From: gts (gts@optexinc.com)
Date: Thu Sep 05 2002 - 19:35:31 MDT
Dan wrote:
> Well, of course, there's no need to be too precise about the numbers.
Right. I use numbers like "99.99%" only as placeholders.
> A slim chance is a slim chance is a slim chance.
> If you reject one of these, you've got to reject both.
Yes, and I've rejected both hypotheses:
1) That there is only a .999... probability that you are 23 is
sufficient grounds for withholding judgment about your age. We can say
that you are very likely to be 23 but we cannot say you are in fact 23.
Similarly,
2) That there is only a .999.. probability that a given person in
Eliezer's scheme will demonstrate immortality is sufficient grounds for
withholding judgment about that that person's immortality. We can say
the person is very likely to be immortal but we cannot say he is in fact
immortal.
So then contrary to your charges, I am at least consistent in my
interpretations. I plead innocent, your honor. ;-)
That said, I do recognize that in statistics we are prepared normally to
accept any hypothesis where p < .05, i.e., where the probability of
accepting the hypothesis as true when it is false is 5% or less. (For
more critical problems statisticians sometimes use p < .01, but the
principle is the same.)
Perhaps the real question here is why this statistical argument, (that a
high probability of being immortal should be considered equivalent to
immortality), is less than satisfying to me and to at least one other
person here who has indicated a similar dissatisfaction to me in private
email.
Hmmm... <scratching head> :)
I think that to answer to that question I must back-track a bit from my
stance in favor of empiricism and note that some of us are interested in
knowing whether true and certain immortality is possible, *in
principle*. To prove something to be true *in principle* requires an
appeal to rationalism in addition to (or instead of) empiricism.
This problem of quantum tunneling is, after all, a very mathematical
problem. Like most problems of physical science it can be viewed
entirely in terms of mathematics. And mathematics is in the domain of
rationalism.
In other words we need something more akin to a mathematical proof. For
example I can prove the truth or falsehood of a statement about the
exact rate of acceleration of a falling object at time t with nothing
more than mathematics and the empirical observations of physicists.
Something similar should be possible in proving the truth of falsehood
of propositions about human immortality.
-gts
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:45 MST