/sci/ - Science & Math

define conscience

>>4166005
define consciousness*

Conscious = Aware
Consciousness = Awareness
To be conscious = To be Aware.

>any possibility given infinite time is "almost certainly" going to happen (%99.99...)

Not if the probability is zero.


If someone someday has exactly the same consciousness as me, does this mean that I'm conscious again? I'd say not.

>>4165995
>I'm sure you know any possibility given infinite time is "almost certainly" going to happen (%99.99...).

Given infinite time, what is the possibility of time ending at point X in time (relatively to the "begining" of time)?
99.99%?
Yeah, don't think so.

>>4166017
I don't mean they are aware of the same things you were aware of, I mean they are you in the sense that whatever they are aware of you are aware of.

Here's an example to show you the difference

You're conscious of getting burned on fire in some specific way.

Someone else is conscious of getting burned on fire in the exact same specific way.

You guys are both aware of the same things, however, you guys were aware of it separately.

If I poke you, you are aware of the poke because you feel it.

If I poke someone else the exact same way, they have the same feeling but it it SOMEONE ELSE FEELING IT.

So when I say YOUR consciousness I mean the fact that you are feeling it, that YOU are aware of it, whoever YOU are.

So when you die, I'm saying YOU might feel something again ie be conscious again. Not that somebody may feel whatever you felt while you were conscious exactly as you did.

>>4166038
Define "you" (i.e. me).

Having an infinite amount of time doesn't mean that everything that could possibly happen will happen. It is possible that you will only be conscious once. It is possible to have an infinite set of numbers in which the number 1 only appears once.

>>4166041
You = The being that experiences/ is-aware/conscious of whatever happens to you. Even if somebody else experiences/ is-aware/conscious of the same thing. You guys felt it separately; I poke you, you feel it. I poke someone else, that person feels it. You guys experienced/ were-aware/conscious of the same thing but you guys did so separately/independently of each other. What you feel isn't necessarily what that other person feels.

>>4166051
That's exactly why I addressed that issue in my phucking OP,

>>4165995
>However we are conscious now, it proves that consciousness is possible, therefore when we die it is obvious to think it could be possible again.

>consciousness is possible, therefore when we die it is obvious to think it could be possible again.

>could be possible again.

>could

Not saying it is, but that it could, and we should give that possibility due acknowledgement given that if it is possible to happen again and given infinite time it will almost certainly (99.99...%) happen again and we will experience no time in between dieing and being conscious again.

>>4165995
>I'm sure you know any possibility given infinite time is "almost certainly" going to happen

Nope. I don't think you understand how probability works. You need to read a book, or take a basic class or something, BECUASE YOU SOUND DUMB AS FUCK RIGHT NOW.

Please delete this shit thread at once.

>>4166058

Your definition is not nearly precise enough. I'm not trolling, you are trying to draw conclusions about something that is incredibly obscure and complicated (or not?). The point is: We have no fucking idea about consciousness.

>>4165995
>>4166038
>>4166058
If you assume that then what about multiple dimensions? IF there are other dimensions where another form of "me" exist, then would you count that as a separate consciousness or not? What if this me gets killed but the other consciousness manages to enter our dimension? My conciousness has then come around again in this dimension, as well as being alive in other dimensions.

>>4166069
>we should give that possibility due acknowledgement

You are talking out of your fucking ass. You don't have a sufficient understanding of probability or stats at all. You are just plain wrong OP.

>>4166069
>Not saying it is, but that it could
>it will almost certainly (99.99...%) happen
read those two and tell me what is wrong.

also 99,99...% with infinite 9's is the same as 100%

>responding to trolls
Please stop.
Please.
Even if he then samefags responses, just continue to ignore it.

>>4166077
>>4166070
>>4166072
All you guys are saying is "you're wrong" without explaining why you think so so I could explain how I'm actually not.

If something has a say, 0.1% chance of happening per 10k years. It has a 0.1%-100% (99.9%) x 0.1%-100% (99.9%) chance of NOT happening per 10k x 2 (20k) years.

99.9% x 99.9% = 9980.01%

The chance of it NOT happening given more and more time becomes closer and closer to zero.

You guys are fucking retarded, and what's more, you think I'M retarded. You guys aren't religious by chance are you?

Also how is my definition not good enough? Maybe your interpretation skills aren't good enough, ever think about that?

>>4166084
I'm saying if it is possible (and an infinite time will elapse), then the math follows and it is almost certainly true.

You are stuck up on misinterpretations of my reasoning and you think I'm wrong, this is fucking crazy.

Actually take your time and explain what you don't understand after reading this post: >>4166095

>>4166105
>almost certainly true.

Meant almost certainly going to happen. In the mathematical meaning of the phrase "almost certainly".

>>4165995
ITT: (And religion in general)

OP's comes to the conclusion that he will cease to exist one day (a fucking fact). This basically firghtens the fuck out of OP (whether he admits it or not). OP can't fucking deal with that shit, he finds it fucking life shattering (most people do).

OP doesn't have the mental fortitude to deal with his own nothingness and carry on with his life at the same time. SO, OP FUCKING SCRABLES TO SOMEHOW CONVINCE HIMSELF THAT REALITY MUST BE WRONG.

OP needs to believe that he has the possibility of living forever, or returning. He needs this delusion to make him feel better, and give his life meaning. This stems form the fact that OP has a very fucked up view of the world.

So, OP does whatever it fucking takes, no matter how fucking retarded to convince himself that the universe is magic and pixie dust, JUST SO HE CAN FEEL BETTER.

You have a very very weak mind OP. Grow the fuck up. People like you are the cancer of humanity.

>>4166095
>99.9% x 99.9% = 9980.01%
it will not only definitely happen, but it will happen 99 times and have an 80% chance of happening again?

>>4166108
You couldn't be more wrong. I actually don't mind not being conscious again that much.

Also I like how you use ad hominems. Why the phuck are people like you allowed to post on /sci/?

>>4166084
>what is wrong with "it will almost certainly (99.99...%) happen"

Becuase you just made up that whole fucking statement.....FUCKING DURRR.

Saged and reported for your stupidity

>>4166095
I don't know what that was but it is wrong and you are doing it wrong.

>>4166120
Um, I'm not OP, bro. I was quoting OP and pointing out the contradictory statements he made.

>>4166095
>If something has a say, 0.1% chance of happening per 10k years. It has a 0.1%-100% (99.9%) x 0.1%-100% (99.9%) chance of NOT happening per 10k x 2 (20k) years.

>99.9% x 99.9% = 9980.01%

I have no clue of what the fuck is going on in here

>>4166070
X~B(n,p)
<span class="math">P(X \ge 1) = 1 - P(X=0)[/spoiler]
<span class="math">= 1 - \, ^{n}C_{0} \middot p^{0} \middot (1 - p)^{n}[/spoiler]
<span class="math">= 1 - (1-p)^{n}[/spoiler]

As time <span class="math">\rightarrow \infty[/spoiler], <span class="math">n \rightarrow \infty[/spoiler]
As <span class="math">n \rightarrow infty[/spoiler] and <span class="math">p < 1[/spoiler], <span class="math">(1-p)^{n} \rightarrow 0[/spoiler] and ∴ <span class="math">1 - (1 - p)^{n} \rightarrow 1[/spoiler]
∴ As time <span class="math">\rightarrow \infty[/spoiler], <span class="math">P(X \ge 1) \rightarrow 1[/spoiler]

So with any other distribution. Given an infinite amount of time, any event with a non-zero probabilility of occurrence will happen <span class="math">almost \, surely[/spoiler].

>>4165995

99.99*99.99 => 0.9999 * 0.9999 => 0.9989 => 99,89 %

>>4166137
HAVE YOU EVER JIZZED SEXUALLY

>>4166070
X~B(n,p)
<span class="math">P(X \ge 1) = 1 - P(X=0)[/spoiler]
<span class="math">= 1 - \, ^{n}C_{0} p^{0} (1 - p)^{n}[/spoiler]
<span class="math">= 1 - (1-p)^{n}[/spoiler]

As time <span class="math">\rightarrow \infty[/spoiler], <span class="math">n \rightarrow \infty[/spoiler]
As <span class="math">n \rightarrow \infty[/spoiler] and <span class="math">p < 1[/spoiler], <span class="math">(1-p)^{n} \rightarrow 0[/spoiler] and ∴ <span class="math">1 - (1 - p)^{n} \rightarrow 1[/spoiler]
∴ As time <span class="math">\rightarrow \infty[/spoiler], <span class="math">P(X \ge 1) \rightarrow 1[/spoiler]

So with any other distribution. Given an infinite amount of time, any event with a non-zero probabilility of occurrence will happen <span class="math">almost \, surely[/spoiler].

>>4166145
Consider an universe where time is infinite.
Consider that the probability of it collapsing into itself in 20 years is > 0
Since the probability is > 0, then it approaches infinity.

Makes sense.

>>4166145
Prove the event in question has a non zero chance of happening again.

>>4166148
What's the problem? If the probability of the universe ending permanently is non-zero, then the universe will almost surely end permanently. I'm not trying to support OP, btw, just sayin'.

>>4166150
See: >>4166151
>I'm not trying to support OP

I was simply explaining why someone was wrong.

OP, must of us here (I think) believe that when our consciousness is gone (right now that only happens by death), it is gone forever (there is a zero chance of it "arising" again). That "death of consciousness" can also happen by teleportation, cloning (physically identical brain but not identical consciousness), and taking the atoms that makes up your brain apart, and then assembling them.

So basically, people are saying you're a dumb shit for 2 reasons:

1. You make the baseless assumption that a specific consciousness can spontaneously (or even at all) "arise" again.

2. You use this assumption in your horrible statistical calculations.

>>4166164

Most*

Polite sage for correction