sorry -- I've been grasping at straws (note "Try this," above) trying to explain why your Mt Rainier example is not analogous to my OOFLam example.

That would be because it is analagous, Jabba, whether you like it or not.

 

[Dancing David]

Garrette,
- Do you accept that given the one, finite, lifetime (at most) hypothesis, the likelihood of your current existence is unimaginably small?

No the likelyhood is 1

 

[Dancing David]

So in scenarios where selves are material and produced by the brain, the likelihood of a particular self existing would be the same as the likelihood of its physical body existing, right?

YMMV some brains don't work so good

 

[Dancing David]

caleb,
- Here's my interpretation.
- The consensus scientific model of human mortality (that we each have only one, finite, lifetime -- at most) is surely wrong.
- That's because the likelihood of your current existence -- given the one, finite, lifetime (at most) model/hypothesis -- is virtually zero, and (assuming that you really do currently exist) that conclusion about the likelihood of your current existence has serious, negative mathematical implications re the truth value of the scientific model.
- I hope Toon agrees.

How many ways can 10⁷⁰ particles combine, even given that they can't interact in entirety

Say the 10⁶⁸ particles in a galaxy?

 

[godless dave]

YMMV some brains don't work so good

I excluded microcephaly and similar conditions for simplicity's sake, but you are correct. There are more physical human bodies born than human selves.

 

[Mojo]

- Sorry -- I've been grasping at straws (note "Try this," above) trying to explain why your Mt Rainier example is not analogous to my OOFLam example.

You have been grasping at straws all along, trying to deny your own mortality.

 

[kyrani99]

I imagine that pretty much converges on zero, which would be my shorter answer. There is no properly formulated natural theory that predicts it as required feature and admits of tests, and there has been no direct observation of such a possibility. Zilchville.

There are no natural theories because science deals with the material and utilizes the personal self as the agent of investigation and analysis of results.

"there has been no direct observation of such a possibility" needs to be narrowed. There has been no direct observation of such a possibility by the personal self utilizing sensory means.

There is direct observation but it is being observing itself! Enlightenment experience.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

There are no natural theories because science deals with the material and utilizes the personal self as the agent of investigation and analysis of results.

"there has been no direct observation of such a possibility" needs to be narrowed. There has been no direct observation of such a possibility by the personal self utilizing sensory means.

There is direct observation but it is being observing itself! Enlightenment experience.

You will need to do significantly better than that, and word things so they might make more sense.

 

[Toontown]

Please list one die result (just one) that would allow one to rationally conclude that the die is not rigged.

Typically, your question is based on a failure do differientate between the general and the specific.

the (1) was differentiated from all the other 10 ^80! numbers when Nonpariel's captors required the (1) to be rolled, or else. This separated the numbers into 2 groups: a large group of unspecified numbers, and 1 specified number. The difference between the 2 groups is that the appearance of a member of one group strongly supports a rigged game, and an appearance of a member of the other group strongly suggests otherwise.

The 2 groups are (1), and everything except (1)

So any member of the 2nd group will do for the purposes of answering your irrelevant question. Pick one of them. One of them will come up if the game is not rigged, with a ridiculously high degree of certainty. Any member of the 2nd group would allow one to (rationally) conclude the game is not rigged. There is, after all, no (rational) need to go to the trouble to rig that die to not roll a (1). That die cannot be (rationally) expected to roll a (1) in one toss, or a billion tosses.

So I'll pick (2), just to fulfill the requirement of your irrelevant question.

 

[Jabba]

How is that different from human selves?

Dave,
- The likelihood of a particular human self currently existing -- given OOFLam -- is approx 7 billion over an unimaginably large number. The likelihood of Mt Rainier currently existing -- given the science of Geology -- is one over one.
- Keep in mind that these likelihoods are both estimates -- and geologists would expect/estimate that Mt Rainier would follow the same rules that every other mountain has followed, and geologists would very likely be able to explain scientifically each characteristic they encountered.
- However, the human self being judged here is not the physical body and brain of a particular human being -- biologists would estimate that the likelihood of such a physical 'self' currently existing would also be one over one. But the likelihood that my particular consciousness would currently exist is one over some unimaginably large number because science doesn't have a clue as to what determines the particular "identity" of this consciousness.
- Note how difficult it is to make sure that you and I have the same kind of "identity" in mind.

- I think there is some aspect of my logic here that I haven't been able to effectively express, but maybe the above will help. Whatever, I'll be back.

 

[Toontown]

The thing is, 1 is exactly as likely as any other of the factorial 80 numbers.

The problem comes when you roll a 1 (or any other number) and then think that this is the number that was meant to come out. It wasn't. It just came out.

Hans

This is simply another failure to differientiate between the general and the specific, and a refusal to address the subjective perspective at all, let alone invalidate it.

See post #274.

No, the (1) was not "meant" to come (unless the game was rigged). It was, however, "required" to be rolled, or else, by Nonpariel's captors. At that point, it was (1) versus all the other numbers. In 2 separate groups, distinguishable by their outcomes, and by their implications.

I think this is really what some people have trouple grasping: Your individual existence is a random coincidence. If you have problems with self-esteem (too low or too high), this is a hard pill to swallow.

Hans

If you're referring to me, then you are proving that you don't know what you're talking about. Not only do I grasp the random coincidence of my brain, I try to convince others of it, and use it as evidence.

 

[pharphis]

Dave,
- The likelihood of a particular human self currently existing -- given OOFLam -- is approx 7 billion over an unimaginably large number. The likelihood of Mt Rainier currently existing -- given the science of Geology -- is one over one.
- Keep in mind that these likelihoods are both estimates -- and geologists would expect/estimate that Mt Rainier would follow the same rules that every other mountain has followed, and geologists would very likely be able to explain scientifically each characteristic they encountered.
- However, the human self being judged here is not the physical body and brain of a particular human being -- biologists would estimate that the likelihood of such a physical 'self' currently existing would also be one over one. But the likelihood that my particular consciousness would currently exist is one over some unimaginably large number because science doesn't have a clue as to what determines the particular "identity" of this consciousness.- Note how difficult it is to make sure that you and I have the same kind of "identity" in mind.

- I think there is some aspect of my logic here that I haven't been able to effectively express, but maybe the above will help. Whatever, I'll be back.

"Not having a clue" doesn't mean one can assume several orders of magnitude of other possibilities.

That said, I don't know what you mean by "identity". Is there a point at which you think our brain formation stops following the constraints of physics? If not, then why do you think it is any different than the formation of a mountain EVEN if we can't predict exactly where every single particle of dirt or rock will be?

 

[abaddon]

Dave,
- The likelihood of a particular human self currently existing -- given OOFLam -- is approx 7 billion over an unimaginably large number. The likelihood of Mt Rainier currently existing -- given the science of Geology -- is one over one.

Epic fail. Read that back to yourself. It is comedy gold.

- Keep in mind that these likelihoods are both estimates -- and geologists would expect/estimate that Mt Rainier would follow the same rules that every other mountain has followed, and geologists would very likely be able to explain scientifically each characteristic they encountered.

And doctors and biologists expect each human to follow the same rules as every other human has followed. So what?

- However, the human self being judged here is not the physical body and brain of a particular human being -- biologists would estimate that the likelihood of such a physical 'self' currently existing would also be one over one. But the likelihood that my particular consciousness would currently exist is one over some unimaginably large number because science doesn't have a clue as to what determines the particular "identity" of this consciousness.

Second epic fail.

- Note how difficult it is to make sure that you and I have the same kind of "identity" in mind.

Let's redefine everything to mean anything we happen to me in the mood for at the time. What do you think will happen to your "effective debate" if we all adopt that strategy?

Suppose I say to you that your "gruntbuggly" is insufficiently "freddled".
Suppose I further tell you that you, I and everyone else is at liberty to substitute their very own definition for what "gruntbuggly" and "freddled" might mean. What will happen to any attempt at discussion?

- I think there is some aspect of my logic here that I haven't been able to effectively express, but maybe the above will help. Whatever, I'll be back.

Well no kidding. Sorry, Jabba, but we can't mind meld with you in order to extract whatever might be in your brain. What might help is if you used words as they are defined, not as you wish they were defined.

 

[JayUtah]

But the likelihood that my particular consciousness would currently exist is one over some unimaginably large number because science doesn't have a clue as to what determines the particular "identity" of this consciousness.

You tried this same non sequitur in the Shroud of Turin thread. If you argue that we can't qualify or quantify something because of a lack of evidence or a clear definition, then you can't automatically assume the number you would have computed had you had the evidence must necessarily be astronomically large, small, or whatever you need it to be in order to fit your preconceived conclusion. "I've made the question ambiguous, therefore by my calculations I win" is not an argument.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- The likelihood of a particular human self currently existing -- given OOFLam -- is approx 7 billion over an unimaginably large number. The likelihood of Mt Rainier currently existing -- given the science of Geology -- is one over one.
- Keep in mind that these likelihoods are both estimates -- and geologists would expect/estimate that Mt Rainier would follow the same rules that every other mountain has followed, and geologists would very likely be able to explain scientifically each characteristic they encountered.
- However, the human self being judged here is not the physical body and brain of a particular human being -- biologists would estimate that the likelihood of such a physical 'self' currently existing would also be one over one. But the likelihood that my particular consciousness would currently exist is one over some unimaginably large number because science doesn't have a clue as to what determines the particular "identity" of this consciousness.

They have quite a few clues. There is a heck of a lot scientists don't understand about human consciousness but the scientific model is that it is produced by the brain. In the scientific model, one of the scenarios included in H, the human self is the physical body and brain of a particular human being. The "identity" is determined the same way the "identity" of the physical body is determined.

biologists would estimate that the likelihood of such a physical 'self' currently existing would also be one over one.

My point exactly. That's the model you are trying to disprove.