ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Closed Thread
Old 6th January 2017, 02:30 PM   #3001
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,843
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Mojo,
- If we reproduced your exact set of base pairs, would we reincarnate you?
Why do you keep asking questions that we've already answered?

Two is more than one.

If you make a copy of something, you now have two of that thing and you can't tell them apart.
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm

Last edited by godless dave; 6th January 2017 at 02:35 PM.
godless dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th January 2017, 02:35 PM   #3002
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,843
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- They all violate causality.
Do they?

If I'm about to throw a dart at a board, you can make predictions about where that dart might possibly hit. Anywhere on the board is a possibility, as is anywhere on the wall surrounding the board and anywhere on the floor between me and the board. A dart board in a pub in 17th Century Ireland is not a possible landing point for the dart.

You could try to assign probabilities to all those locations, and the probability for that last one would be zero.

After the dart has already hit the board there are no longer multiple possible landing locations.


Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- No. If the egg that produced me and a different sperm cell from the same batch that produced me did get together instead, causality would be violated.
I'm not sure you understand what causality means. Events in the present can affect the future. Events in the present cannot effect the past.
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm
godless dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th January 2017, 02:47 PM   #3003
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,260
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
No. It is bizarre that you might even suggest such a thing.
No more bizarre than when he suggested it previously, in conjunction with the cloning thought experiment. It seems he's too ham-fistedly eager to cram the notion of reincarnation into scientific hypotheses.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th January 2017, 02:49 PM   #3004
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,260
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
If the egg that produced me and a different sperm cell from the same batch that produced me did get together instead, causality would be violated. If the two germ cells that did produce me did get together but produced someone else, causality would again be violated.
That's not what science means by causality.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th January 2017, 02:56 PM   #3005
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 22,779
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Mojo,
- If we reproduced your exact set of base pairs, would we reincarnate you?
Have you never met a pair of twins?
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th January 2017, 03:00 PM   #3006
Peregrinus
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 618
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
Have you never met a pair of twins?
Then there're triplets - quadruplets - from personal recollection I think 6 is the upper limit.
Peregrinus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th January 2017, 06:19 PM   #3007
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,220
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Mojo,
- If we reproduced your exact set of base pairs, would we reincarnate you?

Is there a master self that looks out of two sets of eyes when a single fertilized egg results in identical twins?
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon
Hokulele is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th January 2017, 07:51 PM   #3008
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 14,893
Originally Posted by Peregrinus View Post
Then there're triplets - quadruplets - from personal recollection I think 6 is the upper limit.
Try the Suleman octuplets.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th January 2017, 03:49 AM   #3009
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Deputy Admin
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 37,719
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Try the Suleman octuplets.
Well, since two of them are girls and six are boys, that doesn't increase the limit for identical siblings.

I don't know how many of the boys are from the same egg.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th January 2017, 05:27 AM   #3010
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,622
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
Have you never met a pair of twins?

I suspect that he'll come back with, "well, then there must be something else besides genetics that makes each self unique". Yes, there is, Jabba: environment. It still doesn't get you your infinite number of "selves", or any evidence against consciousness being a brain process.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

Last edited by Mojo; 7th January 2017 at 05:29 AM.
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th January 2017, 07:28 AM   #3011
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,587
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Jabba, the human genome has a finite number of base pairs. There are therefore a finite number of possible combinations.
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Mojo,
- If we reproduced your exact set of base pairs, would we reincarnate you?
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
Why do you keep asking questions that we've already answered?

Two is more than one.

If you make a copy of something, you now have two of that thing and you can't tell them apart.
Dave,
- But that's my point. There is a finite number of base human pairs, but there is not a finite number of selves (or senses of selves).
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Et tamen salsus est ratio plerumque recta ad unum." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th January 2017, 07:36 AM   #3012
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,772
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- But that's my point. There is a finite number of base human pairs, but there is not a finite number of selves (or senses of selves).
And everyone else's point, which you refuse to understand, is that the self is not a thing which could be numbered. It's a process which is ongoing while the brain is functioning.
jond is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th January 2017, 07:42 AM   #3013
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Deputy Admin
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 37,719
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
there is not a finite number of selves (or senses of selves).
When did you establish this?
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th January 2017, 07:42 AM   #3014
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,587
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- They all violate causality...
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
Do they?

If I'm about to throw a dart at a board, you can make predictions about where that dart might possibly hit. Anywhere on the board is a possibility, as is anywhere on the wall surrounding the board and anywhere on the floor between me and the board. A dart board in a pub in 17th Century Ireland is not a possible landing point for the dart.
Dave,
- Do you accept that determinism might be true?
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Et tamen salsus est ratio plerumque recta ad unum." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th January 2017, 07:47 AM   #3015
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Deputy Admin
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 37,719
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
There is a finite number of base human pairs,
Given the way you've mangled that, I suspect that, like "emergent property", "base pair" is a term the meaning of which has eluded you.

There is no shame in asking for clarification of a term you're unfamiliar with. Bluffing it out will likely end with making a fool of oneself. Imagine what would happen if someone pretended to understand some statistical formula, in the face of explanations from those more knowledgeable than they were...
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th January 2017, 08:05 AM   #3016
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,622
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
I suspect that he'll come back with, "well, then there must be something else besides genetics that makes each self unique". Yes, there is, Jabba: environment. It still doesn't get you your infinite number of "selves", or any evidence against consciousness being a brain process.
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- But that's my point. There is a finite number of base human pairs, but there is not a finite number of selves (or senses of selves).

I win 1 internets (and Jabba still loses).
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

Last edited by Mojo; 7th January 2017 at 08:06 AM.
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th January 2017, 08:10 AM   #3017
The Sparrow
Muse
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 898
hmmmm, I think I get Jabba's reasoning now. If you have an infinite number of anything, its impossible for any of that thing to actually exist.

Ie, if you have an infinite number of grains of sand, you actually cannot actually have any of those specific grains of sand existing.
The Sparrow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th January 2017, 08:14 AM   #3018
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,622
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Do you accept that determinism might be true?

Jabba,
- Do you accept that this has nothing to do with whether or not you are mortal?
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th January 2017, 08:17 AM   #3019
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,587
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- But that's my point. There is a finite number of base human pairs, but there is not a finite number of selves (or senses of selves).
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
Given the way you've mangled that, I suspect that, like "emergent property", "base pair" is a term the meaning of which has eluded you.

There is no shame in asking for clarification of a term you're unfamiliar with. Bluffing it out will likely end with making a fool of oneself. Imagine what would happen if someone pretended to understand some statistical formula, in the face of explanations from those more knowledgeable than they were...
Zoo,
- I assume you're right. I thought I knew what I was talking about.
- But, isn't there a finite number of DNA possibilities that will produce a human?
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Et tamen salsus est ratio plerumque recta ad unum." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th January 2017, 08:21 AM   #3020
Peregrinus
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 618
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- But, isn't there a finite number of DNA possibilities that will produce a human?
No. Some of them produce parrots & some produce politicians. But I repeat myself.
Peregrinus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th January 2017, 08:22 AM   #3021
The Sparrow
Muse
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 898
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Zoo,

- But, isn't there a finite number of DNA possibilities that will produce a human?
Maybe. So what. The emergent property of "self" depends on both genetic and environmental factors. That's one of the reasons twins have different personalities.
The Sparrow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th January 2017, 09:19 AM   #3022
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 19,883
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Zoo,
- I assume you're right. I thought I knew what I was talking about.
- But, isn't there a finite number of DNA possibilities that will produce a human?
Weren't you just recently trying to argue that under OOFLam, the potential selves were infinite, and thus OOFLam had to be false?

Could you please make up your mind about what you are arguing?

Hans
__________________
Don't. Just don't.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th January 2017, 09:45 AM   #3023
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Deputy Admin
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 37,719
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- But, isn't there a finite number of DNA possibilities that will produce a human?
Ooh, I don't know; I've an idea someone might have said something about that recently. Oh, yes, here it is:
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
Even if you take every possible DNA sequence that would produce a recognisable human, regardless of whether the gametes that would give rise to them were available at the same time, what you would have would be a very large number, it would not be infinity.

Even if you then multiply by the environmental factors that might affect development (explaining why twins are different individuals, for example), you have an even bigger number, which is still not infinity.

The self is an emergent property (could you favour us with your understanding of that term, please, Jabba?) of a functioning human brain. It is not a thing, but a property of a thing.


So, anyway, what are the implications of the number of possible DNA combinations that would be human being finite?
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th January 2017, 10:16 AM   #3024
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,260
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
But that's my point. There is a finite number of base human pairs, but there is not a finite number of selves (or senses of selves).
There is no sense of self until a set of base pairs meets another one. There is no pool of them waiting to win the lottery. You still don't get what it means to be a property or a process. You still think it's a "thing." There is no such "thing" under H, so stop trying to make it happen.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th January 2017, 10:20 AM   #3025
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,772
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
There is no sense of self until a set of base pairs meets another one. There is no pool of them waiting to win the lottery. You still don't get what it means to be a property or a process. You still think it's a "thing." There is no such "thing" under H, so stop trying to make it happen.
Indeed, there is no sense of self until the child's brain develops sufficiently for the sense of self to emerge.
jond is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th January 2017, 10:21 AM   #3026
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,260
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
But, isn't there a finite number of DNA possibilities that will produce a human?
Twins, Jabba. You still haven't figured that out. I can take Mommy's set of base pairs and Daddy's set of base pairs, combine them to extract the same Timmy set of base pairs, and I can do that as many times as I want and each Timmy will be an exact biological duplicate of his siblings and each would have its own sense of self. That's because a sense of self is a property of the organism, and so there are ever only as many manifestations of the sense of self as there are organisms presently living. It's a process (or the product of a process) that lasts Timmy's whole life.

Under the scientific hypothesis H there is no pool of souls waiting to win the lottery and inhabit a physical organism. That's the religious concept you believe in, and which you're desperately (and increasingly ham-fistedly) trying to foist onto the scientific hypothesis in a different guise. Zooterkin is right: you need to get it into your head that consciousness works entirely differently in the scientific hypothesis than it does in religion
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th January 2017, 10:36 AM   #3027
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 17,595
How many years has that point been made for? No sound of pennys dropping.
__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman
Sideroxylon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th January 2017, 10:37 AM   #3028
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 10,482
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Do you accept that determinism might be true?
Jabba,
- Are you attempting to put words in another person's mouth again?

- I'll be back.
__________________
Credibility is not a boomerang. If you throw it away, it's not coming back.

Last edited by John Jones; 7th January 2017 at 10:47 AM.
John Jones is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th January 2017, 11:14 AM   #3029
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,843
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- But that's my point. There is a finite number of base human pairs, but there is not a finite number of selves (or senses of selves).
There are only infinite possible selves if you allow duplicates and if you have infinite matter and time.

Think of it like this: there are a finite number of banana bread recipes, and if you had infinite ingredients you could make an infinite number of loaves of banana bread using those recipes.

Of course none of this matters because at any given time there are only a finite number of possible selves.
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm

Last edited by godless dave; 7th January 2017 at 11:20 AM.
godless dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th January 2017, 11:18 AM   #3030
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,843
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Do you accept that determinism might be true?
I'm pretty confident it is but that doesn't matter. Probability is about predicting possible outcomes before they happen. Only one of them will happen, but we use probability when we don't have enough information to know for sure what the outcome will be.
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm
godless dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th January 2017, 11:19 AM   #3031
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 22,779
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- But that's my point. There is a finite number of base human pairs, but there is not a finite number of selves (or senses of selves).
Jabba, how many "going 60 mph" are there?

How many "adding sugar to the cake mix" are there?

A process is not a thing. It cannot be counted.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th January 2017, 11:19 AM   #3032
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,843
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
When did you establish this?
He didn't.
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm
godless dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th January 2017, 11:25 AM   #3033
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,622
Originally Posted by The Sparrow View Post
So what.

^ This.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th January 2017, 11:47 AM   #3034
The Sparrow
Muse
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 898
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
^ This.


I'm here all week.
The Sparrow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th January 2017, 10:16 AM   #3035
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,587
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
There are only infinite possible selves if you allow duplicates and if you have infinite matter and time.

Think of it like this: there are a finite number of banana bread recipes, and if you had infinite ingredients you could make an infinite number of loaves of banana bread using those recipes.

Of course none of this matters because at any given time there are only a finite number of possible selves.
Dave,
- I would agree with you about "possible" selves (that the only way to have an infinity of possible selves, would be to have the possibility of duplicate organisms and to have infinite time (though, we shouldn't need infinite matter, as we should be able to recycle).
- Though, I would disagree with you about "potential" selves -- and, I'm pretty sure that it's potential selves that should count in this case. Again, 1) wouldn't you say that all combinations of viable sperm and ovum of the same species would produce new organisms, if somehow brought together (perhaps, by freezing over time)? And, 2) wouldn't such potential combinations represent potential organisms? And 3), wouldn't they be left out if they were not brought together?
- And then, scientifically speaking, it's difficult postulating there being only finite time, or one finite universe or even a finite set of finite universes?

- I'll be back.
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Et tamen salsus est ratio plerumque recta ad unum." Jabba's Razor

Last edited by Jabba; 9th January 2017 at 10:18 AM.
Jabba is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th January 2017, 10:26 AM   #3036
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,843
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- I would agree with you about "possible" selves (that the only way to have an infinity of possible selves, would be to have the possibility of duplicate organisms and to have infinite time (though, we shouldn't need infinite matter, as we should be able to recycle).
- Though, I would disagree with you about "potential" selves -- and, I'm pretty sure that it's potential selves that should count in this case. Again, 1) wouldn't you say that all combinations of viable sperm and ovum of the same species would produce new organisms, if somehow brought together (perhaps, by freezing over time)? And, 2) wouldn't such potential combinations represent potential organisms? And 3), wouldn't they be left out if they were not brought together?
- And then, scientifically speaking, it's difficult postulating there being only finite time, or one finite universe or even a finite set of finite universes?
There are numerous problems with this but it didn't even address my post.

You are saying it's a contradiction to have a finite number of potential human DNA sequences but an infinite number of potential human selves. It's not, because you could have multiple identical (at conception) humans from one human DNA sequence.

Just as you could theoretically make an infinite number of identical loaves of banana bread from the same recipe.
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm

Last edited by godless dave; 9th January 2017 at 10:30 AM.
godless dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th January 2017, 10:27 AM   #3037
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,260
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Though, I would disagree with you about "potential" selves -- and, I'm pretty sure that it's potential selves that should count in this case.
You can only be "pretty sure" about that if you've ignored practically everything that's been said to you on the subject. Which, in fact, you have. There is no countable set of "potential" selves in the scientific hypothesis H that compete for a chance to actually exist. There is no lottery to win. There is no countably infinite set. There is no Big Denominator. If "potential existence" in all its infinite glory were actually a thing that let you reliably reason about the probability of any particular thing actually existing, then no actual thing would have a non-zero probability of existing. But things do, in fact, exist. Therefore this cannot be a valid way of reasoning about the probability of something existing. If your proof says it's impossible, but it exists anyway, then it's your proof that's broken. There's no argument about that. That's how that type of refutation works.

Quote:
And then, scientifically speaking, it's difficult postulating there being only finite time, or one finite universe or even a finite set of finite universes?
That's more philosophy than science, but if we stipulate that there can be infinite time and infinite universes, then Loss Leader (or maybe it was jsfisher) has already soundly refuted your proof along that lines. Intead of P(E|H) being a real number over infinity, it becomes infinity over infinity. And no, you can't argue mathematically that that's a tiny number.

So once again we have a whole day of your argumentation go by without advancing the discussion a single iota. You've simply repeated two claims that have already been refuted numerous times. This is not "effective debate."
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th January 2017, 10:35 AM   #3038
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,260
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
There are numerous problems with this...
Let's mention the obvious one, which is an all-too-typical attempt to split linguistic hairs. There's no material difference between "possible" and "potential." In their plain meanings they are functionally identical words, and Jabba doesn't appeal to any putative nuance to make his point. I suppose he's just trying, as usual, to keep his language vague and circumspect so he doesn't get pinned down.

Quote:
You are saying it's a contradiction to have a finite number of possible human DNA sequences but an infinite number of possible human selves. It's not, because you could have multiple identical (at conception) humans from one human DNA sequence.
Jabba has been hung up on "the chemistry" straw man for weeks now. The way biology works, replicating the same DNA sequence in perpetuity doesn't work. But in theory there's nothing preventing the same DNA sequence from generating the same organism out of the same recycled matter for as long as the contraption that does this continues to function. This doesn't result in reincarnation, or any of the other mystical foolishness Jabba is trying to paste into the scientific model of self.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th January 2017, 12:38 PM   #3039
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 22,779
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Though, I would disagree with you about "potential" selves -- and, I'm pretty sure that it's potential selves that should count in this case. Again, 1) wouldn't you say that all combinations of viable sperm and ovum of the same species would produce new organisms, if somehow brought together (perhaps, by freezing over time)? And, 2) wouldn't such potential combinations represent potential organisms? And 3), wouldn't they be left out if they were not brought together?

Jabba, all of this is gibberish and, in any case, entirely beside the point. "Selves," either actual or potential, cannot be counted. They are processes.

How many potential "going 60 MPH" are there?

You have never answered this question. You have never even pretended to address it and then refused to. You just keep ignoring it. But that won't change the fact that non-things cannot be counted.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th January 2017, 02:12 PM   #3040
The Sparrow
Muse
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 898
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
Jabba, all of this is gibberish and, in any case, entirely beside the point. "Selves," either actual or potential, cannot be counted. They are processes.

How many potential "going 60 MPH" are there?

You have never answered this question. You have never even pretended to address it and then refused to. You just keep ignoring it. But that won't change the fact that non-things cannot be counted.
Agreed. Might I suggest we all hold off on responding to any other side branch that is raised until this particular one is answered?
The Sparrow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:10 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.