Proof of Immortality, VII

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
Robo,
- Most of us here have agreed that a perfect copy of my brain and body would not bring me (my sense of self) back to life.
Click to expand...

That's a lie! Name three people who agreed to that flapdoodle.

The question doesn't even make sense to me, unless one presumes that duplicating your body necessarily means killing you, to which nobody agreed.

The Star Trek Transporter argument is over here ----->
 
Jabba said:
- You've all agreed that it wouldn't bring me back to life. The new sense of self would not be ME.
Click to expand...

Nobody has agreed with you on that matter. The new sense of self would be a duplicate, exactly identical-but separate you. 'Back to life' is meaningless in this context. Please do not misrepresent what other people have said, it's rude and wrong.
 
Numberphile and Vsauce actually tried to calculate, using the size of the observable universe, the Planck Length, and the number of possible quantum states the absolute maximum number of "things" the universe could, under ideal conditions, contain. They went so far as to try and calculate, again under perfectly ideal conditions how many "thoughts" could be contained in the universe.

Using the following assumptions:

The total amount of mass in the universe. They use the high estimate of 3.4 x 10^60 kilograms of matter.

The fastest possible computational speed. They use Bremermann's Limit of 1.36 x 10^50 bits per second per kilogram of matter.

How much is a thought? They used a low end estimate of a "thought" taking 800 bits of data, about a sentence's worth, to get across.

And working from the Big Bang to the Entropic Heat Death of the Universe, a time they estimate to be 3.154 X 10^116 seconds.

So given the above if every single spec of matter in the observable universe was computing new, unique 800 bit "thoughts" at Bremermann's Limit from the moment the universe began to the moment it ended the total number of thoughts that could exist under mathematically perfect conditions would be 1.458 x 10^227 thoughts.

So we'll use that as a hard upper limit. No suggestion that any conceptual idea could be less likely than 1 in 1.458 x 10^227 can even be entertained and any practical, real world probably must exist many, many, many, many magnitudes lower than that. Even under absolutely perfect conditions 1 in 1.458 x 10 to the 227th power is peak "Improbable." A hypothetical event with a probability of 1 in 1.458 x 10 to 227th power is the Planck Improbable.

So how many people are there total? That's a tricky question, depending on at what point you want to start calling us Human. I'll use the number the BBC used in answer to the "Do the living outnumber the dead" question that is oddly persistent. 108 billion for the total number of modern Homo Sapien Sapiens. It's ballpark but workable.

So 108,000,000,000 / 1.458 x 10^227. That's it. That's as high as this nonsense can go and that's using soooooooo many favorable assumptions it's functionally make believe on top of make believe.

Still doesn't equal "Virtually infinite." Still doesn't make the equation work.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
- In my formula, I allow that P(~H) is .01. In the past, I've presented what I consider to be "some evidence" for immortality (the official H is OOFLam, i.e. each of us "selves" has Only One Finite Life (at most)).
- I think that, in part, you're suggesting that even .01 is a big overstatement -- at least. Is that right?
Click to expand...

Jabba, in one of the posts of mine you recently ignored I gave an example of what estimating actually is. Your value of 0.01 is not an estimate, it's a guess. If you think otherwise, please list the data and assumptions you've used to arrive at that estimate, with an idea of the error margins you expect on your data. If you can't, it's not an estimate.

Dave
 
Jabba said:
- You've all agreed that it wouldn't bring me back to life. The new sense of self would not be ME.
Click to expand...

After the replies you've gotten to the above claim, you must surely agree that you are generally considered to be a liar.
 
Jabba every single poster, outside of yourself, active in this thread since you made that statement has now characterized your claiming that anyone, to say nothing of "everyone" has agreed to one of the core conceit of your argument, as blatantly dishonest.

Don't you feel you should.. respond to this?
 
JayUtah said:
How many times must people point this out as a lie before you start paying attention? This is beyond rude. It's flat out intentionally offensive.
Click to expand...

Betcha that doesn't scene doesn't make into Jabba's final edit of the film.

Maybe we can get an extended cut on Blu-ray with deleted scenes.
 
JoeBentley said:
Jabba every single poster, outside of yourself, active in this thread since you made that statement has now characterized your claiming that anyone, to say nothing of "everyone" has agreed to one of the core conceit of your argument, as blatantly dishonest.

Don't you feel you should.. respond to this?
Click to expand...

Responding honestly would necessitate a level of integrity the liar has yet to demonstrate.

Note to Moderators if this post is reported: Calling Jabba a liar is not an insult. It is a simple, demonstrable statement of fact.
 
Jabba said:
Hans,
- Prior and posterior probability refer to a hypothesis, not an event. The hypothesis I'm trying to re-evaluate is OOFLam. Where do we diverge?
Click to expand...

Mine is a hypothesis. You don't actually have a bucket of sand, have you?

:rolleyes:

Hans
 
Jabba said:
- You've all agreed that it wouldn't bring me back to life. The new sense of self would not be ME.
Click to expand...

Why do you think that the fact that copying something results in two things instead of one is a profound observation?
 
Jabba said:
- You've all agreed that it wouldn't bring me back to life. The new sense of self would not be ME.
Click to expand...


Jabba -

You claim to understand that the sense of self is a process. Then you type two sentences that show you clearly fail to understand any such thing.

There is no "ME" to duplicate and there is no "new sense of self." The illusion of "you" is a momentary thing that is constantly changing. The person inhabiting your body right now is less like "you" from 10 minutes ago than a clone would be.

Prove me wrong by doing this exceedingly simple thing: Define the characteristics of the self. Define the things that you pass on when you are reincarnated. Don't tell me they're whatever rewincarnationists believe because: 1) that's not an answer; and 2) you don't know what they believe. Don't tell me it's your "sense of 'me'-ness" because: 1) that's recursive and defines a word as its self; and 2) every single person who exists thinks he exists, so there's no difference between any two such senses.

What are the characteristics of this sense of self that you believe can't be duplicated? Answer or concede that you are not talking about a concept that is present in materialism.

Or, and this is the one I'm betting on, ignore my question because it's inconvenient. Ignore it because thinking about it makes you feel bad about yourself.
 
godless dave said:
How did you arrive at that estimate?
Click to expand...

He extruded it.

GqTWcsal.jpg


Or did he excrete it?


See? It could have been much worse. :jaw-dropp
23kO7QV.jpg

 
Last edited:
Agatha said:
It might be a good time to remind ourselves of how actual statisticians responded to Jabba's ideas: http://www.talkstats.com/threads/immortality-bayesian-statistics.60035/

Page 3 I find particularly instructive, as it's explained several times why P(me|~H) cannot be calculated from the other terms of the equation, even though Jabba's argument rests on calculating it in this way.
Click to expand...

Oh, my, yes. The refusal to take on board anything he’s told is remarkably similar to something we’ve seen here...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom