Proof of Immortality III

[JayUtah]

Here, both hypotheses address human lives.

Well, to be honest, the issue in question was whether H and ~H must each deal with the possibility of a clockwork universe. While that question seems to have devolved into a war of wordings, you haven't addressed the underlying issue.

One hypothesis claims that each of us has only one finite life. The other hypothesis simply claims that such is not true -- and points out various possible realities in which that first hypothesis would not be true.

What you're missing, among many other things, is a mathematically valid way to attach likelihoods to your "various possible realities."

 

[Loss Leader]

What you're missing, among many other things, is a mathematically valid way to attach likelihoods to your "various possible realities."

My point exactly. Before each of our existences, the probability was somewhere greater than zero up to one.

That assumes that calculating a probability for one's existence is even a valid thing to do. It isn't, at least not for this purpose.

 

[Jabba]

Jabba,

In addition to reworking your P(E|H) calculation, you need to more fully define what you mean by E.

js,
- The current existence of the thing, process or illusion that I call my "self."
- I suspect that you want some elaboration, but You'll need to give me some guidance on the 'direction' I should take.

 

[JayUtah]

The current existence of the thing, process or illusion that I call my "self."

That simply shifts the question to how to define your "self."

I suspect that you want some elaboration, but You'll need to give me some guidance on the 'direction' I should take.

You have been given the appropriate elaboration. You must provide testable definitions. Your definitions must satisfy the criteria appropriate to the methods you plan to use.

 

[jt512]

jt,

- I'm having trouble with "disjoint set."

- What we're addressing is whether or not complementary hypotheses have anything in common. It's obvious that complementary hypotheses have to address the same set... Here, both hypotheses address human lives. One hypothesis claims that each of us has only one finite life. The other hypothesis simply claims that such is not true -- and points out various possible realities in which that first hypothesis would not be true.

- I seem to be missing something...

Probability theory?

You are (supposedly) calculating probabilities of events. For example, the notation P(H) means "the probability of the event H." If H is a hypothesis, we might say "the probability that H is true," but the two phrases mean the same thing. Events live in a sample space. A sample space is a set; the events, subsets of the set. Since your probability calculation involves the events E and H, your sample space must contain the events E, ~E, H and ~H. A diagram of it should look something like this:

​

The left-hand rectangle is the set (event) H; the right-hand rectangle, the set (event) ~H. As the diagram implies, H and ~H are disjoint; they have no elements—sub-hypotheses—in common. If they did, then the two events would overlap and would not be complements.

But they do have something "in common" in the sense that they are both overlapped by the event E: they have "overlapped by E" in common.

 

[Jabba]

Probability theory?

You are (supposedly) calculating probabilities of events. For example, the notation P(H) means "the probability of the event H." If H is a hypothesis, we might say "the probability that H is true," but the two phrases mean the same thing. Events live in a sample space. A sample space is a set; the events, subsets of the set. Since your probability calculation involves the events E and H, your sample space must contain the events E, ~E, H and ~H. A diagram of it should look something like this:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_5305557c62d342a7d0.png[/qimg]​

The left-hand rectangle is the set (event) H; the right-hand rectangle, the set (event) ~H. As the diagram implies, H and ~H are disjoint; they have no elements—sub-hypotheses—in common. If they did, then the two events would overlap and would not be complements.

But they do have something "in common" in the sense that they are both overlapped by the event E: they have "overlapped by E" in common.

jt,

- Unfortunately, that only confuses me further.

-In my understanding of the Bayes formula that I'm using, E is the event and H is the hypothesis. What H and ~H have in common is the subject they're addressing -- i.e., something to the effect of human mortality.
- Currently, we are trying to figure out how the possibilities of freedom vs determinism, and multiverse vs universe relate to my claim that OOFLam is not true. My claim about my claim is that it applies whatever those variables -- though, the exact calculations would be affected.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Jabba:

- Clearly define "self" in a meaningful way.
- Stop stalling.
- Identify the factors that have to exist in order for your "self" (using the same definition you made in step 1, not some new one) to exist.
- Stop stalling.
- Show why you think the factors identified in step 3 make your existence unlikely.
- Stop stalling.
- Show why you think step 4 means you are immortal.
- Stop stalling.

 

[Jabba]

Dave,
H is OOFLam, which basically implies that the self is entirely physical.
- And, we are, indeed, at least close to Mt Rainier again. I think that your MT Rainier issue is much the same issue as my P(E|H) issue -- if the likelihood of my existence is an appropriate entry for P(E|H) in the posterior evaluation of OOFLam, the likelihood of Mt Rainier should be an appropriate entry for P(E|H) in the posterior evaluation of the scientific model.

So should we doubt the field of geology?

Dave,
- No.
- My quote above was misleading...
- It's much the same issue -- but, with different answers.
- My claim is that we have no reason to doubt the scientific explanation for Mt Rainier; whereas, we just don't have any scientific explanation for my particular self. And again, probability is based upon ignorance vs knowledge; there is no such thing as absolute probability.

 

[Loss Leader]

- My claim is that we have no reason to doubt the scientific explanation for Mt Rainier; whereas, we just don't have any scientific explanation for my particular self.

And if that were true, it still wouldn't allow baseless, evidence-free speculation.

Luckily for all involved, Mt. Rainier's shape is the culmination of a vast array of low-probability events in exactly the same way as any individual's feeling of "self."

 

[JoeMorgue]

My claim is that we have no reason to doubt the scientific explanation for Mt Rainier; whereas, we just don't have any scientific explanation for my particular self.

And this claim is an absolute, across the board, total and complete falsehood.

You haven't presented any quantifiable aspect of your "self" that can't be easily explained via non-woo means.

And again, probability is based upon ignorance vs knowledge; there is no such thing as absolute probability.

Nothing is absolutely, 100% certain to an absurd mathematical degree, ergo Woo.

Seen it before Jabba, not impressed.

 

[JayUtah]

My claim is that we have no reason to doubt the scientific explanation for Mt Rainier; whereas, we just don't have any scientific explanation for my particular self.

Yes, your claim is that some as-yet undefined difference exists that defeats the analogy. Before you can call it a proof, you have to show what that difference is a give evidence for it. Until then, your "proof" is just circular reasoning. You have fallen all over yourself insisting, demanding, begging that science cannot explain the self, but this is just pure denialism. And given the admission of your emotional entrenchment in the notion of a soul, it's not hard to guess where that denialism comes from. Yes, you've conflated predictability, you've imagined some ineffable forever-unknowable-to-science aspect -- everything we expect out of such desperation. But still nothing that approaches proof, or even comes within shouting distance of the "stalemate" you suppose you've achieved.

 

[JayUtah]

My claim about my claim is that it applies whatever those variables -- though, the exact calculations would be affected.

Okay, if you now concede that you must redo your calculations to account for a clockwork universe on either H, ~H, or possibly both, will you stipulate that Loss Leader has already done those calculations and the result is fatal to your claim?

 

[Pixel42]

My claim is that we have no reason to doubt the scientific explanation for Mt Rainier; whereas, we just don't have any scientific explanation for my particular self.

The scientific explanation for your particular self is exactly the same as the scientific explanation for Mt Rainier, and we have no reason to doubt either.

 

[Jabba]

Dave,
- No.
- My quote above was misleading...
- It's much the same issue -- but, with different answers.
- My claim is that we have no reason to doubt the scientific explanation for Mt Rainier; whereas, we just don't have any scientific explanation for my particular self. And again, probability is based upon ignorance vs knowledge; there is no such thing as absolute probability.

And if that were true, it still wouldn't allow baseless, evidence-free speculation.

Luckily for all involved, Mt. Rainier's shape is the culmination of a vast array of low-probability events in exactly the same way as any individual's feeling of "self."

LL,
- It still seems like we're not talking about the same "self"...
- Try this again. I think we all agree that if we were able to fully replicate my physical self, I would not begin looking through 2 sets of eyes. We simply would have created a different self. We would seem to have no physical way of recreating ME (the same self) -- or any other self, for that matter.

 

[JayUtah]

Try this again.

Why? Your abstract-identity argument is simply solipsist and was rejected. Why do you think simply repeating it changes its wrongness?

We would seem to have no physical way of recreating ME (the same self) -- or any other self, for that matter.

Asked and answered several times. Do not waste your critics time by giving them arguments they have already refuted, unless you finally have a response to their refutation.

 

[jond]

LL,
- It still seems like we're not talking about the same "self"...
- Try this again. I think we all agree that if we were able to fully replicate my physical self, I would not begin looking through 2 sets of eyes. We simply would have created a different self. We would seem to have no physical way of recreating ME (the same self) -- or any other self, for that matter.

Jabba: we are talking about the same self. In OOFLam, your self and your body are the same thing. You keep trying to insert a soul in where it doesn't belong. If you were replicated there would be two of you, each would think they are you, and no one would be able to tell which was the original. But they would diverge from the instant of replication. You've been told this an infinite number of times and you've ignored it each and every time.

 

[Jabba]

The scientific explanation for your particular self is exactly the same as the scientific explanation for Mt Rainier, and we have no reason to doubt either.

Pixel,
- Mmmm...
- I'm now recognizing a question that I never really recognized before. For now, I don't have an answer...
- I'll be back.

 

[godless dave]

LL,
- It still seems like we're not talking about the same "self"...
- Try this again. I think we all agree that if we were able to fully replicate my physical self, I would not begin looking through 2 sets of eyes. We simply would have created a different self. We would seem to have no physical way of recreating ME (the same self) -- or any other self, for that matter.

Because two is more than one. If you fully recreated Mount Rainier, the copy would not be in the same location as the original. If we fully replicated your physical self, the copy would not be connected to the same pair of eyes as the original. Just as there would be two identical brains, there would be two identical selves.

 

[jsfisher]

we all agree that if we were able to fully replicate my physical self....We simply would have created a different self.

Different how?

After an amoeba reproduces, which one is the original?

 

[JoeMorgue]

So we're still at the "Sticking fingers in my ears singing La la la la la it's magically different just because I say so la la la la la" stage.

Jabba there is nothing, nothing, nothing that makes "you" more unique then a shuffled deck of cards, Mt Rainer, or a copy of Doom.