Proof of Immortality III

[JayUtah]

I'll be back.

Of course you will, but why? Unless you're prepared to retrospectively address all the rebuttals you previously ignored from everyone -- not just from me -- in the interim, then reason for which you referred to that reset still stands rebutted.

You claim you adequately justified an ab initio target for your probability of as-is existence. But the line of reasoning you set forth in the reference post simply identifies you as a special snowflake on no better grounds than self-awareness. You flat-out state you cannot determine whether anyone else exists or is similarly self-aware. Then if that weren't enough, you go on to argue that all of existence (at least the part you know about) derives its significance from yours. Any of your critics can assure you that if you didn't exist, the universe would continue happily along its course without you.

I can further assure you that your critics are well aware of your need to establish some mystical uniqueness. But that latest line of reasoning shoots your numerical argument in the foot. Your estimate of science producing you-as-you being freakishly improbable is based on the notion that everyone around you, who is similar to you, could have been you but for the roll of some die that produced them-as-them instead of you-as-you. So you can't simultaneously claim that the universe exists only for you and in your imagination, and also that there are billions of other souls similar enough to you to be counted in your statistic.

 

[JayUtah]

*Groans, reaches up and rubs the bridge of my nose*

Indeed. The real question is whether he's going to go back and actually address any of my previous posts, or continue claiming the privilege of ignoring whom he will because he just doesn't have time for this debate.

 

[jt512]

The sample space of all possible outcomes of a single roll of a 1024-sided die is the same as the sample space of all possible outcomes of batches of 10 rolls of a 2-sided die. Yet in one case it's called a "single datapoint" and in the other "10 datapoints." Why?

The sample spaces are indeed equivalent, but if the sample space is the space of all 10-bit strings, then a sample point, a 10-bit string, is not 10 data points; it's one data point.

 

[MRC_Hans]

An event is an element of a sigma-algebra, that's the definition in probability theory and is the one I am using.

I'm talking statistics. We seem to be not discussing the same thing.

Hans

 

[jt512]

I'm talking statistics. We seem to be not discussing the same thing.

The definition of "event" is the same in probability and statistics. Some textbooks define an event as an element of a sigma-algebra of subsets of a sample space; others define an event as any subset of the sample place but warn that probability calculus can only be applied to collections of events that comprise a sigma-algebra.

Some introductory statistics texts gloss over the role of the sigma-algebra, and applied statistics texts aimed at non-statistics students commonly don't mention it all.

 

[caveman1917]

The sample spaces are indeed equivalent, but if the sample space is the space of all 10-bit strings, then a sample point, a 10-bit string, is not 10 data points; it's one data point.

With that in mind, could you reread my earlier post along this tangent?

I'm not comparing it to a single toss. Suppose you have 10 datapoints in the space of binary sequences of length 1 (ie H or T in this case), you call this 10 datapoints yet it is the same as 1 datapoint in the space of binary sequences of length 10.

Suppose you have a special coin that can only be tossed in batches of 10. Your datapoints are hence binary sequences of length 10 and suppose you have 1 datapoint. You make an inference on the distribution of H and T in those sequences of length 10. Suppose someone then asks "but what if we could toss it only a single time, what would we expect?" Then you can calculate that and the answer will be the same as if you had thought of it in terms of 10 datapoints of single tosses from the start.

Hence my claim that there's no inherent difference between a single datapoint and multiple datapoints.

My main argument here is that the number of datapoints is not a meaningful indicator of how much information we got, it's the information content of our (set of) datapoint(s) which determines this instead. What we got in both of these cases - thinking of it as 10 datapoints of 1-bit strings or 1 datapoint of 10-bit strings - is 10 bits of information. That's the relevant variable, not the number of datapoints per se. If we are given a sequence of n outcomes then we can think of it as n datapoints in S (the sample space) or as 1 datapoint in S^n (another sample space), it doesn't change any of our conclusions or calculations, it's just a different way of looking at the same problem.

 

[jt512]

With that in mind, could you reread my earlier post along this tangent?


My main argument here is that the number of datapoints is not a meaningful indicator of how much information we got, it's the information content of our (set of) datapoint(s) which determines this instead. What we got in both of these cases - thinking of it as 10 datapoints of 1-bit strings or 1 datapoint of 10-bit strings - is 10 bits of information. That's the relevant variable, not the number of datapoints per se. If we are given a sequence of n outcomes then we can think of it as n datapoints in S (the sample space) or as 1 datapoint in S^n (another sample space), it doesn't change any of our conclusions or calculations, it's just a different way of looking at the same problem.

When you talk about "datapoints" you've gone from the realm of probability to the realm of statistical inference. A "datapoint" is the outcome of a single iteration of a random experiment, or, a bit more formally, one sampled element from a sample space whose elements are distributed according to some probability distribution which we wish to learn about. In the context of a single experiment (and hence a given sample space), the larger the sample size, the more information you have about the population distribution. A sample of size 1 from the sample space of binary integers {0, 1} gives you the same amount of information about the distribution of binary integers in your population of binary integers as a sample of size 1 from the sample space of all 10-bit strings gives you about the distribution of 10-bit strings in your population of 10-bit strings.

You seem to be suggesting that you can make inferences about a distribution of binary integers starting from a sample of size 1 from the sample space of 10-bit strings. Maybe you're right and you can. If so, show us in a mathematically rigorous fashion how you do so. It might even be easy. As a statistician, I haven't given this much thought to sample spaces since grad school.

 

[MetalPig]

About that quarter that was found in the street: is there limestone on it?

 

[Jabba]

2256

The post to which Dave refers here
Now quit stalling.

Jay,

- That's a long post.

- Following that, in reference to

Jay,
- Can you just tell me what my latest reset is?

you say
2257

No, it's a straw man. You cited your latest fringe reset to support the claim that you had identified the "target" beforehand, using the Texas sharpshooter nomenclature. Several of your critics, including myself, pointed out that your reset had been thoroughly refuted. Therefore it does not substantiate that your probability target existed ab initio. More to the point, you were reminded of the chief reason why your latest fringe reset was unconvincing.
You, on your own, plucked a handful of points from all those in your post and asked specifically whether that's what your critics were talking about. This obsession over the excerpt exists in your mind alone. Your critics are not bound to fall for your clumsy debate tricks, nor are they bound to repeat de novo explanations you freely admit you ignored.
Whether it is your intent or not to frustrate your critics into either flouncing or lashing out, you simply must do better at debating than this. Your arguments today have been the worst sort of obtuseness and evasion. These are not arguments I expect from a mature human being. Now shape up and get on with your proof.

- I assume that you're referring to my attempt to explain why I think that the target was already there -- that there are reasons to think that I am a special case (not just somebody/anybody).
- If my assumption is coherent: is my assumption correct?

 

[JayUtah]

I assume that you're referring to my attempt to explain why I think that the target was already there --

That question has already been answered. Quit stalling.

 

[JoeMorgue]

2256Jay,

- That's a long post.

This thread has been going on for a have a decade. I don't care how long a post is at this point, answer one. Answer one single everloving question presented to you in the last 5 years.

STOP STALLING.

 

[Loss Leader]

2256Jay,

- That's a long post.

- Following that, in reference to

you say
2257

- I assume that you're referring to my attempt to explain why I think that the target was already there -- that there are reasons to think that I am a special case (not just somebody/anybody).
- If my assumption is coherent: is my assumption correct?

No.

The universe as understood by us adequately explains your existence. It is a possible outcome. There is no need to abandon out understandings in order to account for your existence unless your existence were an impossibility under the scientific model.

As you have shown no evidence that materialism is wrong, you have not contradicted it.

Phlogistan was thought to be an element in all things. When burned, they released it and got lighter. This adequately explained their observations. Then iron was observed to get heavier when burned. This was evidence that was incompatible with phlogistan. That incompatibility led to further testing until oxygen was discovered. Oxygen explained all phenomina and replaced phlogistan.

What is it about you that is incompatible with the universe as understood today?

 

[Garrette]

--snip--

What is it about you that is incompatible with the universe as understood today?

His logic?

 

[Jabba]

Jay,

- That's a long post.

- Following that, in reference to

Jay,
- Can you just tell me what my latest reset is?

you say

No, it's a straw man. You cited your latest fringe reset to support the claim that you had identified the "target" beforehand, using the Texas sharpshooter nomenclature. Several of your critics, including myself, pointed out that your reset had been thoroughly refuted. Therefore it does not substantiate that your probability target existed ab initio. More to the point, you were reminded of the chief reason why your latest fringe reset was unconvincing.
You, on your own, plucked a handful of points from all those in your post and asked specifically whether that's what your critics were talking about. This obsession over the excerpt exists in your mind alone. Your critics are not bound to fall for your clumsy debate tricks, nor are they bound to repeat de novo explanations you freely admit you ignored.
Whether it is your intent or not to frustrate your critics into either flouncing or lashing out, you simply must do better at debating than this. Your arguments today have been the worst sort of obtuseness and evasion. These are not arguments I expect from a mature human being. Now shape up and get on with your proof.

- I assume that you're referring to my attempt to explain why I think that the target was already there -- that there are reasons to think that I am a special case (not just somebody/anybody).
- If my assumption is coherent: is my assumption correct?

That question has already been answered. Quit stalling.

Jay,
- I think your answer is that my assumption is correct (I'm really not sure), so I'll try again to explain why I think that we conscious beings are all special cases -- why we all have targets on our backs.
- Though, I would ask you to keep in mind that I don't think that we need to be special cases in order for my argument to make sense.

 

[JayUtah]

I'll try again to explain...

You tried once, and that try was refuted. Do not simply repeat the same points without addressing the refutations that were made. Either retrospectively address my posts and those of others whom you have been ignoring, or construct a new, better argument.

...why I think that we conscious beings are all special cases --

Changing horses. That is not what you claimed and it is not compatible with your mathematical outcome. I have already identified the quantitative dilemma in that approach. Do not invoke it without first dealing with the dilemma.

...why we all have targets on our backs.

Do not couch your arguments in cryptic quips and other word play. It can be too easily misunderstood by your critics or equivocated evasively later by you. State your argument plainly. If your argument is quantitative, state it mathematically.

Though, I would ask you to keep in mind that I don't think that we need to be special cases in order for my argument to make sense.

This smacks of equivocation -- by "special case" all you might mean is unique. It is already stipulated that each person is a unique outcome, and it has been already shown how that does not enable your argument. Your argument has up until now rested squarely on the presumption that in order to construct you as you are -- whether or not you characterize yourself as a "special case" -- the scientific model must display "luck" on such an order as to render it virtually impossible. From that you constructed a false dilemma purporting to prove immateriality. The basis of that calculation was the predetermination of you as you are as the outcome whose probability is to be derived or estimated. It has been explained to you many times how the unjust ennoblement of that outcome is the flaw in your reasoning. Do not simply offer the same reasoning by equivocating "special case."

Conversely, since none of your critics accepts the premise by which you determine the probability that science creates you as you are, and you are now insinuating that you no longer need that premise, then please save everyone a lot of time and construct an argument that does not require the outcome to be any particular a priori case. You must also construct an argument that avoids the false dilemma, as jt512 has instructed you, otherwise your exertion will still be moot for that reason.

 

[Mojo]

About that quarter that was found in the street: is there limestone on it?

How many legs has it got?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Jay,
- I think your answer is that my assumption is correct (I'm really not sure), so I'll try again to explain why I think that we conscious beings are all special cases -- why we all have targets on our backs.
- Though, I would ask you to keep in mind that I don't think that we need to be special cases in order for my argument to make sense.

I don't know why I do this since Jabba will ignore it. Still...

Yes, we are all special and unique.

No, we are not predicable, we just happened.

Jabba, I don't know what is needed to make your argument make sense. Probably a miracle.

Hans

 

[JayUtah]

Yes, we are all special and unique.

I gather Jabba is endeavoring to back away from the solipsism/narcissism in his most recent fringe reset. On the one hand it reinforced his ongoing fallacy of estimating the odds of his existence, as allegedly reckoned under the scientific model, as virtually impossible. But then he went on to attempt a philosophical justification for his sense of singularity. It is that which has fallen the most flat and which I suppose he wants to retract.

No, we are not predicable, we just happened.

A true statement, but Jabba equivocates the notion of predictability. In chaos theory, predictability is limited by the empiricism of the model in question. We simply cannot know the inputs and intermediaries of any complex system to a degree sufficient to achieve practical prediction. Chaotic systems are theoretically predictable, but not practically predictable. It is this wedge that Jabba is trying to drive between the scientific model and his outcome.

Jabba, I don't know what is needed to make your argument make sense. Probably a miracle.

It cannot be propped up. It is syllogistically invalid, its major premise is fallacious, and its method is misapplied.

It is syllogistically invalid by being a false dilemma. Jabba wants to prove H, but he cannot. So he believes he can falsify ~H and thereby establish H indirectly. What he doesn't acknowledge is that his ~H is a composition of several incompatible propositions. Rather than testing H vs. ~H, he must test among {H₁, H₂, H₃,...}. If he propose to argue indirectly, he must additionally prove that his hypothesis set is finite and enumerated.

His major premise, P(E|~H), is fallacious by reason of the Texas sharpshooter's fallacy, as discussed at length.

His method is misapplied because there are qualitative requirements that apply to the elements of a Bayesian inferential model. The elements he's chosen do not meet those requirements.

 

[godless dave]

Chaotic systems are theoretically predictable, but not practically predictable. It is this wedge that Jabba is trying to drive between the scientific model and his outcome.

I thought about going into a digression about other things with natural causes that scientists cannot predict: the precise time and location a tornado will touch down, for example. Few people would claim that since scientists can't predict where and when a tornado will touch down with any precision, that tornadoes can't be formed naturally.

I don't think that's the wedge Jabba is going for, though. What I think Jabba is saying is that there is an aspect of the human sense of self that is unpredictable in principle. He hasn't been able to articulate what that aspect is.

 

[Loss Leader]

I thought about going into a digression about other things with natural causes that scientists cannot predict: the precise time and location a tornado will touch down, for example. Few people would claim that since scientists can't predict where and when a tornado will touch down with any precision, that tornadoes can't be formed naturally.

I don't think that's the wedge Jabba is going for, though. What I think Jabba is saying is that there is an aspect of the human sense of self that is unpredictable in principle. He hasn't been able to articulate what that aspect is.

First, he'd have to show that the sense of self is a thing. It's not a thing. It's a property of a functioning neurosystem. And it changes during one's life. Heck, it changes over the course of an hour.

Other than having some of his memories and a tremendous fear of sharks, I have very little in common with 10 year-old Loss Leader. I have very little in common with the frail heart patient who was too weak to lift his head six months ago. Just because the DMV finds it expedient to treat all Loss Leaders as one discrete person doesn't mean it's literally, scientifically true.