Proof of Immortality, VI

[zooterkin]

Dave,
- It is not any non-zero number, but it is teeny.

 

[JayUtah]

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.

Yes, for certain values of "recently." Jabba's most recent comprehensive fringe reset contains this gem:

P(H|E)=P(E|H)P(H)/P(~H) = (7,000,000,000/ ∞)*.99/.01 = Δx→0

Lots of howlers in there, of course, but the latest clause is somewhat telltale. Δx→0, if course, is a snippet of the fundamentals of differential calculus. The rate of change in a function f:X→Y can be estimated over some interval [x_i,x_j] in X by calculating

f(x_j)-f(x_i)
________ .
x_j - x_i​

In this formulation the quantity x_j - x_i may also be notated Δx to denote a general case instead of our determined interval above. Sir Isaac Newton derived the functional algebras of differential calculus by observing the behavior of

lim Δx → 0: Δf(x) / Δx​

for different f. For well-defined, well-behaved functions and compositions of functions, the limit converges to a closed form that is a new function f':X→Y representing the rate of change as a function of x, valid for all x.

The symbol x appears nowhere in Jabba's formulation, and the notion of Δx or the limit as Δx → 0 has no meaning in Jabba's formulation. Just as he confessed he doesn't understand Bayes' theorem (as is evidenced by his inability to reproduce it correctly above), it is obvious he doesn't understand the notion of a limit or its role in mathematics. He's apparently just copy-pasted some phrase he may have seen or heard somewhere in hopes that it will convince the mathematically illiterate that he has made a case. It's a very cargo-cult approach to the problem: throw up enough obscure notation and someone who doesn't know what he's looking at may be convinced you've proven the existence of an immortal soul, or that 0 = 1.

 

[The Norseman]

NOTE: For the love of Bob Dobson, get LaTeX working again mods!

Yes, for certain values of "recently." Jabba's most recent comprehensive fringe reset contains this gem:

​

Lots of howlers in there, of course, but the latest clause is somewhat telltale. Δx→0, if course, is a snippet of the fundamentals of differential calculus. The rate of change in a function f:X→Y can be estimated over some interval [x_i,x_j] in X by calculating

f(x_j)-f(x_i)
________ .
x_j - x_i​

In this formulation the quantity x_j - x_i may also be notated Δx to denote a general case instead of our determined interval above. Sir Isaac Newton derived the functional algebras of differential calculus by observing the behavior of

lim Δx → 0: Δf(x) / Δx​

for different f. For well-defined, well-behaved functions and compositions of functions, the limit converges to a closed form that is a new function f':X→Y representing the rate of change as a function of x, valid for all x.

The symbol x appears nowhere in Jabba's formulation, and the notion of Δx or the limit as Δx → 0 has no meaning in Jabba's formulation. Just as he confessed he doesn't understand Bayes' theorem (as is evidenced by his inability to reproduce it correctly above), it is obvious he doesn't understand the notion of a limit or its role in mathematics. He's apparently just copy-pasted some phrase he may have seen or heard somewhere in hopes that it will convince the mathematically illiterate that he has made a case. It's a very cargo-cult approach to the problem: throw up enough obscure notation and someone who doesn't know what he's looking at may be convinced you've proven the existence of an immortal soul, or that 0 = 1.

I think that he's written this hash of pseudo-math as a way to look important and technical to fool the mathematically disinclined, as you're saying here, but when people ask him what it means, he's then able to switch right over to the wishy-washy, pseudo-philosophical nonsensical language he's also been deploying here.

I think that switch is his true goal; to try and get people to agree to his ill-defined or misused terminology where, in his world, he's correct (and "demonstrably brilliant" at the same time lol).

 

[Toontown]

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.

False.

A specific brain exists in a specific spacetime continuum, occupying a specific set of spacetime coordinates.

This is the scientific definition of identity. Identical objects are differentiated by their spacetime coordinates.

In fact, your argument Supports Jabba's immortality contention, suggesting that any human brain, produced by any universe, which is identical to your brain, is you. That could happen a zillion times in an infinite multiverse.

Which would be literal hell for people who are mentally impaired, such as chemically imbalanced schizophrenics. There would be no mercy or respite for them.

 

[John Jones]

False.

A specific brain exists in a specific spacetime continuum, occupying a specific set of spacetime coordinates.

This is the scientific definition of identity. Identical objects are differentiated by their spacetime coordinates.

In fact, your argument Supports Jabba's immortality contention, suggesting that any human brain, produced by any universe, which is identical to your brain, is you. That could happen a zillion times in an infinite multiverse.

Which would be literal hell for people who are mentally impaired, such as chemically imbalanced schizophrenics. There would be no mercy or respite for them.

This is incorrect, barring all predictably effete attempts to subjectively quantify 'impaired', 'mercy', 'imbalanced' , or 'respite' objectively.

 

[RoboTimbo]

suggesting that any human brain, produced by any universe, which is identical to your brain, is you.

Define "you" as you're using it.

 

[jt512]

If you can use zero or infinity in a fraction, you can literally prove anything.

No. Actually you can't.

 

[Hokulele]

Dave,
- It is not any non-zero number, but it is teeny.

Do you understand what a double negative is in English?

 

[wea]

False.

... occupying a specific set of spacetime coordinates. This is the scientific definition of identity...

this is the scientific definition of EVENT, as far as I know. Can you point me to the documentation of the scientific definition of identity you are referring to? Thank you in advance

 

[jt512]

Can we calculate the probability of Jabba's arguments ever convincing anybody?

Based on the sample of people in this thread, the standard frequentist probability would be 0, while under just about any reasonable Bayesian model it would be 1 (or nearly 1). Interesting case of frequentist and Bayesian inference leading to opposite conclusions.

 

[caveman1917]

Based on the sample of people in this thread, the standard frequentist probability would be 0, while under just about any reasonable Bayesian model it would be 1 (or nearly 1). Interesting case of frequentist and Bayesian inference leading to opposite conclusions.

And as usual caused by a sampling bias not accounted for in a frequentist model. In this case, that you're sampling from a thread on a skeptics forum.

 

[Hokulele]

Based on the sample of people in this thread, the standard frequentist probability would be 0, while under just about any reasonable Bayesian model it would be 1 (or nearly 1). Interesting case of frequentist and Bayesian inference leading to opposite conclusions.

https://xkcd.com/1132/

 

[jt512]

And as usual caused by a sampling bias not accounted for in a frequentist model. In this case, that you're sampling from a thread on a skeptics forum.

Fundamentally, the discrepancy is due to the frequentist model failing to account for prior knowledge, since even with an unbiased sample, an observed frequency of 0 will lead to an (ML) probability estimate of 0.

 

[Loss Leader]

Dave,
- It is not any non-zero number, but it is teeny.

"And by the way, physicists, when describing things like acceleration do not use the word "fast". So they're only doing that in the hopes that I won't raise any objections to this lunacy."

- Mark Watney
The Martian

 

[Toontown]

this is the scientific definition of EVENT, as far as I know. Can you point me to the documentation of the scientific definition of identity you are referring to? Thank you in advance

Nope. Too time consuming to hunt down, and also completely unnessary busy-work, assigned to me for no sensible purpose whatsoever.

For years, in this thread and it's predecessors, multiple posters have been
repeatedly defining consciousness as a process, with little if any question, including from you.

A process is a series of events.

How would you distinguish between multiple identical series of events?

 

[Toontown]

Define "you" as you're using it.

That would be the "you" that you can distinguish from an identical doppelganger in another universe.

 

[Toontown]

This is incorrect, barring all predictably effete attempts to subjectively quantify 'impaired', 'mercy', 'imbalanced' , or 'respite' objectively.

Thanks for your vaguely expressed opinion.

Not sure what you're objecting to, but you might try imagining what it's like to be born and live out your life as a moron. Then you might try imagining having that happen a zillion times.

It's not my idea. It is simply the implication of Loss Leader's assertion.

 

[RoboTimbo]

That would be the "you" that you can distinguish from an identical doppelganger in another universe.

Or two identical Volkswagens?

 

[Toontown]

That would be the "you" that you can distinguish from an identical doppelganger in another universe.

Or two identical Volkswagens?

I'm sure YOU can also distinguish between two identical volkswagens, since they wouldn't be occupying the same space at the same time.

But neither of the volkswagens could ever distinguish between themselves, as they are unconscious and have no powers of observation.

 

[Loss Leader]

False.

A specific brain exists in a specific spacetime continuum, occupying a specific set of spacetime coordinates.

Except that there is no way to travel from one universe to another. An object in Universe A cannot be defined by its space-time coordinates in relation to an object in Universe B.

By definition, any information about any other universe is unknowable.

So, yeah, you're wrong.