Proof of Immortality, VI

[RoboTimbo]

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.

So the only difference I would distinguish between the Volkswagens is their spacial location?

 

[Toontown]

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.

It is not necessary to travel to other universes in order to dope out that different universes, if they exist, would in fact be different universes, and any identical objects existing in different universes would be different objects, because they exist in different universes. It wouldn't take a genius to dope out that spacetime coordinates in universe A would be different from any spacetime coordinates in universe B.

Hypothetically. Which is how you must have been thinking when you implied that this universe's Jabba could have been produced by some other universe.

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

So, yeah, you're wrong.

False.

It is imminently knowable that any other universe would not be this universe, and anything existing in some other universe which might be identical to something existing in this universe, would not be the same thing.

Jabba's specific brain had one chance to occur, in one universe, at one specific set of spacetime coordinates, in said one universe. Irrespective of how many other universes might exist.

To argue otherwise is to argue for immortality. But it would be a really dumb argument for immortality. If I were to argue for some kind of immortality, I wouldn't go that way. Or the soul way.

 

[Loss Leader]

It is imminently knowable that any other universe would not be this universe, and anything existing in some other universe which might be identical to something existing in this universe, would not be the same thing.

If such things are knowable, how would you go about testing them? What falsifiable test could we run to be sure that something in one universe exists at a different time and/or place as something in another universe?

You're treating universes like states on a map. It's similar to the way Jabba treats non-zero numbers as zero.

 

[Toontown]

So the only difference I would distinguish between the Volkswagens is their spacial location?

Do we really need to waste each other's time this way?

You stipulated identical volkswagens, and the answer to your question is NO.

The differing spacetime locations is one difference, a difference which would be your clue that you are observing two separate, distinct volkswagens. You would thereby know that everything about them, except their appearance and capability, is entirely separate and distinct, down to the last atom.

But you wouldn't even need to observe any of your doppelgangers in other universes. You already know which one you are, unless you're a P-zombie. And even if you are a P-zombie, you should be able to simulate knowing which one you are.

Which, BTW, is more than Mt. Rainier can do. It's not even a P-zombie.

 

[Toontown]

If such things are knowable, how would you go about testing them? What falsifiable test could we run to be sure that something in one universe exists at a different time and/or place as something in another universe?

You're treating universes like states on a map. It's similar to the way Jabba treats non-zero numbers as zero.

I'm treating them like DIFFERENT universes, and you don't need to run a falsifiable test to determine whether different universes are really different universes.

But if you must have a falsifiable test, then try noticing that you haven't been crushed by the combined masses of zillions of universes. That should clue you in that either there are no zillions of other universes, or, if there are zillions of other universes, they definitely are not sharing the same spacetime.

Either way, your Jabba-likelihood-increasing gambit has failed to pass muster.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Do we really need to waste each other's time this way?[

It was your decision to go down this road.

You stipulated identical volkswagens, and the answer to your question is NO.

The differing spacetime locations is one difference, a difference which would be your clue that you are observing two separate, distinct volkswagens. You would thereby know that everything about them, except their appearance and capability, is entirely separate and distinct, down to the last atom.

Would the Volkswagens be traveling one 60 mph? Would they be looking out of one set of headlights?

But you wouldn't even need to observe any of your doppelgangers in other universes. You already know which one you are, unless you're a P-zombie. And even if you are a P-zombie, you should be able to simulate knowing which one you are.

What about the duplicate in this universe? One went into the duplication machine, two came out. Which is me and who does the other one think he is?

Which, BTW, is more than Mt. Rainier can do. It's not even a P-zombie.

Evidence?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Define "you" as you're using it.

And this is the issue I've been screaming into night for years in this discussion.

Our current linguistic and social concept "identity" and "self" and similar related concepts don't account for level of nuance people are beating each over the head with in this discussion.

"Would an identical but separate me be me" is not a valid question. The concept of "me" developed in a world where that doesn't happen so the question isn't a question, it's an invitation to nothing but dueling arbitrary definitions.

 

[Toontown]

It was your decision to go down this road.

False. It was your decision to clumsily attempt to troll me by belaboring the obvious.

Would the Volkswagens be traveling one 60 mph? Would they be looking out of one set of headlights?

Can you really not think of a better non sequitur badgering question to ask?

You're wasting your time, BTW. I don't feel badgered. I just feel like I'm watching someone repeatedly try to score a basket without even hitting the backboard.

What about the duplicate in this universe? One went into the duplication machine, two came out. Which is me and who does the other one think he is?

1. It might not be a real smart idea to attempt to argue against fundamental laws of physics by imagining a machine which violates fundamental laws of physics. Hint: two human bodies cannot occupy the same space at the same time. Not ever.

2. What anyone thinks doesn't change which one is which. The fact is, one of them is the original you, and the other one isn't, irrespective of who knows it and who doesn't. Unless the original was disassembled during the false duplication process, in which case the original no longer exists.

3. For anyone to know which is which would require exactly what I've suggested - track the spacetime coordinates of the original you. Keep track of that one, and you'll know which one is which.

Evidence?

The fact that you would demand "evidence" that a big rock is in fact a big rock, is itself evidence that I need to demand some evidence from you.

I need evidence, at this point, that your post #486 was the work of a sentient being. Only after having received such evidence will I make a decision as to whether to attempt any actual communication.

 

[Belz...]

Er, Toontown, what is it that you're arguing for here?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Er, Toontown, what is it that you're arguing for here?

The benefits of contrarianism.

 

[RoboTimbo]

False. It was your decision to clumsily attempt to troll me by belaboring the obvious.

This is an odd observation. Do you often have these false positives?

Can you really not think of a better pointless badgering question to ask?

The punishment fits the crime.

You're wasting your time, BTW. I don't feel badgered. I just feel like I'm watching someone repeatedly try to score a basket without even hitting the backboard.

Do you ever get the feeling you've gone to the basketball arena and you're the only one there because there's a football game being played?

1. It might not be a real smart idea to attempt to argue against fundamental laws of physics by imagining a machine which violates fundamental laws of physics. Hint: two human bodies cannot occupy the same space at the same time. Not ever.

That was the basis for the thought experiment. You might try showing that you're actually paying attention. The entire thread is silly but there are some sparks of thought given to it. So far, none of them have been from you.

2. What anyone thinks doesn't change which one is which. The fact is, one of them is the original you, and the other one isn't, irrespective of who knows it and who doesn't.

Nope. The thought experiment was that one goes in, two come out. It's no more silly than Jabba's entire premise and proof.

3. For anyone to know which is which would require exactly what I've suggested - track the spacetime coordinates of the original you. Keep track of that one, and you'll know which one is which.

You can't. It's Schroedinger's duplicator. Your suggestion was silly.

The fact that you would demand "evidence" that a big rock is in fact a big rock, is itself evidence that I need to demand some evidence from you.

Actually, I was demanding evidence that you're sentient.

I need evidence, at this point, that your post #486 was the work of a sentient being. Only after having received such evidence will I make a decision as to whether to attempt any actual communication.

Glad to know you haven't yet attempted any actual communication. Thank you for the admission.

Now, back to the silly thread.

 

[godless dave]

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?

 

[wea]

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.

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?

1. It might not be a real smart idea to attempt to argue against fundamental laws of physics ...
3. For anyone to know which is which would require exactly what I've suggested - track the spacetime coordinates of the original you. Keep track of that one, and you'll know which one is which.

Every couple of weeks, three quarters of "you" are replaced. How are you going to assign a worldline to your "specific brain"? Is your brain an indivisible ("elementary") particle? Not to mention "consciousness", is it a trackable particle in your vision too?
I still think it's a process.

 

[Belz...]

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?

Mount Rainier is immortal.

 

[JayUtah]

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?

So what, indeed. We observe the forces that affect both the present form of a mountain and the present makeup of an individual organism to be governed by chaotic system. This effectively places them beyond the practical ability to predict based on initial conditions. Luckily in chaos theory predictability is not the same as determinism, but that's surprisingly moot. What isn't moot is the understanding that neither the present form of Mt Ranier nor the present form of Jabba were significant as targets at the Big Bang. We ascribe to them significance only now that we observe them, by virtue of that observation. That's not retrospective. It's just the Texas sharpshooter fallacy with a bigger barn, and Jabba can't demonstrate he knows why the Texas sharpshooter fallacy is a fallacy.

Just because you can formulate a ratio of two numbers doesn't mean that constitutes a meaningful probability.

 

[caveman1917]

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.

True. But I think we're really saying the same thing here, just approaching it from a different angle.

Suppose I'm a Bayesian and let K denote the background knowledge I use, from which I conclude that the probability of there being at least one person being convinced by Jabba is 1. Now what does K consist of? It includes me having seen people being convinced by arguments like that. If the frequentist were to include those observations in K in their sample they'd reach the same conclusion.

Or differently, we know that Bayesian and frequentist approaches reach the same conclusion if the Bayesian uses equal priors (max entropy priors to be exact). For every Bayesian inference which starts from unequal priors, we can construct an equivalent Bayesian inference which starts from equal priors by adding some implicit evidence (call it E') - basically moving the background knowledge from the priors to the likelihoods. And then we know the Bayesian and frequentist approaches must reach the same conclusion.

The frequentist sampling bias consists exactly of not considering the observations which the Bayesian uses as background knowledge.

ETA: maybe my use of "biased sample" wasn't really accurate, it would be more like "incomplete sample" in the sense of not including observations in the sample which the Bayesian does include under background knowledge.

 

[Toontown]

Nope. The thought experiment was that one goes in, two come out. It's no more silly than Jabba's entire premise and proof.

Well, I picked out the only thing vaguely resembling communication in your post.

The inference of it is, you admit the thought experiment is silly, and it is possible, though not conclusive, that you know that your body's spacetime coordinates are not separable from your body and are not shared by any other doppelganger in any universe.

 

[theprestige]

it is possible, though not conclusive, that you know that your body's spacetime coordinates are not separable from your body and are not shared by any other doppelganger in any universe.

It's possible that your body's spacetime coordinates are not separable from your body?

 

[Toontown]

Every couple of weeks, three quarters of "you" are replaced. How are you going to assign a worldline to your "specific brain"? Is your brain an indivisible ("elementary") particle? Not to mention "consciousness", is it a trackable particle in your vision too?
I still think it's a process.

I did not even vaguely suggest it is not a process. I hope you're not suggesting that a specific process is independent of its mass, energy, and especially it's spacetime components.

Seriously? You're actually asking how I would track your specific sentient process, and differentiate it from others?

I'd do it by tracking your whole body. Wherever that body is, that's where your specific process is. Irrespective of whatever atoms happen to be participating in it's generation at the moment.

Unless Schrodinger devised some stupid cat trick to cause me to lose track of you. But that would just be a stupid obfuscatory cat trick.

 

[Toontown]

It's possible that your body's spacetime coordinates are not separable from your body?

Try to avoid reading the opposite of what is written. This may require accurate parsing.