Merged: Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[dlorde]

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

The crux of his argument is that "close to zero" means the same thing as "zero."

Any takers for 'almost infinite' ?

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Shuttlt,

- Interesting analysis. It does seem to me that science cannot (currently) accept any kind of ultimate "meaning" (or purpose) to reality -- that would be "magical."
- But then, I don't think that my particular "scientific" hypothesis ("A") that "we each have but one, short, life to live, at most," necessarily excludes some sort of ultimate meaning...
- I'm just claiming that if that particular hypothesis is true, the probability of any particular person (self) existing right now is esentially zero.
- And since, given that scientific hypothesis, the probability that I would exist right now is essentially zero, I wonder -- does my current existence have something to say about the liklihood of that scientific hypothesis being true? Certainly, if the probability of me existing right now -- given that scientific hypothesis -- was actually zero, the fact that I do exist right now would prove that hypothesis wrong...

- There is much more to discuss about the logic here -- but hopefully, the above will give you and I a good jumping off place.

--- Jabba

OK. Here's where you are going wrong....

Let's say your "scientific hypothesis" is true. There are a huge number of possible ways the universe could develop, but let us assume that one of them must. Some mechanism determines which universe we end up with. What ever universe ends up being the case, the odds that it was that one are tiny. The sum of all those tiny probabilities are 1.

Presumably all these universes are also possiblities for what ever it is that decides what the purpose of the universe is, and hence decides which universe will end up coming into being?

Why are we working out the probability for the "scientific hypthesis" choice before the choice of which universe is made, but for the "non-scientific hypothesis" we are choosing after?

I just have a vision of all the possible Jabba's saying, "given that the universe has a purpose, the probability of my coming into being is 1". Are there an infinite number of possible "purposes" or would most of the Jabba's be wrong?

[Jabba]

- I think that you guys have three major objections to my argument for immortality -- as well as a few (to several) minor ones.
a. Major Objections:
i. That my current existence is so improbable -- given what I’m calling the “scientific” hypothesis – is NOT evidence against that hypothesis.
ii. My hypotheses are too poorly defined to be dealt with by Bayesian inference, taken seriously or, understood.
iii. The probability numbers that I propose are “off the wall” at best.
- If you agree, I’ll try to answer your major objections, one at a time.
- Otherwise, please rephrase and/or add.
--- Jabba

[shuttlt]

Jabba, I don't think that covers my objection. Why do you take the probability of Jabba after the choice of the purpose of the universe, and hence the existence of Jabba, is decided upon in the non-scientific version, but the probability of Jabba before Jabba's existence is certain in the scientific case? Is your claim that a universe with Jabba in it was the only possible choice for a universe with meaning and purpose?

Why could we not swap things around and consider the probability of Jabba in a universe with purpose as being 0.000000000000001 given the multiplicity of possible purposes and the odds of Jabba as being 1 in a scientific universe given that you are here? Wouldn't that be equally valid?

Surely you need to either take both probabilities before the decision as to what universe we are going to have is made, or both after. Chosing to take one before and one after seems a bit strange to me.

[Jabba]

Shuttlt,
- I didn't mention your question cause I din't really understand it. I'll think some more about it and get back to you.
---Jabba

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- I think that you guys have three major objections to my argument for immortality -- as well as a few (to several) minor ones.

One correction: You have not argued for immortality. Not once. You have tried to argue that we should not exist.

Quote:

a. Major Objections:
i. That my current existence is so improbable -- given what I’m calling the “scientific” hypothesis – is NOT evidence against that hypothesis.

That is, in itself correct; even something very improbable can happen, however that is not our argument. Our argument is that you are equating a priori probability with post hoc probability. That, in itself, is invalid.

However, you are also confusing real life probability with statistical probability. Statistical probability concertns itself with predictions, and it is entirely correct that 10,000 years ago, .... heck, even 100 years ago, it would be virtually impossible to predict that exactly YOU would exist now. That, however, has exactly zero relevance for the likelihoood that you do exist.

Quote:

ii. My hypotheses are too poorly defined to be dealt with by Bayesian inference, taken seriously or, understood.

Well, what IS you hypothesis?

Quote:

iii. The probability numbers that I propose are “off the wall” at best.
- If you agree, I’ll try to answer your major objections, one at a time.

They are off the wall, but most importantly, they are irrelevant.

Quote:

- Otherwise, please rephrase and/or add.

Done. Unfortunately, I seem to be one of those you choose to ignore. - Which tells me you can probably see I'm right.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

The crux of his argument is that "close to zero" means the same thing as "zero."

Well, it is. .... for large values of zero, at least.

Hans

[Humots]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- I think that you guys have three major objections to my argument for immortality -- as well as a few (to several) minor ones.
a. Major Objections:
i. That my current existence is so improbable -- given what I’m calling the “scientific” hypothesis – is NOT evidence against that hypothesis.
ii. My hypotheses are too poorly defined to be dealt with by Bayesian inference, taken seriously or, understood.
iii. The probability numbers that I propose are “off the wall” at best.
- If you agree, I’ll try to answer your major objections, one at a time.
- Otherwise, please rephrase and/or add.
--- Jabba

1. As has been pointed out many times, your current existence being improbable is a fallacy. Your current existence is not improbable, not in the way you claim.
2. Yes, your hypotheses are too poorly defined to be used in Bayesian inference. Assigning any kind of probability to a hypotheses requires that it be well-defined.
3. The probability numbers you assign to poorly-defined hypotheses are pulled out of the air.

[Brian-M]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- I think that you guys have three major objections to my argument for immortality -- as well as a few (to several) minor ones.

My major objection to your argument for immortality is that you haven't presented one yet.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Shuttlt,
- I didn't mention your question cause I din't really understand it. I'll think some more about it and get back to you.
---Jabba

No problem. Here's a sub question then... presumbly in the non-scientific universe you mention, there is some mechanism that selects which universe will be chosen. A universe without Jabba could have been chosen? Perhaps the purpose of the universe would have had to be marginally different, but at some point a choice of many possible purposes/universes had to be made?

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by wollery

In summary, your approach is unscientific, your hypothesis is poorly defined, the complement to your hypothesis is almost completely undefined, your assumptions are baseless and your application of Bayes theorem is worthless.

I fully expected this paragraph to end with the phrase "you are a poor scientist, Dr. Venkman".

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

No problem. Here's a sub question then... presumbly in the non-scientific universe you mention, there is some mechanism that selects which universe will be chosen. A universe without Jabba could have been chosen? Perhaps the purpose of the universe would have had to be marginally different, but at some point a choice of many possible purposes/universes had to be made?

Shuttlt,
- I'm still struggling. Perhaps it's my terminology of "non-scientific" that gets in the way.
- Forget about the scientific identification for now. The hypothesis I'm trying to evaluate (let's call it "A") is that each of us lives but one, short life -- at most. The complementary hypothesis ("non-A") is that A is not correct --in, at least, some respect. Non-A doesn't need to be religious.
--- Jabba

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by Mashuna

What does the set, "each of us" include? Everyone alive now, everyone who's ever been alive, every living entity (animals, insects, plants), individual sperm?

Mashuna,

- Interesting question, but difficult to convey its answer.

- You're talking about the A hypothesis.
- The A hypothesis is my expression of the conclusion made -- by most of those who avoid wishful thinking -- about human mortality/immortality in general.
- One can complicate the issue by including distinctions you're raising, but, we have no reason for doing that.
--- Jabba

[Hokulele]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Mashuna,

- Interesting question, but difficult to convey its answer.

- You're talking about the A hypothesis.
- The A hypothesis is my expression of the conclusion made -- by most of those who avoid wishful thinking -- about human mortality/immortality in general.
- One can complicate the issue by including distinctions you're raising, but, we have no reason for doing that.
--- Jabba

What reason do you have for excluding animals, plants, corals, and the like? Why doesn't mortality/immortality apply to all life forms?

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by Hokulele

What reason do you have for excluding animals, plants, corals, and the like? Why doesn't mortality/immortality apply to all life forms?

Hokulele,
- Personally, I suspect that life -- of any kind -- produces consciousness as emergent property, and consciousnes itself is immortal.
- Here, I'm addressing the conlusion to which non-wishful thinking tends to bring most of us -- i.e., that we humans have only one, short (finite) life to live, at most.
--- Jabba

[dlorde]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- Personally, I suspect that life -- of any kind -- produces consciousness as emergent property, and consciousnes itself is immortal.

In what sense 'immortal' ? If life on Earth is wiped out by an asteroid strike (probably will happen sooner or later), does consciousness continue (discounting unknown alien life) ? If so, how?

[Hokulele]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Hokulele,
- Personally, I suspect that life -- of any kind -- produces consciousness as emergent property, and consciousnes itself is immortal.
- Here, I'm addressing the conlusion to which non-wishful thinking tends to bring most of us -- i.e., that we humans have only one, short (finite) life to live, at most.
--- Jabba

And this is exactly what is meant by your hypothesis being vague. You are now claiming it is consciousness that is immortal, but your hypothesis states that humans are immortal. You now have to be more clear as to what you mean by humans. Is the meat-bag walking around right now named "Hokulele" immortal, or something else?

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Shuttlt,
- I'm still struggling. Perhaps it's my terminology of "non-scientific" that gets in the way.
- Forget about the scientific identification for now. The hypothesis I'm trying to evaluate (let's call it "A") is that each of us lives but one, short life -- at most. The complementary hypothesis ("non-A") is that A is not correct --in, at least, some respect. Non-A doesn't need to be religious.
--- Jabba

You've never really explained why you think your existence means that your are immortal. I think you mentioned something about how you thought life having a purpose and meaning had something to do with it. I explained a few days ago what I thought you meant and have expanded on that. Other posters agreed that that might be what you were on about. If you reasoning isn't based on something like:

If we exist for a purpose, then these single short lives can't be all there is....

please could you explain what it is you are talking about, because I really don't understand your argument with or wthout Bayes. We really need to be absolutely clear what it is you are talking about before numbers and maths start getting thrown around.

It must say something that after all these posts people are still confused about what your premises are. Assume we are all stupid. Words of one syllable or less if at all possible.

[Giordano]

Originally Posted by Hokulele

What reason do you have for excluding animals, plants, corals, and the like? Why doesn't mortality/immortality apply to all life forms?

This is a great question that I really would like to see Jabba answer!

The probability of a specific spider existing is much less than that of Jabba existing: spiders have existed on Earth much longer than humans and have a much shorter generation time. There were so many potential spiders, yet only one specific spider ended up born and in my garage. I call her Samantha. Is Samantha immortal, Jabba?

The same argument applies to the pine tree in my yard. Are pine trees immortal?

If not, please explain...

[Brian-M]

Originally Posted by dlorde

In what sense 'immortal' ?

Great question!

Jabba, perhaps you could begin your proof of immortality by precisely defining exactly what you mean by "immortal".

Do you mean indestructible immortality, where a person's body will continue to endure forever? Or a conditional immortality where you can live indefinitely, until physically destroyed?

Do you mean a physical immortality, where your body continues to exist? Or do you mean a subjective immortality, where you survive the loss of your physical form?

Or are you referring to some kind of abstract immortality, such as where a cyclic universe results in you being born and living an identical life once each cycle for all eternity, with no memory of your past existences?

[Jabba]

- So for now, I'll focus on what I think are your three major objections:
1. That my current existence is so improbable -- given hypothesis "A" -- is NOT evidence against that hypothesis.
2. My hypotheses are too poorly defined to be dealt with by Bayesian inference, taken seriously or, understood.
3. The probability numbers that I propose are “off the wall” at best.
- I'll start with #2.

- Jay, if you're still around, could you give me your current take on this issue? Otherwise, I might be forced to agree to disagree regarding it…
- As I see it, I am trying to compare the probability of two SIMPLE (and complementary) hypotheses: "A" -- that each of us humans (in general) lives but one, finite, life, at most; and "Non-A" -- in at least some respect, A is incorrect.
- I think that most anyone without “an axe to grind” will have no problem understanding sufficiently what I mean by “A” in order to evaluate it. If such neutral persons understand what is meant by “complement,” they will also have no problem understanding what I mean by “Non-A.”
- For now at least, in regard to #2, I rest my case.

--- Jabba

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- So for now, I'll focus on what I think are your three major objections:
1. That my current existence is so improbable -- given hypothesis "A" -- is NOT evidence against that hypothesis.
2. My hypotheses are too poorly defined to be dealt with by Bayesian inference, taken seriously or, understood.
3. The probability numbers that I propose are “off the wall” at best.
- I'll start with #2.

- Jay, if you're still around, could you give me your current take on this issue? Otherwise, I might be forced to agree to disagree regarding it…
- As I see it, I am trying to compare the probability of two SIMPLE (and complementary) hypotheses: "A" -- that each of us humans (in general) lives but one, finite, life, at most; and "Non-A" -- in at least some respect, A is incorrect.
- I think that most anyone without “an axe to grind” will have no problem understanding sufficiently what I mean by “A” in order to evaluate it. If such neutral persons understand what is meant by “complement,” they will also have no problem understanding what I mean by “Non-A.”
- For now at least, in regard to #2, I rest my case.

--- Jabba

I composed a fairly lengthy post on why your comments are not convincing, but as a layman who only possesses what I immodestly think is a good layman's understanding of statistics, I decided I was crossing into territory better covered by others and with mistakes they wouldn't make.

So I'm changing it to this:

1. You completely ignored Humots' Post 456 which demonstrates quite nicely why your idea of specifics is completely off.

2. If you play the "axe to grind" card (mistakenly, I might add), then you have to play it on yourself, too. In other words: there is no play with that card.

3. There is no "agreement to disagree." Gentlemen's civilities have no bearing on hard numbers, hard math, or hard statistics.

4. Even as a layman it is obvious to me that your specifics are far too vague.

You have nothing here, Jabba.

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- I'll start with #2.

No, you are starting with the point you think you will most likely get away with fudging.

Start with #1 please.

[wollery]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- So for now, I'll focus on what I think are your three major objections:
1. That my current existence is so improbable -- given hypothesis "A" -- is NOT evidence against that hypothesis.
2. My hypotheses are too poorly defined to be dealt with by Bayesian inference, taken seriously or, understood.
3. The probability numbers that I propose are “off the wall” at best.
- I'll start with #2.

- Jay, if you're still around, could you give me your current take on this issue? Otherwise, I might be forced to agree to disagree regarding it…
- As I see it, I am trying to compare the probability of two SIMPLE (and complementary) hypotheses: "A" -- that each of us humans (in general) lives but one, finite, life, at most; and "Non-A" -- in at least some respect, A is incorrect.
- I think that most anyone without “an axe to grind” will have no problem understanding sufficiently what I mean by “A” in order to evaluate it. If such neutral persons understand what is meant by “complement,” they will also have no problem understanding what I mean by “Non-A.”
- For now at least, in regard to #2, I rest my case.

--- Jabba

I already covered this once, but it was in a longer post that covered many points so I'll try again, this time as simply as possible.

In order to be a valid hypothesis for Bayes formula an hypothesis must make measurable predictions.

What measurable predictions does your hypothesis make?

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Jabba

<snip>
2. My hypotheses are too poorly defined to be dealt with by Bayesian inference, taken seriously or, understood.
<snip>
- I'll start with #2.

- Jay, if you're still around, could you give me your current take on this issue? Otherwise, I might be forced to agree to disagree regarding it…
- As I see it, I am trying to compare the probability of two SIMPLE (and complementary) hypotheses: "A" -- that each of us humans (in general) lives but one, finite, life, at most; and "Non-A" -- in at least some respect, A is incorrect.
- I think that most anyone without “an axe to grind” will have no problem understanding sufficiently what I mean by “A” in order to evaluate it. If such neutral persons understand what is meant by “complement,” they will also have no problem understanding what I mean by “Non-A.”

A lot of the time it seems to me you slip away from your hypothesis. Is your argument, or is your argument not based on the claim that the universe has purpose and meaning? If so, that should by your hypothesis. You seem to me to wander back and forth between this and immortality as is they were one and the same thing.

[jt512]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- So for now, I'll focus on what I think are your three major objections:

2. My hypotheses are too poorly defined to be dealt with by Bayesian inference, taken seriously or, understood.

- As I see it, I am trying to compare the probability of two SIMPLE (and complementary) hypotheses: "A" -- that each of us humans (in general) lives but one, finite, life, at most; and "Non-A" -- in at least some respect, A is incorrect.

You need to define "each of us humans" and "a life." It is not clear what these mean under the non-scientific (unscientific?) hypothesis.

Quote:

3. The probability numbers that I propose are “off the wall” at best.
- I'll start with #2.

Yes. Your priors are off the wall. The prior probability of a hypothesis is the probability of the hypothesis given all the available background information, not two numbers picked out of thin air.

Furthermore, if your hypotheses concern the lives of all humans, then how can you justify only considering as data the likelihood of only your life?

Jay

[Giordano]

Originally Posted by wollery

I already covered this once, but it was in a longer post that covered many points so I'll try again, this time as simply as possible.

In order to be a valid hypothesis for Bayes formula an hypothesis must make measurable predictions.

What measurable predictions does your hypothesis make?

It would also help if there was actual data to insert in the formula, rather than numbers pulled from...

But none of these massive defects in his proof is going to stop Jabba, is it?

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

A lot of the time it seems to me you slip away from your hypothesis. Is your argument, or is your argument not based on the claim that the universe has purpose and meaning? If so, that should by your hypothesis. You seem to me to wander back and forth between this and immortality as is they were one and the same thing.

Shuttlt,
- I didn't mean for my argument to have anything to do with purpose or meaning... I do tend to believe in meaning, which sort of implies purpose -- but my aim here was to sort of open the door to the liklihood of immortality.
- Even there, it could be that I should have really just said that I think that I can essentially disprove the hypothesis that we each have just one, finite life to live at most. Some sort of immortality is suggested by such "proof" -- but, certainly not nailed down...

- Can't resist mentioning the following.
- My best guess is that reality is best "explained" by "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts," and emergent properties. I suspect that life, consciousness, free will and meaning are all emergent properties. I think that they should remind us of irrational numbers and Zeno's paradox. You just can't get there from here reductionistically speaking.
- Enough of that.

- Anyway, I still think that I can essentially disprove the hypothesis that we each have just one, finite life to live at most. For now, I should stick with that more narrow claim.

--- Jabba

[Hokulele]

In that case, you need to start by defining "we".

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by Hokulele

In that case, you need to start by defining "we".

I would like a clarification of the "at most."

Does the current scientific model posit a queue of beings waiting to live but never getting there?

[shuttlt]

OK. Please forget Bayes. It's a distraction unless you can better explain your reasoning. If it has nothing to do with there being some fundamental meaning to things, why does your existience, or anybodies existence tell us anything about whether or not we are likely to have one life, or many lives? Perhaps we are all reincarnations of the same spirit moving backwards and sideways through time. How would one ever know, does you being alive now make it more likely? Why would an alternative Jabba have made it more likely that we have "one short life"?

[wollery]

Jabba, what testable predictions does your hypothesis make?

[Loss Leader]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- Anyway, I still think that I can essentially disprove the hypothesis that we each have just one, finite life to live at most. For now, I should stick with that more narrow claim.

Would you please just fully set out whatever your entire proof or disproof may be? Just put your entire argument in one single post. I have this nagging feeling that you've never really said your entire proof: a, b, thus c.

I'd very much like to understand what you're saying, but I don't think you've said it yet.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

Would you please just fully set out whatever your entire proof or disproof may be? Just put your entire argument in one single post.

Seeing as he's refused to do so the many times he's already been asked in this thread, I wouldn't hold my breath.

[Filippo Lippi]

Jabba becomes more and more DOC-like, but I can't decide whether it is deliberate or not

[Jabba]

- I guess there's no way to re-open my previous thread on immortality and Bayesian Statistics, so I'll start a new one by saying that I'll be focusing on the Shroud thread for awhile, and won't be saying much over here for awhile, but fear not, I'm back.
--- Jabba

[phunk]

You started a thread to say that you won't be posting in the thread? Please request that the mods delete this, and come back when you're ready to participate in your own thread.

[Filippo Lippi]

Yep, deliberately DOC-like. Disappears for a while and on his return thinks that all debates can be reset to the starting position.