The Bayesian Case for Reincarnation

[Anonymous No.15149891]

1. Premise: There is a nonzero initial probability that persons are repeatable (can have multiple lives).

2. Also, the probability that you would be alive now given that persons are repeatable is nonzero.

3. Evidence: You are alive now.

4. Claim: The probability that you would be alive now, given that persons are unrepeatable, and that there is an infinite past, is zero.
Rough explanation: there were infinite opportunities for you to exist in earlier centuries, which, if persons are unrepeatable, would have prevented you from existing now.

https://youtu.be/qiZ0JhlSGKc
https://philpapers.org/archive/HUEEIE.pdf

[Anonymous No.15149892]

[Anonymous No.15149894]

tldr; if time is infinite in both directions (ie time did not have a beginning), reincarnation is real.
Proof: you are alive

[Anonymous No.15149895]

Probability zero doesn't mean impossible. Learn measure theory. This is why we make fun of low IQ philosotards.

[Anonymous No.15149897]

>>15149895
This and many other low IQ criticisms are addressed in the video:
https://youtu.be/qiZ0JhlSGKc

[Anonymous No.15149904]

>>15149891
Premise 1: there is a nonzero probability that a dart, when thrown at a dartboard, hits an infinite number of points
Premise 2: if a dart hits an infinite number of points, the probability of any particular point being hit is nonzero
Premise 3: if a dart only hits one point, the probability of any particular point getting hit is zero
Evidence: the dart hit some particular point
Conclusion: a thrown dart hits an infinite number of points

[Anonymous No.15149910]

>>15149904

[Anonymous No.15149919]

>>15149897
Arguments based on a flawed understanding of probability are retarded. This is a science board, we only accept rigorous arguments. Your argument is completely unnecessary anyways since reincarnation is proven already by quantum mechanics. Same mechanism as precognition. Entanglement of superextended wave functions.

[Anonymous No.15149930]

Reincarnation is already proved doubtfully through common sense

[Anonymous No.15149935]

>>15149930
*undoubtfully

[Anonymous No.15149996]

>>15149891
Please define the sample space, its respective sigma algebra, and probability measure, otherwise fuck off.

[Anonymous No.15150023]

>>15149891
It's a novel idea but there are several holes in your reasoning. Starting from first principles - the set omega defines all possible outcomes. The function P(n), where n is an outcome, maps the probability of n to a value between 0 and 1, such that the sum of all outcome probabilities is 1.

It's a common mistake, but just because an outcome exists, does not mean the probability is nonzero. It sounds counter intuitive because any zero probability outcome feels like it shouldn't be in omega. Or vice versa, if you don't know the probability of an outcome, it has a nonzero probability. But consider the sample space of all real numbers between 0 and 1. If they have some arbitrary probability function value for each outcome, and we assume all to be nonzero simply because we don't know their probability, the sum of their probabilities would be infinity. You could argue that maybe their average probability is something like 1/infinity which approaches zero, but like 1/infinity it is not well defined.

Tl;dr assuming a outcome with an unknown probability as having non zero probability leads to contradictions and ill defined results

[Anonymous No.15150570]

>>15149895
if i roll a dice with infinite faces will it roll a number?

[Anonymous No.15150577]

>>15150570
Yes, if you roll a ball it will eventually stand still.

[Anonymous No.15150583]

>>15150577
it will not roll any number since all numbers have a zero chance of rolling

[Anonymous No.15150644]

>>15149891
holy shit, i've had this exact thought for years but never knew how to actually express it. thanks for posting

[Anonymous No.15150682]

>>15149930
This is schizo nonsense.

[Anonymous No.15150713]

>>15149891
Sounds more like a failure of probability to match reality.

[Anonymous No.15150809]

Okay, I've read the paper.

So, it sounds like failure of probability in regards to observable reality, still. The fact is we do have bounds of experience limited necessarily by memory. My memory of a starting point for existence only goes back so far. So either this is false information and somehow this memory "session" was "grafted" to an infinitely existing conscious experience, or, its logical to say my memory wed with my conscious first-person experience came into maturity at a definite time. This doesn't guarantee an expiration at another time, but its hard to contend otherwise.

If the former, to discard the recollective function and begin anew is essentially our current understanding of life and death. So either way, you're not going anywhere.

[Anonymous No.15150867]

>>15149891
It's possible that your mind undergoes quantum teleportation in the event of death. Death likely feels like having an out-of-body experience.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65jdcvSOOjI

[Anonymous No.15150925]

>>15150809
>If the former, to discard the recollective function and begin anew is essentially our current understanding of life and death. So either way, you're not going anywhere
So you're saying that if i were to erase all your memories so that you start from 0 again, you would die? Doesn't seem plausible.
Perhaps you still experience consciousness but just with different memories. Similarly to how we are continuously changing our memories while being conscious at the same time

[Anonymous No.15150946]

>>15149891
Sperm outnumber the ova overwhelmingly, the probability that any one fertilises it is zero. But, you are alive. So we are all 5 billions sperms, and have the power to fight black galaxy-mode god-killing fist Garou.

[Anonymous No.15150981]

>>15150583
Do an ultrafilter you retard

[Anonymous No.15150984]

>>15150925
I'm saying illustrate the functional difference of identity as mediated by memory ending and beginning, and traditional notions of cessation of experience.

[Anonymous No.15150990]

>>15150984
Sure. But experience and personal identity might go beyond memories (soul). Which Huemer also argues for

[Anonymous No.15150993]

>>15150809

>My memory of a starting point for existence only goes back so far. So either this is false information and somehow this memory "session" was "grafted" to an infinitely existing conscious experience

You have no memory of being a baby yet you existed then.

Who cares about when your memory and first person experience "came into maturity"? You were having first person experiences before your cognitive capabilities developed enough to be self-referential.

[Anonymous No.15151015]

>>15149891
Ahhh yes, mathematical pilpul. Good work.

[Anonymous No.15151022]

>>15150993
Yes, and that self recognized starting point means something insofar as the definition of the being. This goes back to what ego means, what identity means without recollection. The answer is to (You), very little. The separation between myself and a being downstream that shares none of my recall towards remembered anchorings of identity is equal to my identity with regard to some guy next to me on a bus.

It makes no sense to talk about indefinite existence if identity comes and goes as such.

[Anonymous No.15151047]

>>15149891
Whole lot of deathcope ITT.

[Anonymous No.15151066]

>>15149891
Possible mechanisms for reincarnation:
https://alwaysasking.com/is-there-life-after-death/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w13yLq16QiM

[Anonymous No.15151135]

>>15149895
Yes, in the mathematical fairy floss land where numbers can mean whatever you want. In the real world a probability of zero equals impossible

[Anonymous No.15151141]

>>15151135
Well in the >real world
It's a possible probability that your fingertip will land on point (1mm, 1mm) on an A4 paper, or on point (3mm, 67mm), or at (24.56mm, 36.234m), yet it's zero.

Aww you must be mixing up the mathematically represented real world with your own math fairy tales again, don't worry almost everybody gets filtered at the top.

[Anonymous No.15151152]

>>15150946
It's 50/50. It either fertilizes or it doesn't.

[Anonymous No.15151369]

>>15151141
what's the probability that you'll pick the number 7 from an empty set

[Anonymous No.15151382]

I believe it. Deja vu is just you remembering your past iteration. Sucks that I have to live this life for eternity though.

[Anonymous No.15151472]

>>15151369
Uh... um..

[Anonymous No.15151506]

>>15151472
why don't you answer it if it's easy and i'm an idiot. I don't think you even understand what I'm saying really anyway so there might not be any point

[Anonymous No.15151520]

>>15151506
Enough with the antisemitism.
It's real in his mind.

[Anonymous No.15151535]

>>15151520
it's like it's the first thing he's ever understood and is extremely proud of himself. Picrel is what I was saying anyway, here's where it's from
https://math.stackexchange.com/a/41110

[Anonymous No.15151558]

>>15151369
Zero, but that doesn't mean it can't happen.

[Anonymous No.15151573]

>>15151558
Chaos magick isn't real, retard.
Willing shit don't affect shit.

[Anonymous No.15151574]

>>15151558
You are retarded and you have been BTFOed ITT.

[Anonymous No.15151587]

>>15151558
yes, mathematically a probability of zero doesn't mean impossible. The reason being that probability is a specific mathematical scale that doesn't include impossible by definition. But in the real world it's different

[Anonymous No.15151596]

>>15151587
First define the "real world" then we can talk about its features.

[Anonymous No.15151605]

Probability has no meaning in the real world because it assumes the existence of counterfactuals
>if I re-ran the universe, how often would I get a different result
But that's impossible in real life because events only happen once, and each event is a unique point in space-time.
Every event has a probability of 100% - it happens - or 0% - it does not happen.

[Anonymous No.15152636]

>>15151605
freqentards be like

[Anonymous No.15152641]

>>15152636
Gayesians be like

[Anonymous No.15154246]

>>15152641
Orderlies, this frequentist has lost his composure.

[Anonymous No.15154253]

if I'm not the same moment to moment, then how could I be reincarnated

[Anonymous No.15154268]

I am most certainly not alive
also the past is finite
past = future + tradition = future + lens
so the past is just one step beyond tradition, one step into the future

[Anonymous No.15154406]

>>15149891
>Premise: There is a nonzero initial probability that persons are repeatable (can have multiple lives).


since your premise is faulty and nonsense, i didn't read anything after it

[Anonymous No.15154412]

reminder to trannies: the easiest, fastest and least expensive way to be born in the correct body is to kys and get reincarnated