Proof of Immortality, VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
- Yeah... Technically.
- However, time and space might be infinite -- and, there could even be an infinity of universes. So, if there is such a thing as infinity, the concept of a real number over infinity is meaningful -- it just isn't specific. A real number divided by infinity is teeny -- just not quite zero.
- And consequently, we can substitute whatever real percentage we want, and say that any real number divided by infinity is smaller.
- I never claimed that the likelihood of your current existence is zero. I just claimed that it is virtually zero, or it approaches zero. No specific percentage, but still a meaningful concept.
Click to expand...

How about you get back on topic and provide proof of immortality. Your claims about numbers and their properties are irrelevant.
 
Jabba said:
- Yeah... Technically.
- However, time and space might be infinite -- and, there could even be an infinity of universes. So, if there is such a thing as infinity, the concept of a real number over infinity is meaningful -- it just isn't specific. A real number divided by infinity is teeny -- just not quite zero.
Click to expand...

A real number divided by infinity is either zero or undefined depending what mathematical system you are using it. It is not teeny. It is not any nonzero number.

Jabba said:
- And consequently, we can substitute whatever real percentage we want, and say that any real number divided by infinity is smaller.
Click to expand...

OK. How does that help your argument?

Jabba said:
- I never claimed that the likelihood of your current existence is zero. I just claimed that it is virtually zero, or it approaches zero. No specific percentage, but still a meaningful concept.
Click to expand...

"Virtually zero" is not a mathematical concept. "Approaches zero" makes sense in calculus if some other number in the equation is also changing. It does not make sense as a probability or likelihood.
 
Jabba said:
- I never claimed that the likelihood of your current existence is zero. I just claimed that it is virtually zero, or it approaches zero. No specific percentage, but still a meaningful concept.
Click to expand...
What do you mean that a likelihood approaches zero?

It sounds like you just recently came across the concept of limits and are trying to apply it to the topic at hand but are failing.

The limit of 1/x approaches 0 as x approaches infinity. That's where the idea of 1/infinity = 0 comes from. But you're mangling the concept badly. The denominator you want to use isn't approaching infinity. It is infinity. So you can't try and wiggle out of the awkward conclusion that the odds are zero by trying to say that the odds merely approach zero.

Can you explain in your own words what you mean when you say that likelihood of your existence approaches zero? Approaches it in what sense? What exactly are you talking about here? Approach implies something moving. It makes sense when discussing limits, but I'm struggling to understand how you're trying to shoehorn in the concept of approaching in your scenario of trying to calculate the value of odds of 1/infinity.

If the concept is meaningful mathematically then you will have no problem explaining it mathematically to the members here. I suspect your concept of 'virtually zero' is not a meaningful concept, but is in fact utterly meaningless and you will not be forthcoming in supplying any coherent meaning to it.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
I just claimed that it is virtually zero, or it approaches zero. No specific percentage, but still a meaningful concept.
Click to expand...
Describe the process you went through to make it go from being undefined to being a meaningful concept for your proof.
 
Jabba said:
and, there could even be an infinity of universes
Click to expand...

Jabba -

This hurts your argument.

A single run of a universe is, at least vaguely, analogous to a single lotto drawing. Maybe nobody has the winning numbers that time around. But the more universes there are, the more likely that the combinations necessary for life will eventually arise.

An infinite number of universes may in fact guarantee that you will, at some point, exist. The fact that you find yourself in such a universe is as meaningful as a goldfish finding itself in a particular bowl at a carnival game.
 
So I think we can agree that, calculated right after the big bang, the likelihood of Jabba existing is a very small number, as is the likelihood of Mount Rainier existing.

So what?
 
Jabba said:
Yeah... Technically.
Click to expand...

No, not "technically." You're either using the definition in mathematics or you are not.

So, if there is such a thing as infinity, the concept of a real number over infinity is meaningful -- it just isn't specific
Click to expand...

No, you don't get to invent your own private mathematics just to make your proof work.

A real number divided by infinity is teeny -- just not quite zero.
Click to expand...

No.

I never claimed that the likelihood of your current existence is zero. I just claimed that it is virtually zero, or it approaches zero.
Click to expand...

You claimed the likelihood of existing without a soul was "virtually zero," and you invoked division by infinity as the proof for that claim. That is simply mathematically illiterate. Division by infinity, where it is defined, is defined as exactly zero -- and for the proper reasons. It is not "virtually zero." It is not a proof for your claim.
 
Jabba said:
For one thing, the likelihood of an event depends upon when we’re predicting from…
Click to expand...

Yeah, so predicting after the fact is rather silly.

I guess you're suggesting that the denominator cannot be infinity
Click to expand...

Yeah, because there isn't an infinity of combinations or things in the universe. You've not established why you think there's a pool of potential selves at all. In fact you've dodged the question for months now.
 
godless dave said:
So I think we can agree that, calculated right after the big bang, the likelihood of Jabba existing is a very small number, as is the likelihood of Mount Rainier existing.

So what?
Click to expand...

This is where Jabba once again brings in his two sets of eyes nonsense. Apparently the same conditions that created Mount Rainier could be duplicated, and you'd get two identical Mount Rainiers. But the same conditions that created Jabba, if duplicated, would create two identical Jabbas which he thinks is somehow different. He'll waffle for a while without producing a single thing that's different. Then a fringe reset.
 
godless dave said:
A real number divided by infinity is either zero or undefined depending what mathematical system you are using it. It is not teeny. It is not any nonzero number...
Click to expand...
Dave,
- It is not any non-zero number, but it is teeny.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
Dave,
- It is not any non-zero number, but it is teeny.
Click to expand...
Teeny is not a mathematical concept.

Can you explain in mathematical terms what you think 1/infinity precisely is, and how you came to that conclusion?

You are claiming to have a mathematical proof of immortality. Yet here you are resorting to calculating odds that are entirely undefined like 'teeny'. And mangling concepts like approaching limits. And relying on feeling that you can't articulate.

How can you say these things and with a straight face claim to be presenting a mathematical proof? :confused:
 
Jabba said:
It is not any non-zero number, but it is teeny.
Click to expand...

No, it absolutely is not. In fact, it would do great violence to Sir Isaac Newton's gift to the world of calculus if dividing a non-zero real number by infinity were non-zero. It would mean calculus is wrong. Since we know calculus works, we can quite easily throw out your attempt today to reinvent mathematics to save face.
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- It is not any non-zero number, but it is teeny.
Click to expand...


HaHaHaHaHa!

Look what you wrote!

Jabba, this is profound foolishness. How many orders of magnitude are there between teeny and teeny-weeny?

In the limit, as the number of your ineffectual posts approach infinity, your credibility approaches zero.

See my .sig
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- It is not any non-zero number, but it is teeny.
Click to expand...

The hilited is identical to saying "It is zero."

EDIT: or, rethinking the phrasing, it may be identical to saying, "If it is a number at all, that number is zero."
 
Last edited:
Argumemnon said:
There's no option for "teeny" in there.
Click to expand...

See, there you go being biased and closed-minded again. :D

The point of offering a mathematical proof is that it has a probative effect by obeying universally understood laws of mathematics. Proving that you've invented time travel by offering a private definition of time is transparent cheating -- offensively so. You'd have to know such a proof would never get traction. Similarly inventing one's own mathematics for the sole purpose of making a single broken proof work is also transparently cheating.
 
Imhotep said:
I always liked to look at it as:

1/n = 0 as n → ∞
Click to expand...

And so did Sir Isaac and so does the rest of the world. The hitch is that in Jabba's formulation there's no notion of tendency. The number of "potential selves" doesn't tend toward infinity in Jabba's model; he defines the cardinality of such a set having no finite numerical value, therefore infinity -- no tendency involved. The only way division produces a finite result is if both the dividend and divisor are finite. And that changes Jabba's argument qualitatively, because then the number of potential selves would have to be some finite number, therefore potentially a computable number, and Jabba would have to find and prove a method for computing it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom