Proof of Immortality III

[Hlafordlaes]

... wouldn't be foolish enough try to negate evidence by claiming that if the evidence didn't exist...

Your use of the term 'evidence' to refer to a hypothetical die roll and its relation to p(you), plus whatever nonsense about consciousness you are nursing in the background, is damaging to my 'ears,' or in this case, eyes. Get on with it, make a real argument, stating your case.

The first sign of a good-faith argument is that it recognizes alternatives, given that an honest appraisal will have been performed. And probabilities not tied to observable events are not probabilities, they are wild guesses, making any maths relating to immortality meaningless. As in 'senseless woo.' [These are hints.]

But, uh, "I seem special, especially to me (and, well, my mother)" alone definitely will not cut it.

***
A bit snarky, so I'll try this. Imagine we do in fact know, ahead of time and/or in retrospect, which series of fair coin flips, from the BB up to you, leads to you, and we find it is astonishing: at each flip, only heads was the result. "Proof, at last!" of one's very special nature. Until. Until the number of such series that occurred since the BB is made known, and it is so excrutiatingly large that we fall on our knees in awe, knowing that, for sure, in that vast and endless pool of possibility, all kinds of outliers and weird things must lie among the typical random series. Oh, so, all is in order.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I was talking about a scenario in which only one number would have suggested a rigged game, and that was the number that came up.

Why would any specific number, that is exactly as likely to come out as any other number, suggest a rigged game (apart from because you say so)?

Hans

 

[Garrette]

Why would any specific number, that is exactly as likely to come out as any other number, suggest a rigged game (apart from because you say so)?

Hans

It seems, in all seriousness and on the assumption that Toontown is not having a go at us, that the ability to recognize one's existence is somehow in itself sufficient evidence to demonstrate such. The recognition is key else (1) there would be no talk of subjective probability and (2) Toontown would use the same argument for snow flakes.

Though he will not say so, Toontown's argument is that the existence of any self aware thing is proof of rigging (in some unspecified form of something bigger, or at least externally directed).

 

[Mojo]

Though he will not say so, Toontown's argument is that the existence of any self aware thing is proof of rigging (in some unspecified form of something bigger, or at least externally directed).

He doesn't need to be so coy about it; the first amendment doesn't apply here so he doesn't even have to call it "an unnamed designer".

 

[MRC_Hans]

Adding to subscription list.

 

[carlitos]

It seems, in all seriousness and on the assumption that Toontown is not having a go at us, that the ability to recognize one's existence is somehow in itself sufficient evidence to demonstrate such. The recognition is key else (1) there would be no talk of subjective probability and (2) Toontown would use the same argument for snow flakes.



Though he will not say so, Toontown's argument is that the existence of any self aware thing is proof of rigging (in some unspecified form of something bigger, or at least externally directed).

That's not at all what he's saying, I'm sure. Any sentient being should be able to see what he's saying and it's obviously not that.

 

[Garrette]

That's not at all what he's saying, I'm sure. Any sentient being should be able to see what he's saying and it's obviously not that.

I am open to correction, of course, and would love to see your interpretation, but right now I stand by mine.

 

[Jabba]

Dave,
- Wow.
- I think I see your point...
- I'll try again.

- We started out considering the exact characteristics of Mt Rainier. I said that the estimated likelihood of that exact shape would be virtually zero.
- But then, I decided that it must be 1.00.
- But then, I started to think I was right the first time...
- But now, I think I was right the second time...
- Sorry about that.

Dave,

- I’m changing my mind again…

- First, I need to re-establish the given re your Mt Rainier question...
- My latest conclusion is that the given in the Rainier case – analogous to the OOFLam in MY case -- would be the group of physical laws governing geology. What we wouldn’t have in the Rainier case is the nature of the matter being governed (worked upon) by the physical laws.
- Not having a clue about the matter being worked upon by the physical laws, the likelihood of Mt Rainier coming out, in every bit of its current grandeur, is also virtually zero (just like ME).

- And, my claim (for the moment at least) is ‘still’ that, the difference between ME and Rainier is that there is no reasonable doubt re the Rainier given; whereas for ME, there is.
- Unlikely effects, in the sense that Rainier is unlikely, happen ALL the time with no mathematical implications re the given. Unlikely effects, have mathematical implications re the given only when there is reasonable doubt re the given to begin with.

 

[John Jones]

Dave,

- I’m changing my mind again…

- First, I need to re-establish the given re your Mt Rainier question...
- My latest conclusion is that the given in the Rainier case – analogous to the OOFLam in MY case -- would be the group of physical laws governing geology. What we wouldn’t have in the Rainier case is the nature of the matter being governed (worked upon) by the physical laws.
- Not having a clue about the matter being worked upon by the physical laws, the likelihood of Mt Rainier coming out, in every bit of its current grandeur, is also virtually zero (just like ME).

- And, my claim (for the moment at least) is ‘still’ that, the difference between ME and Rainier is that there is no reasonable doubt re the Rainier given; whereas for ME, there is.
- Unlikely effects, in the sense that Rainier is unlikely, happen ALL the time with no mathematical implications re the given. Unlikely effects, have mathematical implications re the given only when there is reasonable doubt re the given to begin with.

Where's the proof of immortality?

 

[abaddon]

Where's the proof of immortality?

Not present.

The tone of that post seems to be "I accept the Mt. Ranier argument, but I still insist that I am a special snowflake".

Where Jabba will take that is anyone's guess.

 

[carlitos]

Garrette I was being sarcastic.

 

[Garrette]

Garrette I was being sarcastic.

Ah. My apologies. It's apparent when going back to read it. I was obviously in pugilistic mode.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,

- I’m changing my mind again…

- First, I need to re-establish the given re your Mt Rainier question...
- My latest conclusion is that the given in the Rainier case – analogous to the OOFLam in MY case -- would be the group of physical laws governing geology. What we wouldn’t have in the Rainier case is the nature of the matter being governed (worked upon) by the physical laws.
- Not having a clue about the matter being worked upon by the physical laws, the likelihood of Mt Rainier coming out, in every bit of its current grandeur, is also virtually zero (just like ME).

I don't understand what you mean about not having a clue about the matter being worked on.

- And, my claim (for the moment at least) is ‘still’ that, the difference between ME and Rainier is that there is no reasonable doubt re the Rainier given; whereas for ME, there is.
- Unlikely effects, in the sense that Rainier is unlikely, happen ALL the time with no mathematical implications re the given. Unlikely effects, have mathematical implications re the given only when there is reasonable doubt re the given to begin with.

I don't understand why there's reasonable doubt or why it makes a difference.

 

[John Jones]

I don't understand what you mean about not having a clue about the matter being worked on.



I don't understand why there's reasonable doubt or why it makes a difference.

He doesn't either.

 

[MRC_Hans]

- Unlikely effects, in the sense that Rainier is unlikely, happen ALL the time with no mathematical implications re the given. Unlikely effects, have mathematical implications re the given only when there is reasonable doubt re the given to begin with.

Does this actually mean anything?

Hans

 

[JayUtah]

Does this actually mean anything?

It sounds like it's trying to equivocate between the truthy-sounding "computations" that prove a colossally improbable special snowflake in each case and the certainty arrived at through direct observation of an outcome.

 

[Jabba]

Dave,

- I’m changing my mind again…

- First, I need to re-establish the given re your Mt Rainier question...
- My latest conclusion is that the given in the Rainier case – analogous to the OOFLam in MY case -- would be the group of physical laws governing geology. What we wouldn’t have in the Rainier case is the nature of the matter being governed (worked upon) by the physical laws.
- Not having a clue about the matter being worked upon by the physical laws, the likelihood of Mt Rainier coming out, in every bit of its current grandeur, is also virtually zero (just like ME).

- And, my claim (for the moment at least) is ‘still’ that, the difference between ME and Rainier is that there is no reasonable doubt re the Rainier given; whereas for ME, there is.
- Unlikely effects, in the sense that Rainier is unlikely, happen ALL the time with no mathematical implications re the given. Unlikely effects, have mathematical implications re the given only when there is reasonable doubt re the given to begin with.

I don't understand what you mean about not having a clue about the matter being worked on...

Dave,

- I understand your lack of understanding -- again, this stuff is extra difficult to communicate. And, in this particular case, one of the words used is especially ambiguous. "Matter" above is the "M" in "E=MC²."

- Here, I'm trying to answer your question about the likelihood of Mt Rainier. I'm claiming that the likelihood of my current existence, given OOFLam, is virtually zero? But isn't the likelihood of Rainier also virtually zero?
- I kept changing my mind between virtually zero and virtually one. I was doing that because I was reasoning from two different directions.
- In one case, I was considering the probability of each and all the independent events and 'ingredients' that had to be involved over the millennia in order for Rainier to emerge exactly as it currently is. Using that approach I got an unimaginably large number for the denominator, and a likelihood of .00. In this case, I didn't have a clue about the original matter being worked on (or, the environment being worked within). And, that's why I got .00.
- In the other case, I was reasoning from knowing what we had to start with in the beginning -- going that way, I ended with 1.00.

- But, what I needed to do was make sure that the logic I used for Rainier was analogous to the logic I used for ME.
- For ME, I had to reason 'backwards' -- I needed to figure out what had to happen in order for me to be here. So, that's what I needed to do re Rainier -- and reasoning that way, I get .00.

- Now, I think that calculating likelihood in general requires this sort of backward reasoning. We start out with certain givens, and then estimate the probability that the other required necessary events/ingredients occur/get mixed in also.

 

[JayUtah]

I understand your lack of understanding -- again, this stuff is extra difficult to communicate.

Yeah it seems to have been particularly hard for you to come up with an equivocation for this one. Those hairs are awfully hard to split.

- I kept changing my mind between virtually zero and virtually one. I was doing that because I was reasoning from two different directions.
- In one case, I was considering the probability of each and all the independent events and 'ingredients' that had to be involved over the millennia in order for Rainier to emerge exactly as it currently is.

The direction of reasoning is irrelevant. In each case your denominator relies upon piles of ingredients that will all work out one way or another, but not necessarily in some certain way.

- But, what I needed to do was make sure that the logic I used for Rainier was analogous to the logic I used for ME.

No, actually you're groping frantically for any way they can be different, in order to escape the aptitude of the analogy. And the thing you've come up with is a distinction without a difference.

- Now, I think that calculating likelihood in general requires this sort of backward reasoning. We start out with certain givens, and then estimate the probability that the other required necessary events/ingredients occur/get mixed in also.

No. You're just restating the "rigged game" fallacy. You can either start with a special-you and a special-mountain, or you can start with any-of-many-mountains and any-of-many-people. You can no more guess the special sauce that produced a unique you than you can the special sauce that produced a unique Mt. Ranier. There's your equivocation.

 

[Mojo]

I'm claiming that the likelihood of my current existence, given OOFLam, is virtually zero?

[snip]

Now, I think that calculating likelihood in general requires this sort of backward reasoning. We start out with certain givens, and then estimate the probability that the other required necessary events/ingredients occur/get mixed in also.

You current existence, if you have some sort of immortal soul that can serially inhabit bodies, requires that exactly the same "necessary events/ingredients occur/get mixed in"* to produce your body as does your existence with your consciousness as an emergent property of your nervous system, and then also requires that your particular soul is lucky enough to get to inhabit your body.


*Have you been reading Kumar's threads?

 

[Nonpareil]

- I understand your lack of understanding -- again, this stuff is extra difficult to communicate.

That would be because it is nonsense, Jabba.